Farmers Insurance Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Farmers Insurance Group and Thomas S. Nunes.
Case 36-CA-1732-2
February 28, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 1, 1968, Trial Examiner Allen
Sinsheimer, Jr. issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending dismissal of the
complaint in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision together with a supporting brief, and
Respondent filed cross-exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
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 and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER , JR., Trial Examiner. This
proceeding was heard before me in Portland, Oregon, on
July 2 and 3, 1968, upon a complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of Farmers Insurance Group, herein
called Respondent' The issues litigated were whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act), by terminating the employment of Thomas S
Nunes on November 3, 1967.
Upon the entire record, including consideration of
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and
upon my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following
The complaint issued May 23, 1968 , and is based on a charge filed
April I , 1968, which was duly served on Respondent
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation whose home office is
located in Los Angeles, California It is engaged in
soliciting, issuing, and servicing automotive, fire, and
other insurance and is licensed to do business in 25 States
of the United States The instant proceeding involves only
its Portland, Oregon, regional office where during the past
fiscal year more than $50,000 in premiums were received
directly from places outside the State of Oregon
Respondent admits and I find it to be an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, whose business
effects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Union ), is and has been at all times
material a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
This case involves only the discharge of employee
Thomas Nunes on November 3, 1967. Nunes, as will be
set forth,, engaged in certain activities on behalf of the
Union which included serving as the Union observer at an
election conducted by the Board on May 17, 1967 The
election ultimately resulted in the Union losing by a vote
of 15 to 13 There is no evidence of threats of reprisal
because of Nunes' union activities nor is there any
evidence of independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) The
case then presented is one involving the nature and extent
of Nunes' union activities including any indication of
Respondent's attitude with respect thereto, and the
circumstances relative to his termination both as to
procedural and substantive aspects Necessarily involved is
the ultimate question of what inferences as to illegal
motivation if any can be properly drawn therefrom.
B The Facts
1 Introduction
First, as indicated, the General Counsel is compelled to
seek to establish his case primarily by showing that the
Respondent had no valid basis for termination of Nunes
and that therefore there must have been some other
purpose than the one set forth. The General Counsel, of
course, has also to show in this case union activity by
Nunes and knowledge thereof by Respondent Also
pertinent is the timing of the discharge in relation to the
union activity As Respondent properly points out the
resolution of this matter is not necessarily governed by
what an arbitrator might or might not find although
certain evidence that may be applicable in such case may
also be pertinent in this proceeding
Nunes was employed as an underwriter about March
1965 at a salary of $550 a month. He became, a senior
underwriter January 1, 1966, and his salary was raised to
$615 per month effective March 1, 1966. He received
another salary raise to $655 a month effective June 1,
1967. This increase (which will be discussed hereafter)
174 NLRB No. 137
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 1295
would normally have been effective March 1, and would
normally have been more During 1967, Nunes' immediate
supervisor was Robert Russell
2. Union organization and Nunes union activity
In the summer of 1966, according to the uncontradicted
testimony of Nunes, while at lunch with Underwriters Al
Martin and Paul Sundquist, all were critical of
Respondent and Martin remarked that they needed a
union Nunes asked why someone didn't do something
about it Martin said he had a card from a Mr. Sawyer of
the Office Workers Union and suggested that Nunes call
Sawyer Nunes objected to his making the call since he
was a new employee but agreed to toss coins to see who
should make the call. The result was that Nunes lost and
made the call to Sawyer He arranged for a meeting with
Sawyer and Respondent's underwriters at Sawyer's office
The latter was corroborated by employee Paul Sundquist.
After talking with Sawyer, the employees decided they did
not want Sawyer or his union to represent them.
Subsequently, there was a consideration of the
Teamsters Union but finally a meeting was arranged by
employees Gerry Rothenfluch and Gerry Roth with the
Insurance Workers Union Nunes was not involved in the
arrangements but at the initial employee meeting with
Union Representative Engelking, Nunes signed a union
card and paid initiation fees and dues Thereafter, Nunes
was subpoenaed by the Union to appear at the
representation hearing held on December 13, 1967, and
testified that he so notified one of his superiors, either
Robert Russell or Don Vredenburgh S Nunes appeared at
the hearing and sat in the back of the room but was not
called upon to testify Thereafter, Nunes served as the
Union's only observer at the election conducted by the
Board on May 17, 1967 Respondent had opposed a unit
limited to the underwriters employed in Respondent's
Portland office but the Board found the unit appropriate
The election conducted therein on May 17 originally
showed 13 votes for the Union and 13 against with two
challenges. James Goetz, regional underwriting manager
of Respondent, testified he assumed the challenges were
made by Nunes. These challenges were overruled and the
final tally showed 13 votes for the Union with 15 against
Employee Curtis Torland who worked for Respondent
from January to July 1967 stated on cross-examination,
"It was more or less recognized that Tom (Nunes) was
behind the union push at Farmers " Al Martin, who
originally suggested that Nunes call Sawyer of the Office
Workers Union to initiate union activities, became a
supervisor for Respondent sometime in the middle of
December 1966 Nunes' immediate supervisor, Russell,
admitted that before being promoted to a supervisory
position, he had attended a union meeting at which Nunes
was present The Respondent's answer admits knowledge
that Nunes served as an observer for the Union at the
election conducted by the Board on May 17 However,
Respondent Supervisors Russell, Vredenburgh, and Goetz
testified that they did not know precisely the function of
an observer or that it necessarily implied union support at
the time they first saw or heard Nunes was an observer
Vredenburgh, although denying knowledge that Nunes was
subpenaed to the representation hearing, admitted seeing
him in the back at the hearing
Nunes testified without contradiction that Al Martin
after he became a supervisor called Nunes to his desk, and
'They denied he so informed them
told him what Martin's promotion was going to mean to
the department, that Martin had been given authority to
improve the lot of the underwriters and he had been so
authorized by Pretzinger who was Respondent's Regional
Manager. Nunes also testified he observed Martin calling
other underwriters to his desk in succession on company
time and later discovered that Martin had apparently
followed the same pattern of conversation with them
However, this conversation is not related to any specific
incident involving promises or grant of benefit or the like
and it could well represent a normal action on the part of
a new supervisor. Furthermore, there is no allegation of
any unfair labor practice on the part of Respondent
through such conduct by Martin.
Employee Torland testified, without contradiction, that
one time before the election Underwriters Hill, Gerlitz,
himself and Supervisor Al Martin had a discussion about
the Union at the Sandy Hut where they had beer or
drinks During this discussion Nunes' name was
mentioned Torland said he could not recall who intitiated
the discussion except he thought probably the men did.
Torland said that Nunes was mentioned as a
troublemaker by Martin who told him that if he wanted
to know any more about Nunes and his background to
call a certain number In response to questioning about
what Martin said about Nunes, Torland replied, "At the
table, I believe I defended the Union to a certain extent
and said I believed it had benefits, and at this point I
believe Al did get - he was a little disturbed with my
involvement or talking about the Union in this light, and
he brought up, he says `If you want to know more about
Tom Nunes, here's a telephone number; call it.' " Torland
added he couldn't state the precise words but the general
light cast on Nunes was not favorable. Torland remained
with Respondent until sometime after the election when he
was terminated apparently for tardiness Underwriter
Ahrens testified that about March 1967 Martin told him
that Nunes had a bad reputation in the insurance industry
and if he wanted to check, he could call Bob Bagley at
Mission Insurance and also Martin told him that Nunes'
wife was suing him for a divorce and this was an
indication of his character.
In order to evaluate the case, an analysis will be made
not only as to the union activity of Nunes, but also as to
the activity of other employees and what occurred with
respect to them Evidence that other employees who were
openly active for or supporters of the Union, were not
discriminated against or were favorably treated does not
necessarily establish that Nunes was not discriminatorily
treated, but such evidence is relevant and should be
considered The record indicates that at least five other
employees had been in favor of the Union or a union
initially, Martin, Carl Davis, Torland, Sundquist, and
Roth. Martin, one of the original instigators, was
promoted to supervisor which sometimes is one method of
eliminating union activists, but also can be viewed as
indicative of nondiscriminatory treatment. Roth and Davis
sat at the counsel table with the union attorney during the
representation hearing Roth was recently promoted to
supervisor. Davis requested and was granted a leave of
absence for the purpose of entering the practice of law.
The leave granted was about five months, beyond the
normal 90-day leave time so that he could vest out his
retirement period with the Company at the same time he
commenced to practice law. Arguably this could be either
an indication that the Company was not discriminating or
possibly a contention that the individual had been granted
such to keep him from voting However, the latter would
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not necessarily follow,' if he were still an employee
although Davis, in fact, did not vote Sundquist, who was
one of those involved in the decision to first contact a
union representative and whom James Goetz, regional
underwriting manager, testified he had heard from hearsay
was in favor of the Union and active on behalf of it, is
still employed by the Company Sundquist was the leader
in the submission of suggestions of which 50 percent of his
were accepted and for which he received financial awards
Only Torland, as set forth, has been terminated and that
apparently for tardiness with no evidence of improper
causation
Although the Company claims to have little knowledge
of Nunes' union activity, it is evident that Martin knew of
his original interest, Russell was at a meeting with him
and Martin had spoken about him in a derogatory sense
whether directly related to the Union or not At least in
one conversation involving Torland, Martin's reference
appears to have been in the course of a discussion
involving the Union and it may be a reasonable inference
that it had some relation to his union activities. Nunes
was the union observer' and company officials knew this
and although Russell and Vredenburgh denied knowing
about his being subpoenaed, Nunes said that he had told
one of them There is no question also that the Company
knew he was in the back of the room at the hearing
Whether or not he should be viewed as the most active
union protagonist as he claimed, there is no question that
he was active Further the record does not appear to
reflect anyone more active than Nunes From all of the
foregoing and the entire record I find and conclude that
Respondent not only had knowledge of but was well
aware of Nunes activity on behalf of the Union
3. Evidence relative to Nunes termination
The election was held on May 17 and, except for the
resolution of the challenges, there appears to have been no
union activity thereafter pertinent to this proceeding
Nunes' employment was terminated on November 3,
reputedly for reasons hereafter considered
Although Nunes had received a wage increase on
March 1, 1966, he was not given the 10 percent increase
on March 1, 1967 that would normally be granted then
The reason advanced for not giving this increase was that
prior to the annual increase period supervisor Russell
conducted audits of the work of the employees, including
Nunes whose audit was unsatisfactory An audit of Nunes'
work on a sampling of his files' reflected on February 2 a
33-percent error ratio.6 A repeat audit of February 16
taken, according to Russell, to be sure of the sampling
and findings on the previous audit showed a 31.5 error
ratio. These errors consisted of a combination which,
according to Russell, were either errors of procedure or
errors of judgment.' Russell testified that any error ratio
in excess of 10 percent would be high for a man of Nunes'
experience He also said that procedural errors and
judgment errors were considered of equal weight because
they both could cost the Respondent money
'While the facts are not identical the following cases indicate that Davis
may have retained eligibility to vote See Whiting Corp 99 NLRB 117,
General Tube 141 NLRB 441, enfd 331 F 2d 751 (C A 6)
'The Board both directly and by necessary implication has found
Company knowledge of union activity on the basis of a person acting as a
union observer See Federal Envelope, 147 NLRB 1030
'According to Russell a sampling would normally involve 25 or more
files
'The actual figures shown in appendix A hereto ( taken from Respondent
Nunes complained about the nature of the errors which
Russell had found - contending that many of them were
trivial According to the testimony of Russell and
Vredenburgh, Russell showed his work sheets in
connection with these errors to Vredenburgh, who went
through each of the files and concurred in Russell's
judgment Russell was a new supervisor and could be
expected to consult his supervisor, Vredenburgh
Following the second audit of February 16, Nunes also
complained about the results and a conference was held
between Nunes, Goetz, and Vredenburgh
Nunes testified they went through the files and that
Goetz said it appeared to be a case of sloppy
underwriting According to Nunes, Vredenburgh, and
Goetz conceded some of the criticism was unjust and that
they were minor errors According to Vredenburgh, Nunes
originally expressed disagreement with the conclusion that
his actions were erroneous but after discussion he believed
Nunes accepted the comments of Goetz and himself
However, Vredenburgh said he wasn't too hopeful they
had gotten the message across, in view of Nunes
statement that they were "nit-picking "
According to Goetz, they went over the files in detail
and that during the "interview" Nunes offered quite a few
excuses as to why there were errors in the files Goetz
testified that at the end Nunes "confessed that we were
not being picayunish; that these were bona fide errors, and
I told Tom at the time he left that his work would have to
improve." Goetz testified further that all of Russell's
criticisms of specific files were correct I conclude from
both the foregoing records, testimony and action taken
thereafter with respect to future audits and denial of a
raise at the time that Nunes was informed by
Vredenburgh and Goetz of substantial errors which had in
fact occurred in his work
At this time the question of whether or not Nunes
would receive a salary increase was undecided and Nunes
was told that he would again be audited at approximately
30-day intervals Nunes was again audited at
approximately monthly intervals throughout the remainder
of his employment in 1967. His March 16 and April 16
audits showed some improvement, reflecting 20-percent
error for March and 16 percent for April This was still
above the error ratio which the Company expected from
someone with Nunes' experience His May audit indicated
a slight slippage to 20 percent of error. In late May or
early June, Goetz, Vredenburgh, and Russell met to
consider whether or not to retain Nunes and what action,
if any to take with respect to the matter of a raise Nunes
had been told at the time of the March meeting following
the February audits that his raise would subsequently be
given further consideration The conferences among
Goetz, Vredenburgh, and Russell raised questions as to
Nunes' performance but it was decided to give him a
partial raise amounting to 6 percent instead of the normal
10 percent Goetz testified that in spite of Nunes work
record, because good and experienced underwriters are
hard to come by, he and Vredenburgh decided to give
Nunes an increase - "to use this approach to see if we
couldn't stimulate better effort on his part "
exhibits l through 9) show 8 judgment and 5 procedural errors set forth
out of 33 files or 13 of 33, actually a 39-percent error ratio rather than 33
percent Russell conceded some difficulty with such computations
'Russell defined judgment and procedure errors as follows a
iudgment error is where the underwriter would have exercised poor
judgment in his handling of the file A procedural error would be an error
that was contrary to written procedure that the company puts out'
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 1297
Following the raise, Nunes' work showed a marked
improvement with an error ratio of 8 67 percent in June, 5
percent in July, and 4 percent in September Russell
apparently did not make audits in August because of
vacation In October, Nunes again slipped into an error
ratio above that expected Audits of October 11 and
October 12 showed error ratios of 17 and 14 percent,
respectively In addition, Russell had been preparing
performance appraisal ratings on the various employees,
including Nunes with the result that Nunes was the lowest
in the group Nunes rating was "fair" One employee was
rated "very good" and all others were rated "good "
These ratings will be analyzed subsequently, although it
may be noted that Nunes' rating was substantially lower
in its total impact and points than that of other
employees It should also be noted that performance
ratings involve subjective evaluation by the grader with
differences in a small number of items capable of causing
a substantial difference in ultimate grade Further, as will
be more specifically pointed out, Russell was unable in
certain instances to specify in detail the basis of his
ultimate judgments On the other hand, some of this
inability is explainable by lapse of time which involved
about a year and by the fact that many judgments rest on
small items which are not always quickly recalled. This
performance appraisal accordingly is at best a tenuous
matter involving difficulty in determining whether the
appraisal was grossly unfair and also whether if so what
the motivation therefore would be As will appear, there
may be some question about the appraisal of certain
items However, this is not to say that there was no
warrant for Russell's opinions concerning these items.
Further, in my judgment it cannot be said that the
appraisal or the ultimate discharge allegedly pursuant to
appraisal, audit and other items that will be considered,
was clearly motivated by union activity rather than by
work performance
Russell also testified that Nunes' response to work
suggestions and following of Company procedures was not
what it should be He indicated that Nunes had difficulty
getting along with people and specified instances involving
Ken Micheau, an agent, Glenn Mills, a fellow employee,
and Dolores Johnson, who was in charge of the
stenographic pool, and himself He also referred to Don
Palmer, a fellow employee Russell's information as to an
incident involving Nunes and Micheau was obtained from
Supervisor Al Martin. One involving Nunes and Johnson
was related to him by Supervisor Vredenburgh. In another
incident involving Nunes and Johnson, Russell apparently
was directly aware of Nunes' version in his own case the
matter involved the playing of a radio by Nunes Russell
said that he generally got along with Nunes While
perhaps literally true, that it does not appear to have been
a very friendly relationship is manifested in part by
Russell's testimony as to Nunes' reluctance to accept
work suggestions, by Nunes not seeking assistance or
endeavoring to work more closely with Russell after the
first adverse audits and in at least one instance the dispute
about Nunes' playing a radio at the time of the world
series. A number of Nunes' fellow employees testified that
he got along well with them and other employees It is
quite possible that the testimony respecting both those
employees with whom Nunes had harmonious relations
and the persons with whom Nunes allegedly had some
disharmony, is true since there is no inherent inconsistency
in an employee getting along with fellow employees and at
the same time having some complaints in connection with
others including agents. In the latter connection, Russell
also testified that he had audited some of Nunes'
correspondence and that he was sometimes abrupt in
dealing with customers
Before evaluating the records and performance of other
employees with regard to audits and work appraisal a few
matters should be noted (1) Nunes had indicated in the
course of the hearing that he was the most active union
protagonist, at another point that he averaged between
120 and 150 files a day with a minimum of 100 and a
maximum of 300, at another point that he was
outstandingly capable in marine auditing, at another that
he was a very active participant in the employees'
suggestion program, and finally that at the meeting when
he was terminated in November he had been told he had
an error record of 53 percent The matter of his activity
has been discussed There is no question he was quite
active but whether or not he was the most active is not
clear The record establishes, as will be shown hereafter,8
that Nunes averaged 94 files per day and not either a 120
to 150 average or 100 minimum As for suggestions
Nunes was active but another employee was much more
active Nunes submitted seven suggestions and had two
adopted, while Sundquist submitted 40 or 50 and had half
of these accepted As to the 53-percent error ratio
allegedly referred to at the termination meeting, Russell
and Vradenburgh testified that they could recall no such
statement being made or any such error recording being
involved at any time and there is no evidence that there
was any such record I accordingly credit their testimony
in this respect. In addition, Nunes at one point indicated
that certain matters, in essence, were what the industry
said about policy and what should be done and repeated
several times that was "what the industry said" with the
clear implication and attitude that he felt he knew better.
This testimony suggests that such attitude may have been
involved in his relations with some of his supervisors 9
There is also testimony from witnesses for the General
Counsel that company policy called for certain warning
notices to employees prior to termination. Underwriter
Donald Palmer, who prior to becoming an underwriter
supervised about 35 women in the accounts department,
testified that if an employee's work was bad enough to
consider discharge, the employee was so notified and there
would be a period of probation after which Palmer did not
know what would happen
Former Senior Underwriter Gerald Rothenfluch, who
was at various times accounts receivable manager,
assistant unit manager, central files supervisor, claims
issue supervisor, policy writing supervisor and claims
service division manager, supervised from 6 to 60 or 70
employees in those positions He testified as follows as to
Farmers' policy in dealing with substandard or
unsatisfactory employees "If his work or her work was
unsatisfactory, if it was within the first six months of their
employment they could be terminated immediately with
no further ado If it was after that period of time the
supervisor would call the employee to the side, give him a
verbal - he or she a verbal appraisal. " Rothenfluch
said the practice was uniform but "there was [sic] some
things that was [sic] cause for immediate dismissal and
those would be morals, dishonesty, excessive absenteeism
-of course they would be previously warned of this "
'See Appendix "C"
'There is no question that this is an area in which a difference of opinion
may well occur and in many situations be desirable The question is the
degree and extent of its manifestation in connection with work and its
impact on work relations
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Former mulitple line operator employee and at one
time, for a year and a half, a commercial line
underwriting supervisor, Carl Davis testified "In my 17
years' observation it was a general course of conduct that
the employee, who was deficient, was given a written
notice in certain areas and that these areas would have to
be corrected within a 30 to 60 day period or appropriate
action or discharge would be considered, something to
that effect A copy of that went into the employees
personal file record " Davis added the employee got a
copy of the letter or memo pointing out the deficiencies
Davis testified that the only exceptions he knew of were
one or two instances of serious moral misconduct such as
theft However, on cross-examination Davis said during
the time he was a supervisor he had no occasion to give a
written notice to anyone and give them 30 to 60 days to
correct their deficiency or be terminated. Davis also said
he knew of no such requirement in the personnel manual.
The procedure testified to by Palmer and Rothenfluch
appears to have application to the clerical and accounting
departments rather than to the underwriters Rothenfluch
also referred to a case involving one Dan Varnes, an
underwriter whom he worked with In that instance,
Varnes apparently was subjected to review every 30 days
in connection with tardiness Witness Torland, an
underwriter who testified, was not warned before his
termination in July 1967 for tardiness. Regional
Underwriting Manager James O. Goetz testified that
during the 14 years he was a supervisor he had put only
one employee on probation and that was Carl Davis in
1966. He was subsequently informed that such was
improper personnel practice
The foregoing does not indicate that the Respondent
had an established policy of warning employees prior to
termination and certainly not in cases of underwriters
While it may be that industrial practice under union
contracts normally requires notice or warning prior to
termination in cases of unsatisfactory work, this is not an
arbitration proceeding Such practice may possibly,
however, have some evidentiary bearing on motivation.
More pertinent and decisive in my judgment is that
although not specifically warned, Nunes knew from his
February audits and the implicit warning from the
meeting thereafter with Goetz, Russell and Vredenburgh
and from the holdup of his wage increase that his work
was not considered satisfactory Nunes must have known
from the fact that he only received a partial increase, that
the Respondent was still not completely satisfied with his
performance To such extent, it may be inferred that
Nunes had "warning" of impending consequences from a
failure to improve his work record
Nunes was terminated at a meeting on November 3, at
which Russell and Vredenburgh were present This
followed the October audit ratings at which he had 17
percent and 14 percent of errors and the performance
appraisal rating which resulted in a "fair" rating
Attached hereto are. appendixes (A) a copy from the
exhibits of the results of audits taken of various employees
in the unit, (B) a copy from the performance appraisals of
(1) the items appraised, (2) grades given to each item and
a definition of each of the grades. and (3), (4), & (5)
comments, summations or pertinent observations with
respect to elements in the appraisal ratings as applied to
various employees, (C) a copy of an exhibit relating to
production totals and averages for the period indicated
As set forth, Nunes had 4 or 5 years' experience as an
underwriter prior to coming to Farmers In the audits
taken February 2 and 16, according to figures on
appendix A, he had percentages of error of 3310 and 31.5
percent which were inordinately high. The foregoing
figures, which were taken as set forth on successive audits
to be sure of the sampling and which were discussed with
Nunes by Russell and subsequently at the meeting
involving Nunes, Russell, Vredenburgh, and Goetz, were
so high as to cause Respondent to delay giving him a
wage increase, and to further evaluate him Respondent
argues that these audits would also have been sufficient
grounds for discharge in February or March if it were so
motivated Assuming the latter were so on a work
performance basis, it would have had to be so predicated
without affording him an opportunity to improve. The
latter the Company did afford Nunes as set forth
Nunes' audits in sequence as contained in appendix A
were as follows On 2/2/67 out of 33 files Nunes had 8
judgment and 5 procedural errors which was marked as a
percentage error of 32 9 although as set forth, supra, this
actually figures about 39 percent and following this was a
comment, "poor overall", February 16, 1967, of 19 files,
there were 4 judgment and 2 procedural errors for a
percentage of error of 31 5; an audit on March 16, 1967,
reflected that of 20 files there was I judgment and 3
procedural errors for a percentage error of 20 percent with
the comment "improved", an audit of April 16, 1967,
reflected of 25 files, 2 judgment and 2 procedural errors
for an error percentage of 16 percent with the comment
"improvement", on May 23, 1967, of 10 files there were 2
judgment errors for a percentage of error of 20 percent."
An audit of 6/23/67 shows of 23 files there was 1
judgment and I procedural error for a percentage of error
of 8 67, on 7/11/67 an audit of 20 files reflected I
judgment error for a percentage of error of 5 percent;
9/8/67 an audit of 25 files showed 1 judgment error for a
percentage of error of 4 percent 7 z In final audits of
10/11/67 of 28 files there were 3 judgment and 2
procedural errors for a percentage of error of 17 percent
and on 10/ 12/67 of 21 files there were 3 procedural errors
for a percentage of error of 14 percent
Respondent's view was that Nunes' work improved
somewhat in March, April and May Although it was not
as much as Respondent wanted, it felt that giving Nunes a
raise would be an incentive for him to improve further
Respondent's position is that thereafter the audits of June
23, July 11, and September 8 indicated that this
improvement had occurred but that the audits of October
11 and 12 reflected that Nunes had regressed and was
performing poor work again
The record of Nunes was compared by the General
Counsel with that of William Pankratz Pankratz' audit,
as set forth in Appendix A, shows that on February 10,
1967, of 24 files there were 6 judgment and 4 procedural
errors for a percentage of error of 41.6 percent The
comment following the audit was "will work closely with
Bill volume of errors too high " Then on 3/14/67, of 20
files there was 1 judgment error and l procedural error
for a percentage of error of 10 percent On 4/ 10/67 of 28
files there were 2 judgment errors and 1 procedural error
for a percentage of error of 10 7 with the comment,
"much improvement, quality much better and volume
holding up," (the latter referring to the number of files
that Pankratz examined) The form indicated a standard
"As set forth previously in fn 6, it appears this percentage should be 39
"This would appear to be a sampling of less than was normally
considered acceptable
"No record for August appears because of Russell's absence
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
of 90 files while Pankratz daily average appeared to be
somewhat above 100 files at this time An audit of
6/29/67 reflected that of 28 files there were 3 judgment
errors and 2 procedural errors for a percentage of error of
18 percent. Then on 7/19/67, of 30 files there were 2
judgment errors and I procedural error for a percentage
of error of 10 percent with the comment, "good " The
Respondent's explanation of the different approach to
Pankratz was essentially that he was a newer employee
with less than a year of experience (in February 1967)
having first commenced work as an underwriter May 16,
1966, that Pankratz' audit performance record improved
markedly until his last audit in July reflected an error
ratio of 10 percent (lust within acceptable limits), that his
performance appraisal resulted in a grade of "good"
showing a higher rating than Nunes on four items
(including two stated by Russell to be of major
importance)" and a lower grade on one item
"open-mindedness", and that Pankratz was more
cooperative than Nunes as manifested by Pankratz'
acceptance of Russell's comments on the first page of his
performance appraisal However, I also note therein
Russell's comments about Pankratz not being receptive to
ideas of others unless in accord with his and arguing with
others after asking their opinion
The General Counsel also refers to the record of
Howard Kober by way of comparison (which is set forth
in appendix "A"). Kober's audit of 3/2/67 shows that of
22 files there were 2 judgment errors and 2 procedural
errors for an error percentage of 18 percent and a
comment "fair quality", on 4/3/67 of 28 files, there were
3 judgment errors and l procedural error for a percentage
of error of 14 2 with a comment "fair quality." The next
audit for Kober (not shown on appendix "A") was
12/6/67 which showed of 40 files there were 2 judgment
errors and 2 procedural errors for a percentage of 10
percent with a comment "fair quality should work on -
improving - good attitude - more open minded " In
Kober's case the Respondent distinguished him from
Nunes on the basis that he was a transfer from Los
Angeles where the system and method were different and
that he had to become accustomed to the work in the
Portland office; that his volume increased so that by
October 1967 he was averaging 10 to 15 files a day more
than Nunes, further that Kober's performance appraisal
was better with a grade of "good" and with higher grades
than Nunes on five items (including two Russell testified
were of major importance )1 4 and a lower grade on only
one item "open-mindedness", that Russell was working
with him at his desk as distinguished from Nunes with
whom Russell did not because, according to Russell,
Nunes never asked him, and that Kober's wife was a
highly regarded supervisor in another department which
was "an extenuating circumstance."
There was also a brief examination with respect to the
error ratio of Mills which reflected that on 2/ 14/67 out of
24 files there were 2 judgment and 2 procedural errors for
an error percentage of 16.6 with a subsequent audit on
July 11 of 16 files with I judgment error for an error
percentage of 6 with the comment "very good quality "
Russell testified that Mills had less total underwriting
experience." than Nunes Russell also said that the
February audit was high. In explaining on
cross-examination why no further audits were made until
July, Russell testified that he worked closely with Mills at
""Job Knowledge" and "Expressions" discussed more fully post
"See further discussion post
1299
his desk because Mills had so requested.
In addition to the foregoing with respect to comparison
of the employees as set forth in the performance
appraisals, appendix B, Nunes' rating was "fair" while
that of all other employees except Prickett was "good"
with Prickett being rated "very good." The rating was
based on grades on items ranging from one for
"excellent" to five for "unsatisfactory". This meant that
the person with the lowest point total could reflect the
highest rating although not necessarily in all instances
because greater significance was given according to
Russell to four items- Item I Job knowledge; Item 4.
Decision making, Item 5 Taking action; and Item 7.
Expressions (oral and written) However, taking the latter
into account it should be noted that Prickett with 30
points had the lowest point total and the highest rating in
the group with "very good " The point totals ranged from
30 to 44 which latter was Nunes' rating. The next lowest
ones compared to Nunes were Pankratz with 39 and
Kober with 38
According to the analysis as set forth also in appendix
B, Nunes received ratings of (4) "fair" on "job
knowledge", "decision making," and "expressions," three
of the four major items, and a (4) "fair" on two lesser
items and a rating of (5) "unsatisfactory" on item 11
entitled "Personal Acceptance by Others." This latter was
the only (5) "unsatisfactory" rating given to anyone.
Whether or not the latter rating was justified may be
questionable Set forth, supra, is testimony by Russell
relative to complaints involving Nunes and Dolores
Johnson, Ken Micheau, Glenn Mills, Donald Palmer, and
himself. However several present employees and one
former employee, namely Don Palmer, Thomas Ahrens,
Gerald Rothenfluch (formerly employed), and Paul
Sundquist testified that Nunes did get along with his
fellow employees Whether or not an independent
evaluation would change this "unsatisfactory" rating is
not decisive although it should be considered
In the case of Kober, he received one rating of (4)
"fair" on a major item, "decision making," and on one
lesser item number 12, "open mindedness." Pankratz
received a rating of (2) "very good" on a lesser item and a
rating of (4) "fair" on one major item, "decision
making," and ratings of (4) "fair" on lesser items 10, 11,
and 12. Kober had higher grades than Nunes on "job
knowledge," "expressions," "keeping supervisor
informed," "achieving results through others," "personal
acceptance by others" and had a lower grade only as to
"open mindedness" (acceptance of new procedures).
Pankratz had a higher rating than Nunes on "job
knowledge," "expressions" (oral and written), "keeping
supervisor informed," "personal acceptance by others"
and lower only on "open mindedness" (acceptance of new
procedures) and in addition his appraisal indicated a
cooperative response to it.
The record accordingly reflects audits of Nunes work
over a substantial period which showed errors that should
not have been made by a person of experience, then
reflected improvement and finally reflected regression His
performance appraisal which, as previously set forth,
inevitably involved subjective evaluations and which may
not in all instances accurately reflect his work or his
attitudes was nevertheless in its total impact substantially
worse than that of anyone else. As I have previously
stated with reference to the item, "Acceptance by others,"
I have considerable doubt whether the "unsatisfactory" on
"Mills total underwriting experience was about 3 years
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the performance appraisal is warranted. It may rather
reflect Russell's personal attitude toward Nunes
Although Russell said that he and Nunes got along,
there were as set forth contrary comments and
implications from items and testimony including the radio
incident, the fact that Nunes did not ask Russell to work
with him at the desk, the testimony that Nunes felt that
Russell's comments about his work were picayune and
testimony concerning a conversation about "talking"
between Russell and Nunes at a time when people were
stopping to talk at Nunes' desk,16 credited testimony by
Russell that Nunes did not readily accept suggestions and
was reluctant to follow company procedures," all of which
indicate that Nunes and Russell were not particularly
compatible in their relationship The latter may result in
judgments without any other causes or motivations There
was, in addition, the fact that Russell had become a
supervisor What impact this had is difficult to say except
that relationships again change when former fellow
employees become supervisors Further Nunes is a person
who has his own ideas, appears to be aggressive and it
could well be that friction developed between him and
Russell
4 Summary and conclusions
In determining whether or not the General Counsel has
met his burden of proof, there should be considered in
addition to the audits and the appraisals whether the
record reflects disparate treatment of Nunes in terms of
other persons including whether or not he was given a
notice of warning Also to be considered in the extent of
his union activities as compared with others who were
retained, and the question of attitude insofar as he was
concerned in his relations with Russell discussed supra
Finally the General Counsel raises a question as to
allegedly conflicting testimony with respect to the basis of
termination of Nunes on November 3 which will be
considered
First as to the extent of warning, I have previously
concluded Respondent had no general rule of policy of
warning in the case of underwriters and in fact had
terminated some without warning In any event I have
found that Nunes certainly had at least an implied
warning of serious consequences from the audits,
discussion thereof, delayed pay raise and finally the partial
raise.
His union activities as compared with others has been
discussed and conclusion reached that he was quite active.
I have also found no evidence of improper treatment of
other persons who were active for the Union
As for the audits these have been set forth and
discussed at length. In my judgment, they indicate
unsatisfactory performance by Nunes during substantial
periods and at pertinent times Comparison with other
employees does not rebut this conclusion For reasons set
forth, I consider Respondent has reasonably distinguished
its treatment of other employees including Pankratz,
Kober and Mills
The same is true of the performance appraisals
although admittedly they include subjective aspects I have
indicated I would not necessarily concur in all of the
judgments set forth therein in the appraisal of Nunes" but
"This was during the time the union was organizing
"This is indirectly corroborated by Nunes testimony, supra , where in
discussing policy he repeated that was "what the industry said," but
indicated disagreement
can not conclude from the evidence that the appraisal as a
whole is unwarranted with its result that Nunes was rated
"fair", below all other employees
I have also noted various incidents including differences
between Nunes and Russell which may have been a factor
in Russell's evaluation of Nunes I have referred to Nunes
exaggeration of certain items.
I have not previously mentioned that during the months
of February, March, and April when Nunes work
according to the audits was very poor, Respondent
understood and apparently took into consideration that he
had both illness and domestic problems In this connection
it would appear that it union acitivity were a motive and a
pretext were sought, Respondent at that time during the
preelection period might well have taken action to
terminate Nunes since it then appeared to have a valid
cause in poor work
Actually it did not until long after the election This
latter interval to a time when another election could not
be conducted has been held to weaken the "basis for .. .
attributing an antiunion motive to the discharge ""
This leads to the expressed basis of termination by
Russell The General Counsel contends that Respondent
was vague and vacillating in the reason that it gave for
Nunes' discharge To better evaluate this, certain
testimony of Russell is hereafter set forth.
Q (on direct examination by Respondent) Now in
view of the fact that he had done so well in both July
and August or July and September, I should say,
why did you audit him again in October l lth9
A Because of the previous performance, I wanted to
it would only be fair to the company in making sure
our audits were good samplings
Q. When you audited him on the eleventh of October
and found seventeen percent, why did you audit him
again the next day?
A Well, again, I wanted to be sure that this was a
good sampling of the work because of the high error
ratio.
Q And when you found that he was back up to
seventeen and fourteen percent those two days, did you
reach any conclusions about him9
A To answer this question, I believe I'll have to
expound a little bit
Q All right.
A At the same time, I was - or previous to this, I
had been working on his performance appraisal, and
the culmination of the performance appraisal and the
audits brought me to a conclusion, yes
Q And what was your conclusion9
A I felt that we could no longer work with Tom
Q. Well, can you tell us basically, why you reached
that conclusion9 What were the factors9 What brought
about that decision9
A Well, the performance appraisal came out fair,
and the audits were again at a level, untolerable [sic]
level, and it looked like the raise may have stimulated
"I have also noted and considered Russell ' s repeated reference (in
connection with Nunes performance appraisal) both in the appraisal and in
Russell ' s testimony to the apparent need for Nunes to have, "continued
education" outside his work Although , it appears that Nunes had in the
past participated in certain courses and there may be some apparent
vagueness in what Russell specifically desired it does not follow that
Russell ' s appraisal as to the item involved, namely job knowledge, was
erroneous Admittedly here again this may be affected by Nunes'
testimony and indicated attitude referred to, supra , in relation to policy,
where he responded that was , "what the industry said"
"N L R B v Newman-Green Inc, 401 F 2d I (C A 7)
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
him to do good work for a short period of time, but he
lapsed back to the same area that he was in before
Q Were there other factors besides Mr Nunes' error
ratio which contributed to your decision?
A Yes, there were
Q Can you tell us what some of them were9
A. Well, I had had complaints about his attitude
from agency force, and from workers in the office, that
I felt were more than normal
* * * * *
Q • What was his general attitude as an employee,
with reference to following procedure and changes in
procedure?
A I always felt that Tom resisted change in
company procedures He didn't agree with a lot of the
company's philosophies and was reluctant a lot of times
to follow the company's practices.
Q. Were the October audits, then well, I gather
that you testified a moment ago that they were not the
only factors Were they the sole major factors in your
decision9
A. No
Q. What other what were the other major factors9
A. The performance appraisal, combined with the
overall performance of the man in the last year
Russell testified that after concluding in the latter part
of October to terminate Nunes he had a conference with
Goetz in which he told him he reached that conclusion
"because of the performance appraisal" and that they
then went over it with Russell outlining in detail the same
reasons set forth in earlier testimony Goetz agreed with
Russell and instructed him to talk to Vredenburgh on his
return. Russell testified that he told Vredenburgh "I felt
we could no longer continue Tom as an employee in view
of the appraisal and the audits " According to Russell
they then went over the appraisal and Vredenburgh agreed
with him Russell's version of his discussion with Goetz
and Vredenburgh was either uncontradicted by or
essentially corroborated by them and I accordingly credit
it.
Goetz, who had to approve the termination, testified
Respondent let Nunes go because they could not afford to
keep him He said the various audits were weighed
including those of June, July, and September reflecting
improvement but the other audits showed "he slipped
back to his old habits." Goetz testified he and Russell
discussed every detail of the appraisals According to
Goetz, the appraisal was an important factor in his final
discussion with the audits being of equal importance
Vredenburgh testified Russell came to his desk on a
Monday after he returned from a trip and-
A It was on a Monday morning, if I remember
correctly, in the morning, and we discussed the files
that he had, along with the appraisal that he prepared,
and explained the reasons why that he felt Mr Nunes
could not be salvaged
Q What reasons did he give you9
A The fact of the error ratio, poor attitude, and
Tom not being receptive to suggestions he made to him
from time to time
Q And did you express agreement or disagreement
or any opinion whatsoever with reference to that
recommendation9
1301
A. I agreed with him
Russell testified he was quite nervous at the termination
meeting since it was the first time he had been involved in
terminating anyone and didn't find it to his liking He did
not recall a great deal thereof except that a message was
conveyed that they couldn't continue Nunes as an
employee. He could not recall any 53 percent error ratio
being used or where it could have come from if it were
According to Nunes, Russell appeared ill as Nunes
accompanied him on what Nunes incorrectly thought was
to be an annual review on the afternoon of November 3 to
Goetz's office where Vredenburgh but not Goetz was
present. According to Nunes, Russell said something to
the effect, "Tom we're very concerned about the quality
of your work. We've observed a great many errors in it "
Nunes testified he then interrupted to say, "Wait a
minute, what we're down here for is not to give me my
annual review. We're down here to terminate me. Is not
that correct)" According to Nunes, Russell replied, "Yes
it is" and Russell had available a check made out for his
wages Nunes said Vredenburgh commented that it was
too bad that it had to happen, that apparently he had
lapsed into his sloppy underwriting ways going back to
March 1967, and that they just couldn't tolerate poor
underwriting, that he was going to have to go and that
Vredenburgh thought he had a great deal of talent as
regards underwriting of boats etc, and suggested he seek
employment in that line Nunes said he got up and left
He said no files were shown and that he threw a question
at Russell and received an error figure in excess of 50
percent - he believed it was 53 percent
Vredenburgh testified that Nunes and he were in front
of a desk and Russell behind it at the termination
meeting; that Russell discussed past, present, and future
- that it would be beneficial to Nunes to look for
employment elsewhere Vredenburgh directly
corroborating Nunes said he commented to Nunes that he
would probably be happy in the marine field He said
Nunes cut off Russell, "by advising him that he knew the
purpose for which the . ." and that Nunes went back
upstairs at that time. According to Vredenburgh the
meeting lasted 15 or 20 minutes. He could recall nothing
about a 53 percent ratio being mentioned. The conflict
concerning the 53 percent figure which I have found
supra, was not made as stated by Nunes appears to be the
only basic conflict in testimony concerning the termination
meeting
The General Counsel makes a point that Nunes
performance appraisal says on it that it was reviewed in
detail with the employee on 11/3/67 and that Russell on
cross-examination admitted it had not been Russell's
testimony is not entirely clear but I conclude from it that
he did not show the evaluation to Nunes or discuss it with
him and that the date of November 3 was put in to reflect
the date of the execution of the termination evaluation
rather than anything else In any event, I do not- consider
this of decisive importance in connection with the ultimate
issue
As to that namely the discharge of Nunes, I conclude
that, although there are questionable aspects thereto, the
evidence adduced by the General Counsel does not
establish by a preponderance that Nunes was discharged
because of union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act I shall therefore recommend that the
complaint be dismissed.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions, it is hereby recommended that the complaint
in the above matter be dismissed in its entirety
APPENDIX A
Audits
DATE FILES ERRORS
JDGMT PROC.
PERCENT COMMENTS
TBS. Nunes
2-2-67 33 8 5 32 9 Poor Overall
2-16-67 19 4 2 31.5
3-16-67 20 3 20.0 Improved
4-16-67 25 2 2 16.0 Improvement
5-23-67 10 2 0 20 0
6-23-67 23 3 67
7-14-67 20 50
9-8-67 25 40
10-11-67 28 3 2 17.0
10-12-67 21
William Pankratz.
3 140
2-10-67 24 6 4 41.6 Will work closely
with Bill Volume
& errors too high
3-14-67 20 100
4-10-67 28 2 10.9 Much
Improvement.
Quality much
better
& volume holding
up
6-29-67 28 3 2 180 9
7-19-67 30
Howard Kober
2 10.0 Good
3-2-67 22 2 2 18 0 Fair quality
4-3-67 28
Donald Palmer
3 142 Fair quality
2-17-67 26 70 Quality good
3-29-67 20
Glenn Mills
0 0 0.0 Quality good
2-14-67 24 2 2 16.6
7-11-67 16
Paul Sundquist
0 6.0 Very good quality
3-2-67 25
John Sandvig-
2 0 8.0 Very good quality
3-7-67 18 2 0 11.1 Need re on old
P.U 3640 72 90
verify rule class
3640 88 74
8-11-67 25 0 Very good quality
Promoted and Super 11-16-67
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 1303
Richard Hill
1-19 20 4 0 20.0
2-29 24 4 2 25 0 Dick is doing a
good job
3-21 30 3 130 Improving
7-7
Joan Prickett
25 1 80 Good
2-14-67 12 0 0 00
3-20-67 38 2 1 30
3-28-67 21 0 0 0.0
3-29-67 15 0 0 00
APPENDIX B satisfaction
3. Each performance appraisal also contains comments
where the item is marked 4 or 5, (below good), and may
contain comments in other instances
4. The persons graded are listed below by name with
final grade and also point totals although the latter are
not deemed decisive since more weight is given to certain
The Performance Appraisals
I Performance appraisal forms listed their items as
follows-
A. PERSONAL
1. Job Knowledge
2 Planning and Organizing to Meet Objectives
3. Creativity (Development and Application of New
Ideas)
4. Decision Making (Quality, Timeliness, Willingness to
Make)
5 Taking Action (Initiating and Following Through)
6 Personal Characteristics (Health, Appearance,
Character, Habits, Manner)
B WORKING WITH PEOPLE
7. Expressions (Oral and Written)
8 Contribution in Meetings
9. Keeping Supervisor Informed
10. Achieving Results Through Others
11. Personal Acceptance by Others
12. Open-Mindedness (Acceptance of New Procedures)
2 Numbers from I to 5 were attached to each item on
the following basis:
I EXCEPTIONAL - Superior performance, out of
the ordinary, one that surpasses others in quality, merit or
excellence Consistently exceeds very good
2 VERY GOOD - High degree of performance to a
considerable extent Extremely and exceedingly
satisfactory
3 GOOD - Performance is competent and adequate.
satisfactory in all aspects of major duties and
responsibilities
4. FAIR - Quality or degree of performance is
reasonably good; middling, pretty good but limited
5 UNSATISFACTORY - Deficient performance, not
meeting minimum requirements, failing to give
items than to others
Prickett 30 Points - Very Good
Hill 32 Points - Good
Sundquist 33 Points - Good
Sandvig 35 Points - Good
Palmer 35 Points - Good
Mills 36 Points - Good
Kober 38 Points - Good
Pankratz 39 Points - Good
Nunes 44 Points - Fair
5. The following are also noted According to Russell,
the.most important items were items 1. Job Knowledge, 4
Decision Making; 5. Taking Action and 7. Expressions
(Oral and Written). The only item graded "1" was
Sundquist for creativity. (He submitted and had approved
the most suggestions). Sundquist also received one rating
of 4 on an item considered of lesser importance
Sandvig received a rating of 4 on a lesser item
Kober received ratings of 4 on Decision Making and
one lesser item 12 - Open-Mindedness.
Pankratz received a rating of 2 on a lesser item, a
rating of 4 on Decision Making and ratings of 4 on lesser
items 10, 11, 12.
Nunes received ratings of 4 on Job Knowledge,
Decision Making, Expressions and two lesser items 9 and
10 and a 5 on item l l This was the only 5 rating given to
anyone
The above represent the only item ratings below 3 (or
above 2) that were given
Appendix C
Week Ending Patterson Duee Roth Su ahiro Puckett Mills
10 4 2 1 5 7 9
4-14 108/539 480 587 451 510 519 352
4-7 93/467 557 656 520 504 401 409
3-31 75/373 486 605 738 488 482 360
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3-24 82/412 466 424 557 418 384 374
3-10 86/430 511 530 590 502 1 day 491
absent
2-17 92/461 488 541 I day
absent
2-10 74/369 551 536 532 499 429 464
1-29 85/425 539 624 505 592 403 487
1-20 82/410 557 497 2 days 478 397 534
absent
Total 3886 4617 4981 4519 4479 3556 3471
Weekly Avg 86/432 103/513 111/553 113/565 100/498 89 /445 87/434
Sundquist Pankratz Sandvig Ahrens Nunes Kober
10 3 12 8 6 13
4-14 445 612 371 389 482 371
4-7 367 544 378 472 455 399
3-31 379 599 394 Vacation 539 354
3-24 364 475 407 447 563 379
3-10 469 518 434 469 1 day 374
absent
2-17 370 477 350 465 440 395
2-10 474 551 367 414 336 295
1-29 521 541 391 435 473 390
1-20 Vacation 547 388 415 2 days 263
absence
Total 3389 4864 3480 35b6 3288 3220
Weekly Avg 85/424 108/540 77/387 88/438 94/470 72/358
* U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1971 0-380-675