Fabri-Tek, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1623 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED 1623
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720-Bulkley
Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Fabri-Tek Incorporated and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-178. October 9,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 17, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting
brief. The Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Decision.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations 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-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Fabri-
Tek Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors ,' and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner' s Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The sole question in this proceeding is whether Respondent 's interference with its
employees wearing of oversize "VOTE I.B.E.W " buttons and other union insignia
in the plant during the -preelection campaign infringed upon rights guaranteed them
under the Act.
The complaint herein 1 alleges that Respondent discharged six employees because
they wore union insignia in violation of a company rule; that it has refused to re-
instate them ; and that it thereby violated Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 USC Secs. 151-168, herein called the Act).
I Issued October 21, 1963, on a charge filed October 3 and an amended 'charge filed
October 8, 196-3.
148 NLRB No. 156.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's answer admits that it prohibited the wearing of "extraordinary"
union insignia or the wearing of ordinary insignia "in an extraordinary manner" but
contends that such action was necessary to prevent interference with the efficient
performance of duties and that the employees involved quit their job rather than
observe the company rule.
A hearing upon the issues so raised was held before Trial Examiner Sidney D.
Goldberg at Amery, Wisconsin, on December 3 and 4, 1963, at which all parties were
present and afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses,
and argue upon the facts and the law. Helpful briefs by the General Counsel and
by counsel for Respondent and the Charging Party have been considered.
For the reasons set forth in detail below, I find that Respondent's conduct consti-
tuted interference with rights guaranteed employees under the Act, that the discharges
were discriminatory, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1)
thereof.
. Upon the entire record 2 in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of memory cores and other computer
components, maintains offices and research laboratories in Minneapolis, Minnesota;
and.the plant involved in this proceeding at Amery, Wisconsin. The computer com-
ponents are sold to General Electric Co., Radio Corporation of America, and similar
organizations. Products valued at more than $100,000 are annually shipped to cus-
tomers outside the State of Wisconsin. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called IBEW
or the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Despite the extraordinarily 'complex nature of Respondent's product, the facts
herein are relatively simple and, in all important elements, undisputed.
A. Background
On August 7, 1963,3 the Union filed a representation petition in the Board's Re-
gional Office 4 and, on September 24, the Regional Director issued his Decision and
Direction of Election, holding certain classes of employees included and certain
classes excluded from the stipulated production and maintenance employees unit.
Within a day or two after issuance of the Decision, Henry C. Bennett , a "tester"
employed by Respondent, began to distribute union buttons which he had been col-
lecting for that purpose. Two of these buttons are the principal subject of conten-
tion in this case and, with a third also involved, require description:
(a) A large round button of the type usually used in' political campaigns. It is
about 3 inches in diameter, made of metal with a white nonmetalic covering, and has
a pin and catch on the back. On its face, in red block letters almost three-fourths of
an inch tall, are the words "VOTE I.B.E.W." At the bottom edge, also in red,
appears the union label of the emblem's manufacturer.
(b) A square 2-inch, emblem enclosed in a slightly larger clean plastic covering
with a pin and catch on its back. The top third of the emblem is red, the center third
2 Typographical errors in the transcript of testimony are hereby corrected as follows:
(a) Page 168, lines 11 to 18, and page 288, lines 17 to 20, are amended as stipulated
by the parties and their stipulation has been marked in evidence as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit No. 1.
(b) Pursuant to said stipulation, Respondent's Exhibit No. 16 for identification is re-
ceived in evidence
(c) On page 48, line 25, between "that" and "a", Insert "it was" ; on page 86, line 3,
strike out "not"; on page 96, line 17, change "you are" to "I were" ; on page 222, line 7,
change "technical" to "typical"; on page 251, line 10, strike out "TRIAL E%A LINER".
8 All dates, unless otherwise specified, are in 1963.
1 Case No. 18-RC-5640.
FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED 1625
is white, and the bottom third is blue. The device is called, in the advertising novelty
trade, a "vari-vue" because two different representations appear in the same space,
depending upon the angle from which it is viewed. In the center of the device, in
black letters almost 11 inches tall, appear "VOTE" and "I.B.E.W." If rotated on a
horizontal axis, the letters visible change back and forth several times.
(c) The customary union button, about an inch in diameter. This one has a nar-
row blue border with the letters "I.B.E.W." in white on its upper part and "AFL-
CIO" in small black letters on its lower half. The center is white and displays a
clenched hand from which extend the jagged lines which conventionally represent
electricity.
Bennett received a supply of all. three of these buttons from International Repre-
sentative Young with instructions to hand them out on nonworking time and this was
done. During coffee breaks in the cafeteria on Friday, September 27, Bennett gave
one or more buttons to fellow employees, mostly those who worked with him in the
inspection department, asking that they wear them. He testified that Young had
told him the employees had the right to wear the buttons at work and that he prob-
ably passed along that information with the buttons. The employees put on the
buttons as they left the cafeteria to return to work.
B. The wearing of the emblems
1. Henry C. Bennett : As stated, Bennett was employed in the inspection depart-
ment. There are 25 to 30 testers working on the 2 shifts; each one works alone at a
Jesting station,consisting of groups of instruments set against the wall of the electrical
inspection room. These-stations are separated from 4 to 30 feet from each other. In
testing the memory,frames,5 the tester first inspects the frame visually, sometimes
with the aid of a magnifying glass, then clamps it into a holder (called a "jig"), and
applies low electrical currents to it in various ways. The effects of these electrical
"drives" are registered on various instruments 6 and are read by the tester to deter-
mine whether the frame is operating properly as of that stage of its fabrication.
On Friday, September 27, Bennett was on the day shift and, as stated, passed out
union buttons at the 9:15 a.m. coffee break. He also wore one himself-the large
round button-all day at work and, although his supervisor saw it, nothing was said.
Between 6 and 10 other employees in the inspection department also wore similar
buttons all day Friday.
On Monday, September 30, Bennett rotated as scheduled to the night shift and
reported for work at 4:30 p.m. He wore the same union button he had worn on
Friday but, as he went to his post in the inspection department, Night Foreman Aus
told him he could not wear the button and ordered him to take it off. Bennett said
he believed he had the right to wear the button but Aus said the order had come from
Department Foreman Beyl; Bennett turned to Beyl, who was nearby, and Beyl said,
"That's right, you'll have to take it off." At this time Walter Skoug, Respondent's
quality assurance manager and Beyl's superior, came over and said that Bennett would
have to remove the button because it was "soliciting" and contrary to company pol-
icy; that if he were wearing a button saying "don't vote I.B.E.W." he would also be
asked to take it off. -Bennett insisted he had a right to wear the button and Skoug
escorted him to the office of the personnel manager, Walter R. Olsen. Skoug told
Olsen that-Bennett refused to remove the button; Olsen ordered Bennett to take it off,
5 These frames consist of sheets of plastic ranging in size from 2 inches square to 2 feet
square. The center portion of the sheet is cut out so that only a frame is left: Across
this open space are strung, horizontally, vertically, and diagonally, many fine insulated
wires, each fastened to the frame by being soldered to a terminal which looks like a metal
eyelet. Suspended at many points on the wire mesh thus created are tiny doughnut-
shaped bits, of ferrite called "memory cores " In very general terms, it seemed that these,
when magnetized by applied electrical impulses, vary or affect current passing through
them to register or effect predictable results There is no doubt that these memory
frames are intricate and complex in construction and operation ; that their fabrication
requires care and concentration; that they must be frequently tested and repaired as they
go through the process of manufacture and that, unless perfect, they cannot be used.
9 Principally an oscilloscope, which looks like a small television tube having several
horizontal and vertical lines etched on a clear plastic screen set in front of the tube.
During testing, a light'pattern appears on the face of the oscilloscope which, by reference
to the etched lines, indicates the effect of the current. As long as the current is applied
to the device, the oscilloscope will register the distinctive pattern and the frame being
tested is not harmed or affected by such testing.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stating that it was "soliciting" and against company policy; Bennett repeated that he
had a right to wear it; and Olsen instructed him to remove it or punch out and leave,
saying that his status was "unknown." Before leaving, Bennett asked Olsen to show
,him the company policy on soliciting. Olsen showed it to him and Bennett left
About a week later, Bennett received his final paycheck and accrued vacation pay
with a letter dated October 7, stating:
On Monday, Sept. 30, 1963 you left work at the company's request because you
refused to remove from your person a large campaign emblem that was de-
signed to attract to yourself attention and to distract your fellow workers from
their normal work duties. Since you have made no attempt to return to work
or to contact the company and explain your absence nor have I been successful
in contacting you, we must assume that you have terminated your employment.
Bennett returned to work about a month later, after the charges herein had been
filed and the complaint issued, pursuant to an agreement between the Union and
Respondent whereby the employees involved would forgo wearing the large union
buttons,and this proceeding would be maintained.
Ollie May Detivey: Employed in-soldering memory boards, she is 1 of about 100
employees in that department and her supervisor is Forrest Hermann. On Septem-
ber 27 she received two large union emblems from Henry Bennett, one of each kind,
and she wore the round one on her blouse-high up near her shoulder-during the
afternoon of that day.' No one said anything to her about it and five or six other
employees in her soldering area also wore the same buttons.
She wore the same button again on Monday all morning without comment, as did
several others in her area. Right after lunch, however, Hermann 'told her that he
had been informed by the "front office" that those pins could not be worn in the
plant but he was unable to say why. He asked her to take it off and she did so.
The next morning Dewey came to work wearing a sleeveless white cotton blouse,
on the back of which she had painted, in black letters half an inch thick and 21/2
inches high, "VOTE IBEW." Ten minutes after she had seated herself at her work
station her foreman sent her to the personnel office. Olsen, after looking at her
blouse, pointed out that on the previous day she had been asked not to wear the
union button and that she had removed it without protest. He also said that she
knew it violated the rules to wear them, but Dewey denied that she knew about the
rule. Olsen then asked her if she had a jacket with her and, upon receiving an affirm-
ative answer, asked her whether she wanted to wear it all day. Mrs. Dewey said 'she
did-not, noting that it was too hot in the plant for a jacket and that Olsen was not
wearing one. Olsen then asked her whether she wished to go home and change her
blouse and she said that was up `to him. Olsen told her to punch out and go home
and change her blouse She went home and did not return to work that day but
during the afternoon she telephoned Olsen and said she had been advised that she
had a right to wear the blouse because she was doing her work and not disturbing
anyone else at work. Olsen conceded that she was one of his best workers. Later
that same day Olsen called her, read a notice concerning solicitation which had been
posted that day in the-plant, and asked her whether she would take "their word in-
stead of our word." She answered in the affirmative and Olsea then asked her if her
"status" was the same. This, also, she answered affirmatively and Olsen told her
that she was "terminated" as of that date. Shortly thereafter she received a paycheck
bearing the statement:
Terminated Oct 1 '63-refusal to obey company rules regarding employee
solicitation
Dewey also went back to work November 8 pursuant to the agreement between
Respondent and the Union.
Clarence Heacock: Employed in the inspection department to build and wire test-
ing apparatus, he worked in the same area as Henry Bennett. At the morning coffee
break on September 27, Bennett gave him one of the large round buttons and he
wore it at work all that day Although his foreman, Paul Besonen, saw him wearing
it, nothing was said. He again wore it on September 30 until after the late coffee
break when Besonen came to him and said "the word was out" that they had to take
the buttons off, and he took it off without comment.
The next morning when he came to work 'at 7.30, however, he again wore the
button. At 8:30 Besonen, accompanied by_ Skoug, came to his bench and Skoug
asked him whether he had not been told the previous day to take the button off.
Heacock said he had, Skoug asked him whether he was going to do so and Heacock
said he would not. Skoug then told Heacock he would have to leave because it was
FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED ' 1627
"against company policy to wear a button like that." Heacock asked if he was fired
and Skoug said if he took the button off he could continue to work. Heacock
punched out and left.
Late that evening Olsen telephoned and asked him whether his "status" was the
same. Heacock answered that he had been advised to say that he would be glad to
return to work as long as he could wear the button. Olsen then read to him a com-
pany statement about solicitation and the wearing of buttons 7 and asked Heacock
if he was taking "their word," meaning the Union's, against that of the Company.
Heacock said he was and Olsen told him he was "teiminated" as of that day.
Heacock subsequently received a final paycheck bearing the same notation as
that on the one sent Dewey and he returned to work on November 8 under the same
agreement.
James R. Mitchell: Employed in the inspection department and working in the
same area as Bennett and Heacock, he received one of the square union buttons from
Bennett on September 27 and wore it the rest of that day. He forgot it at home on
September 30 but reported for work wearing it at 7:30 a m. on October 1 About 45
minutes later Skoug asked him whether he had been told the Company's policy on
solicitation; he said he had not. Skoug explained it to him and asked whether he
was going to take the button off. Mitchell declined and Skoug directed him to punch
out; he did so and left. Two days later Olsen telephoned him, explained the company
policy on solicitation, i.e., that it had no objection to the small buttons but would
not permit the wearing of the large ones, and asked him what his "status" was. When
Mitchell said his status-was the same, Olsen told him he was terminated. By letter
dated October 7, Respondent stated that he had terminated his employment by his
refusal to remove the emblem and enclosed his final paycheck. He returned to work
November 8 under the agreement.
Lynn Gale: Also employed in the inspection department with Bennett, Heacock,
and Mitchell, he received'one of the large round buttons from Bennett at the morning
coffee break on September 27 and wore it the rest of that day. On September 30 he
again wore it until 2:30 p.m. when Besonen told him he had "orders from the front"
that the buttons had to be removed. With the statement that he would comply until
he found out otherwise, Gale removed the button for the balance of the day. The
next morning he reported for work at 7:30 wearing the button; about 45 minutes later
Besonen brought Skoug over and they asked whether he knew that wearing it was
against company policy. Gale answered, "If you say so," and they told him to take it
off or punch out. He punched out and left. , A few days later Olsen telephoned him
and asked whether he insisted on continuing to. wear the button at work; Gale said
he did and Olsen said he was terminated. Gale insisted upon a written notice of
termination and was invited to pick it up at the plant the next morning Gale, wearing
one or more union buttons, picked up his final paycheck and a letter similar to that
sent Mitchell. Gale also returned to work November 8 under the agreement.
Theron Seydel: Employed as a solderer in the memory frame section with Dewey,
she wore one of the square union buttons during the.final hours of work on Septem-
ber 27. It was accidentally destroyed at home over the weekend and she did not again
wear a large button. On Thursday, October 3, she reported for work at 7:30 a.m.
wearing a pair of small union buttons as clip earrings. After lunch that day, she and
Dorothy Donohue, a fellow employee also wearing small union buttons as earrings
(since Donohue's ears were pierced, hers were hanging from small wire hooks), were
summoned to the personnel office. When they came iii, Olsen remarked upon their
unusual earrings. Mrs. Seydel's hair fell below her ears, but it was gathered slightly
and the earrings were partly visible. Donohue's were clearly visible. To read the
buttons, however, Olsen had to come to a point about a foot from them. Olsen then
said there was no objection to their wearing the small union buttons in the "usual"
way but since those they were wearing were "not designed" as earrings, he would have
to ask them to remove them.
Mrs. Seydel asked Olsen if there was any regulation in the plant about earrings and
he said there was not but "it had become a thing in the plant that he felt it was dis-
tracting to wear those earrings." She then asked what would happen if they did not
take them off and Olsen said he would have to ask them to "punch out." Seydel
punched out, Donohue removed her earrings. On October 7 Olsen telephoned Seydel
at home and asked her whether she felt the same as she had when she left his office
and that her job was waiting if she wished to return. She said she would be glad to
return, with her earrings, and Olsen said he could not permit it and he had no choice
7 To the effect that there was no objection to wearing small buttons but that the large
buttons tended to "distract" fellow workers
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but to terminate her employment. A few days later she received her final paycheck
'with a letter stating that because she had offered to return to work if ". . . 'permitted
to wear the earrings and or the large badge which were both designed to call attention
ito yourself and distract fellow employees from their work concentration ...." she
had made a decision to terminate her employment. She returned to work November
'8 under the agreement.
Doris Heacock: In October she was working in the nuclear data department (also
balled card assembly). On October 3 she came to work at 7:30 a.m. wearing a square
union button on her blouse. Shortly after work began, her foreman noticed her
"adjusting" the sweater she was wearing so that the button showed for an instant and
two women at the next table, who had turned around, laughed. Pricilla Petersen, a
coworker, was also wearing a similar button on her blouse but a corner of it was
visible at the edge of the sweater she was wearing. Their foreman noticed the occur-
rence and took them both to the personnel office. Olsen told them that they could
not wear these large buttons visibly on the premises because it amounted to "cam-
paigning" and was against company policy. He said that whether buttons of that
size were for or against the Union or even if they were presidential campaign buttons,
they could not be won anywhere on the premises, and that the rule was applicable
whether they were at work or not. Olsen said they could wear small union buttons
and both women moved the large buttons so that they could not be seen, put small
buttons on their sweaters and went back to work.
C. Discussion and conclusionary findings
The right of employees to display union insignia at work has long been recognized
as a reasonable and legitimate form of union activity 8 and an employer's prohibition
thereof-in the absence of special considerations relating to employee efficiency and
plant discipline-is an unwarranted interference with the employees' right to engage
in organizational activities .9 ,
The nature of the union insignia involved, moreover, does not affect this right and
the Board, with court approval, has sustained it in cases involving unusual emblems
as well as articles of clothing.10
The wearing of union insignia is not a form of solicitation 11 and , therefore, the
cases cited by Respondent involving solicitation, as well as Respondent' s, rule on this
subject,12 are inapplicable.
s Republic Aviation Corporation v. N L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 801--803; Kimble Glass
Company, 113 NLRB 577, enfd 230 F 2d 484 (C.A. 6) ; Mayrath Company, 132 NLRB
1628, enfd 319 F. 2d 424 (CA. 7) ; Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond,
145 NLRB 99.
e Mayrath Company, supra.
"Buttons inscribed "UAW-CIO STEWARD", although the union was not recognized:
Republic Aviation Corporation v. N L R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 802; streamers inscribed "I
AM LOYAL TO 751" and steward and committeeman buttons: Boeing Airplane Company,
103 NLRB 1025, enfd. (as to the buttons but, in view of the dual-union situation and the
strike background, set aside as to the streamer) 217 F. 2d 369 (C A. 9) ; bowling shirts
or blouses for men and women, inscribed, in letters 21/2 to 3 inches high, "U A W" across
the back at the shoulders, and novelties such as pocket pencil holders, pencils, and combs,
all bearing the UAW Insignia : Power Equipment Co., 135 NLRB 945, enfd. as modified
313 F 2d 438; 318 F.'2d 717; 319 F. 2d 861 (C.A. 6) ; large badges inscribed "I U E-
C I 0": Kimble Glass Company, 113 NLRB 577, enfd. 230 F. 2d 484 (C.A. 6) ; badges
3 by 4 inches inscribed "Support Your Commi ttee/Vote Yes/For Better Wages/Vaca-
tions-Holidays/ Insurance , Etc.": Standard Fittings Co., at al, 133 NLRB 928; T-shirts
inscribed "JOIN UAW-CIO" or "VOTE UAW-CIO" and buttons about the size of a half-
dollar inscribed "SUPPORT YOUR UNION, VOTE YES": The DeVilbiss Company, 102
NLRB 1317; T-shirts Inscribed "VOTE UAW" and buttons the size of a half-dollar in-
scribed "VOTE UAW-CIO": Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 184;
buttons inscribed "I'M A/UNION MEMBER/DIST, 50, U.M W.A /ARE/YOU?" : Stewart
Hog Ring Company, Inc, 131 NLRB 310, 329, 339.
uThe DeVilbiss Company, supra; Avildsen Tools and Machines, Inc, at al., 112
NLRB 1021
12 The "no solicitation" rule dated July 11, 1962, posted October 1, and, presumably, the
one shown or read to certain of the employees in connection with their wearing of union
buttons, is far from clear in distinguishing between working and:nonworking time (see
Solo Cup Company, 144 NLRB 1481). The validity of this rule, however, was not put in
issue by the pleadings nor was it litigated herein and I make no finding concerning it.
FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED '1629
In view of the foregoing, we now reach the question to be determined in this case:
namely, whether Respondent has proved its contention that wearing of union insignia
by the employees involved had the effect of distracting the attention of other em-
ployees from their work and disrupting their work concentration. Rephrased in the
terms of the law on this subject, has Respondent established special considerations
relating to employee efficiency or plant discipline that would justify its refusal to
permit the wearing of union insignia in the plant? 13
As indicated above, there is no doubt that Respondent's finished product is extraor-
dinarily complex and that each item must operate perfectly to enable the ultimate
mechanism to function. It is also undisputed that each step in the fabrication of a
memory frame is done by hand and requires a high degree of concentration during its
performance. The production process, however, has been broken down into a great.
number of simple steps punctuated by frequent inspections. Indicative of this result
is the fact that 80 percent of the 350 employees engaged in fabrication are women
from the area who have no particular technical qualifications, experience, or training
other than that received in a 2-week period on the job.14
Haselhorst 15 testified at some length concerning the Company's efforts to minimize
interference with the employees' concentration, such as reducing the noise level and
improving the lighting in the plant, installation of "kick boards" under the worktables
and "sneeze boards" in front of the operators above the tables, and shifting of em-
ployees' work stations to avoid personal antagonisms and overtalkativeness. He con-
ceded„however, that there were still many problems in this area still unsolved and
that their solutions are affected by "Company economics." He admitted that the
noise level was still too high; that there are no separated corridors and that, therefore,
employees on their way to the cafeteria, to their work stations, and to other parts of
the plant pass through work areas; and that while some of the noisy and vibrating
areas have been enclosed, there are no rules requiring that the doors be closed and
considerable noise and vibration still comes through. It also appears that the several
coffee breaks and lunch periods are announced by the sounding of buzzers throughout
the plant; that people are constantly being paged through the plantwide sound system;
and that employee solicitations by the passing of collection boxes is at least a weekly
occurrence.
Respondent's testimony in support of its position included one witness, a "lead
technician" (excluded from the unit as a supervisor by the decision of the Regional
Director), who testified that he "looked up" from his work when employees wearing
>s If I am correct in holding that the employees were entitled to wear union insignia
even while at work, it is unnecessary to decide whether Respondent's interference with
this right was limited to working time or whether it extended throughout the plant
premises Assuming without granting, however, that Respondent could properly prohibit
the wearing'of union insignia during actual working time, •I find that Respondent made no
distinction along those lines . The testimony on this point is in conflict: Olsen testified
that in his discussions with the employees there was no mention of nonworking time or
nonworking areas but Priscilla Petersen and Doris Heacock clearly and positively testified
that Olsen told them that the buttons were not to be worn at any time or place in the
plant. Dewey was told by Supervisor Herrman that she could not wear her button "at the
plant" and Olsen, in support of his ban on Seydel's earrings, said it had become "a thing
in the plant " Olsen used the expression "during working hours," which also appears in
both the memorandum and the rule posted October 1 to which he referred and MacAloon,
who prepared this material and^from) whom'Olsen received his direction's, testified that he
explained to Olsen that there would be' no objection to the large union buttons if the
employees took them off in the locker room or left them there and pinned them on as they
were leaving the plant The rule itself, as pointed out in the foregoing footnote, is not
clear Based, therefore, upon the credited testimony of the employees and upon the equivo-
cal use of the phrase "working hours," I find that Respondent's prohibition of union in-
signia extended to all parts of the plant and all times between reporting and quitting.
14 In this connection it is also relevant to note that the wage rate of Dewey and Seydel
who, with a hundred others, work as "solderers," is $1 51 per hour. Even among the men
working in the inspection department-with the exception of Henry Bennett, who had
6 years' experience testing for AT. & T. and had been an Air Force radar technician-
there was no evidence of specialized skill and their wage rates were $1 50 for Mitchell
(employed 6 months) ; $1.77 for Heacock (employed 20 months) ; and $2 05 for Gale (em-
ployed 3 years). These comments are no reflection upon these employees or upon the
Respondent but require consideration, together with other evidence detailed herein, in de-
ciding whether the production process was of such delicacy that the mere wearing of
union emblems interfered with its efficient performance by these employees.
16 Respondent 's vice president of engineering.
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union buttons passed through his area and that he saw several of the women under
his supervision also look up, but he conceded that he often looks up briefly when
people pass near him. Another testified that, after hearing about the union buttons
being worn in the inspection department, he and several others walked over to see
them. A third simply testified that he saw the buttons. This evidence-so labori-
ously adduced-is too trifling to merit serious consideration. The supervisor who
took Heacock and Petersen to the personnel office after Heacock "flashed" her button
as she adjusted her sweater, admitted that the incident was over in a moment and that
his reason for taking the women to the office was that they were wearing the buttons.
Respondent introduced no evidence to show that there was any diminution in
employee output or efficiency when the buttons, blouse, or earrings were being worn.
Had any of this been apparent, the line supervisors would undoubtedly have taken
steps on September 27, the first day the buttons were being worn, or at least testified
to such interference with production. Instead, it was not until Olsen's return to the
plant on the following Monday and his telephone conversations with, MacAloon 16
that steps were taken against employees wearing union insignia-and then on the
basis of the no-solicitation rule. It was also not until noon of the following day,
October 1, when the MacAloon-Olsen memorandum was posted, that the first refer-
ence was made to disruption of work concentration and even thereafter the no-
solicitation rule was cited as justification for the prohibition at least as often as
the claim of work disruption.
The Board's statement in Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co 17-albeit in connec-
tion with a slightly different problem in this area; viz, that of oral solicitation'versus
distribution of union literature-that ". . . what is basically involved in each case
arising in this area is the necessity of striking a proper adjustment between conflicting
rights against the background of particular fact situations" is, in my opinion, ap-
plicable here. As indicated above, Respondent has failed to prove its contention that
the wearing of union insignia in the plant had an effect of distracting the attention of
other employees or disrupting their work concentration. It follows, therefore, and I
find, that Respondent's prohibition of the wearing of such insignia was not justified
for the maintenance of employee efficiency or plant discipline; that by prohibiting
employees Bennett, Dewey, Clarence, Heacock, Mitchell, Gale, Seydel, Donohue, Pet-
ersen, and Doris Heacock from wearing union insignia, Respondent interfered, and
continues to interfere, with the organizational rights of these and other employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that, by discharging employees Bennett,
Dewey, Clarence Heacock, Mitchell, Gale, and Seyedel for wearing union insignia,
Respondent discriminated against them to discourage their membership in the Union,
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices burdening and obstructing commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment
of Henry C. Bennett, Ollie May Dewey, Clarence Heacock, James R. Mitchell, Lynn
Gale, and Theron Seydel in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, I shall
recommend that Respondent make these employees whole for any loss of earnings
suffered because of the discrimination against them, with interest thereon at 6 percent
per annum, in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
16 MlacAloon's alleged consultations with Board personnel are irrelevant and Respondent's
"good faith," even if established, would be no defense. (See International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union v N L R B (Bernard Altman Teas Corp ), 366 U S. 731, 735-739 )'
17 138 NLRB 615, 616, footnote 2.
FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED 1631
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Fabri-Tek Incorporated is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By compelling employees to remove and by prohibiting the wearing of union
insignia by employees in the plant, and by threatening employees with loss of employ-
ment if they wore union insignia in the plant, Fabri-Tek Incorporated has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices with-
in the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discrimination in regard to the tenure of employment of Henry C. Bennett,
Ollie May Dewey, Clarence Heacock, James R. Mitchell, Lynn Gale, and Theron
Seydel, to discourage membership in a labor organization, Fabri-Tek Incorporated has
engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and-upon the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Fabri-Tek Incorporated, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring its employees to remove and prohibiting its employees from wearing
union insignia or threatening its employees with suspension or discharge for wearing
union insignia in its plant at Amery, Wisconsin.
(b) Discouraging membeship in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by compelling em-
ployees to remove union insignia, by prohibiting employees from wearing, or by
suspending or discharging employees for wearing, union insignia in said plant or by
discriminating in any like or related manner in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to from, join, or assist Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such right is affected by the provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Make whole Henry C. Bennett, Ollie May Dewey, Clarence Heacock, James
R. Mitchell, Lynn Gale, and Theron Seydel for any loss of pay any of them suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth above in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and personnel records and reports, and other records neces-
sary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended
Order. -
(c) Post at its plant at Amery, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
18 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the 'further event that the Board's Order is enforced by it decree of a
United States Court, of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Oider."
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 18, 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 a
period of at least 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.19
19 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT require our employees to remove, or prohibit them from wear-
ing, union insignia in our plant.
WE WILL NOT discipline or discharge, or threaten to discipline or discharge,
any of our employees to compel them to remove or to prevent them from wear-
ing union insignia in our plant.
WE WILL make whole Henry C. Bennett, Ollie May Dewey, Clarence Hea-
cock, James R. Mitchell, Lynn Gale, and Theron Seydel for any loss of wages
they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory discharge for wearing
or refusing to remove union insignia in our plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the
provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
FABRI-TEK INCORPORATED,
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, 316 Fed-
eral Building, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No. 339-
0112, Extension 2601, if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
Nelson Manufacturing Company and International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-
0569. October 12, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On September 25, 1962, the National Labor Relations Board issued
a Decision and Order in the above-entitled case,' directing, inter alia,
that the Respondent reinstate and make whole 10 employees who the
1138 NLRB 883.
148 NLRB No. 159.