Extruded Alloys, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 802 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board proceedings. Furthermore, the Board's Advisory Opinion pro-
cedures' are sanctioned under Section 6 of the Act, wherein the Board
is authorized "to make . . . such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the
facts here present, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the opera-
tions of the Employer with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Advisory Opinion.
7 See Section 102 98 through Section 102 . 104 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations and
Section 101 39 through Section 101 41 of the Board 's Statements of Procedure.
Extruded Alloys, Inc. and Lloyd J. Scheid and Carolyn J.
Meadows. Case No. 25-CA-1465. March 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 27, 1962, Trial Examiner William R. Ringer issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed October 13, 1961, and an amended charge filed November 20,
1961 , by Carolyn J. Meadows , an individual , the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for the Twenty-fifth Region , issued his complaint dated December 1, 1961 , against
Extruded Alloys, Inc., herein called the Company , and against Lloyd J. Scheid,
individually. The Company and Scheid are herein referred to collectively as the
141 NLRB No. 78.
EXTRUDED ALLOYS, INC. AND LLOYD J. SCHEID 803
Respondent. The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer
to the complaint denies the allegation of statutory violations therein. Copies of
the complaint, the charges, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Bedford, Indiana, on February 19, 20,
and 21, 1962, before Trial Examiner William R. Ringer. The General Counsel and
Respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine,
to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties. After
the close of the hearing counsel for the Respondent filed a brief which has been
duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSION THEREON
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Company is an Indiana cor-
poration engaged at Bedford, Indiana, in the manufacture of aluminum products;
that during the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint the Company manu-
factured, sold, and shipped from its factory at Bedford products valued in excess of
$50,000 to points outside the State of Indiana, and in the same period purchased
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to its plant di-
rectly from points outside the State of Indiana. From these facts I find and conclude
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
the purposes of the Act will be effectuated by the Board's assertion of jurisdiction
over its business in this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters , is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Specifically the complaint alleges that on or about August 1, 1961, the Re-
spondent laid off 20 named and other unnamed employees and on or about September
25, 1961, discharged all of these employees, and that both these actions were in
reprisal for their union activities and to discourage employee support for the Team-
sters. By this conduct and its asserted refusal to recall or reemploy the foregoing
employees Respondent allegedly violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. At the hearing
the complaint was amended to allege that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act by its curtailment of work of employees Carolyn J. Meadows and Charles
Alhorn on and after June 15, 1961, and May 1961, respectively, and that these actions
also were motivated by the foregoing unlawful reasons. A further amendment al-
leges that the Respondent for the same reasons engaged in unlawful discrimination
against employee Darrell May on a date unknown by refusing to grant his request
for time off from work to attend a sick child. The Respondent denies all these alle-
gations and affirmatively defends the August and September layoffs and discharges
on grounds that they were lawfully motivated by business necessities wholly un-
related to the union activities of employees.
The General Counsel's allegations are supported by testimony of numerous wit-
nesses to show the Respondent's unremitting hostility to the unionization of its plant
and the words and deeds in furtherance of this objective by its president, Lloyd Scheid,
named in this proceeding as a Respondent. As related by the General Counsel's
witnesses this conduct had its beginning in or about December 1960 at a time when
the Teamsters were engaged in a campaign to secure certification through a Board
election as collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees.
Pursuant to a representation petition filed by the Teamsters on December 5, 1960,
a consent election was held under the auspices of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-fifth Region on December 16, 1960, among the Respondent's production
and maintenance employees to determine their choice of bargaining representative.
Appearing on the ballot with the Teamsters was the United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, which had intervened in the proceeding. The tally of ballots showed
that of 68 eligible voters 18 had voted for the Teamsters, 4 for the Steelworkers, and
708-006-64-vol. 141-52
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
43 against both labor organizations . On December 22, the Teamsters filed objec-
tions to conduct by Scheid and the Respondent 's supervisors which coerced employees
and prevented the holding of a free election . On January 26, 1961 , the Regional
Director issued a report finding merit to the objections and ordered the election set
aside. A second election was held on February 7, 1961 , with only the Teamsters ap-
pearing on the ballot. The tally of ballots showed that of 65 eligible voters 23
favored the Teamsters with 39 in opposition . On January 5 , 1962, the Aluminum
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO , filed another petition for a representation
election. No election pursuant to this petition had been held before the hearing in
this case.
Among the objections filed by the Teamsters to the December 16, 1960, election
was one ascribing to Scheid 's threats to employees that if the Teamsters prevailed
he would move the plant to another part of the country or would curtail its oper-
ations. The coercive impact of such threat on the Respondent 's employees need
not be elaborated . The General Counsel has not submitted a brief rationalizing the
force of this conduct in the case which occurred more than 9 months before the
alleged discriminatory mass layoffs and discharges of August and September 1961.
Evidently the General Counsel is seeking to establish that Scheid 's attitude in De-
cember 1960 remained unchanged in August and September 1961 , and that this
drastic action of these months was consistent with his earlier threat to move the
plant and to avoid its unionization . I shall not encumber this report with a needless
recitation of all the testimony by the various witnesses relative to Scheid's remarks
on this subject for it is conceded that Scheid had told his supervisors during the
course of the aforementioned election campaigns that he preferred to shut the doors
of the plant and would go out on his own if the employees voted for a union. I find
no reason in this record for belief that Scheid's frame of mind was different in
August and September 1961 than it had been at this earlier time.'
More to the point in this case and deserving the greater attention is evidence
that Scheid on several occasions had expressed his intent to get rid of the nucleus
of union supporters in the plant which he believed was to be found in his complement
of female employees , and had proposed accomplishing this result by replacing them
with male employees unsympathetic to unionization . Philip Vadeboncoeur had
been the Respondent 's plant manager from March 15 to July 24, 1961 . He testified
that in the latter part of March he had discussed with Scheid the discharge of two
employees , Bowman and Pool , who had filed charges of discrimination against the
Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and that Scheid had noted they
had turned to the Teamsters for help in filing their charges. Thereupon , according
to Vadeboncoeur , Scheid remarked "we had and still have twenty or twenty-one
pro-union people in the plant and that it was up to us as good managers to get rid
of them ." Vadeboncoeur further testified that in the latter part of June he conferred
with Scheid about the advantage of performing certain plant operations with men
rather than the women classified as rackers then employed by the Respondent.
Vadeboncoeur assertedly maintained that there were no significant differences in
the effectiveness of men or women in these operations but conceded that women
rackers required the employment of more "indirect labor ." The significance of this
term will be explained later . Scheid inquired about the possibility of replacing
all the women with men, and Vadeboncoeur insisted that some women would have
to be retained . Thereupon Scheid declared that if he could get rid of all the women
90 percent of his problems would be solved and that this would "also help eliminate
some of the pro-union people, because in this particular group of women were the
primary motivating forces towards getting a union into Extruded Alloys." It was
then agreed to eliminate all the female rackers and packers except two in each
category. Scheid indicated that by this action he would get rid of employee Reba
Wessell who was the most active union protagonist in the plant. In this connection
Scheid mentioned the names of five other women employees whom he characterized
as "pro-union ." In the course of the discussion Vadeboncoeur raised a question
about a possible violation of the Act in the proposed termination of the women
and Scheid undertook to consult his attorney by telephone . August Weisling, the
Respondent 's vice president and secretary -treasurer , was directed to call the Respond-
ent's attorney by telephone and Scheid joined in the conversation on an extension.
Vadeboncoeur heard Scheid explain that there was a job in the plant which "defi-
nitely required male employees to handle, women could not handle it. And that
' There is credited testimony that Scheid had declared in the spring of 1961 he world
move the plant to avoid reemployment of two discharged employees who had filed unfair
labor practice charges with the Regional Director If the Board were to compel their
reinstatement.
EXTRUDED ALLOYS, INC. AND LLOYD J . SCHEID 805
in procuring male employees that he saw a chance to get rid of the women employees
in the plant ." Upon conclusion of the telephone discussion Scheid repotted to
Vadeboncoeur that the attorney had advised that there would be no infraction of
the law if termination of the female employees were accomplished on a strict
seniority basis. Thereupon Elwood Martin, the Respondent 's personnel manager,
was summoned to the office and Scheid instructed him immediately to hire 12 young
men after a discreet investigation to ascertain whether they or any members of their
families had any "pro -union affiliation ." Vadeboncoeur testified that before he
terminated his employment with the Respondent on July 24, 1961 , all these male
employees had already been hired.
Cecil Wiggins had worked for the Respondent as a foreman from November 1960
until his termination on January 12, 1961. He testified concerning various conversa-
tions with Scheid in which the latter expressed his opposition to the unionization
of the plant and directed him and other foremen to curb union activities . He related
that in December 1960, before the December 16 election , Scheid had spoken in his
office to a group consisting of Wiggins , Day Shift Supervisor Braun , Foreman Brent,
and Acting Superintendent Sanders. According to Wiggins , Scheid had expressed
his resentment over the union activities in the plant and had said, "I am looking to
you fellows , as supervisors , to keep it out." When asked how this was to be ac-
complished , he directed them to "promise them anything , but keep it out." He
added, "if this doesn't work, I will fire the whole damn crew and hire myself all new
people because I have a stack of applications over there I don 't have to put up with
this stuff ." In this same period, Wiggins overheard Scheid tell Foreman Sam Fod-
drill, referring to the Union , "he would fire the whole damn bunch , and he would lock
the door and go outside and get himself a job, that he was a $50,000 a year salesman."
Wiggins recalled that about this same time he participated in another conversation
with Scheid and Foddrill . Referring to Scheid 's anger on this occasion, Foddrill
had said to Wiggins "these girls are driving him crazy ." Thereupon , Wiggins sug-
gested replacing the women with men, but Scheid told him "that would never do, I
wouldn't hear that at all."
Kenneth E . Clark had worked as a foreman for the Respondent when he quit
in September 1961. He testified that before the December 16 election Scheid had
questioned him concerning his union views and those of the men under him and
the union attitudes of certain female employees . More significantly , according to
Clark, Scheid had then said "If he found out any persons that were, did have, or
would have anything to do with the union, that they wouldn't be around there very
long, they would be going out the front door."
Thelma Priddy is one of the employees who was laid off on August 1, and dis-
charged on September 25, 1961 . She testified that before the December 16 elec-
tion she heard employee Joetta Moore assure Scheid that despite prevalent rumors
she was not working for the Union , and that Scheid told her not to worry because he
knew who had signed union cards and who was working for the Union and that "he
would get rid of them no matter how long it took ." Joetta Moore is one of those who
was laid off on August 1, and discharged on September 25. She testified that in the
presence of two or three other employees she had told Scheid on December 17, 1960,
that she had not been the union organizer as rumored . Whereupon , he told her not to
worry about it, that he knew she was not, "that he knew who was in , for the union,
and he would settle, or deal with those later."
Hattie Logie was also laid off on August 1, and discharged on September 25. She
testified that in a conversation with Scheid in November 1960 she had volunteered
the information she had signed a union card and that he had told her he knew who
had signed cards but that if he were to fire all who did he would not have any work-
ers in the plant. Logie related that on February 7, 1961, the day before the second
election , the aforementioned Sam Foddrill said to a group of employees of which
she was one , that "after the union talk died down that Scheid was going to have
to get rid of about 13 of them around there."
Betty Lessig, who was laid off on August 1 and discharged on September 25,
1961, testified that at sometime between the December 16 and February 7 elec-
tions she heard Scheid tell a group of employees that "he knew the people as indi-
viduals that voted for the union , and he would get rid of them."
Gail Bowman had been discharged by Respondent on February 24, 1961 , and had
thereafter filed a charge with the Regional Director claiming that the Respondent had
violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by its action against him . This charge was sub-
sequently disposed of by settlement in which the Respondent did not acknowledge any
liability. Bowman testified that in February 1961 he had heard aforementioned
Superintendent Sanders tell an employee whose name Bowman did not know, "that
he knew who 18 of the people were that voted for the Union and as soon as they
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found out who the other 5 were they were going to open the door and kick them all
out."
Horace Hamilton had worked for a period of 35 days for the Respondent from a
date in the latter part of June 1961. He testified that on August 1, 1961, Foreman
Lovelass told employee Harold Sanders in his presence, referring to the layoff of that
day, that four or six of the oldest female employees were being retained and that
after 30 days the layoff of all the female employees would be permanent "and then
the remaining women will be laid off and that way we will do away with all the women
in the plant." Hamilton further related that Lovelass had said on this occasion that
all these employees could not be laid off at once "because of the law which the Labor
Relations Board had, if they did they would be in a mess."
Before proceeding to other aspects of the case it is here appropriate to note that I
credit the foregoing testimony by the aforementioned witnesses. Apart from the
favorable demeanor impressions of these witnesses while testifying which influenced
my belief they were truthful, there is no convincing refutation of the statements
ascribed by them to Scheid and the Respondent's supervisors. Superintendent Sanders
and Foreman Lovelass were not even called to testify. Foreman Foddrill was a
witness for the Respondent but was not interrogated about the remarks attributed
to him. Scheid's testimony may be regarded as a denial that he had said what was
attributed to him, but these denials were indirect and lacked force. In crediting
Vadeboncoeur I took account of his admitted interest in the outcome of the case.
After carefully weighing all the circumstances I am satisfied, despite his unconcealed
animus toward Scheid for requesting his resignation which he deemed unjustified
and his active support of the General Counsel to help secure a finding of statutory
violation against Scheid, that Vadeboncoeur was a truthful witness. Even if he
were "out to get" Scheid, which he admitted was his feeling, it was his intention, as I
see it , to harm Scheid only with the truth and not otherwise. Similarly, I credit
Wiggins' although he, too, had strong animus against Scheid for his demotion
from foreman and his ultimate termination.
Thus, on the basis of these credibility resolutions I find that up to and at the time
of the August and September 1961 layoffs and discharges Scheid was predisposed to
defeat further attempts at unionization by weeding out the female employees who he
believed were the main source of union support in the plant. I do not believe, how-
ever, that the layoffs and subsequent discharges resulted from such motivation, but
am convinced that these actions were impelled by lawful reasons related exclusively
to economic necessity.
The Respondent's operations consist of the fabrication and coating by chemical
and mechanical processes of aluminum parts ordered by various industrial customers.
These parts are produced only on customer order. Nothing is fabricated and stored
in inventory. If there are no current orders to be completed there is no work for the
Respondent's employees.
In the performance of its operations the Respondent before August 1961 employed
both men and women. Essentially, the female employees, working in two shifts, were
employed in the anodizing and packing departments where they were classified as
rackers and packers. One woman worked in the fabricating department operating a
drill or punch press. Before 1960 all rackers , numbering 12 per shift, were women.
There was one male employee called a setup man who worked with these women.
Only women, of whom there were 5 per shift, worked in packing. Except for two
senior female rackers and two senior female packers all women employed by the
Respondent on August 1, 1960, were laid off that day. The notice to them of this
action was posted in the plant that day and given orally by Scheid. In substance the
notice and his comments explained that the layoffs were compelled by the replacement
of women by men who would be able to perform the more arduous tasks involved
in the Company's new operational procedure. The notice also stated that two female
rackers and two packers were being retained on a departmental seniority basis and
that if additional female employees were needed as the new program developed they
would be recalled in accordance with their departmental seniority. Finally, the notice
provided that if the Company's new operations were successful that all employees not
recalled after 45 days would then receive notification of their permanent terminations.
Five female rackers were recalled on August 7 and two packers were recalled on
August 9, 1961. In each case the recall was on the basis of departmental seniority.
All others laid off on August 1 received letters dated September 25 informing them
of their permanent termination.
Scheid's testimony and supporting documentary evidence reveals that the Company
had sustained a financial loss from its inception in 1959 to August 1961. The Com-
pany's financial condition had been further aggravated by loss of its credit standing
with its bank and the necessity of obtaining capital from other sources which charged
a high interest rate . To alter the picture a change in the Company 's operations had
EXTRUDED ALLOYS, INC. AND LLOYD J. SCHEID 807
to be made . Accordingly , in May 1961 Scheid hired a salesman , Sorenson, with
the expectation that he would bring the Company business from the building in-
dustry. One of the customers in the building industry with whom the Company
established relations was Klemp Corporation of Chicago from whom the Respondent
•obtained an order before August 1, 1961 , for the anodizing of a quantity of outside
architectural gratings . These gratings were approximately 13 by 4 feet in size and
weighed about 300 pounds . To anodize them required first that they be lifted and
attached to racks which held the grates in position as they were transported to the
anodizing tank and immersed in the chemical solution . This racking procedure in-
volved the kind of work which had previously been performed by female rackers
working with extruded parts of manageable size and weight . It was Scheid's con-
sidered judgment that these women could not perform the job of racking the Klemp
gratings and that men had to be substituted for them . He so testified and in this
respect was supported by Vadeboncoeur who, as noted , was the General Counsel's
witness and admittedly hostile to Scheid . Vadeboncoeur admitted that he had dis-
cussed with Scheid the possibility of employing a predominantly male force of
rackers in place of women , particularly in view of the expected Klemp business, and
that he had believed that "it was inevitable that it would have to take place over a
period of time." The Company actually began processing the Klemp gratings in
mid-August 1961 with an all male second shift of rackers under the personal charge
of Scheid who was so deeply concerned that he took time from his executive re-
sponsibilities to assure the success of the venture.
While the Klemp business eventually petered out because of that concern 's failure
promptly to pay its bills, the Company's orders for extrusions used in the building
industry increased substantially after August 1961. Thus, the Company statistics
show that before then the high point in the production of these parts was in April
1961 when 108,150 pounds were shipped to customers . In July 1961 the shipment
of building parts totaled 101 , 891 pounds . In August there was a jump to 168,717
pounds and for the balance of the year the monthly shipments ranged between
145,000 to 200,000 pounds. The anticipated increase in this business was also dis-
cussed before August 1961 by Scheid and Vadeboncoeur . The latter acknowledged
that with more building orders to fill there would be a corresponding increase in the
handling of larger and heavier parts by the female rackers and packers. He con-
ceded that the physical tasks of the packers would become harder and that some
would be too difficult for women to perform . Thus the building extrusions which
ran from 18 to 21 feet in length when taped and packed in bundles would weigh
from 125 to 250 pounds . Vadeboncoeur testified that these bundles were too heavy
even for two girls to lift and that he had ordered them not to make the attempt.
This necessitated that male employees working in other departments be taken from
their duties and brought to the packing department to do the heavy lifting. This is
an example of the "indirect labor" referred to earlier in this report which had to be
utilized in connection with the employment of female workers . Vadeboncoeur
agreed that the inability of the female packers to lift these heavy bundles was a
valid argument for replacing them with men and that he had discussed this with
Scheid before August.
Again , with respect to the racking operations performed by women before August
1961, the evidence of several witnesses , particularly Scheid and Vadeboncoeur, is
in agreement that from time to time assistance had to be given to the women both
in transporting carriers from the storage area to the place where the racking was
done and then from there to the anodizing tanks. A loaded carrier would sometimes
weigh as much as 1,600 pounds and four women would have to team up and move it
to the tanks and this they could do only with difficulty . At times it was necessary
for the setup man, male employees from the fabrication department , and even
Vadeboncoeur himself to get the carrier moving. This, too, he conceded , was "less
than completely satisfactory utilization of female personnel in the racking depart-
ment." He recognized that the Company's operations "would not support any addi-
tional indirect labor" and that "we had to get along as best we could" which
necessarily meant interrupting his own duties and those of other male employees to
help the women . This was another basis for his belief expressed to Scheid of the
inevitability that men would have to replace the women.
As to the female operator of the punch or drill press, Scheid testified that she also
needed indirect labor to bring her material and to remove it after completion of her
work . In addition, there were five or six daily breakdowns on her machine which
required the assistance of a male employee who also had to bring heavy dies to her
machine and to install them and make necessary adjustments . During intervals when
the press was being repaired or adjusted the female operator had no alternative but
to stand idly by. The male employee who replaced her is now self -sufficient and
performs all these tasks himself with no lost idle time by anyone.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scheid claimed that an additional factor which led to the replacement of the
women was his desire, not only to eliminate the interruption of work by male em-
ployees to provide indirect labor for the women, but also to enable foremen and
management personnel to concentrate on their supervisory and management func-
tions without the interruption of manual labor. This he felt would contribute to
greater efficiency in the plant.
In deciding to effectuate the Company's reorganization and shift from female to
male employees, Scheid had some reservations as to the success of his actions. He
watched the plant operations closely from the moment the new plans were put into
practice and soon was convinced that some of the laid-off female employees could be
recalled to duties which were within the limits of their abilities and which they could
perform without assistance. Accordingly, seven women were recalled in about a
week and these were selected on a seniority basis. As evidence that no union con-
siderations were involved in the layoff or recall of female employees the Respondent
emphasizes what the record shows that 13 of the laid-off employees had signed cards
for the Teamsters and that of the 7 employees who were recalled 5 had signed such
cards. One of them was Reba Wessell who, as shown by the record, had been the
leader and most active female supporter of the Teamsters in the plant. When, a few
days after her recall, Wessell had become disturbed with certain conditions in the
plant, she was encouraged by Scheid to continue her employment and not to quit,
notwithstanding her known union sympathies.
As I stated earlier, I am persuaded that Scheid was lawfully motived by the rea-
sons he gave at the hearing for the layoff and discharges of the Respondent's female
employees. I credit his testimony in these respects especially as it is so consistent
with the evidence of his greater detractor in this case, Vadeboncoeur. Scheid's testi-
mony was all the more believable because of its plausibility. It seems clearly obvi-
ous that the situation in the Respondent's plant before and at the time of the August
1961 layoffs demanded the very action which Scheid took. While the success of the
reorganization is not diapositive of the issue, it does contribute to the logic of the
action and lends to the acceptance of Scheid's explanation. The Company's statisti-
cal analysis of its anodizing costs for 1961 reflect the greater efficiency of the Re-
spondent's operations after the changes despite increases in labor costs due probably
to the higher wages paid male employees. Thus, during the months from January
to July inclusive, the average productivity figures per shift were $651. For the re-
maining months of that year this average figure was raised to $795. I am satisfied
that this improvement was the objective sought by Scheid and that union considera-
tions were not therein involved.
Although one of the recalled female packers, Betty Neal, testified categorically
that the female employees on her shift after her recall did all the packing operations
which they had formerly done, I do not regard this testimony as indicative of the
fact that the male employees who replaced women were brought in for reasons other
than efficiency. Neal conceded that she does not pick up completed bundles and
take them to the shipping department. Nor does she stack the carts with bundled
materials. All this heavy work is done by the male replacements who now work in
the department without the necessity of bringing in employees from other depart-
ments for these tasks. Recalled female rackers Betty Kendall and Marguerite Cain
also sought by their testimony to establish that things are still the same for female
employees in the racking department despite the reorganization. From their own
testimony this is evidently not so, for the setup man and the supervisor who formerly
had to do the heavy pushing of racks from storage and from work areas to the
anodizing tanks no longer have to stop their regular duties to perform these tasks
Now this work is done by male rackers in the department. Thus, the testimony of
these witnesses serves to confirm that the self-sufficiency objectives sought by Scheid
were accomplished by the reorganization, and that he was not motivated in his
actions by unlawful considerations.
The allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by de-
liberately curtailing the work of Carolyn Meadows and Charles Alhorn to induce
them to quit their jobs are mainly supported by the testimony of Vadeboncoeur.
Concerning Alhorn, Vadeboncoeur related that "at the end of the second week of
May we engaged in a campaign to permit him to get enough hours per week to pre-
vent him from drawing unemployment and still not take home a full week's pay, and
thus hoping to, in light of low income, why he would become disgruntled and leave
the organization." This campaign, Vadeboncoeur testified, went on for 3 weeks and
ended at that point, because of an increase in rack building work in which Alhorn
was engaged which necessitated giving him full employment. Alhorn did not quit
and is still employed by the Respondent. According to Vadeboncoeur, Scheid had
told him Alhorn was prounion and should be watched and that he should try to get
EXTRUDED ALLOYS, INC. AND LLOYD J. SCHEID 809
rid of him . Vadeboncoeur had advised Scheid in May when the production backlog
had dropped that he would try to reduce indirect labor costs which necessarily in-
volved cutting cost of rack repair. Because there was also a program for replenish-
ment of usable racks he explained to Scheid that he could not dispense entirely with
Alhorn's services . However, by cutting his weekly hours to 16 or 24 there would be
both a saving for the Company of indirect labor costs and Alhorn would be harassed
to the point where he might quit . Scheid replied that "it would be nice to be able
to lay off Alhorn for good, and then we would have another prounion individual
out of the plant." Vadeboncoeur testified that Vice President Weisling was present
during this latter discussion.
Weishng was called as a witness by the Respondent but was questioned concerning
the discussion relative to Alhorn. Scheid, who testified at great length , was also
not questioned about the conversation regarding Alhorn with Vadeboncoeur as
described by the latter. Thus Vadeboncoeur's testimony concerning his conversa-
tions with Scheid are unrefuted.
In March 1961 Alhorn had transferred from his job in fabrication as a buffer to
work in rack repair where he started with the least departmental seniority of the
three employees on his shift. So far as the record shows such seniority governed the
assignment of work in the various departments of the plant. Up to the week ending
May 14, 1961, Alhorn, according to the Respondent's records, worked the same
number of hours weekly as the other two men on his shift. During the 3-week period
starting with the pay week ending May 21 Alhorn worked successively 16, 16, and 8
hours. Thereafter he resumed a 40-hour week. In the foregoing 3-week period the
man first in seniority worked successively 38.5, 27.1, and 32 hours. The man second
in seniority worked 38.5, 10.1, and 24 hours. Thereafter, these employees like
Alhorn, resumed full 40-hour weeks. These statistics and Vadeboncoeur's credited
testimony, do not permit a finding that Alhorn was denied more work than he
would have received absent discrimination for in one of the weeks in question he
received approximately 6 hours more work than the second man in order of seniority
As each of the two senior employees on Alhorn's shift worked less than 40 hours
weekly, theoretically he could, in accord with the prevailing seniority system, have
been assigned even less hours than he actually worked. My impression of the
situation is that Vadeboncoeur had not undertaken to harass Alhorn by depriving
him of hours of work, but instead intended to give him extra hours of work so
that his earnings would be too high to permit him to claim unemployment compensa-
tion from the appropriate governmental agency and thereby to compel him to quit.
As I find there was no deprivation of employment, and Alhorn did not quit it follows
that the allegation of discrimination against him in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act is not sustained.
Concerning Meadows, Vadeboncoeur testified he had explained to Scheid "placing
her in the role of an alternate in the racking department, and through this maneuver
to harass her by giving her 2, 2-and-a half day's work a week and thereby trying to
get her disgruntled or unhappy with the amount of money that she was making at
the plant and thereby leave." According to Vadeboncoeur, Scheid replied, "he was
glad to know it." Scheid denied that he had participated in any action deliberately
to cut Meadow's hours of work or that he knew of any intention by anyone to
curtail working time. I credit Vadeboncoeur's account of his conversation with
Scheid. I nevertheless do not find record support for a conclusion of discrimination
against Meadows in the manner alleged. Meadows had worked as a night shift
racker and pursuant to her request had been transferred to a job as alternate racker
on the day shift. While she believed that this change occurred on May 10, 1961,
she had signed a Company "Request to Bump" form on April 4, 1961, for the fore-
going transfer. Whatever the date when she started as an alternate racker the form
she signed provided that she would be entitled to work if there were vacancies on the
first shift due to the absence of regular employees in the racking or packing depart-
ments. Her time record in evidence shows that between the pay periods ending
April 16, and August 6, 1961, she worked 467 3 hours as compared with 490.4
hours worked by the employee on her shift who was ahead of her in seniority. The
comparison of the weekly hours worked by Meadows and by that same employee
shows no marked difference during any sustained period sufficient to reveal a plan
of discriminatory curtailment of Meadows' work. Whatever may have been Vade-
boncoeur's intention regarding Meadows, I am satisfied that it was not implemented
in such manner as to sustain the allegation of unlawful discrimination with respect
to her.
Finally, there is the allegation that the Respondent discriminated against employee
Darrell May by denying his request for time off from work to attend a sick child.
The credited testimony of his foreman , Foddrill is that he denied May's request for
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time off from his night shift so he could be rested for a national board meeting the
next morning . May later informed Foddrill his wife had called to tell him of his
baby's illness. Foddrill , who needed his services that night , told May to bring back
a doctor 's certificate upon his return from home where he went for his evening
meal. May reported back 18 minutes late without a certificate and worked the
remainder of his shift . He was not reprimanded for coming back late. There is no
suggestion in the record that Foddrill denied May 's request for unlawful reasons.
May's father is an official of a union which had nothing to do with the Respondent's
employees . It would be sheer speculation to find that for this reason he was denied
time off. The allegation of discrimination against him is not sustained.
In sum , while the record is replete with evidence of the Respondent 's hostility
to unionization and its coercive efforts to prevent the Teamsters or the Steelworkers
from winning the December 1960 or February 1961 elections I am convinced, find,
and conclude that the record does not preponderate in favor of a finding that the
Respondent committed any of the unlawful actions described in the complaint. I
therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.
Sohio Chemical Company, Acrylonitrile Plant and Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union , Local 7-626
Sohio Chemical Company, Nitrogen Plant and Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , Local 7-626. Cases Nos.
8-CA-2682 and 8-CA-2683. March, 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1962, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, but recommending that no remedial order issue, as set
forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed a brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'Contrary to our dissenting colleague , the issue here is not whether the Union had a
statutory right to grieve , but whether the Union had a right to invoice the grievance
procedure set forth in the contract between the Union and the Respondent Company.
Everyone, including our dissenting colleague , seems to agree that the Respondent was not
required "to deal with such grievances through the grievance procedure." Yet what is
overlooked by our dissenting colleague is the fact that the Union here sought to process
the grievances under the contract . Accordingly, this decision does not represent a de-
parture from established precedents , and we also believe that it will promote rather than
discourage collective-bargaining practices . The Union's presence at later stages in the
141 NLRB No. 72.