Fleetwood Trailer Co. of Idaho, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 631 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

FLEETWOOD TRAILER COMPANY OF IDAHO, INC. 631
Fleetwood Trailer Company of Idaho, Inc. and United Steel-
workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-CA-1729. Feb-
ruary 15, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1959, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting
brief, and a memorandum was filed on behalf of the General Counsel.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and memorandum, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Fleetwood
Trailer Company of Idaho, Inc., Nampa, Idaho, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, and
to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
(b) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by dis-
criminating in any manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of their employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
126 NLRB No. 77.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Offer to Linvel D. Moffis immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Linvel D. Moffis for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
and Moffis' right of reinstatement as provided herein.
(d) Post in its plant at Nampa, Idaho, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the co nsideration of
the above Decision and Order.
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an
Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers
of America , AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right
FLEETWOOD TRAILER COMPANY OF IDAHO, INC. 633
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Linvel D. Moffis immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of our discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization , except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8(a) (3) of the amended Act . We will not discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
FLEETWOOD TRAILER COMPANY OF IDAHO, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on February 2, 1959,1 by United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel 2 and the Board,
through the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington),
issued a complaint , dated April 30, against Fleetwood Trailer Company of Idaho,
Inc., Nampa , Idaho, herein called Respondent , alleging that Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charge and of the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon Respondent and upon the Union.
Specifically , the complaint alleged that : ( 1) Since on or about January 23, Re-
spondent 'threatened its employee with reprisals if they engaged in union activities;
and (2) on or about January 28 , Respondent discharged Linvel D. Moffis, and there-
after refused to reinstate him, because of his membership and activities in behalf
of the Union.
Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on June 18, 1959, at Boise, Idaho,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented by counsel
who participated in the hearing . Full opportunity was afforded the parties to be
heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce relevant and pertinent
evidence , to argue orally at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence , and .to file
"Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1959.
9 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
briefs on or before July 15. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel
and from Respondent 's counsel which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent , an Idaho corporation , has its principal offices and plant at Nampa,
Idaho, where it manufactures mobile homes . During the fiscal year ending Janu-
ary 31 , 1959, Respondent 's out-of-State purchases of goods exceeded $50,000.
Upon the above admitted facts the Trial Examiner finds that during all times
material Respondent was, and now is, engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
for the Board to assert jurisdiction of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
Linvel D. Moffis was in Respondent 's employ from May 1957 until his discharge
on January 28, 1959, as a production worker. In November 1958 , he signed a union
authorization card and thereafter became very active in behalf of the Union by at-
tending its meetings and soliciting members from among his coworkers. He was
selected by the membership as chairman of the plant grievance committee and also
as a member of the Union 's negotiating committee . At the Board -conducted repre-
sentation election held at Respondent 's plant on January 27 , Moffis was one of the
Union's two observers.
B. The pertinent facts
On December 16, 1958, the Union filed a representation petition . Pursuant thereto
an election was scheduled to be held on January 27 among the employees in the
claimed appropriate unit. Commencing about 3 weeks prior to the date of the
impending election , Respondent held a series of meetings with its employees which
were addressed by Plant Manager Phil Haas and, on occasion , by Haas and by
Production Manager Daniel Mattson.
At the second meeting, held about a week or two prior to the date set for the Board
election and which was presided over by Haas , Moffis stated that as a member of the
Union's negotiating committee he probably would be entitled to examine Respond-
ent's books if Respondent claimed that it could not afford to grant a wage increase.
Thereupon , Haas stated , in effect, that Respondent would not allow anyone, except
the Internal Revenue Service , to examine its books.
At the meeting held on or about January 21 , which Haas had called, Mattson
told those present, to quote from Moffis ' credited testimony,
He [Mattson ] was always saying about that [ sic] the Unions tried to get in at
Anaheim,3 and how they got rid of it there , and they could do the same here,
and if we went out on strike we would all be fired except the ones that
returned back through the strike, and they would all have good jobs.
Ellsworth Jordan testified without contradiction, and the Trial Examiner finds,
that he was in Respondent 's employ from September 1958 until the latter part of
the following January; that on the Friday or Saturday evening immediately prior to
Moffis' discharge on January 28, he, Mattson, and Don Jessen , an employee of an-
other plant , were in a local tavern; that during the conversation which ensued
there, he told Mattson that because of the workload Mattson was meting out to Moffis
"there was no way Moffis could keep up" with his work; and that Mattson replied,
"Well, he'll either keep up or if he gets behind or steps out of line, I'm going to can
him, anyway."
9 Referring to 'a plant at Anaheim, California , operated by Fleetwood Trailer Company,
Incorporated , where Mattson worked immediately prior to becoming Respondent's pro-
duction manager in the forepart of January 1959. In about 1956, there was a strike at
the Anaheim plant during which Mattson and others remained on the job The "general
management" of the Anaheim plant "is above the three managers" of Respondent ' s plant.
FLEETWOOD TRAILER COMPANY OF IDAHO, INC. 635
Moms testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he and Marvin Wangelin had
been selected to act as the Union's observers at the aforementioned Board election;
that they had been informed by Myrl Zinn, a union representative, that arrangements
had been made with Respondent for him and Wangelin "to get off at noon" on
January 27, the day of the election; that relying on said arrangements neither he nor
Wangelin followed their usual custom of bringing their lunch to the plant that day;
that when they were about to "go home and clean up and come back for the election,"
set for 3:30 that afternoon, Haas told them, to quote Moflis, "that there had been
no provisions made for us to go home, that [Respondent] couldn't spare us"; that
after Haas had telephoned the union hall, Haas told him and Wangelin "to go
downtown and pick up a quick sandwich," which they did; and that when they
returned to the plant, about 10 minutes late, Mattson, to quote Moms, "jumped all
over us and told us if it happened again we could pick up our time."
The Union won the Board election of January 27, and that evening it held a
celebration which was attended by most of Respondent's employees. Haas and
Mattson attended as invited guests.
Moffis testified without contradiction, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he
attended the Union's election celebration party of January 27; that he reported for
work the following morning at 8 o'clock, the usual starting time; that at about 9
o'clock that morning he informed Marshall Hayes, his leadman, that he was sick
and was going home; that in response to Hayes' inquiry as to what work remained
unfinished, he replied, "the vanity top and the valances needed to be sanded for
the trailer, and I would try to be back at noon and catch the rest of it up, one way
or the other. All the rest of it . . . that trailer was done"; and that when Hayes
said "okay," he assumed by that it was okay to go on home, which he did.
Moms returned to the plant at about noon. When he noticed that his timecard
was not in the rack and that a new employee was working at his work station, he
asked Hayes whether he was fired and the latter replied in the affirmative. Moms
thereupon inquired of Mattson whether he had "pulled" his card. Mattson stated
that he had and that Moffrs was "through" and should pick up his "time" later.
C. Concluding finding
At the hearing and in its brief Respondent contended that Moms was discharged
solely because, contrary to Respondent's rules, Moms had left his work station
without first receiving permission. The credible evidence, as summarized above,
does not support this contention.
Wangelin credibly testified that he was a leadman at the time of Moms' discharge;
that he and other leadmen had given sick and/or injured employees permission to
leave the plant without first consulting the production manager; that on occasions
he had permitted employees under his supervision to leave the plant early provided
their jobs were caught up for the day; that Mattson, after becoming production
manager, held several meetings with the leadmen wherein he stated "there would
probably be a lot of changes," but that Mattson "stated nothing definite" other
than the nonsupervisory employees were to go to their leadman with their "problems"
and "difficulties" and not to him; and that at no time did Mattson tell him that
leadmen were no longer permitted to allow any person to leave the plant without
first receiving his permission.
Respondent's brief refers to a purported long "established policy requiring em-
ployees to obtain a leave of absence or a leave from their operating station from
the production manager only. Two employees, Dean Pike and Howard
Arnet, were discharged 4 for leaving their work stations without notifying the
production manager." The only evidence offered at the hearing in support of this
statement was some unconvincing, self-serving testimony of Mattson and the fol-
lowing testimony given by Moms on cross-examination by Respondent's counsel:
Q. Were you familiar with the fact that [Pike and Arnet] were discharged?
A. I knew they were discharged.
Q. Did you know why they were discharged?
A. I didn't know all about it.
Q Did you know that they had left their posts without notifying the Pro-
duction Manager?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know they went down town and had some beers?
A. Yes.
4 Apparently in October 1958
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did you know that when they came back they were discharged for leaving
without notice?
A. I knew when they came back they was pretty well looped.
Q. (By Trial Examiner.) Pretty well what?
A. They was pretty well looped.
Q. What do you mean-
A. I didn't know about them being discharged until later.
Q. What do you mean, "looped"?
A. Well, they had had a few too many beers.
Upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that
Respondent discharged Moffis because of his membership and activities in behalf
of the Union. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and
since such conduct necessarily interfered with, restrained, and coerced Moffis in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7, Respondent also violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Linvel D. Moffis by discharging him on January 28, 1959,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent offer him immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date
of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his
net earnings during such period. Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in ac-
cordance with the formula adopted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289.
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent in the instant case are
such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally.
In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of
the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs com-
merce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Fleetwood Trailer Company of Idaho, Inc, Nampa , Idaho, during all times
material herein was engaged in and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Linvel
D. Moffis, thereby discouraging membership in the Union , Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]