Farm Fans, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 723 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

FARM FANS, INC.
Farm Fans, Inc. and Local 503, Sheet Metal
Workers, International Association , AFL-CIO.
Cases 25-CA-2979 and 25-RC-3662
February 25, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On September 3, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert L.
Piper 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 certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices" alleged in the
complaint and recommended dismissal as to them.
Thereafter, General Counsel and Respondent filed
exceptions to the Decision; General Counsel also
filed a brief in support of his exceptions, and
Respondent a brief in support of the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in the cases, 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, Farm Fans, Inc.,
Indianapolis, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
[Text of Direction of Second Election' omitted
from publication.]
'An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 25 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of
Second Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all
parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted
by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB
1236
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
723
ROBERT L . PIPER , Trial Examiner: On November 21,
19671 Local 503, Sheet Metal Workers International
Association , AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Union), in
Case 25-RC-3662 filed a petition for a representation
election among certain employees of Farm Fans, Inc.
(hereinafter called Respondent ). On the same day the
Union filed charges against Respondent alleging
discrimination by the termination of four named
employees and interference by interrogation . Thereafter
the Union and Respondent entered into a stipulation for
certification upon consent election , specifically including
group leaders in the appropriate unit, approved by the
Regional Director , December 4 . On December 21 said
election was held. Nineteen ballots were cast for and 32
against the Union . In addition there were four challenged
ballots.
On December 28 the Union filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election . On January
30, 1968, the Union filed an amended charge. On January
31, 1968, the Regional Director issued a complaint in
Case 25-CA-2979. The complaint , as later amended,
alleged that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act , as amended (hereinafter
called the Act), by various specified acts of interference,
restraint and coercion and by the discriminatory
termination of five named employees . On February 13,
1968, the Regional Director issued his Report on
Objections , Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of
Hearing, overruling all of the objections except objection
(b) and the additional objectionable conduct alleged in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint, in Case 25 -CA-2979,
and directing that the cases be consolidated for hearing
and decision before a Trial Examiner and that thereafter
Case 25-RC-3662 be transferred to and continued before
the Board . On March 14, 1968, the Regional Director
amended his aforesaid Order Consolidating Cases to
include as additional objectionable conduct the additional
allegations of interference , restraint' and coercion in the
complaint as amended March 8 andl 13, 1968, except that
the objections consolidated for hearing with the complaint
were limited to the period from November 21 to
December 21.2
Respondent ' s answer dated February 8, 1968, as
amended, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices . Pursuant to due notice , this consolidated
proceeding was heard by the Trial Examiner at
Indianapolis , Indiana, between March 18 and 29, 1968.
All parties were represented and accorded all rights of due
process. The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the
official transcript of proceedings is hereby granted.;
Upon the entire record in the ', case and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make^the following:
'All dates hereinafter refer to 1967 unless otherwise indicated
'In the light of the Board 's holding in Ideal Electric & Manufacturing
Co , 134 NLRB 1275 (1961), only that conduct occurring between
November 21, the date of the filing of the petition, and December 21, the
date of the election, is considered in connection with objections to the
election.
3[Corrections omitted from publication.]
174 NLRB No. 105
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent is an Indiana corporation engaged in the
manufacture, sale and distribution of grain handling and
grain drying equipment and related products, with its
office and principal place of business at Indianapolis,
Indiana. During the past year it purchased and received in
Indiana more than $50,000 worth of goods and materials
directly from points outside the State of Indiana, and sold
and shipped more than $50,000 worth of finished products
directly to points outside the State of Indiana. Respondent
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIL THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Issues
This proceeding involves alleged discrimination by the
discharge of one employee and the layoff of four
employees, all prior to the filing by the Union of the
petition for a representation election, alleged interference,
restraint and coercion, and objections to conduct affecting
the election. As noted above, the allegations of the
complaint with respect to interference, restraint, and
coercion and discrimination are in substance the same as
the objections to conduct affecting the election, except
that the latter are limited to the period from November 21
to December 21.
The issues as framed by the pleadings and the
objections are: (1) discriminatory discharge of an
employee on November 10; (2) discriminatory layoff of
four employees on November 17; and (3) interference,
restraint,- and coercion by (a) interrogating employees
concerning union activities, (b) threatening employees with
discharge, layoffs, loss of advancement or promotion, loss
of overtime, closing the plant, or other reprisals because
of their union activities, (c) promising employees
economic and other benefits, including promotions and no
layoffs, for refraining from joining or supporting the
Union, (d) informing employees that their activities were
being kept under surveillance, (e) telling employees that
other employees had been laid off because of their union
membership or activities, and (f) giving employees the
impression of current and prior surveillance of their union
activities.
B. Plant Department and Supervisory Structure
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of grain
drying equipment, primarily fans and heaters, and grain
handling equipment. Respondent's grain drying equipment
is designated as Farm Fans products and its grain
handling equipment is designated as American Standard
products Respondent's production plant is divided into
four principal sections or units: sheet metal fabrication
and welding, machining (milling, drilling, and cutting),
painting, and assembly. Each of these four sections is
divided into two departments, so that Respondent has
eight departments numbered consecutively. Thus, the sheet
metal fabrication and welding section consists of
departments 1 and 2, the machining section consists of
departments 3 and 4, the painting section consists of
departments 5 and 6, and the assembly section consists of
departments 7 and 8. The Farm Fans products were
produced in the odd numbered departments, while the
American Standard or grain handling products were
produced in the even numbered departments. In addition,
during 1967 Respondent introduced and produced a
special piece of equipment, called a Dry-O-Vator, which
was primarily a grain handling type of equipment but,
because of its size and uniqueness, was made in several
special departments, particularly assembly. In general it
was produced in the American Standard or even
numbered departments. However it had two separate and
distinct assembly areas, together designated as department
8, Dry-O-Vator. This department consisted of two
physically separate areas, comprising assembly of the
power train and assembly of the augers.
Paul Sindlinger was Respondent's president and
principal official. James E. Langdon was the plant
manager Langdon's assistant in charge of production
control was Charles Hibbard. The eight departments and
the separate Dry-O-Vator assembly areas were under the
supervision of the following foremen or supervisors-
Herman Snyder was in charge of departments 1, 2, and 4.
Burley Hartsock was the acting supervisor of department
3, because of the illness of regular supervisor John Tracy.
Ralph Sindlinger was the supervisor of departments 5, 6,
7, and 8, Dry-O-Vator only. Robert Ondrusek was the
supervisor of department 8. Under each of these
supervisors were employees called group leaders, assigned
primarily on a functional rather than a departmental
basis. Under Snyder, William Cook was the group leader
of the sheet metal fabrication employees in departments 1
and 2, Fred Mounce was the group leader of the welders
in departments 1 and 2, and Pat Wallace was the group
leader of the employees in department 4. Hartsock had
been the group leader of department 3, but because he
was acting supervisor in the absence of Tracy this
department did not have a group leader as such during the
relevant period. Under Ralph Sindlinger, Charles Joseph
Buckel was the group leader of the painters in
departments 5 and 6, William Russell was the group
leader of assembly department 7 and William Carter was
the group leader of the employees in department 8,
Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly. Under Ondrusek, Larry
Huston was the group leader of department 8, assembly of
American Standard products.
C. The Supervisory Status of Fred Mounce
The complaint alleged that Mounce, the group leader of
the welders in departments 1 and 2, was an agent and a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and contained
some nine allegations of interference, restraint and
coercion by him. The record establishes that group leaders
in general are not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, but, as the term implies, are merely leaders of small
groups of employees under the direct supervision of the
supervisor in charge of the particular department. At the
hearing herein, the General Counsel stipulated that all
group leaders, with the exception of Mounce, were
employees and not supervisors. The Union's
representation petition specifically requested the inclusion
of group leaders as employees within the appropriate unit.
Thereafter the Union and Respondent entered into an
agreement for a consent election, approved by the
FARM FANS, INC.
Regional Director, providing, inter alia, that all group
leaders were employees in the appropriate unit and eligible
to vote. Thereafter the Union and Respondent, as required
by the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election, furnished the Regional Director with an
eligibility list of voters, including group leaders and
Mounce specifically. All of the group leaders, including
Mounce, voted without challenge in the election.
Nevertheless, the General Counsel contends that the
Regional Director's approval of the agreement for a
consent election is not binding upon the General Counsel
and that Mounce was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
Respondent contends, because the matter was
"decided" in the prior representation case by the Regional
Director's approval of the stipulation for a consent
election which included group leaders as employees within
the voting unit, that Mounce's supervisory status, absent
newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence,
cannot be relitigated in a subsequent complaint case,
primarily in reliance upon Section 102.67(f) of the Board's
Rules, which provides, inter alga:
Failure to request review shall preclude such parties
from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have
been, raised in the representation proceeding. [Emphasis
added.1
However, while this principle is well established with
respect to subsequent refusal-to-bargain cases,4 the weight
of authority seems to be contrary to Respondent's
contention and holds that subsequent unfair labor practice
proceedings involving Section 8(a)(1) or (3) as
distinguished from Section 8(a)(5) are not related unfair
labor practice proceedings.' Hence the issue of Mounce's
supervisory status was litigated and is decided herein.
During the relevant period, Mounce was the group
leader of approximately 10 welders in departments 1 and
2 under the supervision of Snyder. Snyder had two other
group leaders under his supervision, Cook, the group
leader of the fabrication employees in departments 1 and
2 and Wallace, the group leader of the employees in
department 4. Although there were more employees in
Mounce's group, in general the duties and responsibilities
of Snyder's three group leaders were substantially the
same and did not include the supervisory powers
delineated in Section 2(11) of the Act. In general,
Mounce's duties consisted of transmitting Respondent's
work orders from Snyder to the welders by assigning work
to the respective welder,, assisting and instructing new and
inexperienced welders, bringing materials and supplies to
the welders by means of a forklift, giving applicants for
employment welding tests subject to Snyder's evaluation
and final decision, generally seeing that the welding work
progressed properly, and performing actual welding from
time to time Respondent's welders were assigned specific
booths or locations, and each was experienced and
specialized in particular types of welding, so that Mounce,
when he received work orders from Snyder, knew without
instruction which welders should be assigned specific fobs.
Only Snyder had the authority to move welders from one
booth or location to another. Upon occasion Mounce
'Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co, v. N L R B., 313 U S. 146 (1941).
'Amalgamated Clothing Workers v N L.R B., 365 F.2d 898 (C.A.D.C.
1966); Stanley Air Tools, 171 NLRB No 48 ( 1968); Ross Porta-Plant,
Inc, 166 NLRB No. 40 (1967), and Wagner Industrial Products Co, Inc,
162 NLRB No 114 (1967)
725
criticized employees for loafing and requested them to get
back to work, but he had no authority to discipline them
or act otherwise in such matters.
The record establishes clearly that Mounce's
assignment of work to the respective welders was merely
routine and did not require the use of independent
judgment. Mounce, as all of the group leaders, was paid
by the hour, whereas Respondent's supervisors were
salaried employees and participated in its bonus plan.
While Mounce's hourly rate was slightly higher than that
of Cook and Wallace, his employment seniority was far
greater and he was clearly Respondent's most experienced
and skilled welder. The record establishes that Mounce, as
all of the group leaders, did not have the power to hire,
fire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, demote,
reward, discipline, grant time off, adjust grievances or
responsibly direct employees, or effectively recommend
such actions. Their duties consisted primarily of
transmitting work assignments, overseeing the flow of
work and engaging in production work themselves. With
the exception of the welding tests, discussed next, the
duties of Mounce were no different than those of Cook
and Wallace, Snyder's other group leaders, who the
General Counsel stipulated were employees within the
meaning of the Act.
The welding tests which Mounce, pursuant to Snyder's
orders, gave to applicants for hire do not establish that
Mounce had the authority to effectively recommend
hiring. The record establishes that any experienced welder
could give such a test, but Snyder selected Mounce
because he was the most experienced welder and more
readily available because he was not regularly assigned to
production work and a specific welding booth. In giving
these tests, Mounce would provide the applicant with the
necessary booth and tools and several parts to weld. In
each instance Snyder brought the applicant to Mounce.
During the course of the test Snyder normally passed by
at least once to observe its progress. In any event, at its
conclusion Mounce brought Snyder the welded parts for
his inspection and evaluation. Snyder had many years of
experience as a welder prior to becoming Respondent's
supervisor. Mounce would advise Snyder of Mounce's
opinion of the applicant's welding ability, upon occasion
stating that the man was either a good welder or unable to
weld. Nevertheless the record establishes that Snyder
made his independent evaluation of the test, and upon
occasion hired applicants who Mouncehad indicated
could not weld and did not hire others who Mounce had
stated were good welders. In addition, from time to time
Snyder hired welders without requiring any test, based
upon his knowledge of their skill and experience as
welders. The General Counsel offered no proof whatsoever
that Mounce was acting for Respondent as an agent,
either authorized, adopted, ratified, condoned or
otherwise, with respect to his alleged acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion. The record establishes and I find
that Mounce was not a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.'
Moreover, assuming arguendo that Mounce was a
supervisor, it is well settled that, in circumstances such as
those present here, Respondent is not liable for any
alleged antiunion conduct engaged in by him. Under facts
substantially similar to those present here, the Board held:
The Trial Examiner found initially, contrary to the
contentions of Respondent, that Koenke, Rapp, and
Beck at all relevant times were supervisors within the
'Ross Porta-Plant , Inc, 166 NLRB No 40 (1967)
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of the Act and therefore that the Respondent
was responsible for certain statements they made to
employees. However, as found by the Trial Examiner,
Rapp, Beck, and Koenke were included in the
bargaining unit by stipulation of the parties and they
voted in the election without challenge. The Board has
held that an employer is not responsible for the
antiunion conduct of a supervisor in circumstances such
as these, in the absence of evidence that the employer
encouraged, authorized or ratified the supervisor's
activities or acted in such a manner as to lead
employees reasonably to believe that the supervisor was
acting for and on behalf of management. Since the
General Counsel has made no such showing in this case,
we find that the preelection conduct of Rapp, Koenke,
and Beck is not chargeable to the Respondent.7
As in the Hy Plains case, the General Counsel here has
offered no proof that Respondent encouraged, authorized
or ratified Mounce's activities or acted in such a manner
as to lead employees reasonably to believe that Mounce
was acting for and on behalf of management.
D. Chronology of Events
During the latter part of October, Marvin Hardcastle, a
welder hired by Respondent June 12, took some tentative
steps to interest his fellow employees in union
organization Hardcastle had been a chief steward of the
Union where he had previously worked. On or about
October 22 he spoke to a fellow employee, Donald Daniel,
at his work station, about the desirability of seeking the
Union's representation. Later that evening they continued
the discussion during a game of pool. On several
occasions between October 30 and November 6
Hardcastle discussed the same subject in ' the plant with
another fellow employee, Carl Schwenzer. No one else
was present during any of these conversations with Daniel
and Schwenzer. According to Hardcastle, whose testimony
I do not credit unless undisputed or corroborated, he
began talking to his fellow employees about union
organization during August. However, the only employees
who testified they had been contacted by Hardcastle with
respect to union organization were Schwenzer and Daniel,
whose contacts originated 1 and 2 weeks respectively
before November 6.
During cross-examination Hardcastle flatly contradicted
a number of statements which he had unequivocally made
during direct examination. After first testifying that there
was no reason why Mounce made out Hardcastle's
employment application for him, he later admitted that he
could not read. On direct examination he testified that
Snyder gave him no reason at the time of his discharge.
on cross-examination he admitted the contrary. After
testifying on direct examination that Mounce took
Snyder's place when the latter was on vacation,
Hardcastle admitted on cross-examination that he could
not recall Snyder being on vacation. After testifying on
direct examination that he knew that Mounce attended
supervisory meetings, on cross-examination he admitted
the contrary After testifying on direct examination that
he called Johnson approximately a month before
Hardcastle was fired, contrary to the testimony of
Johnson, on cross-examination Hardcastle testified that he
could not remember when he called Johnson.
Hardcastle contended that he contacted Donald
Johnson, the Union's business representative,
'Hy Plains Dressed Beef, Inc.. 146 NLRB 1253 (1964)
approximately a month before November 10. However
Johnson, whom I credit, testified that Hardcastle first
contacted him concerning organizing Respondent's
employees and securing union cards on October 30.
Johnson was well acquainted with Hardcastle as a former
chief steward of the Union. Johnson said that Hardcastle's
brother contacted Johnson near the end of October,
advising him that Hardcastle was working for Respondent
and that the employees were interested in being organized.
Johnson told Harcastle's brother that the Union would be
glad to assist and to have Hardcastle call him. Hardcastle
called Johnson on October 30 and Johnson agreed to
bring a supply of union cards to Hardcastle's brother's
home that weekend. On or about November 4 Johnson
delivered approximately 80 union representation cards to
Hardcastle's brother, which Hardcastle picked up
November 4.
On Monday morning, November 6, Hardcastle started
distributing these cards to other employees at the plant.
Hardcastle gave Daniel, who became the other principal
employee organizer, approximately 30 cards. During the
day Hardcastle passed out from 10 to 15 other cards to
individual employees, most of them fellow welders in the
welding department. Hardcastle testified that he made
every effort to conceal his activity from Respondent and
that none of Respondent's supervisors had ever been
present or observed him doing so.
On the afternoon of November 6, Mounce, Hardcastle's
group leader and brother-in-law, advised him that a union
representation card had been found on the assembly line
and asked him if he knew anything about it. After
Hardcastle's reply that he did not, Mounce told him that
if he had anything to do with it he had better watch
himself because Respondent would fire him if it caught
him at it.
On November 6 Daniel passed out from 10 to 20 cards
to other employees and to his knowledge was not observed
by any of Respondent's supervisors. Daniel gave six or
seven of the cards to Schwenzer, who passed them out
that same day. Schwenzer signed his card the same day
and returned it and several other signed cards to Daniel.
Schwenzer testified that no one from Respondent observed
him passing out cards, any of his organizational activities,
or said anything to him about the Union. Hardcastle said
he passed opt about 10 cards November 7 in various
places in the plant while on his way to the restroom or to
get material for his job. He said that he did not pass out
any cards on, November 8, although he talked to
employees about the Union that day. Hardcastle conceded
that none of his organizational activity was observed by
Respondent.
The Union held its first organizational meeting on the
evening of November 7 which was attended by four
employees, Earl Markham, Clint Muse, Jr., Hardcastle,
and Daniel. Hardcastle and Daniel notified the employees
of the meeting. Hardcastle had given Daniel the signed
cards Hardcastle had received. All told Daniel turned in
approximately 15 signed cards to the Union on the
evening of November 7. Daniel passed out about 10 cards
on November 7. Thereafter Daniel continued to pass out
one or two cards practically every day until November 17.
To his knowledge no supervisor ever observed him doing
so. On November 8 Daniel spoke to Thomas Davison, an
employee in department 4, about the Union and gave him
a card. Davison signed the card several days later at home
and mailed it to the Union. Davison said that no one was
present during their conversation, no one could have seen
him receive the card or sign it, and that no supervisor ever
FARM FANS , INC. 727
discussed the Union with him.
Willie Golden, another welder, testified that Hardcastle
gave him a card at his welding booth early on the
morning of November 6. Golden later filled it out in the
men's restroom and returned it to Hardcastle at his
welding booth in the afternoon. According to Golden, he
saw Snyder and Mounce walking along an aisle
approximately 30 feet away when Hardcastle was placing
the card, which was enclosed in an envelope, into his hip
pocket, which also contained several other such envelopes.
Snyder continued on to his office. Mounce came up and
asked Hardcastle what he had in his pocket. Hardcastle
replied that it was personal. Hardcastle, clearly the
Union's leading protagonist, did not corroborate this
incident and failed to testify concerning any such
conversation with Mounce. Snyder denied having ever
observed such an event. Mounce, not a supervisor, was
Hardcastle's brother-in-law and confidant. Mounce helped
Hardcastle originally to secure his job by filling out his
employment application and recommending him to
Snyder. In addition, Mounce filled out Hardcastle's daily
job tickets because Hardcastle was unable to read I credit
Snyder and find that no supervisor of Respondent
observed Golden give Hardcastle an envelope containing a
union representation card.
On November 8, at quitting time , 3:30 p.m., Johnson
and another union official distributed the Union's first
handbill at the entrance to Respondent's parking lot for
employees. The record establishes that this location was
approximately 250 feet from the nearest corner of the
plant, where Respondent's offices and conference room
were located. As the handbilling of departing employees
took place Hardcastle stopped to talk to Johnson for
approximately a minute to a minute and a half. Daniel
testified that he also spoke to Johnson for a few seconds,
asking him to meet Daniel later at the grill because he
had some signed representation cards. Johnson failed to
corroborate any conversation with Daniel While there is
no evidence that any official of Respondent was present
during either conversation or observed the handbilling, it
is a fair inference that Respondent was aware of the
handbilling because of its location and duration. On the
other hand, there is no evidence that individuals could be
identified, let alone heard, at such a distance.
On October 18 Hardcastle reported for work 55
minutes late. During the following week Hardcastle was
absent (From work without notice or permission on
Monday and Wednesday, October 23 and 25. On Friday,
October 27, Snyder called Hardcastle to the office and
warned him orally and in writing against such unexcused
absences and tardiness, advising him that Respondent
could not tolerate their continuation and that he would be
discharged for repetition. Hardcastle promised to do
better. While Respondent was unable to locate this written
warning, it stands undisputed inasmuch as both Snyder
and Haidcastle testified that it was in writing and that
Hardcastle signed it. On the following Monday, October
30, Hardcastle reported for work 20 minutes late without
notice or permission. The next day, Tuesday, he had
another unexcused absence from work without notice. The
following Friday he reported to work 14 minutes late
without notice or permission. All of the foregoing was
prior to the commencement of union activity in the plant
on November 6. During the next week Hardcastle was 5
minutes late on Monday, November 6, on Tuesday,
November 7, he was an hour and 32 minutes late without
notice or permission, and on Thursday, November 9, he
again failed to report for work without notice or
permission. That afternoon Snyder requested Langdon,
both orally and in writing, to discharge Hardcastle
because of his repeated unexcused absences and tardiness
following Snyder's warning on October 27 After Langdon
checked Respondent's records to verify the facts,
Hardcastle's timecard was removed from the rack and his
discharge was authorized effective November 10. The
following morning, Friday, November 10, when
Hardcastle reported to work he discovered the absence of
his timecard and accordingly checked with Snyder. Snyder
informed him that he had been terminated because of his
repeated unexcused absences and tardiness after having
been warned and threatened with termination October 27
On direct examination Hardcastle testified that he did not
ask for and Snyder gave him no reason for the discharge.
On cross-examination, Hardcastle changed his testimony
and admitted that Snyder informed him that he was fired
because of his unexcused absences and tardiness after his
warning.
On November 9 Snyder hired Ronald Dockets on a
temporary basis as a machine operator in department 4 at
the request of and as a favor to Homer Dock ins,' Ronald's
uncle, who was employed under Snyder as a welder.
Snyder admittedly informed Ronald that the job would be
temporary, because Snyder knew that the annual slack
production season was approaching and that Respondent
normally laid off employees at the termination of. its peak
production season. Ronald received a union card at the
plant on November 13, signed it at home and had his aunt
mail it to the Union on November 14. He participated in
several discussions about the Union with fellow employees
in the welding department during break periods. He
testified that no supervisor could have seen him sign the
card or was present during any of the conversations in the
plant, and that no supervisor ever questioned him about or
mentioned the Union to him. On the afternoon of
November 16 at quitting time officials of the Union again
handbilled Respondent's employees at the entrance to the
parking lot, to notify them of a scheduled union meeting
that evening, the second held by the Union.
Approximately 10 to 12 employees attended that meeting.
On or about October 26 Paul Sindlmger went to South
Dakota on a hunting trip and thereafter, to Danville and
Chicago, Illinois, on business trips. As a result he was not
at the plant between October 26 and November 7,
returning to the plant on or about November 8.
Respondent regularly prepared a monthly final' assembly
and anticipated future production schedule of ' its Farm
Fans products, which constituted' 85 percent of all of
Respondent's production. The Farm Fans equipment was
regularly built to inventory rather than to order. This
schedule was personally prepared by Sindlinger, with the
assistance of Langdon and Respondent's purchasing agent.
It was regularly prepared around the first of each month.
It consisted of a final schedule of products to be
assembled for shipment during the current month, and a
projected estimate of products to be produced during
several succeeding months. This projection and assembly
schedule had to be modified and amended each month
because of the seasonal nature of Respondent's business
and Respondent's information concerning potential sales
and shipments in the succeeding months. Sindlinger,
although assisted by Langdon and Respondent's
purchasing agent, alone was responsible for the final
decision as to the final assembly' schedule for the ensuing
month and the projected production for the following
months. As a result of Sindlinger's absence from the city,
Langdon prepared the November schedule, terminating
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATI ONS BOARD
December 31, which when printed was dated November 2.
On or about November 1 Respondent received a special
order for 1,176 fans of a small type from the Mexican
Government for delivery in late December, which order
was in addition to its normal projected production of
Farm Fans equipment for inventory.
When Sindlinger returned to the plant on or about
November 8, he reviewed the final assembly and projected
production schedule prepared by Langdon, and realized
that the assembly and production scheduled for November
and December would not be sufficient to keep the
employees in the plant busy and would necessitate a
substantial layoff. As a result, Sindlinger prepared a
document revising the November 2 schedule, listing the
various items of Farm Fans equipment he felt Respondent
should produce between the following Monday, November
13, and the end of February, 1968, in order to keep most
of the employees busy and thus diminish the amount of
layoff needed while at the same time not unduly
increasing Respondent's inventory, which was subject to
an Indiana personal property tax as of March 1 each year.
He then presented this change in schedule to Langdon and
advised him that, even though it represented an increase
over the November 2 schedule prepared by Langdon, it
still indicated a need for a layoff. This was true not only
because of the substantial reduction in Farm Fans
products to be produced vis-a-vis the peak months of
September and October, but also because Respondent had
substantially completed its production of American
Standard products and the Dry-O-Vator for the year. It
was Langdon's job to determine, from the revised final
assembly schedule for the balance of November and the
projected production schedule of Farm Fans equipment
through February 29, 1968, which employees could be
retained and which should be laid off. Because of the high
rate of employee turnover in the plant, Respondent tried
to retain a nucleus of 35 to 40 trained employees at all
times.
As of November 13, Respondent prepared a new final
assembly schedule for the balance of November and
projected production schedule running through February
29, 1968, based upon the revisions made by Sindlinger as
of November 8, including both increases and decreases in
the projected assembly and production of individually
listed products, but comprising a net overall increase
vis-a-vis Langdon's production schedule of November 2.
In addition to the net overall increase in regular items of
Farm Fans equipment reflected in the schedule of
November 13, it also included the Mexican special order
for 1,176 fans, which was not included in the schedule
prepared by Langdon on November 2. Although this was
a large single order in terms of numbers it did not
represent a substantial factor in overall production hours,
inasmuch as it required approximately only 1 hour of
production working time for each fan. In spite of this
unusual order, the record establishes that Respondent's
total production hours declined from 12,000 in October to
approximately 8,600 in November. Langdon used the
revised schedule of November 13 to determine the amount
of layoff and the departments from which employees
should be laid off. Langdon selected the employees to be
laid off as of the following Friday, November 17
Sindlinger was not aware of the number of or particular
employees selected for layoff On November 17 at the
completion of the workday Respondent laid off Ronald
Dockins and Davison, employed in department 4 as
general machine operators, Daniel, employed in
department 3 as the blade balancer, and Schwenzer,
employed in department 8, Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly
section.
Gary Martin had been employed by Respondent'' off
and on since 1960, had worked for Respondent as its
blade balancer from 5 to, 6 years, and had quit
Respondent's employ August 25, approximately a month
before Daniel was hired as Respondent's blade balancer.
Martin resigned 1o accept employment elsewhere. Both
Sindlinger and Langdon told him he could return any time
he so desired. After Martin's resignation and before
Daniel was hired, on one occasion Martin by special
arrangement with Respondent returned to balance some
blades which nobody, including the supervisor, had been
able to balance. Around November 1, Langdon asked
Martin if, in addition to his regular job, he would work
nights for Respondent helping balance blades for the
newly received Mexican order, but this, request was not
repeated and did not bear fruit On or about the afternoon
of November 17, Langdon called Martin and asked him if
he would return to his former job as blade balancer full
time. Martin agreed and quit his then employment
because the job with Respondent paid more. Martin
reported for work on Monday, November 20, and
thereafter continued in Respondent's employ as its only
blade balancer, Daniel having been "laid off" the
afternoon of November 17. After Martin's return, he was
able to balance some 90 percent of 50 to 60 blades which
had been consigned to scrap because Daniel was unable to
balance them.
On November 21, the Union filed a charge against
Respondent alleging that it had discriminatorily
terminated Hardcastle on November 10 and Daniel,
Dockins and Davison on November 17. The same day the
Union filed its petition for a representation election. On
December 1 the Union and Respondent entered into the
Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election,
approved by the Regional Director on December 4.
On or about December 2 Golden, one of the welders,
had a conversation with Snyder, his supervisor Snyder
asked Golden if he knew that the Union was trying to get
in Golden replied that he did. Snyder then told Golden
that because there was not enough work to keep the
employees on one machine all the time, Respondent had
been moving them from one machine to another, but that
if the Union came in Respondent would be unable to do
so and would have to keep each employee on the same
machine and therefore would have to lay off some
employees. Snyder further informed Golden that if the
Union did not get in there would be no layoffs. Snyder
did not deny the foregoing.
On or about December 2, approximately 3 weeks after
he was fired, Hardcastle was on a hunting trip with two of
his brothers and Mounce, his brother-in-law Hardcastle
asked Mounce how the Union's election campaign was
progressing. Mounce replied that if the Union won, he
would try to have Respondent put him on a salary so that
he would not have to join the Union and that if it would
not do so he was going to quit. Mounce also told
Hardcastle that if he had been more friendly with
management he could have gotten a raise without the
Union. Mounce also said that if the Union won the
election, Respondent was going to put on a night shift in
order to eliminate overtime, or they might possibly move
the plant.
On or about December 7 Snyder had a conversation
concerning the Union with Homer Dockins, a welder and
Ronald Dockins' uncle. During the latter part of
September Snyder had suggested to Homer the possibility
FARM FANS, INC.
of his being promoted to a second group leader of the
welders and asked if he would be interested. On or about
December 7 Snyder asked Homer how he felt about the
coming union election, adding that the way things stood
right then Homer had a good chance to become a group
leader of the welders, but that if the Union won the
election Snyder's hands might be tied and he could not
promise Homer the job as a group leader. Snyder did not
deny the foregoing. Homer was promoted by Respondent
to a group leader on February 19, 1968.
On or about December 10 Langdon approached Golden
at his welding booth and asked him how he felt about the
Union Golden replied that he did not know. Langdon
then stated that some places might need a union and some
places might not, he did not know. Langdon did not deny
the foregoing.
On December 11, the Union was furnished with an
Excelsior list of employees provided by Respondent, which
list was ultimately submitted by the Union and
Respondent as the eligibility list for the election. Shortly
thereafter the Union officials engaged in a series of
evening visits to the homes of the employees to persuade
them to support the Union. On or about December 15,
Johnson and another union official visited Earl Markham
at his home with respect to the forthcoming election.
Markham was employed as a grinder in department 1
under Mounce and Snyder. The following day Langdon
approached Markham at his work station and asked him
if he had any visitors the previous night. Markham replied
that he had. Langdon then asked what they had been
talking about. Markham replied that the talk was the
usual thing. Langdon did not deny the foregoing, and in
addition admitted that he had learned through the
"grapevine" that employees had been receiving "some
visitors" evenings and that he had also asked Homer
Dockins if he had any visitors the night before, to which
Dockins had replied affirmatively.
On or about December 19, according to Clint Muse, a
welder, Langdon asked Muse at his welding booth if he
felt they needed the Union in the plant. Muse replied that
he did not know because he had not been there long
enough. Langdon then said that he did not think the
Union would help and that Respondent was treating
everybody pretty well. Langdon asked Muse if there was
anything he did not like about Respondent. Muse replied
that he did not like to work overtime and wanted to work
only 40 hours a week. Langdon replied that if the Union
did not get in things were going to change after the first
of the year. Langdon admitted a conversation with Muse
at the time, but stated that he had asked Muse if he had
seen the election notice on the bulletin board, Muse had
replied affirmatively and Langdon had told him to be sure
to vote Langdon, whom I credit, denied stating that there
would be any changes made after the first of the year.
I do not credit Muse because of certain
self-contradictions and testimony contrary to undisputed
facts. During his direct testimony Muse stated that when
he was hired by Snyder, he informed Muse that if an
employee missed 3 days in a row without calling in he
would be fired. On cross-examination Muse stated that
Snyder did not say anything about calling in when an
employee was going to be absent. On direct examination
Muse testified that Snyder told him when he was hired
that there would not be any layoffs because Respondent
had a big order coming in from the Mexican Government.
Muse was hired September 26. Yet the record establishes
beyond dispute that Respondent could not possibly, have
had any knowledge of such an order prior to October,
7 29
when it first learned of the request for bids. Respondent
did not receive the order until November 1. During direct
examination Muse testified that about the third week in
December, Snyder told him that Respondent was going to
increase the number of welders to 26 and put on a night
shift. This was more than a month after the layoff, at a
time when Respondent had only 10 welders, was having
difficulty finding enough work for them, and was already
planning a second layoff which actually occurred January
5, 1968. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Respondent
always had had layoffs in the fall after the conclusion of
its peak seasonal production and shipments. Yet, on
cross-examination Muse admitted knowing that the
workload in his department had tapered off around the
middle of November and that from that time on he was
no longer working any overtime. He also admitted that
the number of welders employed by Respondent in
December was less than in October and November. Muse
also stated that on or about December 19 Mounce asked
Muse at his welding booth what he thought about the
Union. Muse did not reply. Mounce then told Muse that
if the Union did not get in Mounce knew that all of the
welders would get $3 an hour after the first of the year.
Muse was making $2.75 an hour at that time and
continued to do so the following year.
On or about December 19 Langdon asked Homer
Dockins at his work station how he felt about the Union.
Dockins replied that it made no difference to him one way
or the other, he had worked with one and without one in
other plants and he did not really care. Dockins further
advised Langdon that if the Union got in Dockins
intended to join the Union because he was not going to be
the only man working in the shop that did not belong to
it. Langdon replied that he knew what Dockins meant or
how he felt. The foregoing was not denied by Langdon.
On or about December 19 Mounce and another welder,
Clifton Carnes, were discussing the Union and the
forthcoming election. Mounce stated that the Union was
no good and that he knew that none of the men in his
department would vote for it.
During the preparation of the December final assembly
and anticipated production schedule through February,
1968, Sindlinger and Langdon again realized that a
further layoff of employees would be, necessary because of
the lack of work. The December schedule was
substantially the same as that prepared November 13,
minus the production of November. Final assembly and
shipment of the Mexican order occurred shortly after
mid-December and thereafter the production workload
was lower than ever. As in November, Langdon
determined the departments and number of employees to
be laid off. Langdon proposed' a layoff around the third
week of December but Sindlinger decided to postpone it
until January because of the imminence of Christmas.
This was also shortly before the scheduled union election.
The plant was closed for production between Christmas
and New Years day. Eight employees were'' laid off
Friday, January 5, 1968, two from department 7, three
from department 3, a welder from department l,' a forklift
operator, and the group leader of department '8,
Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly,, its only remaining
employee. Golden, the welder, had served as the union
observer at the election. The complaint does not allege,
nor does the General Counsel contend, that the" layoff of
January 5, 1968 was discriminatory or in violation of the
Act. The same reason as that of November 17, lack of
need, amplified by the production completed in November
and December with the projected production remaining
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unchanged, motivated the layoff of January 5, 1968.
On December 21 the Union lost the election, 19 to 32.
On December 28 the Union filed objections to conduct
affecting the election. During mid-January 1968, Carnes
had another conversation with Mounce during which
Carnes stated that he had attended all the meetings of the
Union and did not see anything wrong with the Union.
Mounce replied that he knew everyone who had attended
the meetings.
On January 22, 1968, Respondent recalled one of the
department 3 employees laid off January 5. On January
30, 1968, the Union filed an amended charge including
Schwenzer among the group alleged to have been
discriminatorily laid off November 17. On January 31, the
complaint herein was issued. On February 8, 1968
Respondent recalled Carter, the group leader of
department 8, Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly, and one of
the department 7 employees laid off January 5, 1968.
Shortly before February 12, 1968, Snyder told Carnes
that he intended to recall Golden, the welder laid off
January 5, 1968. Golden and Carnes were friends. Carnes
asked Snyder if he wanted Carnes to get ahold of Golden
for him. Snyder replied negatively, stating that he had to
send Golden a registered letter of recall. On February 12,
1968, Respondent sent Golden the registered letter of
recall, which Golden did not receive because he had
moved, had not advised Respondent of his change of
address, and apparently had not left a forwarding address
with the post office because the letter was returned
"addressee unknown." Shortly after this Snyder and
Carnes had another conversation about Golden during
which Snyder, according to Carnes, said that if Golden
had "kept his nose clean" he would still be working.
According to Snyder, he told Carnes that if Golden had
minded his own business, let the rest of the welders alone,
quit talking and done his work Snyder could have kept
him around welding fixtures and racks like the other
welders and would not have had to lay him off. Snyder
testified that Langdon had happened by on several
occasions when Golden was not working and had
suggested to Snyder that Golden be laid off if Snyder
could not keep him busy. Although Golden did not receive
the letter of recall, Carnes told him about it. Golden
contacted Respondent and refused to return to work
unless he received a raise and as a result did not return. In
this instance I am inclined to credit Snyder. Even
crediting Carnes' version, Snyder's reference to Golden's
"keeping his nose clean" could well have referred to his
standing around talking when he should have been
working and did not necessarily refer, as Carnes admitted,
to Golden's union activities.
On February 12, 1968, Respondent also sent a
registered letter of recall to Davison, which was also
returned "addressee unknown" because Davison had
moved without notifying Respondent or the post office.
On February 13, 1968, the Regional Director issued his
report on objections and order consolidating cases. On
February 19, 1968, Respondent recalled another
department 3 employee laid off January 5, 1968. During
the latter part of February 1968, Respondent learned that
Ronald Dockins had been inducted into the Marine Corps
and was scheduled to serve for 2 years commencing
March 1, 1968. Therefore Respondent did not send
Dockins a letter of recall but placed him on military leave
of absence as of March 1, 1968. Dockins was in the same
department, 4, as Davison, who was entitled to recall
earlier because of greater seniority. On March 4, 1968,
Respondent sent a registered letter of recall to Schwenzer,
who also did not receive it because he had moved without
notifying Respondent or the post office. Respondent did
not send a letter of recall to Daniel, because, as Langdon
testified, Respondent had replaced Daniel as the balancer
with Martin, who was a more experienced and skilled
balancer, and Respondent had only one such job in its
plant. On March 14, 1968, the Regional Director
amended his report on objections and order consolidating
cases to include the allegations of the complaint as
amended March 8 and 13, 1968.
E. Alleged Discrimination
1. The discharge of Hardcastle
As hereinabove found, Hardcastle was employed by
Respondent as a welder June 12 as a result of the
recommendation and assistance of his brother-in-law,
Mounce. Snyder testified, and Hardcastle admitted, that
when he was hired Snyder informed him that Respondent
wanted a full 8 hour's work each day. After having been
warned orally and in writing on October 27 for repeated
unexcused absences and tardiness, Hardcastle was
discharged on November 10 for continued unexcused
tardiness and absences thereafter, culminating with his
unexcused absence from work November 9. After having
been warned that he would be discharged for such conduct
and having promised to do better, Hardcastle had four
unexcused tardinesses and two unexcused absences in the
next 2 weeks. There is no evidence in the record that
Respondent was aware of any union activities by
Hardcastle. It is possible that Mounce, Hardcastle's
brother-in-law, who has been found not to be a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, was so aware, but his
knowledge, if any, was not that of Respondent.8
Hardcastle discussed the possibility of seeking union
representation with only two employees during the 2
weeks prior to November 6, and distributed representation
cards to employees in the plant for only 2 days,
November 6 and 7, prior to his discharge. Not only is
there no evidence in the record that Respondent was
aware of any of these activities, but Hardcastle himself
admitted that he was careful to prevent any supervisor
from observing them. His brief conversation of one to one
and a half minutes at the entrance to the employees'
parking lot some 250 feet from the office when Johnson
was distributing union handbills at quitting time
November 8 certainly cannot be equated with knowledge
of Hardcastle's union activities. There is no evidence that
anyone from Respondent was present or observed this
conversation nor is there any evidence that individual
persons could be identified at that distance. Clearly the
conversation could not have been heard. Even if it had
been observed from the offices, a brief casual conversation
in passing between an employee and a person distributing
union handbills could hardly warrant an inference that
Respondent was thus made aware of Hardcastle's union
activities or sympathies
The incident in the plant on November 6 prior to
Hardcastle's discharge involved Mounce asking
Hardcastle if he knew anything about a union card which
had been found on the assembly line and warning him that
he might be fired if he was responsible for it. It seems
clear that Mounce as Hardcastle's brother-in-law was
aware of Hardcastle's membership in and position as chief
steward of the Union during his prior employment in
'Diana Shops of Washington State , Inc, 170 NLRB No 54 (1968).
FARM FANS, INC.
another plant. Respondent of course is not chargeable
with responsibility for antiunion statements by fellow
employees, and in fact interference therewith could
constitute a violation of the Act, With respect to the
incident on the afternoon of November 6, when
Hardcastle allegedly placed an envelope containing
Golden's union card in Hardcastle's hip pocket,
Hardcastle himself did not corroborate this incident and
Snyder denied having witnessed any such action. If in fact
Mounce asked Hardcastle anything, as claimed by
Golden, again this was an inquiry by a fellow employee
and not by a supervisor. The General Counsel of course
has the burden of proving that Respondent knew of
Hardcastle's union activities. Without such knowledge, it
cannot be concluded that Respondent discharged
Hardcastle because of his union membership or activities.
Furthermore, although not essential under such
circumstances, Respondent established good and adequate
cause for Hardcastle's discharge.
The General Counsel contended that Hardcastle's
discharge was not in conformity with Respondent's rules
and policies, because of the existence of an old set of rules
adopted by the American Planter Company, which
company had been acquired by Respondent at the time of
its acquisition of the American Standard product line.
Such a set of rules, dated August 1, 1962, was received in
evidence. Langdon, who was in charge of such matters,
testified that these rules had not been adopted as
Respondent's rules but had been furnished to him as a
general guide to follow, and that he used them as a guide
and reference with respect to problems of employee
holiday and vacation pay. With respect to absenteeism,
these rules provided among other things that an employee
who failed to report his absence from work would be
removed as quitting without notice following the third
consecutive working day of such absence. They also
provided that an employee unable to report for work
should, if possible, telephone the Company prior to or at
the beginning of his scheduled work shift.
The General Counsel contended that because
Hardcastle had not been absent for 3 consecutive days,
Respondent violated its own rules in discharging him.
Under the General Counsel's view, apparently an
employee could fail to report for work without excuse two
out of every three working days and not be subject to
discharge. Snyder, while unfamiliar with and unaware of
such printed rules, testified that he was aware of a general
rule of Respondent that an employee absent 3 days
without notice was subject to discharge. The existence of
such a rule, of course, would not negate or prevent a rule
providing for discharge for excessive unexcused
absenteeism. The record establishes, and I find, that these
prior rules of the American Planter Company had not
been adopted as Respondent's official rules. Respondent
in fact had no official printed rules. Langdon stated that
he tried to follow standard industrial practice in the
absence of any formal adopted rules. In the light of
Hardcastle's unexcused absences and his prior warning,
his discharge was certainly not contrary to normal
standards. Assuming arguendo that the American Planter
rules had been adopted by Respondent, another rule
therein did warrant Hardcastle's discharge. Article 6,
entitled "Plant Rules and Regulations," provided, inter
alia: "Failure to abide by these regulations makes an
employee liable to warning notice, suspension or
discharge." Subdivision 4 under that Article included
"excessive absenteeism." Construction of that rule, in
conjunction with those relied upon by the General
731
Counsel , makes clear that it had reference to excessive
unexcused absenteeism.
The General Counsel offered in evidence a number of
Respondent ' s records which established numerous
absences and tardiness by other employees . However these
records failed to establish whether such absences and late
arrivals were excused or unexcused . The record establishes
beyond dispute that Hardcastle ' s late arrivals and
absences resulting in the warning of October 27 and those
occurring between it and his discharge were unexcused.
Upon a consideration of the entire record I am convinced
and find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain his
burden of proving that Hardcastle was discharged because
of his union membership or activities in violation of the
Act.
2. The November 17 layoff
As hereinabove found, at the conclusion of work,
November 17, Respondent laid off Ronald Dockins,
Davison, Daniel and Schwenzer. Dockins and ' Davison
were employed as general machine operators in
department 4, under the supervision of Snyder, Schwenzer
was employed as an assembler in department 8,
Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly section, under the
supervision of Ralph Sindlinger, and Daniel was employed
in department 3 as the blade balancer, under the
supervision of Hartsock, acting supervisor. As in the case
of Hardcastle, the record contains no evidence of any
knowledge by Respondent of any union activities prior
thereto by the employees laid off November 17, nor any
evidence of antiunion animus or interference, restraint or
coercion by Respondent prior thereto. The only incidents
prior to November 17 were the two conversations on
November 6 between Hardcastle and Mounce, previously
considered in connection with Hardcastle's discharge.
Mounce has been found not to be a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. In addition, there were the two brief
conversations on the evening of November 8, between
Johnson and Hardcastle and Johnson and Daniel, one and
a half minutes and a few seconds, respectively, when
Johnson was distributing union handbills at the employee
parking lot entrance. The complaint contains no alleged
interference, restraint or coercion by anyone other than
Mounce prior to November 17. The General Counsel,
having offered little or no proof of antiunion animus,
interference, restraint or coercion and most importantly
knowledge of union activities prior to November 17,
offered literally hundreds of pages of testimony and
exhibits, including Respondent's records of sales,
shipments, orders, inventories of raw material, parts, and
completed products, production, production schedules and
hours worked, all for substantial periods before and after
the date of the layoff, in an attempt to establish that
Respondent's layoff of November 17 was not
economically warranted or needed, or if it was, that
Respondent could or should have selected other
departments and/or other employees rather than Dockins,
Davison, Schwenzer, and Daniel, contending that such
proof warranted an inference the layoff and/or the
selection were discriminatorily motivated. Proving a
negative does not establish the affirmative. Clearly, absent
antiunion motivation, Respondent could have made its
layoff and/or selection for any other reason without
violating the Act.
The record establishes beyond dispute that
Respondent's business was seasonal. Respondent produced
two basic types of products, grain drying equipment,
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consisting primarily of fans and heaters, which constituted
approximately 85 percent of Respondent's overall
production, and grain handling equipment, which
constituted approximately 15 percent of its total
production, including the Dry-O-Vator, introduced in 1967
on a limited basis. The ultimate consumers of these
products were farmers, and the Farm Fans or grain drying
equipment was purchased on a seasonal basis, primarily
during the corn harvest season. This grain drying
equipment could be used for drying many kinds of grain,
but its principal use was for drying corn. The demand for
and sale of this product were concentrated in the summer
months, normally June, July, August, and September,
with its peak sales and shipments corresponding with the
corn harvest season. Prior to 1967, Respondent's peak
month of sales and shipments had always been September.
Because of an extremely dry summer and late rains and
harvesting, in 1967 its peak sales and shipments occurred
in October. Percentage wise, in 1967 October represented
20 percent of Respondent's total 1967 sales, September
represented 17 1/2 percent, November 10 percent, and
December 6 1/2 percent.
Respondent had always laid off employees in the fall
after the conclusion of its peak sales and shipments for at
least three reasons: because its sales were seasonal,
concentrated during the summer months and culminating
with the harvest season; because of Indiana's personal
property tax based upon property in inventory as of
March 1 each year; and because Respondent was unable
to allocate sufficient space and funds to stockpile large
quantities of equipment during the months between the
busy season As a result, Respondent always laid off
employees in either October or November after the peak
of its sales and shipment. After achieving its goal of the
lowest possible inventory by March 1, Respondent
gradually increased production by increasing its work
force by recalls and new hires, normally culminating in a
peak of production during August and September.
Respondent manufactured its Farm Fans equipment to
inventory rather than order, because its customers were
original equipment manufacturers who in turn sold the
combined fan and heater units in grain bins to the
ultimate consumer, the farmer, and did not normally
order until during the growing and harvesting season. As a
result Respondent planned its production schedules to
reach a peak at that time, piling up inventory of the Farm
Fans equipment during the spring and summer months.
As the height of the sales season approached, Respondent
started to reduce its production schedule so that after the
peak of sales and the following substantial decline in
shipments, its inventory would be reduced to the lowest
possible point on or before March 1. Respondent first
reduced its production by eliminating overtime and later
by laying off employees. However, because of a
substantial turnover in employees and its desire to retain a
nucleus of skilled and experienced employees in order to
avoid the time and expense of recruiting and training new
employees, Respondent always tried to maintain a nucleus
of from 35 to 40 experienced employees, even though it
was necessary to search for work for them and they were
not all needed for production purposes during the winter
months.
Unlike the Farm Fans equipment, the American
Standard equipment, which constituted only 15 percent of
Respondent's production, was built to order rather than
inventory. From experience Respondent knew that it
received few if any orders for that equipment after
September and October, and accordingly its production
was also first diminished and then substantially eliminated
at that time of year. Respondent introduced the
Dry-O-Vator in 1967 and scheduled production of only
300 for field test purposes In fact Respondent produced
296, including 6 prototype machines. At the time of the
layoff on November 17 the production of both American
Standard and Dry-O-Vator equipment had been
substantially if not entirely completed for the year.
Langdon alone determined the departments and
particular employees to be laid off. He followed seniority
within the classification within the department, although
with respect to Schwenzer and Daniel it is apparent from
the record that additional factors entered into their
selection. Langdon, who was aware that American
Standard and Dry-O-Vator production had substantially
terminated, selected Ronald Dockins and Davison from
department 4 (machining), Schwenzer from department 8,
Dry-O-Vator, auger assembly, and Daniel, the blade
balancer from department 3, and informed their respective
foremen that they were to be laid off at the completion of
work November 17. All four had been employed by
Respondent for less than 2 months except Schwenzer,
whose employment exceeded 2 months by 3 days.
a. Ronald Dockins and Thomas Davison
Davison and Dockins were employed as general purpose
machine operators in department 4, American Standard
machining. On November 17 that department consisted of
four employees in addition to Wallace, the group leader.
Ronald Dockins had been hired November 9 by Snyder at
the request of and as a favor to his uncle, Homer
Dockins. At the time Ronald was hired, Snyder
admittedly informed him that his employment would be
temporary Cecil Frazier, another employee in that
department, had injured his back and was unable to do
heavy lifting, so Snyder hired Ronald to assist in that
respect. Ronald was, of course, the employee with the
lowest seniority in the department, having been employed
only 8 days prior to the layoff. The work in the
department had declined to such an extent that during the
last 2 days of Ronald's employment, Thursday and
Friday, November 16 and 17, he was assigned to cleaning
the corn crib outside the plant Thursday and to cutting
grass Friday. Davison was the employee with the next
lowest seniority in department 4, having been hired after
both of the other two employees, Lujan and Frazier, and
having been transferred into the department after they
were in the department. Davison was hired September 20
as a welder in department 2 upon his representation that
he had previous welding experience, but proved unable to
do the job. As a result on October 4 Snyder transferred
Davison to department 4, also under Snyder.
On the afternoon of November 17, Snyder, having been
instructed by Langdon to lay off Davison and Ronald
Dockins, called them into his office and advised them that
they were being laid off because of lack of work. He also
advised them that he did not know how long the layoff
would last but that when Respondent had need for them
he would recall them. As hereinabove found, at that time
Respondent had no knowledge of either of them having
engaged in any union activities. No supervisor ever
discussed the Union or union activities with either of
them Department 4 was engaged in the machining of
American Standard products and the Dry-O-Vator, the
annual production of which was substantially completed as
of November 17 Davison and Dockins were the two
employees in the department with the least seniority.
FARM FANS, INC.
Dockins had been informed at the time of his hire that his
employment would be temporary. While it was not
essential to establish, particularly in view of the lack of
knowledge of Respondent of any union activities on the
part of Davison and Dockins, it is apparent that their
selection for layoff was both logical and appropriate. On
February 12, 1968, Respondent sent Davison a letter of
recall, which he never received because he had moved
without notifying either Respondent or the post office.
Shortly thereafter Respondent learned that Dockins had
been inducted into the Marine Corps for 2 years as of
March 1, 1968. Accordingly as of March 1, 1968,
Respondent changed Dockets' status from laid off to
military leave of absence.
b. Carl Schwenzer
Schwenzer was employed September 14 in the auger
assembly section of department 8, Dry-O-Vator, under the
supervision of Ralph Sindlinger. As previously found, this
was a different department from regular department 8,
assembly of American Standard products, which was
under the supervision of Ondrusek. Although it carried the
same number it was a different department in a different
location of the plant under a different supervisor. The
Dry-O-Vator assembly department was divided into two
sections, also located in separate parts of the plant, one
devoted to the assembly of the Dry-O-Vator power trains
and the other to the assembly of the Dry-O-Vator augers.
At the time of the layoff there were only two employees
in each section, William Martin and Donota Corona in
the power train assembly section, and Schwenzer and
William Carter, the group leader, in the auger assembly
section. As hereinabove noted, the Dry-O-Vator was a
new product in 1967 with production limited to
approximately 300 for the purposes of field tests As a
result of these tests, Respondent had learned of numerous
breakdowns and had received returns to the plant of
Dry-O-Vator parts found defective in the field. Martin
and Corona, the two employees in the power train
assembly section, had been specially trained by
Respondent's engineers for approximately 5 weeks and
were needed by Respondent to repair the returned power
train assemblies and `to produce parts for the repair of
defective Dry-O-Vators. The record establishes that it
would have required approximately 5 weeks to train
replacements. On the other hand, the assembly of the
augers was a comparatively simply function which did not
require any special training or experience. Consequently,
in selecting an employee for layoff from department 8,
Dry-O-Vator, Langdon excluded the two skilled employees
whose services Respondent needed and could not readily
replace and decided to lay off one employee from the
auger assembly section. As between Carter and
Schwenzer, Carter not only was the group leader but had
seniority.
On a departmental basis, Schwenzer had seniority over
both Martin and Corona but did not have their skills or
training The General Counsel contends that one of them
should have been selected for layoff before Schwenzer,
because he had the same classification in the same
department, although the record establishes that the two
Dry-O-Vator assembly sections were separate and distinct.
Clearly Respondent had the right to retain skilled and
experienced employees actually performing a different
function in a different section, although classified in the
same department and lower in seniority, as long as its
selection was not based upon the union activities of the
733
employees concerned. As in the case of all of the others
laid off November 17, the record contains no proof that
Respondent was aware of any union activities on the part
of Schwenzer. In addition, no supervisor ever discussed
the Union or union activities with him. Ralph Sindlinger
notified Schwenzer on the afternoon of November 17 that
he was being laid off because of lack of work. On March
4, 1968 Respondent sent Schwenzer a recall letter, which
he did not receive because he had moved without notifying
Respondent or the post office.
Although the General Counsel contends that
Respondent should have selected Martin or Corona rather
than Schwenzer because of their lesser seniority,
Respondent's subsequent action in the layoff of January 5,
1968, tends to establish that Respondent's selection of
Schwenzer was not discriminatorily motivated. In that
layoff, which the General Counsel does not contend was
discriminatory, Respondent selected Carter, the group
leader of and last employee in the auger assembly section
with substantially greater seniority than either Martin or
Corona, and retained them for the same reason: their job
required skill and training whereas Carter's did not. There
is no evidence or contention that Carter had engaged in
any union activities or that Respondent was so motivated.
As a matter of fact, Respondent probably would have
been warranted in making a substantially larger layoff on
November 17. After the preparation of the December
production schedule, which was substantially the same as
the projected production in the schedule of November 13
with the exception of the products completed in
November, Respondent realized the necessity for an
additional layoff of eight more employees, which it
postponed until after Christmas. Although this layoff was
based upon substantially the same projected production
schedule and the record establishes that at that time
Respondent was fully aware of the employees' union
activities and specifically aware of Golden's participation
therein, nevertheless the General Counsel does not contend
that this layoff was unwarranted or discriminatory.
c. Donald H. Daniel, Jr.
It seems apparent from the record that Daniel was laid
off by Respondent not because of lack of work but
because Respondent desired to replace him with a former
employee, who the record establishes, and Respondent
knew, was more experienced and skilled in blade
balancing, the job held by Daniel. Daniel commenced
working for Respondent on September 23, and was
assigned the job of balancing blades. This work was
performed on two machines, called a dynamic and a static
balancer, respectively. Basically Daniel worked only on
the dynamic balancer. This was a motor driven device
with an attached meter which indicated where and how
much a blade was out of balance so that weights could be
attached at the appropriate place in order to balance the
blade. There was only one set of such instruments. As a
result Respondent employed only one balancer because
only one person at a time could do balancing.
Gary Martin had worked for Respondent on and off for
approximately 7 years prior to Daniel's employment,
during which he worked as Respondent's balancer
approximately 5 to 6 years. He was a very skilled and
experienced balancer, having on one occasion been able to
balance some blades that no one else in the plant,
including the supervisor, could. On August 25 Martin
resigned from Respondent with notice. He spoke to both
Sindlinger and Langdon, advising them that he had a
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
good opportunity to go into business and was therefore
leaving. Sindlmger wished him luck, advised him that such
things did not always work out and told him that any time
he wanted to return he could do so. Langdon also told
Martin that any time he wanted to return he could do so.
Sometime during the work week ending November 17,
apparently on or before November 17, Langdon called
Martin and asked him if he would return to work for
Respondent as balancer. As a result Martin quit his then
employment, which had not turned out as well as he had
hoped, and agreed to return to Respondent on Monday,
November 20, because the job paid more than his then
employment. It is apparent that this arrangement occurred
prior to Daniel's layoff on the afternoon of November 17,
and that Daniel was laid off not because of lack of work
but because Respondent preferred the more experienced
and skilled services of Martin. After Martin returned
November 20, he was the only balancer. After his return,
he was able to balance approximately 90 percent of some
50 to 60 blades which had been discarded by Daniel as
scrap because he was unable to balance them
Next to Hardcastle, Daniel was the most active union
protagonist. All told he passed out about 50 union cards
prior to his layoff and secured about 15 or 16 signatures.
However, as in the case of Hardcastle and all of the
others laid off, there is no evidence that Respondent was
aware of any union activities by Daniel prior to his layoff.
No supervisor ever discussed the Union or union activities
with Daniel. It is apparent that Respondent "laid off"
Daniel because it desired to replace him with Martin.
While this may have been unfair and discriminatory to
Daniel, discrimination unrelated to union activities or
membership is not a violation of the Act Unlike the
others laid off, Respondent made no attempt to recall
Daniel, again for the same basic reason: Martin was still
employed by Respondent and Respondent had no need for
Daniel's services.
Upon a consideration of the entire record, I am
satisfied and find that the General Counsel has failed to
sustain his burden of proving that Respondent
discriminatorily laid off Ronald Dockins, Davison,
Schwenzer or Daniel in violation of the Act, as alleged in
the complaint.
F. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The complaint contains no allegations of interference,
restraint, and coercion prior to November 17 except the
two incidents previously considered involving Mounce,
hereinbefore found not to be a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. The complaint also contained several
allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion
concerning which the General Counsel offered no proof. A
number of the other allegations involved statements by
Mounce previously found hereinabove in section IV, D,
for which Respondent cannot be held responsible because
Mounce was an employee and not a supervisor These
specific allegations involving Mounce will not be repeated
or considered in this section.
1. Plant Manager Langdon
The complaint also alleged that in the first part of
December, Langdon interrogated employees concerning
their union activities and gave them the impression that
Respondent was keeping their union activities under
surveillance; on December 18 interrogated employees
conceining their union activities; and on December 19
interrogated employees concerning their union activities
and promised them economic and other benefits to refrain
from engaging in union activities or supporting the Union.
As hereinabove found, on or about December 10
Langdon asked Golden how he felt about the Union.
When Golden replied that he did not know, Langdon
stated that some places might need a union and some
might not, he did not know. While this conversation did
constitute an interrogation of Golden's views about the
Union, it is clear that Langdon's subsequent remark was a
mere expression of opinion, indeed evidencing
impartiality. After the Union received the Excelsior list on
December 11, it began visiting employees evenings at their
homes. On or about December 15 Johnson and another
union representative called on Markham at his home. The
following day Langdon asked Markham if he had any
visitors the previous night. When Markham replied that
he had, Langdon asked him what they had been talking
about. Markham replied that they had been talking about
the "usual thing" Langdon did not deny any of the
foregoing and further admitted that he had learned
through the "grapevine" that the employees had been
receiving "some visitors" and that he had also asked
Homer Dockins if he had had any visitors the night before
and had received an affirmative reply.
As hereinabove found, on or about December 19
Langdon and Muse had a conversation concerning the
impending union election. I did not credit Muse and found
that Langdon did not tell him, as he claimed, that if the
Union did not get in things would be improved after the
first of the year. Their conversation, while it concerned
the forthcoming election, appears to have been merely an
expression of opinion by Langdon sans any threats,
promises, restraint or coercion. On or about December 19
Langdon also asked Homer Dockins how he felt about the
Union. Dockins replied that it made no difference to him,
that he had worked in both organized and unorganized
plants, but that if the Union won the election he intended
to join because he did not want to be the only man
working that did not belong. Langdon replied either that
he knew what Dockins meant or how he felt. During that
same conversation or another the same day, Langdon also
asked Dockins if he had had any visitors the night before,
and received an affirmative reply.
The record establishes and I find that Langdon
interrogated Golden about his union sympathies, and
interrogated both Markham and Homer Dockins about
their union activities and during the conversations with
Markham and Dockins clearly created the impression of
surveillance of their union activities, unquestionably a
form of restraint and coercion. While, standing alone, the
interrogation of Golden might not be considered coercive,
there can be no such doubt with respect to the
interrogation of and the impression of surveillance given
Markham and Dockins. Accordingly I conclude and find
that, on or about December 10, 16 and 19, Respondent
coercively interrogated its employees about their union
sympathies and activities and created the impression of
keeping their union activities under surveillance, thereby
engaging in interference, restraint, or coercion in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Foreman Snyder
The complaint alleged that in late November or early
December Snyder threatened employees with loss of
advancement and promotion because of their union
activities; at the same time promised employees
FARM FANS, INC.
promotions for refraining from union activities or support;
in early December threatened employees with layoffs and
other reprisals because of their union activities and told
employees there would not be any layoffs if they refrained
from their union activities or support; and in early
February 1968 told employees that other employees had
been laid off because of their union activities.
As hereinabove found, on or about December 2 Snyder
asked Golden if he knew that the Union was trying to get
in the plant. After Golden replied that he did, Snyder told
him that although Respondent had been moving
employees from one machine to another because there was
not enough work, if the Union came in Respondent would
be unable to continue doing that and therefore would have
to lay off employees. Snyder further informed Golden that
if the Union did not get in there would be no layoffs. On
or about December 7 Snyder asked Homer Dockins how
he felt about the forthcoming union election, adding that
the way matters stood then Dockins had a good chance to
become a group leader but that if the Union won the
election Snyder's hands might be tied and he could not
promise Dockins the job as a group leader (During the
latter part of September Snyder had suggested to Dockins
the possibility of his being promoted to group leader and
had asked if he was interested.)
Contrary to the contentions of Respondent, clearly this
interrogation concerning union sympathies included both a
promise of benefit if the Union lost and a threat of the
loss of a benefit if the Union won. Snyder's statements
can hardly be construed as an opinion or prediction of
economic consequences solely brought about by the
Union, outside the control or volition of Respondent,
which counsel for Respondent concedes is the appropriate
test. Moreover, a promise of economic benefits cannot be
equated with a prediction of economic consequences due
to unionization. As previously found hereinabove with
respect to the conversations between Snyder and Carnes in
February, 1968, Snyder did not tell Carnes that Golden
had been laid off because of his union activities.
I am satisfied and find that by Snyder's foregoing
interrogations concerning union sympathies and activities,
his threats of layoffs and loss of promotion if the Union
was elected, and his promises of no layoffs and promotion
if the Union was not elected, Respondent engaged in
interference, restraint and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
As noted above, the Regional Director consolidated for
hearing with the complaint herein one of the filed
objections together with all of the allegations of
interference, restraint and coercion and discrimination in
the complaint as amended, limited to the period from
November 21 to December 21. The alleged discrimination
all occurred prior to November 21 and furthermore has
not been found herein. In addition to the various
allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion set forth
in the complaint, the other objection consolidated for
hearing herein alleged that on or about December 19
Respondent made coercive and misleading statements to
its employees in small group meetings in order to
influence their, vote against the Union. The record
contains no evidence of coercive and misleading
statements to employees in "small group meetings."
Based upon the above findings of fact and the entire
record herein, I conclude and find that the objections
consisting of the allegations of interference, restraint, and
7 35
coercion in the complaint as amended, dealing respectively
with interrogation, threats of economic reprisal, promises
of economic benefits, and creating the impression of
surveillance, all related to union activities, have been
established and that Respondent thereby engaged in
conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional
Director's order directing the consolidation of the hearings
on the objections and the complaint further directed that
thereafter Case 25-RC-3662 be transferred to and
continued before the Board. Having sustained the
aforesaid objections, I recommend that the Board set
aside the election and remand the representation
proceedings to the Regional Director for the purpose of
conducting a new election at such time as he deems the
circumstances will permit the free choice of a bargaining
representative.
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. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce,
and the Union is a labor organization , within the meaning
of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not, as alleged in the complaint,
discriminated against its employees within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
of the type which is conventionally ordered in such cases
as provided in the Recommended Order below, which I
find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the
unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the
Act. I shall also recommend that the election in Case
25-RC-3662 be set aside and a new election directed.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Farm Fans, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union membership, activities, or sympathies.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of promotion,
layoffs, or other reprisals for engaging in union activities.
(c) Promising employees promotions, no layoffs, or
other economic benefits to induce them to refrain from
engaging in union activities.
(d) Creating the impression of surveillance of
employees' union activities.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon, receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
-(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.' °
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint,
insofar as it alleges -that Respondent discriminated against
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the representation
proceedings in Case 25-RC-3662 be, and they hereby are,
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 25 for the
purpose of setting aside the results of the December 21,
1967, election and conducting a new election at such time
as he deems the circumstances will permit the free choice
of a bargaining representative.
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 25 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union membership, activities, or
sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of
promotion, layoffs or other reprisals for engaging in
union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees promotions, no
layoffs or other economic benefits to induce them to
refrain from engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT create among our employees the
impression of surveillance of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of any of the rights guaranteed them by the National
Labor Relations Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of Local
503, Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
FARM FANS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204, Telephone 633-8921.