FWG Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 588 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FWG Corporation , formerly known as Northwest
Automatic Products Corporation, and
Dyson -Kissner Corporation , Northwest Automatic
Division , successor of Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation and United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America (UE). Case
18-CA-2682
September 24, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On April 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 and recommended that
such allegations he dismissed. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the 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 proceeding 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 this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(e) 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, FWG Corporation,
formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products
Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner Corporation,
Northwest Automatic Division, successor of
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation,
Minneapolis. Minnesota. its officers, agents.
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JFRRY B STONE, Trial Examiner:This proceeding, under
Section l0(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. as
amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on February I I
and 12, 1969, at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The original charge was filed on September 27, 1968.
The original complaint in this matter issued on December
5, 1968. The amended complaint in this matter issued on
February 5, 1969 '
The essential issues in this case are (1) whether,
Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest -Automatic
Products Division, is a successor of FWG Corporation,'
formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products
Corporation, (2) whether Respondent FWG engaged in
acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, (3) whether Respondent FWG
discriminatorily terminated the employment of Lois
Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman on September 3, 1968,
because of belief of their union adherence, (4) whether
Respondent FWG, on September 3, 1968, discriminatorily
changed its policy of granting unpaid leaves of absence to
employees because certain of its employees engaged in
union or concerted activities, and (5) the question of
remedial responsibility of the Respondents.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding, and the General Counsel and counsel
for the Respondents filed briefs which have been
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE,BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER;
Prior to October 1, 1968, for many years a corporation
known as the Northwest Automatic Products Corporation
had been a corporation duty organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota. On or about
October 1, 1968, the assets of said Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation and the usage of the name of
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation were sold by
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation to
Dyson-Kissner Corporation. At said time the former
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation took the
name of FWG Corporation and has continued in existence
for the ultimate purpose of liquidation at a later time for
certain tax advantages.
Thus it may be said that b WG Corporation. formerly
known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, is
and has been for many years a corporation duly organized
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Minnesota. FWG engaged for many years, up to October
1, 1968, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
automatic screw machine products. Between December 5,
1967, and October I. 1968, FWG manufactured, shipped,
and sold finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to
points outside the State of Minnesota, and in the course
and conduct of its business operations purchased,
transferred, and delivered to its plant steel products and
other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were transported to said plant directly from States
of the United States other than the State of Minnesota.
Prior to October 1, 1968, Frank Griswold was president
and owner of I- WG (formerly known as Northwest
'The procedural issues relating to notice and service of the amended
complaint and time of hearing were waived by the Respondents.
'Sometimes herein referred to simply as Respondent FWG or HWG
Based upon the pleadings and clarification thereof made at the hearing,
and the credited testimony of Griswold
178 NLRB No. 99
FWG CORPORATION
Automatic Products Corporation), K. P. Manufacturing
Company, and Twin City Monorail Company.' K. P.
Manufacturing Company and Twin City Monorail
Company were situated next to the location of FWG. As
indicated, on or about October I. 1968, Griswold sold the
assets of FWG to Dyson-Kissner Corporation.
Dyson-Kissner Corporation is a holding company that has
ownership in various companies.' Along with the assets,
Dyson-Kissner Corporation purchased the right to use the
names of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, K
P. Manufacturing Company. and Twin City Monorail
Company. As indicated, FWG has continued in corporate
existence for the purpose of ultimate liquidation at a time
advantageous for tax purposes
Since October 1, 1968, Dyson-Kissner Corporation has
had what is known as Dyson-Kissner Corporation,
Northwest Automatic Products Division. This division is
composed of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation,
K P. Manufacturing Company, and Twin City Monorail
Company.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Northwest
'Automatic Products Corporation owned by Dyson-Kissner
Corporation and a part of Dyson-Kissner Corporation.
Northwest Automatic Products Division, is substantially
the same employing enterprise as existed prior to October
1, 1968. Thus Griswold. who continued as president of the
successor enterprise, credibly testified to the effect that the
only change was one of ownership, that the work
performed was substantially the same, the location and
relationship to other nearby companies was the same, the
employees were substantially the same, the supervision
was substantially the same from top to bottom, and that
supervision was executed substantially in the same
manner
There is no evidence to reveal that Dyson-Kissner
Corporation at the time of purchase of the assets (and
name) of FWG Corporation, formerly known as
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, had
knowledge of pending unfair labor practice charges.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find
that Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic
Products Division, on October I, 1968, became a
successor enterprise to FWG Corporation.'
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the enterprise known by corporate name as
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation and
functioning as a manufacturing and employing enterprise
up to October 1, 1968, and continuing only in corporate
name as FWG Corporation thereafter and not as a
continuing manufacturing or employing enterprise.
constituted an employer enterprise engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act. I further conclude that at all times material herein
prior to October 1, 1968, said enterprise known herein as
Respondent FWG Corporation, formerly known as
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, was an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also conclude and
find that after October I. 1968, Respondent,
Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic
Products Division, Northwest Automatic Products
'Griswold is president of other companies but such fact has no relevance
to the issues herein
'In some of said companies, Dyson-Kissner owns varying amounts of
stock As to some other companies. Dyson-Kissner Corporation owns said
companies outright
`Witham Buick . Inc. 139 NLRB 1209
589
Corporation, was an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the,
Act. 1 further find on the basis of the foregoing that the
Board's jurisdictional standards are satisfied and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The status of the labor organization involved is in issue
by the pleadings. The uncontradicted credited testimony of
Koedinger clearly reveals that the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) represents
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, and
admits to membership employees in machine shops and
companies like Dyson-Kissner, Northwest Automatic
Products Division. The facts also reveal that said Union
started an organizing campaign at Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation around March and April of 1968
Considering the foregoing, it is concluded and found that
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE) is and has been at all times material herein
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
.the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIICES
A. Preliminary Issues Supervisory Status'
The facts are clear, and I conclude and find that at all
times material herein prior to October 1, 1968, the
following named persons occupied the positions set
opposite their respective names and were agents of
Respondent FWG, acting in its behalf, and were
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.
Frank W Griswold President
Dennis Smith - Quality Manager
The facts are clear, and I conclude and find that at all
times material herein subsequent to October 1, 1968, the
following named persons occupied the positions set
opposite their respective names and have been and are
now agents of Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest
Automatic Products Division, acting in its behalf, and
were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
I-rank W. Griswold - President
Dennis Smith - Quality Manager
B Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent
denies that Griswold. on or about April 4, 1968, accused
an employee of initiating the union organizing campaign.
General Counsel's witness Kotula testified to the effect
that he went to a union meeting on April 3, 1968, that on
April 4, 1968, Griswold was engaged in giving employees
their weekly pay at their work station, that on such
occasion Griswold accused Kotula of being a union
instigator and organizer, that Kotula denied this, that
Kotula told Griswold that Griswold had accused him of
the same thing 10 years ago and had been wrong then and
was wrong now. Kotula testified to the effect that he also
told Griswold that he (Kotula) had told others at the
'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
Griswold, Smith , Nalezny, Sodman, and other witnesses
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union meeting that Griswold would have him into the
office, and that Griswold told him, "No, I am not having
you in the office, I am talking to you right here."
Griswold testified to the ettect that he did not have
such a conversation on or about April 4, 1968, but that he
did have a conversation with Kotula, on a payday, after
April 30, 1968. Griswold testified to the effect that the
first knowledge he had of the Union was on April 30,
1968, when the Union distributed a leaflet, and that
shortly thereafter, on a payday, he and Kotula had a
conversation. Griswold's testimony as to what occurred is
revealed by the following excerpts from the record.
A I think that was sometime after they had handed
out the circulars and he said, "Now. you remember 1
was accused," when he was on the night shift, "of
starting a union," and he said, "I didn't start this one,
if you think I did, you are wrong again," yes, I
remember that
Q. Was that in response to some question of yours?
A. No, I think he started the conversation because
he didn't want me to think that these pamphlets were
handed out, he didn't want me to think he had anything
to do with it, he volunteered that information.
Q. So, then, at no time, then, you did not ask him if
he was the organizer or instigator of the union at all'?
A. He told ine I should not suspect him of that
because he wasn't and that he had been suspected
before when he was on the night shift and I told him I
hadn't heard about that at the time, but I found out
since then that they did tell me that he did If 1 could
see the date I could tell you for sure
As indicated, the issue is one of credibility. Griswold,
with respect to his testimony relating to the Grivna
incident, set forth later in this Decision, testified to certain
facts contrary to the weight of the evidence and the
credited facts Kotula, with respect to his testimony
relating to the October 10, 1968, "button" incident, set
forth later in this Decision, also testified to facts contrary
to the weight of the evidence and the credited facts
Both Griswold and Kotula testified with reference to a
conversation in May 1968 about loss of pay for 4 days'
time because of an injury With respect to this testimony,
it is clear that Kotula appeared to he more objective,
reliable, frank, forthright, and truthful than did Griswold
It is clear from the testimony of both witnesses that
Griswold let it be known that the "pay" was in effect a
gilt granted and not required by law. 1 credit Kotula 's
testimony to the effect that Griswold said, "Why don't
you talk to your business agent about it and see if he can
pay you." A short time later, however. Griswold paid
Kotula for the lost time
Considering the totality of the facts, the logical
consistency thereof, and Kotula's overall more credible
appearance as a witness, l credit Kotula's testimony
relating to the April 4 event and discredit Griswold's
version of facts in denial thereof. Such conduct is clearly
violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
In this case, however, such conduct is isolated in
nature. Thus the credited facts reveal that after April 4
Respondent has not been found to violate the Act until
the events of September 3. 1968. Since the remedial
provisions drafted for the conduct found violative on
September 3, 1968," will also provide sufficient remedy for
this type conduct, I shall not make further specific
remedial recommendation for this specific violative
conduct
'Discriminatory termination of employment of NaleLny and Sodman in
violation of See 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
2. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent
denies that (a) on or about September 12, 1968, Frank W.
Griswold created the impression of surveillance of
employees' union activities by informing employees that
he could ascertain which employees had signed union
authorization cards, and that (b) Frank W Griswold, on
or about September 12, 1968. told an employee in the
presence of other employees that he was demoted and his
wages would he reduced because he signed an
authorization card for the Union.
The facts' are clear that in November 1967 Grivna had
been made a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Thus it is clear that Grivna, as a foreman, who also
engaged in production work, responsibly made
assignments of work to other employees.
Sometime prior to September 12, 1968, the Respondent
encountered problems concerning recordkeeping in
Grivna's work area. This problem complicated
Respondent's ascertainment of costs relating to certain
Government jobs. The Respondent decided to assign a
female employee, Sellgren, to help keep such records.
Griswold called all of the grinding room employees into
his office, on a day around the middle of September 1968,
and told them that Sellgren was going to do certain
recordkeeping in the grinding room
Later Grivna construed this use of Sellgren as being a
replacement of him as a foreman. Grivna indicated to
others that he was dissatisfied and would not work under
a woman foreman.
The next day Grivna's attitude was reported to
Griswold Griswold thereupon went to the grinding room
with Imogene Sellgrcn, introduced her to the other
employees, and related her duties. A heated argument
ensued between Griswold and Grivna concerning the
records, transfer of employees from the night shift, and
the use of Sellgren. Grivna stated that his work had been
satisfactory, that things were running smoothly, and that
there was no need to transfer employees from the night
shift to the day shift 10 Grivna told Griswold that he was
going to quit. Griswold explained his need for time
records and that Sellgren would not be a foreman or give
orders. that she was only going to keep records. Grivna
told Griswold that he had not wanted the job as foreman
and asked Griswold why Griswold did not fire him.
Griswold told Grivna that he did not want to fire him.
that Grivna was a good man. Griswold told Grivna that
he should he loyal to the Company, that he should work
with Sellgren and for the Company, and that a person
who was not loyal for the Company was not worth
anything Grivna told Griswold in effect that he had been
loyal, that he did the work of two men, and that he still
did not want to work with Sellgren Griswold told Grivna
'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the
testimony of Grivna , I-nta, Hanson , Garvois, Morris, Sellgren, and
Griswold, and a logical consistency of the facts The overlying thrust of the
event is not really in dispute Much of Griswold's and Grivna ' s testimony
was to the same effect . Such testimony is credited over other witnesses'
testimony where in conflict Testimony by Grivna, Fritz , and Griswold was
more in detail than other witnesses However, the testimony of each of the
above-named witnesses was to an extent conclusionary , fragmented.
disjointed, and obviously not in total detail Each of the above-named
witnesses revealed a problem as to accuracy in precise timing of
statements Of all the witnesses Sellgren impressed me as being more sure
of whether Grivna was relieved as a foreman before the remarks about a
union were made I credit her testimony in such regard I discredit
Griswold s testimony to the effect that he did not tell Grivna that his rate
of pay was being cut I discredit all testimony inconsistent with the facts
found.
'•Grivna worked on the day shift
E,WG CORPORATION
that he (Grivna) was bullheaded and Grivna told Griswold
that he (Griswold) was bullheaded. Grivna left to get a
drink of water. While Grivna was gone, Griswold asked
the employees if Grivna wasn't bullheaded and there was
some indicated assent. Griswold stated that he was also
bullheaded. Griswold remarked that since Grivna worked
so hard that he ought to let him work halt the time for
full pay.
Grivna, who had left for a drink of water, returned a
short time later. Griswold told Grivna that if he were
dissatisfied with things, he should be a man and quit.
Grivna told Griswold that he did not want to quit, that he
(Griswold) should be a man and fire him. Griswold told
Grivna that if he were that miserable that he ought not to
work for the Company, that Grivna was not loyal, that he
did not want him as a foreman, and that he was no longer
foreman. Griswold told Grivna that he (Griswold) was
boss, that he was not going to let Sellgren down, that he
was going to run the shop, and that Grivna was not going
to tell him how to run the shop Grrvna told Griswold that
he was not trying to tell him how to run the shop
Griswold told Grivna that he would bet him a $1,000
that he (Grivna) had signed a union card. Grivna asked
Griswold how he knew that he had signed a union card.
Griswold told Grivna that he did not know, that he could
find out and that the Union always sold out. Grivna told
Griswold that he had signed a union card and stated. "so
what." Griswold said, "See, you weren't one of those that
was loyal to me and that is why you are no longer
foreman here." Griswold told Grrvna that he was being
returned to his old rate.
The next day Griswold spoke to some of the
tool-grinding employees about Grivna. They indicated that
they thought Grivna was a good, hard-working, deserving
employee. Later Griswold told Grivna that he would keep
his rate of pay, that he (Griswold) had never cut an
employee's rate. Later Grivna received a 10-cent-per-hour
wage increase.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the facts do not reveal that on or about September
12. 1968, Griswold created the impression of surveillance
of employees' union activities by informing employees that
he could ascertain which employees had signed union
cards. The facts clearly reveal a heated argument, and the
employees would reasonably evaluate it as such and not
that there had been surveillance or would he surveillance
of their activities. It will be recommended that the
allegation of conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) in such
respect will be dismissed.
Furthermore, I conclude and find that the allegation of
illegal conduct, demotion, and reduction of wages, alleged
violative of Section 8(a)( I). is without merit and should be
dismissed. The Respondent has a right to demand loyalty
of its supervisors Respondent's conduct was not directed
against the supervisor in reprisal for refusal to engage in
illegal antiunion or concerted activities conduct.
Accordingly, it is recommended that such allegations of
8(a)(1) conduct he dismissed.
3 The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent
denies "that Frank W. Griswold, on or about October 10.
1968, recorded or caused to be recorded the names of all
employees wearing Union campaign insignia or buttons in
the plant."
General Counsel witnesses Kotula and Fritz testified to
the composite effect that on October 9, 1968, certain
employees decided to wear union buttons on October 10,
1968, that October 10, 1968, was a regular payday, that
591
Griswold customarily on payday went through the plant
with his secretary to pay each employee, that Griswold did
so on October 10. 1968, that they observed Griswold when
coming into contact with an employee wearing a union
button speak to his secretary, Shirley Cole, and that they
observed Shirley Cole writing something down on such
occasion.
Griswold testified to the effect that he went through the
plant on October 10, 1968, as was customary on payday,
that he saw employees wearing union buttons, and that he
did not speak to or direct his secretary to write anything
down with reference to the union buttons Shirley Cole
testified to the effect that she was out of the country on
October 10, 1968, that she was overseas in Portugal on
such date, and had been on such a trip for several weeks.
Documentary official passport records support Cole's
testimony
It is clear that the General Counsel's witnesses are
incorrect in their testimony relating to Cole's activities.
This casts grave doubts on their reliability of observation
I find their testimony so unreliable that it lacks probative
value in establishing the alleged illegal conduct.
f=urthermore, I find Griswold to be a more reliable
witness than Kotula and Fritz on the events of October
10. 1968, and credit his denial of the alleged illegal
conduct. It will be recommended that the allegation as to
conduct of October 10, 1968. alleged to be violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. be dismissed.
C. Discrimination in Employment
The General Counsel alleges in effect and the
Respondent denies that ( 1) Respondent terminated the
employment of Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman on
September 3, 1968, because of their union or protected
activities , the Respondent has at all times since September
3, 1968, failed and refused to reinstate said employees,
and such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act, and ( 2) Respondent , on or about September 3,
1968, changed its policy of granting unpaid leaves of
absence to employees because certain of its employees
engaged in union or concerted activities , and such conduct
is violative of Section 8 ( a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
The facts relating to the foregoing issues may be set
I orth as follows
1. Prior to the commencement of the union
organizational efforts in March and April 1968,
Respondent FWG operated on the basis of a very flexible,
understanding, and cooperative relationship with the
employees . Griswold , president of Respondent FWG,
maintained a close and friendly relationship with
employees and did so in such a manner as enabled him to
virtually know all of his employees ' problems and desires.
As an example , Griswold personally went around on
payday to pay each employee. On such occasions his
secretary went along to take notes if necessary about
problems. Griswold thereafter took steps to aid in the
solution of the employees ' problems or desires.
Griswold maintained a policy that employees could take
their earned vacation time at any time the employee
desired. Griswold maintained this policy even in the face
of objection from supervisors as to production demands
The facts are clear that Griswold also allowed employees
to take leave without pay over and above their earned
vacation time.
The overwhelming weight of the evidence reveals that
Respondent FWG was not formalistic with respect to the
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
way it handled employee requests for extended leave. The
employee could request such leave through the foreman or
through Griswold. Since Griswold maintained a close
relationship with his supervisors and employees, it is clear
that he was well aware of most requests and that it was
his policy that the employee requests be honored. I credit
Nalezny's testimony to the effect that her pre-1968
requests for extended summer leave were submitted
through her foreman. I note that Cora Mattson's
testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel corroborates
N l ' i l dieznya s test mony. Mattson, in answer t ngo ea
questions , testified to the effect that she later spoke to
Griswold who told her she could have the extended leave.
On cross-examination Mattson was unable to time these
events clearly . Griswold ' s, Cole's, and Smith 's testimony
was to the composite effect that only Griswold could
allow the extended leave and that the employee had to see
Griswold.
Considering all of the testimony and the logical
consistency of the facts , I credit the testimony of Nalezny
and other employee witnesses to the effect that employees
secured their leave by going through their foreman. I
discredit testimony of Griswold , Cole, and Smith
contradictory thereof . I note that Smith's actions and
statements relating to the July 3 and September 3, 1968,
events clearly indicate that the procedures followed by
Nalezny and Sodman in securing their leave was
consistent with past practice. As indicated , Griswold
stayed on top of events and clearly had the power to
approve or disapprove of such leave His conduct and
practice as a whole however reveal that his normal
conduct and practice was to approve the employee
request . The facts also reveal that he was not formalistic
in taking care of such matters.
2. The Union commenced its organizing campaign in
late March 1968. Thereafter , on or about April 4, 1968,
Griswold accused Kotula of being a union organizer and
instigator . About a month later, Kotula missed 4 days'
work because of an injury on the job. A short time later
Kotula and Griswold had a discussion about sick pay. In
the discussion Griswold said , "Why don't you talk to your
business agent about it and see if he can pay you."
Griswold ultimately made it clear to Kotula that he would
be paid but that the Respondent did not have to do so.
3. In April 1968 Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman
signed union authorization cards. Thereafter both Nale7ny
and Sodman talked to other employees about the Union.
Excepting for the remarks made by Foreman Smith to
Sodman on September 3, 1968, there is no evidence of
company knowledge of the union activity of Nalezny and
Sodman.
4. Prior to 1968 both Nalezny and Sodman had had
occasions wherein they had taken extended leave from
work . Nalezny, at different times in the past _years, had
taken the summer months off Sodman had had to take
time off for surgery as is revealed by the following
excerpts from her credited testimony:
A I think it was '67, 1 am not sure . But I asked
Dennis Smith , my supervisor , if I could have time off,
and he says . " Well, yes, you can, since it was surgery.-
I took time off and went to the hospital and had
surgery and came back
Q Did you talk to Mr . Griswold in advance about
that`?
A No, 1 didn't talk to him about taking time off.
Dennis Smith had said to me "How are you going to
live?" And I said , "Well, I will just live on what I have
saved ." And he said , "Well, why don't you say
something to Mr. Griswold and maybe you will get
paid compensation." So Mr. Griswold came around the
day, I don't know if it was the day I left or one day he
was passing checks out, and I said, "Mr. Griswold, I
am going to take time' off for surgery." And he said,
"Yes, I know," and he went ahead. So I didn't talk to
him about anything.
Q. And did you have any problem coming back to
work when you returned from surgery?
A. No.
5. In 1968 both Nalezny and Sodman spoke to
Foreman Smith about taking extended leave for the
summer.
Sodman's conversations with Foreman Smith are
revealed by the following credited excerpts from her
testimony:
A Well, mine started in May My baby-sitter said
she couldn't baby-sit anymore and I says, "Well, could
you baby-sit until the kids get out of school'?" And she
said, yeah, her husband didn't want her to, but she
would. So, anyway, I told Dennie about it. or Smitty
about it, and he says, "Well, if you can't find one just
take an extended vacation." I said, "Fine." Well, I
kept looking and looking and I couldn't find one. Then
I told him that she would baby-sit up until July, that
was it, her husband said no more. So when he came
around I just told him that I would have to have the
summer off until the kids started back to school, and
that was it until July 3rd.
Nalezny, as indicated, had taken extended leave during
the past years. An exhibit in the record reveals that
Nalezny was off for the following approximate times in
the past. 1967-- July 8 through September 9; 1966--July 2
through July 30; 1965 -July 3 through August 14; 1964 -
June 15 through June 30. and August 17 through August
31.
Nalezny credibly testified to the manner and practice of
her receiving extended leave as is revealed by the
following credited excerpts from her testimony:
A Well, Dennis Smith would come around with the
vacation schedule in June and ask us what time we
wanted off or when we wanted our vacation and we
would tell him, and then, well, that was it, he would put
it down on the schedule and it was never said that we
couldn't have it or that we could. I just would go on
vacation and come back in the fall, although last year I
think I took an extra week, not this last year, the year
before, I called in, it was on a Tuesday after Labor
Day, we had been out of town and was busy and asked
him if I could have another week and he said yes.
Q. Who was that you asked"
A. Dennis Smith.
Q. In either 1967 or 1968 did you have any
conversation with Mr. Griswold about it'?
A No.
Q About your vacation?
A No.
About 3 weeks before July 3, 1968, Pat Drager was
introduced to Nalezny Nalezny was told by Jim Blexrud
(assistant to Smith) to break Drager in on the jobs that
Nalezny was working on, and that Drager would take
over while Nalezny was gone in the summer."
"Naiecny testified to the effect that Drager was a college student and
was planning to return to school in the fall Griswold and Smith testified
to the effect that they were under the impression that Dragcr was
interested in permanent employment and was so hired The facts reveal
that Drager , at some time after her initial interview for employment,
FWG CORPORATION 593
In June 1968 Foreman Smith went among his
employees to ascertain the vacation schedule. Nalezny
informed Smith that in addition to her earned vacation
time she desired, as she had done in the past, to have the
summer off until September 3, 1968. Smith made notation
of this information on his vacation schedule
Smith credibly testified to the effect that he informed
the office of the extended leave plans of Sodman and
Nalezny as is revealed by the following credited excerpts
from his testimony
A The only thing that I had done, normally for the
people who are leaving earlier on earlier vacations
which I would have to let the people in the office know
so that their checks could be made out and ready for
the people who are leaving early, and at the time, why,
I informed everybody, or informed the office that these
people are going to be gone at the time.
Q By the "office", do you mean Shirley?
A. Shirley, right.
Cole testified that she learned of Sodman's plan by a
"note" on her calendar at payroll time Cole apparently
did not recall knowledge of information about Nalezny It
is not clear whether Smith's informing of the office as to
the extended leave plan was "orally," in writing, or both.' T
In fact, considering all of the evidence and probabilities
thereof, and leading nature of the questions. it is not clear
whether he passed the information about Sodman and
Nalezny to the office through Griswold. It is clear, that
one way or the other, Cole knew of Sodman's plans
In October 1967 the State of Minnesota had instituted
penalty provisions for untimely supplying of information
by an employer pursuant to a Request for Wage and
Separation Information by the State. At this time the
State of Minnesota suggested a practice of filing a
separation notice whenever an employee was separated
from employment for any reason
I note that the requirements suggested by the State of
Minnesota in fact did not require a separation notice for
employees not separated from employment. The
Respondent, however, decided to consider- for reporting
purposes - employees who took extended leave as
employees who had quit and to issue separation notices
thereto. With the exception of the separation notices given
to Nalezny and Sodman, and Griswold's and Cole's
testimony thereto, there is little evidence to support the
Respondent's contended basis for such decision. There is
evidence in the record of employees who had quit or been
terminated otherwise and who received separation notices.
The inaccuracy of Respondent's interpretation of the
"separation" notice requirements and the use of the word
`'quit" in such circumstances casts a doubt on the validity
of the usage of the separation notice. On the other hand
the evidence does not support a basis for believing that as
of July 3, 1968, the "separation" notice was used for an
ulterior purpose against Nalezny and Sodman.
indicated plans to get married in October It is not clear whether Nalecny's
testimony was intended to reveal how she ascertained that Drager was
returning to school Conceivably, all of the witnesses to this point could be
testifying truthfully Thus Drager could have indicated one thing to
Griswold and Smith and another thing to Nalezny In any event, a finding
of tact either way would not affect the ultimate outcome of this case It is
clear that Foreman Smith considered Nalezny as an employee who would
return in the tall Furthermore , it is clear that Respondent FWG hired
many summer students knowing many would not rcmaut in employment in
the fall As indicated , 1 find it unnecessary to make a precise finding of
fact relating to whether Drager was employed with belict of her future
permanent employment into the fall
"it is clear that his sheet as to vacation leaves was sent to the office
Accordingly, I am persuaded from all the facts that
Respondent FWG, honestly but mistakenly, decided to
issue the separation notices in 1968 as a matter of form
and not as substance.
On July 3, 1968, around noon, Griswold and his
secretary, Shirley Cole, went around and paid the
employees off. Sodman was given an envelope containing
her regular check, an additional check to cover all other
wages due, a separation notice setting forth that she had
"quit," and an insurance cancellation notice. Nalezny
received only her regular check."
Sodman went to lunch and opened her envelope finding
her checks, her separation notice. and the cancellation of
her insurance. What occurred is revealed by the following
credited excerpts from her testimony "
A Well, Mr. Griswold came around with the checks
at, oh, about two minutes to noon and he handed me
the envelope and the bell rang and I went out to lunch
And we were in the car and I opened the envelope up,
and to my surprise there was a separation notice and
two checks and there was a notice notifying me that my
insurance was dropped. So I got kind of shook up, you
know, because they had said I could come back, and so
1, when we came back. I went in the office and I asked
for Mr. Griswold and they said he wasn't in, and I
says, "Is Shirley in?" And they said, "No, she isn't."
She said, "Take a seat and she will be right in." I
barely sat down and Shirley came in from lunch and I
showed her these papers and she said that this was a
new law, that they had to give these separation notices
out when anybody leaves for a certain length of time
and the other notice was for insurance purposes, if I
would get hurt or something, that their insurance
wouldn't have to cover it, I wasn't working there, so he
didn't want to take that risk, I guess. So then I went
out and I said to Dorothy Clark, I says --
A. I said I would like to see Dennic when he came
in. and I was certifying a room. I was all by myself and
Dennie came back there and he says, "What's your
problem?" And I showed him the separation notice and
the other thing and my check, and he says, "Now, what
the hell?" And he says, "Well, I will go up to the front
office and see "
Smith went in to see Griswold about the separation
notice given to Sodman'' Smith also mentioned the fact
that Nalc7nv was requesting similar leave and learned that
at that time Nalezny had not received a separation notice.
Griswold related to Smith the problem about separation
notices and reporting requirements and that separation
notices were to be given employees wherein a question
might exist as to their returning to work, that some
employees were complaining about favored treatment,
Nalezny would he handled just as Sodman had been, it
was a formality, and that the employees could return as
they had in the past in the fall
"As had been done in past years In the past she had been mailed later
another check for the other wages due
"Cole testified substantially similar to Sodman to the c onversation
between the two. Cole, however, testified to the effect that she suggested to
Sodman to see Griswold Cole did not appear to be as sure of the events as
Sodman I credit Sodman ' s denial that Cole suggested that she see
Griswold and discredit Cole's testimony thereto
"The facts are based upon the credited aspects of Smith's testimony, the
logical consistency of the evidence as a whole, and a fair inference
therefrom Thus 1 am persuaded that Smith injected the question of
Naleiny s leave, that contrary to Smith's testimony , which 1 do not credit.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smith returned to Sodman and told her in effect that
everything was all right, that he would see her in the fall,
and to have a nice vacation
Smith later told Shirley Cole, Griswold's secretary, that
Nalezny was leaving, and Griswold telephoned Cole and
instructed her to make out NaleLny's separation notice
and check. Cole did so and that afternoon presented
Nalezny with another check, for other wages due, a
separation notice indicating that Nale7ny had "quit," and
a notice of insurance cancellation
What occurred is revealed by the following credited
excerpts from Nalezny's testimony.'"
A. Well, I received my pay check for the previous
week about, a little bit before noontime , and then about
five to 5 Shirley Cole came out and brought my check
paying me up through that week that I was working,
and which is a little hit unusual. Other years I think I
got them in the mail. I don't remember getting the
check on this day that I left. In the envelope with the
check was a separation notice and I asked her why the
separation notice was there it was marked "Voluntary
quit" and I said, "I am not quitting. 1 am going on
vacation." And she said. "We don't know what you are
going to do during the summer, we don't know if you
are coming back." I said, "Well, I have always come
back other years." She said, "Yes, I know, but Mr.
Griswold wouldn't want to carry you on the
hospitalization in the summer When you come back in
the fall you will be reinstated "
The next week. Nalezny wrote to Foreman Smith a
letter as follows:
3375 Brownlow Ave
St Louis Park. Minn
July 9 1968
Dear Smitty,
Am enclosing the slip given to me with my check on
July 3rd. When talking to you about taking time off I
was under the impression that Pat was taking my place
for the summer and I was to return in the fall and take
up where I left off. I did not at any time say I was
quitting. Evidently there was a misunderstanding
someplace along the way. I didn't think separation
notices were given out when employees went on
vacation, but I probably don't know all the rules either.
If so I feel that mine should have been made out,
checked in the box other reason, with and explanation
below that I am on an extended vacation. leave of
absence, or a permitted period of time off. Correct me
if l am wrong Atter spending this many years with the
Co. I don't like to have a quit on my record now. I
know how busy you are with Jim gone and planning on
going on vacation yourself soon, but I would appreciate
your attention and hearing from you on this matter.
Thank You
/s/ Lois Nalezny
Smith replied to Nalezny's letter as is revealed by the
following credited excerpts from Nalezny's testimony "
Griswold did not qualify the question of the employees , return to work
"Cole testified somewhat similar to Nalezny to this incident Cole,
however, also testified that she suggested to Nalezny to see Griswold. Ot
the two, Nalemy appeared to be a more sure witness . I credit Nalezny's
denial that Cite suggested that she see Griswold I discredit Cole's
testimony to such effect
"Smith testified to the cflcct that he did not talk to Griswold about the
separation notices after July 3, 1968 1 credit such testimony as I am
convinced he discussed Nalezny ' s situation at the same time he discussed
Sodman s
A. Yes, he called me on the phone. It was on a
Monday because he was going on vacation that week,
and said he had been busy and so forth and didn't get a
chance to talk to me before that and he had talked to
Mr. Griswold and that I was to come back in the fall
as scheduled and not to worry about it, that it was all
O. K.
Q I believe before I stopped you did you say you
sent the separation notice back to the company?
A Yes, I did, I sent that back, I don't have that. I
don't know what became of it I told him that I felt
that it should have been marked that I was on leave of
absence or something like that, and he said, well, after
he talked it over with him it was O. K., I could come
back as planned, not to worry about it.
6. On September 3, 1968, neither Nalezny nor Sodman
was able to report to work. Each got in contact with
foreman Smith with reference to coming back to work
and as to when they could do so.
What initially occurred with respect to Sodman is
revealed by the following credited excerpts from her
testimony
A No, that was just the first week of school. So I
called Dennie up and I said to him "i can't come", I
wasn't able to come in because my kids got to school
half days and I couldn't get anybody to conic and
watch them, and he says, "Oh, 0 K ", he says he had
to talk to Mr. Griswold about it So he says, " I will
call you back "
What initially occurred with respect to Nalezny is
revealed by the following credited excerpts from her
testimony:
A. Well, I was scheduled to return to work on
September 3, the day after Labor Day, and I had an
appointment at the clinic in the afternoon to take my
son to have a cast put on his arm, so I sent a note with
my daughter who worked in a plant nearby there to
give to "Smitty". She gave it to Dorothy Clark to give
it to "Smitty". in which I explained that I had this
appointment at the clinic and I would come in
Wednesday morning instead.
Foreman Smith went to the office to see Griswold with
respect to the matter of Nalezny's and Sodman's return to
work. Griswold was not in the office and was out of town
While Smith was in the office Griswold telephoned and
was speaking to Shirley Cole, Griswold's secretary Smith
inquired through Shirley Cole about the matter of
Nalezny's and Sodman's returning to work. Griswold
thereafter either spoke to Smith or relayed through Cole
that he was not going to hire the girls back. During the
conversation, Smith related that he needed the girls back.
Griswold related that Smith must do with what he had,
that the girls were union members, and that other girls
were complaining about the girls having the summer off
for vacation and their returning to work'"
Later that afternoon Foreman Smith telephoned
Nalezny. What occurred is revealed by the following
credited excerpts from Naleznv's testimony
A. Well, "Smitty" called me in the afternoon, it was
after lunch, and he said, "Mr. Griswold has decided not
to take you back," and I said, "Well, I thought after he
had called me in July that everything was 0 K " I
couldn't figure this out. I said, "I didn't think you
"Based upon the credited aspects of Smith ' s testimony , the logical
consistency of the facts, and a fair inference therclrom , Cole did not testify
as a witness to this event 1 discredit Smith's and Griswold's testimony
inconsistent with the facts round
FWG CORPORATION
would tell me that I was to come hack if it wasn't 0
K ," and he said, "Well, I thought it was, 1 assumed
you were coming back. but", he said, "he lust isn't
going to take you back." And I said, well, that is, I
couldn't really understand it, and he said, "Well, I
think the union is underlying here", and I said, "Well.
it that is the case, there is going to be a lot of them
that are going to be gone". and he just didn't respond
to that Then he said that my work was good and
everything, it wasn't that
Q Did he say anything about another job?
A Yes, he referred me to another job
Q Had you asked him about it, about another lob?
A No, no, I hadn't.
Q. Had you. in fact, applied for a job anywhere else
at an) time after July 3, 1968, till this happened'?
A No.
Later that afternoon Foreman Smith and Sodman had
a conversation. What occurred is revealed by the following
credited excerpts from Sodman's testimony j9
So I went out to the doctor with nay little one, and he
had called in the meantime--well.[ know how busy it is
around the plant. so I waited until about five to 5 when
I knew everything would be pretty calm there, so I
called and asked for Dennie and I said, "This is Jerry "
And he sass, "Yeah." He says. "I went in and I talked
to Mr. Griswold He says he doesn't want us back."
And I said, "Us, who do you mean 'us And he says,
"Lois, too " I said, "Oh, my god. after 16 years?" And
he says, "Yes." And he says, "I didn't realize my girls
were for the union. and I was so amazed" or stunned or
something, 1 don't know. I lust didn't sa) any more. I
said. "Well, it was nice working for you, Smitty " He
said, "You were a good inspector", and so forth, and
that ended it
Sodman, by letter dated September 5, 1968, and
Nalezny, by letter dated September 6. 1968, set forth to
Griswold their understanding of permission to take leave
in July 1968 and requested the reason for his refusal to
reemploy them on September 3. 1968
On September 14. 1968, Griswold replied by letter in
similar effect to Nalezny and Sodman The effect of
Griswold's letter is revealed by the followine
September 14, 1968
Mrs. Geraldine Sodman
1816 Golden Valley Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411
Dear Geraldine-
In reply to your letter of September 5, 1968, we have
changed our policy in regard to hiring back employees
who have quit for the summer. This policy went into
effect last October when we were required by law to
submit Separation Notices for employees who
terminate their employment with us.
You must know that we have had many complaints
from other employees who feel it is unfair to allow
some people to quit for the summer and then rehire
them in the fall at their convenience
I feel certain you can understand this
Very truly yours,
NORTH W'ES1
AUTOMATIC
PRODUCTS CORP.
/s/ F W. Griswold,
President
FWG.sc
595
Since September 3, 1968, neither Sodman nor Nalezny
have been recalled to work. The Respondent, however, in
the months following has hired 14 employees to do the
type of work done by Sodman and Nalezny
7. In summarv. with respect to the allegation
concerning alleged change of policy in the granting of
unpaid leaves of absence, I conclude and find that the
evidence does not establish that the Respondent, on or
about September 3, 1968, changed its policy of granting
unpaid leaves of absence to employees upon request
because certain of its employees engaged in union or
concerted activities
With respect to the foregoing, I note that the changes
in reporting suggested by the State of Minnesota did not
require a change in policy concerning leaves of absence.
The totality of the facts relating to Respondent's conduct
on July 3, 1968, reveals that Respondent did change its
usage of separation notices, that this was a matter of
form, and not a matter of substance, and that in fact the
Respondent did not change its policy concerning the
granting of unpaid leaves of absence The totality of the
facts relating to Respondent's conduct in September 1968
reveals that the Respondent had not in fact changed its
policy concerning the granting of unpaid leaves of absence
but in fact on September 14, 1968. referred to such a
change of policy as a pretext to justify a discriminatory
refusal to employ Sodman and Nalezny.20
Accordingly. I conclude and find that the General
Counsel has not established that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by the alleged change in
policy concerning unpaid leaves of absence
8. In summary, with respect to the refusal to employ
Sodman and Nalernt' on September 3, 1968. I conclude
and find that the Respondent FW'G discriminated against
Sodman and Nalezny in its consideration of their
continuance as employees and actual resumption of
employment duties because of its belief that they had
engaged in union activities
With respect to the foregoing, 1 note that in accordance
with past practice, Respondent FWG would have placed
said employees back to work Based upon Griswold's past
actions and behavior, had there been a change in policy
relating to granting unpaid leaves for absence, Griswold
would have had such employees so advised on July 3.
1968.
Considering the total circumstances, I am convinced
that Respondent F WG's motivation was revealed by
Smith's statement on September 3, 1968, that he did not
know his girls were for the Union. Thus, I am convinced
that the reason that Sodman and Nalezny were not
returned to work was because of Respondent's belief of
then union activities Respondent's reasons for not
employing Sodman and Nalezny thereafter shifted and
"reveal" the pretextous nature of such reasons
Considering Smith 's initial mention to Griswold that
he had need for the girls and Griswold's lack of specific
reason for "lack of need," I find the later assertion of
"1 discredit Smith's testimony to the effect that his mentioning of union
was conlecture and following a comment of one of the girls His testimony
on the point shifted Considering the total facts , the consistency of
Sodman's testimony and related events, I credit her version of facts and
discredit Smith 's testimony contradictory thereof
"A discussion of these facts is set forth in more detail in section 8
following herein Griswold's testimony vacillated as to whether he had
changed his policy In sum his testimony boils down to the effect that there
was no change, except that he was stricter and that employees had always
had to sec, him
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lack of need because of the end of a Government contract
and the 50 girls involved to he pretextuous. Further, the
facts reveal later hirings of several new employees. Had
Respondent FWG had a question as to lack of need at the
time, I am convinced that Griswold would have instructed
Smith to tell Sodman and Nalezny of such facts and that
they would be called to work later. Later the Respondent
shifted to a reason of an "alleged October 1967 changed
policy" concerning rehiring of employees off for the
summer As indicated, the October 1967 suggested
reporting changes did not touch the policy question
involved herein. In sum, I am persuaded that the totality
of the facts reveals that Respondent FWG discriminatorily
considered against employing Sodman and Nalezny
because of its belief that they had engaged in union
activity, and therefore did not place them back on their
jobs Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (I)
of the Act.21 I so conclude and find.
D. Respondent Dvson-Kissner Corporation,
Northwest Automatic Division , successor of
:Northwest Automatic Products Corporation
The facts reveal that on October 1, 1968, Respondent
Dyson-Kissner Corporation. Northwest Automatic
Division. became successor to Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation. There is no evidence that the
corporate enterprise which purchased the assets and
business of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation
had knowledge of the preexisting unfair labor practices of
Northwest Automatic Products Corporation at the exact
time of purchase or prior thereto. I do not therefore find
it proper to impose on the successor remedial
responsibility for such financial obligation as may exist
with respect to backpay due to Sodman and Nalezny from
September 3, 1968, to October 1. 1968. However,
Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest
Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation. continued in effect as the same
enterprise as had existed. Griswold and the other
supervisors continued their same duties It is clear that
such successor therefore had knowledge after October I.
1968, of the preexisting unfair labor practices. of the
continuing nature thereof', and of the continuing nature of
Sodman's and Nalezny's desire for work. The
continuation of such successor enterprise without
correction of the unfair labor practices or return to work
of Sodman and Nalezny constituted a continuation of the
same violative conduct committed by Respondent FWG.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that Respondent
Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic
Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products
Corporation, has since October 1, 1968, continued to
violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.22
IV. Till- EFFECT OF THL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
Ill, above, occurring in connection with the Respondents'
operations described m section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Haling found that Respondents engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it is recommended that they cease
and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative
action of the type which is conventionally ordered in such
cases, as provided in the Recommended Order below,
which is found necessary to remedy and to remove the
effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The conventional remedy for discrimination in
employment tenure will be recommended except
Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest
Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic
Products Corporation, will be held financially liable for
backpay due Sodman and Nalezny only after October 1,
1968. Respondent FWG will be held financially liable for
backpay due Sodman and Nalezny from September 3,
1968, to October 1, 1968, and thereafter will be held
jointly and severally liable for backpay due Sodman and
Nalezny until time of the reinstatement order required
herein.
As indicated, and as tailored by the foregoing, having
found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
with respect to the discriminatory refusal to employ Lois
Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman, it is recommended that
Respondents offer Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodinan
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions, or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of the discrimination against each of them, by
payment to each a sum of money equal to the difference,
if any. between the wages each would have earned absent
the discrimination against each of them, and the amount
of wages actually earned, if less, from the date of
commencement of discrimination (September 3, 1968) to
the date of Respondents' offer of reinstatement to each
Such backpay shall be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth C'ompativ,
90 NLRB 289. 291-294, and with interest thereon as
prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co
138 NLRB 716.2'
As the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondents were of a character which go to the very
heart of' the Act, it is recommended that the Respondents
cease and desist therefrom and cease and desist from
infringing in any other manner upon the rights of
employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE) is. and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
2. FWG Corporation, formerly known as Northwest
Automatic Products Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner
Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division,
successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation,
the Respondents, are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
"Shawnee Industries . Inc . 140 NLRB 141
"Perma Vinyl Corporation . 164 NLRB No 119. Ramada Inns, Inc,
171 NLRB No 115
"The matter of Nalczny's and Sodman s unavailability for work for
several days is a matter to he considered in the compliance backpay
computations
FWG CORPORATION 597
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of employees, thereby discouraging
membership in or activities on behalf of a labor
organization, Respondents engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondents. their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE), or any other labor organization of their
employees by discharging or otherwise discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of any of its employees, except
to the extent that such rights 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) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to
sell-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain 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 as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that such
rights 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. -
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges
(b) Notify Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Make whole Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them by payment to them of a
sum of money equal to their loss of earnings from the
date of their discharge to the date of Respondents' offer
of reinstatement in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at their plant in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by the
Respondents' representative, shall he posted by the
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and he
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(1) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 25
IT is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, excepting for the
conduct specifically found to he violative of the Act
herein, such other allegations as to conduct violative of
the Act be dismissed.
"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 said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to i.omply 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 offer Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and WE
WILL notify Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL make whole Lois Nalezny and Geraldine
Sodman for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them,
all in accord with and in the manner set forth in the
"The Remedy" section of this Decision.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America (UE), or any other labor
organization of our employees, by discharging or
otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of
employment, except to the extent that such rights 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
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to sell -organization , to form, join , or assist
labor organizations , to bargain 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, as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and to retrain from
any and all such activities , except to the extent that
such rights 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-Managenncit Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE),
or any other labor organization , except to the extent that
such rights 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
modilied by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
Dated By
Dated
FWG CORPORATION,
t ORMERLY KNOWN AS
NORTiiWaST AUTOM-&ric
PRODUCTS CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
Dy SON-KISSNER
CORPORVI ION,
NOR1IIWEST ALTOMA1IC
DiviSiON , SUCCESSOR OF
NORTHWEST AUTOMATIC
PRODUCTS CORPORAL ION
(Employer)
By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
if employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
Building, 110 South hourth Street, Minneapolis.
Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2611.