Finesilver Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 676 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finesilver Manufacturing Company and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-2407
June 20, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On March 8, 1967, Trial Examiner Horace A.
Ruckel issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
unlawfully interrogated one employee but that it had
not engaged in the other unfair labor practices
alleged 4n the complaint and recommending that the
complaint herein be dismissed 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 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 brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the 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.
' The record discloses Respondent 's principal office and place
of business is located, and the hearing in this case was held, at
San Antonio, Texas The Trial Examiner's Decision is hereby
corrected accordingly.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: This case comes
before me upon an unfair labor practice complaint issued
on July 27, 1966, by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, acting through its Regional
i At the conclusion of the General Counsel 's case he moved to
dismiss certain other allegations of 8(a)(1) violations This was
granted by the Trial Examiner
Director for Region 23 (Houston, Texas), against Finesilver
Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent. The
complaint is based upon an amended charge filed on
July 18, 1966, by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
The complaint alleges that Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et
seq.), herein called the Act, by interrogating employees as
to their union activities, and on or about March 2, 1966,
discharged Isabel Valle because of her support of the
Union. These activities are said to constitute unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)' and (3) of
the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me, at
Houston, Texas, on November 8, 1966, in which the
parties participated. At its conclusion the parties waived
oral argument, and subsequently the General Counsel and
Respondent filed timely briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Texas corporation having its principal
office and place of business at Houston, Texas, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of men's clothing. During the
12 months preceeding the issuance of the complaint (a
representative period) Respondent manufactured, sold,
and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its
San Antonio plant directly to States other than the State of
Texas. During the events herein complained of,
Respondent employed about 700 employees. The
complaint alleges, and Respondent's answer does not
deny, that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization admitting employees of Respondent
to membership.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Isabel Valle
Valle worked periodically for Respondent from 1952 to
1960, as a single-needle machine operator. Her last and
longest period of employment was from May 6, 1964, to
January 4, 1966. She became interested in the Union
which, on September 22, 1965, sent her name to
Respondent as a member of its organizing committee.
Around the same date Respondent received the names of
approximately 60 other employees as members of the
committee.
On January 5, 1966, Valle did not feel well and did not
report for work. She informed Vora Clayton, personnel
manager, of this on the telephone on January 6. A day or so
later she was injured by a fall in her home. On January 9
she wrote Respondent reporting the accident and said that
165 NLRB No. 93
FINESILVER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
she would be unable to come to work. Respondent had no
further word from her until March 2 when she showed up
at the plant , gave Clayton a doctor's statement that she
was able to resume work, and applied for work along with
several other applicants. None was hired. The testimony of
Valle is that Clayton's secretary told her that she was laid
off. Clayton testified that she told Valle and the other
applicants simply that there was no work that day. I find
the point immaterial. On the following day Valle applied
for unemployment compensation and was never thereafter
called for work by Respondent.
Respondent's defense to its failure to put Valle to work
when she applied on March 2, 2 months after she last
performed work, was her record of absences and
tardinesses during the preceding year.
It is not disputed, and I find, that during 249 working
days in 1965, she failed to show up for work on 80 days,
and on the days she did work she punched in after 8 a.m.,
the time when employees are supposed to be at their
machines, on 41 days, and on 15 other days she punched in
at 8 o'clock. In brief, Valle was late getting to her machine
a total of 57 days. She admitted that Hertzel Finesilver,
Respondent's vice president, spoke to her at least twice in
November or December 1965, about being late and absent
too often, and warned her that she would be discharged if
this continued. Taylor, a supervisor, spoke to her once to
the same effect. During the previous July and August, still
according to Valle's own testimony, Taylor and Tersa Lott,
another supervisor, spoke to her about her tardiness. The
credited, undisputed testimony of Clayton, personnel
manager , is that during 1965 she spoke to Valle at least 20
times about being late for work. Her further undisputed
and credited testimony is that Valle, for the previous year,
had the worst attendance record of any employee in the
plant.
During Valle's absence from January 4, 1966, to the
following March 2 when she reported again for work, a
period during which Respondent had no word from her
after her letter of January 9, Finesilver, Taylor, and
Barnes, Respondent's paymaster, in consultation decided
that Valle was no longer "employable" by Respondent.
Conclusions
Valle was no more active in the Union than any other of
the approximately 60 employees, including Ayala, who, the
Union advised Respondent, constituted its organizing
committee. The record, in fact, reflects no individual
activity whatever, aside from the fact of committee
membership. Nor was she at any time spoken to or
677
interrogated by management concerning the Union or her
interest in it, as was Ayala whose interrogation by
President Finesilver is hereinafter related, but whom
Respondent continued to employ. This, coupled with
Valle's bad record of absenteeism and lateness for work,
leads me to conclude that Respondent discharged her for
legitimate business reasons and not because of her union
membership.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Janie Ayala, a machine operator who had been 19 years
in Respondent's employ, suffered a rupture in March 1966,
and was absent from work until July 11. Like Valle, her
name was 1 of the approximately 60 sent Respondent by
the Union as a member of its negotiating committee. When
Ayala returned to the plant she was interviewed by Mervin
Finesilver, Respondent's president, who, after inquiring
how long she had been employed, asked her how it had
happened that she had signed up for the Union and if many
girls went to the meetings. Ayala countered by inviting him
to attend a meeting with her, and Finesilver responded by
putting her back to work.
This conversation was the only instance of alleged
interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as to which any evidence was adduced.
While I find Finesilver's asking Ayala if many girls went to
union meetings to be technically in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I find, because of its isolated nature, that
it would not serve the purposes of the Act to issue an order
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Respondent occur in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent , by asking an employee if many
employees attended union meetings , violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. In view of the isolated nature of this
violation , however , I shall not recommend that any Order
issue with respect to it.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed.
299-352 0-70-44