Galeton Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY
Rodney Heymann , d/b/a Galeton Production Company
and International Molders' and Allied Workers' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-4448
April 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On December 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Lloyd S.
Greenidge issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
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 actions, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter,
Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting and
answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, 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 Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions 2 and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond-
ent, Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production Compa-
ny, Galeton, Pennsylvania, his officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
' We have carefully examined the record herein and find Respondent's
allegation of bias on the part of the Trial Examiner to be unwarranted
2 These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility
determinations of the Trial Examiner, to which Respondent has excepted
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examin-
er's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing
those findings Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd
188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LLOYD S. GREENIDGE , Trial Examiner : The' com-
plaint , issued August 26, 1969, alleges that Respondent
135
has engaged in-unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Sections 8(a)(3) and ( 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat.
136, 73 Stat . 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq ., herein
called the Act, by ( 1) discharging Lottie L. Schweigart,
on December 19, 1968 ,1 and thereafter failing and refus-
ing to reinstate her because she had engaged in union
and protected concerted activities; and (2 ) through the
plant owner , threatening employees , in and about Sep-
tember 1968, with cessation of operations if International
Molders' and Allied Workers ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , became the col!ec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees and,
announcing and granting wage increases to employees,
on or about September 18, 1968 , for the purpose of
dissuading them from supporting the Union.2
Respondent ' s answer admits the procedural and juris-
dictional allegations of the complaint , but denies the
commission of unfair labor practices . On the first day
of the hearing , Respondent withdrew its denial and
admitted the complaint allegation concerning announcing
and granting of wage increases to employees as set
forth in paragraphs 5(b) and the pertinent portion of
paragraph 9, thereof . In all other respects, the answer
was affirmed.
Hearing was held on October 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1969,
at Coudersport , Pennsylvania , before the duly designated
Trial Examiner . All parties were represented by counsel
or union representative , and were afforded full opportuni-
ty to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
to introduce evidence relevant and material to the issues,
and to file briefs and proposed findings.
Upon the entire record in the case ," his resolution
of issues of credibility based upon the appearance and
demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs submitted
by the General Counsel and Respondent , which have
been carefully considered , the Trial Examiner makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an individual engaged at its principal
place of business at Galeton, Pennsylvania, in the manu-
facture and sale of electronic components under the
name of Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production
Company.
During the normal course of its business, Respondent
annually sells and ships from its plant at Galeton goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly to
points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia.
The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits,
and it is hereby found, upon the basis of the foregoing
' The complaint was amended at the hearing to show the date of
the discharge as it appears above
2 The original charge was filed and served on December 30, 1968
Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in 1968
3 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct certain minor
errors in the transcript is hereby granted
182 NLRB No. 18
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and upon the entire record, that Respondent is now,
andat all times material herein has been, an employer
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. Background
Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production Compa-
ny, is a sole proprietorship owned by Rodney Heymann.
It is primarily engaged in the manufacture of radio
tube subassemblies. About 3 years prior to the events
here in issue , Heymann acquired control of the business
and began to perform substantially the same operations
which had been performed by his predecessor for approx-
imately 25 years. During the period with which we
are here concerned, Respondent employed about 500
employees. The department involved in this proceeding,
the LVA department, has some 38 employees and 2
monitors under the supervision of Francis Edward Ray-
mer i
Most of the events to be- discussed occurred between
June 1968, the commencement of the Union's organiza-
tional campaign , and December 19, the 'date of the
discharge. '
The parties stipulated and I find that, prior to his
discharge on September 19, Robert E. Myers was the
plant manager and a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act and, that, at all times material
herein, Raymer was a supervisor within the statutory
definition. .
Over the years there have been a number of unsuccess-
ful attempts at the organization of the Respondent's
employees. The most recent effort began in June 1968.
Under the aegis of Benjamin Musser, an International
organizer, the Union held meetings of employees and
sought to obtain employee signatures on authorization
cards.
On July 9, the Union filed a representation petition
(Case 6-RC-4743). Pursuant to an agreement for consent
election executed July 26, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on August 28 to determine whether cer-
tain employees of the Employer wished to be represented
by the Union, by United Electrical, Radio and'Machine
Workers (UE), or by neither union.4
The election was inconclusive and thereafter the UE
disclaimed any further interest in the proceedings. A
' International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC (IUE), which had also signed the consent-election agree-
ment, withdrew from the case before the election
runoff election was held on September 20 to determine
whether or not the employees involved desired to be
represented by the Union. The Union lost the election.
On September 27, the Union filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election alleging,
among other things, that "shortly before the election,
the Employer unilaterally announced and put into effect
a two-step wage increase." In accord with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Region-
al Director caused an investigation to be made of the
issues raised by the objections and, on November 7,
duly served on the parties a report on objections in
which he ordered, on the basis of a stipulation- by
the Employer and the Union, that the results of the
runoff election be set aside and that a new,runoff election
be held on a date to be announced. In the said stipulation,
the parties agreed that the September 20 election should
be set aside and a new election held for the reason
that the Employer promised and granted its employees
wage increases. Thereafter, on December 6, a rerun
on the runoff election was conducted The Union again
lost the election. No objections were filed and the case
was closed on December 16.
2. Threats to cease operations
The complaint alleges, and Respondent's answer
denies, that, in and about September 1968, Respondent
threatened employees with cessation of operations }if
the Union became the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees.
General Counsel's witnesses testified to statements
by Heymann at employee gatherings in the plant cafeteria
between the first and second elections as follows: Lottie
Schweigart: "He said ' that right after a union got in,
that it [a Galeton foundry] closed down, and then he
told about other plants that closed down, like Burlington,
Millpot a9d so on.'Like the Galeton foundry, he said
the union got in and they closed, and then on Burlington,
they had closed down when the union was in.. . . '
Etta Hilfiger-' In response to a question from someone
concerning a Molder's flyer, Heymann said the only
thing he knew about the foundry is that it was there,
the union got in and now it is no longer there. Joan
Pennell: "Well, he said that there had been a foundry
in Galeton and, after the union got in, it closed down;
he mentioned other plants, one was Burlington, that
I remember, that had unions in, that had shut down
after the union was in, and then he told us about
Mansfield, not Mansfield but Flossburg, a plant, I believe
that it is a foundry, and the Molders union are in
this plant.. . ."
Heymann admitted telling the employees that at one
time there was a foundry in Galeton, the employees
got a union, and now there is no foundry there. He
explained that his remarks were prompted by statements
in flyers circulated during the campaign. Heymann did
not, however, specifically deny the other statements
attributed to him by Schweigart and Pennell. Personnel
' Schweigart's sister
GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY
Manager Larry Chilson" testified that Heymann's
remarks were made in response to a question from
someone as to whether the Molders represented the
foundry employees Heymann also averred, supported
by Chilson, that he told the employees, at a meeting
on September 18, that he would not close the plant
if the Union were voted in but, instead, would make
every effort to continue operations
I deem it unnecessary to determine exactly what
Heymann said to the assembled employees between
the first and second elections For the purpose of this
decision, it will be assumed that Heymann made the
statements attributed to him by Schweigart and Pennell
and that they were coercive If uttered, they cannot,
in my opinion, reasonably be construed as a threat
of retaliation because the coercive effect was dissipated
by Heymann's later remark that he would not close
the plant if the Union won the election but would
make every effort to keep it open Accordingly, no
unfair labor practice will be based on this part of the
complaint '
3 Announcing and granting wage increases
The complaint alleges, but Respondent's answer
denies, that on or about September 18, 1968, Respondent,
by Heymann, "announced and granted wage increases
to its employees for the purpose of dissuading them
from supporting the Union " As stated, Respondent
withdrew its answer during the hearing and admitted
the allegation According, upon the basis of the admis-
sion, it is hereby found that the Respondent, by announc-
ing and granting Wage increases to discourage union
support among its employees, violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
B Discrimination In Regard To Hire And Tenure of
Employment of Lottte L Schweigart
1 Motivation
a Schweigart's activities, Myers' statements
Prior to her discharge on December 19, Lottte Schwei-
gart had been employed by Respondent for approximate-
ly 9 years without interruption During this period she
advanced to the position of utility girl in LVA, one
of the most skilled jobs in that department
Beginning in mid-June 1968 and continuing until the
final election on December 6, Schweigart was demonstr-
ably the most active proponent of the Union's cause
in the plant Heymann admitted that he knew Schweigart
was an "avid supporter" of the Union and "extremely
active" on its behalf and Edward Raymer Schweigart's
immediate supervisor, acknowledged that he had
observed her distributing union flyers and had received
reports from management personnel concerning her
s Chilson left Respondent s employ in September 1968
See Crystal Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co 132 NLRB 222 fn
I reversed on other grounds 308 F 2d 626 (C A 6)
137
union activities During the campaign, Schweigart solicit-
ed signatures on union authorization cards from her
coworkers, prepared union signs which she prominently
displayed on her automobile, drove the automobile to
work on Saturdays and parked it in the plant area,
arranged and attended union meetings, wore union insig-
nia daily, and openly advocated union support during
her lunch and rest periods Schweigart testified, without
contradiction, that, sometime between the first and sec-
ond elections, Heymann asked why she was campaigning
so vigorously for the Union, and, that, at employee
and management meetings during the campaign, she
contradicted certain assertions of Heymann and told
him why the employees needed a union
At a meeting of the LVA employees and Heymann
in August , Schwetgart complained that Eileen Brass,
a monitor in LVA, wasted a lot of time in conversations
with Raymer and accused her of favoring some employ-
ees and of being too strict with others According to
Kay Treat," Schweigart asked Heymann to transfer Brass
outs of LVA and Heymann said he would look into
it Shortly after this , Brass was transferred to the mount-
ing department but returned to LVA 2 weeks later °
Robert Myers, plant manager,10 testified that, before
or after a staff meeting sometime between August 28
and September 19, Heymann told him that he would
like to get rid of the union agitators 11 Initially, Myers
testified that Heymann did not name anyone However,
after being shown his affidavit by the General Counsel,
Myers declared that Heymann named Schweigart, among
others, In light of this self-contradiction, I do not accept
this testimony of Myers Myers also recounted several
conversations with Raymer in the latter's office during
this period On these occasions, Raymer told Myers,
according to Myers, that he would like to get rid of
Schweigart because she was causing disruptions within
the department by talking to employees at work and
that, while he (Raymer) did not know the subject of
the conversations, he assumed that Schweirgart was
talking about the Union Schweigart acknowledged that,
before or during t4e last campaign, Raymer cautioned
Schweigart and other employees about talking while
at work but asserted that, at such times, she was not
discussing union matters and no reference thereto was
made by Raymer Schweigart also testified that she
was never disciplined for having engaged in general
conversations with her coworkers while at work Indeed,
there is no evidence of any rule prohibiting conversations
during working hours Raymer did not deny the state
ments charged to him by Myers Accordingly, I credit
the uncontroverted testimony of Myers to the effect
that Raymer told him he would like to get rid of Schwei-
Treat left Respondent s employ on August 28
These findings are based on the credited testimony of Schweig trt
Treat and Brass
° Myers was discharged by Respondent on September 19
" Heymann acknowledged that he could have expressed a wish that
union agitators were not in the plant but denied saying he would
try to get rid of them
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gart allegedly because she was causing disruption within
the department by talking about the Union 12
Several other witnesses called by the General Counsel
testified concerning conversations with Myers Thus,
Treat recalled that, sometime before the first election
and shortly after Schweigart's complaint about Brass,
Myers told her that Raymer was angry with Schweigart
for what she had said about Brass, that he wanted
Schweigart out of the plant because there was "too
much union pressure in his section" and, that Schweigart
would be going out the door, Jan G Tarabori13 recounted
a conversation at the Village Inn, sometime between
the first and second elections, during which Myers
declared that Tarabori was being watched and that he
(Tarabori), Schweigart, and others would probably lose
their jobs because of the Union, and, Schweigart, Hil-
figer, and Pennell related, in substance, that, at the
Log Cabin Inn on the night of the second election
(September 20) or the following night , Myers told them
that Heymann and Raymer wanted Schweigart out of
the plant , some of the girls would lose their jobs if
they were not careful, and Schweigart and other girls-
active on behalf of the Union-would be fired after
the election I credit the foregoing testimony of Treat,
Tarabort, Schweigart, Hilfiger, and Pennell 14 These indi-
viduals impressed me most favorably as truthful witness
es and gave me no reason to doubt their veracity
I am aware, of course, that Myers' remarks to Schwei-
gart , Hilfiger , and Pennell on September 20 and 21
were made after his termination on September 19 How-
ever, the uncontroverted remarks charged to Myers
were obviously predicated on conversations had with
Heymann and Raymer while Myers was still plant manag-
er Further, they seem plausible in view of Myers'
statements to Treat and Tarabort prior to his termination
b The September incident
About 11 40 am, on September 16, Schweigart
received permission from Virginia Skutski , Respondent's
nurse , to leave the plant for reason of health According
to the credited testimony of Schweigart , she was also
excused by Raymer at noon that day '5 Despite knowl-
edge of her absence, Raymer recorded on Schweigart's
personal record that she had failed to give notice of
her absence 18
11 Aside from the assertion the record stands barren of proof of
any disruption attributable to Schweigart
Tarabort quit his job with Respondent on November 23
Raymer testified that he never heard of Schweigart s complaint
about Brass at any time prior to the hearing but for reasons hereinafter
set forth I do not credit his testimony
11 Raymer testified that he first learned of Schweigart s absence from
the nurse sometime that afternoon
1" Chilson related that employees personal records are kept and
maintained by the supervisors and Raymer admitted that he fills out
such records under his control The calendar side of Schweigart s
record shows a J for the afternoon of September 16 and the remarks
side carries the following entry for that date P 0 (punched out)
11 40 no word G C Exh 1 I The parties agreed that the legend
appearing at the bottom of the exhibit is to be interpreted as follows
A-illness B-illness in the family D-business N-excused and
J-no word
After leaving the plant, Schweigart went to the office
of a local physician She was treated for the flu and
instructed to go to bed The doctor signed and handed
her the following statement
9-16-68
Lottie Schweigart has `pyehtis' [sic] and unable
to work this afternoon
Lottte, in turn, gave the slip to Hilfiger that evening
and told her to give it to Raymer and to report her
off the next day
Hilfiger testified credibly that, before commencing
work on September 17, she gave Raymer the doctor's
certificate and told him Schweigart would not be in
that day Raymer averred that he found the certificate
on his desk the morning of Septmber 17 He acknowl-
edged, however, having read it before preparing the
daily absentee report and entering the letter "A"17 in
the calendar section of Schweigart's personal record
for that day, noting in the remarks column thereof,
"ill " 9 Dr slip for Mon " On the face of the certificate,
Raymer drew an arrow from the word "pyelitis" to
the words, "check this," the latter printed and under
scored on the certificate by Raymer Raymer also added
the words, "not in today," again printing and underscor-
ing the same After this, he forwarded the certificate
to the nurse Admittedly, this was the first time Raymer
ever requested the nurse to check a doctor's certificate
Raymer explained that it is his policy to check all
doctors' certificates turned in by the employees in his
department and that his notations were merely intended
to elicit information as to the nature of Schweigart's
illness He went on to say that he thought the doctor
had written poliomyelitis but then the nurse told him
it was something else, identifying the ailment as a kidney
infection
On September 18, Schweigart remained away ill with-
out word to the Respondent
On September 19, the day before the second Board
election, Schweigart was still out ill and, by the close
of business, had not sent word About 3 30 p in that
day, Raymer checked with the nurse, switchboard opera-
tor, and office manager to see whether Schweigart had
reported off After this he went to Chilson and, again
for the first time in any similar situation, requested
a "ruling" as to whether the doctor's certificate covered
only the afternoon of September 16 or extended to
September 17, 18, and 19 18 After checking the certificate
and the master sheet, Chilson told Raymer that he
was of the opinion that the certificate did not cover
a period beyond the afternoon of the 16th and that
Schweigart was vulnerable to discharge for a violation
of the "3 days no word" rule if she did not report
off before quitting time Chilson suggested that they
repair to Heymann's office where Chilson presented
11 The entry denotes that Raymer received word of Schweigart s
illness
11 As stated Raymer s initial inquiry was in reference to the nature
of the illness
GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY
his position to Heymann. Heymann then called his lawyer
but the receptionist interrupted the telephone conversa-
tion to advise that Mr. Schweigart had reported his
wife off. After concluding the conversation with the
lawyer, Heymann announced that the notice was accepta-
ble and Schweigart would not be discharged.
On the next day, September 20, Schweigart felt well
enough to return to work and did. Schweigart testified
credibly that,'sometime during the day, she gave Raymer
a certificate which she had obtained from her doctor
the day before, 10 It reads as follows:
September 19, 1968
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
Lottie Schweigart is physically able to return
to work on September 20, 1968. She has been
under my care for influenza.
Although it clearly appears from a reading of both
certificates that Schweigart was infirmed and under a
doctor's care from the afternoon of September 16
through September 19 and, although Heymann conceded
at the hearing that she had been excused to leave the
plant the afternoon of September 16, appropriate correc-
tions were not made on the master absentee lists • or
Schweigart's personal record, the latter of which contin-
ued to show a "J" entry in the calendar section and
the notation-"P.O. 11:40 No Word"-in the remarks
section for that day, questions marks in the remarks
section for' September 17, and "J" entries for September
18 and 19.20 Nurse Skutski testified that she corrects
entries on the master absentee list" if someone reports
off or gives word of illness but that, in this instance,
no corrections were made and the certificates were
filed with Schweigart's personal record.
2. The events culminating in the discharge of Schweigart
On Saturday, December 14, Schweigart became ill
while at work. At the end of the workday, she went
to a doctor who gave her medicine and an injection.
On the next day, Schweigart asked Hilfiger and Treat,
who had visited with her at various times during the
day, to report her sick to Raymer.22
The following morning , Monday, December 16, Mr.
Schweigart requested Bonnie Hurler, also employed by
the Respondent, to report his wife off. Hilfiger testified
credibly that about 7 o'clock that morning, as she was
putting on her finger cotts to begin work, Raymer walked
by and she told him Schweigart was ill and would
not be in that day.23 About 9 a.m. the same day, Hurler
11 Nurse Skutski acknowledged receipt of the September 19 certificate
Raymer testified that the first time he saw the certificate was at the
hearing.
R° According to the nurse, the master absentee lists show that no
word was received from Schweigart on September 17, 18, and 19
" This document is prepared and maintained by the nurse
ss Schweigart had no telephone at the time.
sa Raymer denied receiving a report from Hilfiger or anyone else,
on December 16 or at any other time, concerning Schweigart's absence
but I do not regard Raymer's testimony as worthy of reliance and
I do not credit it for the following reasons: (1) In his prehearing
139
went to Heymann's office to discuss a change in supervi-
sion made the previous Friday while she was away.
During the conversation, Hurler told Heymann, accord-
ing to the credited testimony of Hurler, that Schweigart
was out sick. Heymann replied that he would take
care of it.24
The next day, December 17, Hilfiger was delayed
getting to the plant due to poor road conditions and,
when she arrived, went right to work. According to
Hilfiger, sometime that morning she called Betty Cornish,
the acting monitor'21 to her station and asked Cornish
to report Schweigart off to Raymer. Shortly after this,
Hilfiger saw Cornish and Raymer together and heard
Cornish tell Raymer that Schweigart would not be in
that day. Two or three minutes later, Cornish returned
to Hilfiger's work area, told Hilfiger that she reported
Schweigart's absence to Raymer, and then engaged Hil-
figer in a 10- to 15-minute conversation about Schwei-
gart's illness and the high rate of absenteeism among
plant employees generally.
Cornish tells a different story. Her testimony was
as follows: While Raymer was preparing the absentee
report on Monday, December 16, and before he appoint-
ed her acting monitor, Cornish approached Hilfiger and
inquired about Schweigart. Hilfiger said Schweigart was
sick and Cornish observed that several other employees
were also out sick. The following day, Cornish again
asked about Schweigart and was told by Hilfiger that
Schweigart was still ill. Cornish did not report Schweigart
off to Raymer on December 16 or 17 because no one
had asked her to do so.
affidavit dated February 13, 1969, Raymer stated that, in September
1968, Schweigart had been out 3 consecutive days without a word
despite knowledge at that time that on the third day Heymann had
accepted a report off from Mr. Schweigart and, therefore, that the
absence was only for it period of 2 days This was a misstatement
of fact which Raymer acknowledged in his testimony on the stand.
(2) Raymer entered a "J" meaning , "no word," in the calendar section
of Schweigart's personal record for the afternoon of September 16
even though he knew that she had been excused from work that
afternoon (3) Raymer started the automatic discharge machinery in
motion on September 19 despite knowledge that Schweigart had been
absent only 2 consecutive days as Hilfiger had reported her off to
Raymer on September 17 and Raymer himself had entered the letter
"A," meaning, "illness," on Schweigart's record for that day (4) For
the first time in any like situation, Raymer directed the nurse to check
the nature of the illness specified in the September 16 certificate and
later requested a "ruling " on its coverage (5) After telling the nurse
he thought the September 16 certificate said Schweigart had "polio,"
Raymer exclaimed , "this operator should be to work " and, after being
advised that the ailment was a kidney infection, asked, "why isn't
she to work ." It is difficult to understand how Raymer could reasonably
have expected Schweigart to be at work if she had "polio," as he
had assumed , or a kidney infection , as he was later advised (6) Raymer's
testimony that the certificate covered only September 16 was contrary
to fact In view of the foregoing , as well as demeanor , I regard Raymer's
testimony as generally unworthy of reliance as it shows a bias toward
Schweigart, and I credit it only when it conforms with other credited
testimony or constitutes an admission against Respondent's interest.
" Heymann testified that all he recalled of the conversation was
a discussion of a management change but did not otherwise dispute
this testimony of Hurler.
SS Raymer appointed Cornish acting monitor , about 7:05 a in , Decem-
ber 16, to replace, temporarily, the incumbent Clara Smogyi and she
continued in this position through December 17 On December 18
and 19, Cornish was a supply girl.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I credit the testimony of Hilfiger over that of Cornish.
In my judgment, Hilfiger's version is inherently more
credible fort think it unlikely that, after Hilfiger informed
Cornish of Schweigart' s illness, Cornish would not have
disclosed the fact to Raymer, particularly since heavy
absenteeism was a matter of concern to Cornish as
it was mentioned by her in one of the two conversations
with Hilfiger regarding Schweigart's absence. Both Hil-
figer and Cornish were employed by Respondent at
the time they testified and neither was a disinterested
witness for different reasons. Hilfiger, to be sure, was
interested in the vindication of her sis'ter 's rights and
the rights of employees generally; and, Cornish, a witness
for the Respondent; was'concerned about maintaining
friendly relations with her. supervisor and management
representatives. All things considered, Hilfiger's account
seems more plausible to me as it contains a`,fair amount
of corroborative detail which tends to,buttres's'her story.
Schweigart was still ill' on December 18 and did not
send word that day. Sometime in the afternoon of the
18th, Jan Fitzpatrick , plant manager , checked the master
absentee list, following his normal practice, and found
that Schweigart and two other employees had not report-
ed off for 3 successive days: After this,' he contacted
the' office manager, nurse, receptionist, and supervisors
to see whether, in the interim,'word was received from
any of these employees and was advised that one had
reported ill. Fitzpatrick then instructed the supervisors
of Schweigart and the other employee to `send them
to his office the next day if they reported for work .26
On December 19; Schweigart felt well ' enough to
return Ito work and did. As she was putting on her
finger cotts, Raymer told her to go to Fitzpatrick's"
office. Schweigart waited ,a few minutes as,,Fitzpatrick
was delayed due to adverse road, conditions: Shortly;
after he arrived, Fitzpatrick told Sch veigart' that she;
had been absent for 3 days lwithout', 'oid"'afid v'foY
this reason, he would have to let -her go. 'Schweigart'
protested stating that' she had asked "some girls" to
report her off and named Kay Treat, specifically.?'
Fitzpatrick' retorted that he received no, word of the
absence and Schweigart offered to prove that the girls
reported her off. To this Fitzpatrick replied that it would
have made, no difference because the rule requires
Schweigart to call in herself. Schweigart rejoined that
she had no telephone and was ill. She also declared
that she did not understand the rule to require personal
notice but, instead,' believed it was sufficient for an'
employee to report off through an intermediary.' In the
end,' Fitzpatrick suggested that Schweigart go `home
and she left his'office.28
Schweigart then returned to the LVA room to ask
Hilfiger for the keys to Hilfiger ' s automobile '. Initially,
Schweigart told Hilfiger that she was fired ,by. Fitzpatrick
26, These findings are based on the testimony of Fitzpatrick
24, Schweigart testified that she believed , but was not certain, that
she' mentioned Hilfiger to Fitzpatrick and acknowledged that she did,
not mention Hurler to him because she was too upset '
:e The facts above are found from the credited testimony of Schwei-
gart, as corroborated in part by admissions 'of Fitzpatrick Testimony,
of the latter in confiict,with the findings is not credited
for not reporting off. Hilfiger voiced incredulity stating
that she reported Schweigart off to Raymer and Cornish.,
Schweigart replied that, Fitzpatrick said the reports were
of no consequence because she should have called in
herself. Hilfiger refused to allow Schweigart the use
of her automobile because Schweigart was too upset.
Schweigart then went to another sister , employee Bonnie
Seeley, and asked her to call Kay Treat. In the conversa-
tion that ensued , Treat reported'that she had forgotten
to report Schweigart off. Treat explained that Monday
evening , December 16, Bonnie Hurler told her that-
she (Hurler) reported Schweigart off to Heymann and,
consequently, Treat did not follow through because she
thought the matter was taken care of.29
After this Schweigart went to'Heymann's office where
she asked why Fitzpatrick had fired her. Heymann told
her that she had been off 3 days with no word. Schweigart
replied that Hilfiger reported her off to Raymer and
that Treat promised to do the same but had forgotten.
Heymann answered that he was not aware of Hilfiger's
report. Schweigart then suggested that Heymann call
Hilfiger and Raymer to verify her story but Heymann
declined stating that he 'did not have the time and
promised to check into it. Schweigart then told' Heymann
that Hurler reported her off to "somebody." Heymann
reminded Schweigart that Fitzpatrick had taken over,
told her Fitzpatrick was "setting the rules," stated that
he (Heymann) had to back him up, but that he would
try to, get Fitzpatrick to "bend the rule." At some
point, Schweigart charged that she, was being ' fired
because of her union activities but -Heymann denied
it, About this juncture, Heymann brought up the Septem-
ber incident stating that Chilson wanted to firerSchweigart
for; a violation of the 3 ,days', no-word rule but,, that
he had stopped him. Schweigart•; argued that Raymer;
had l excused .her, from duty on September- 16, in order
that she might. visit her doctor that, afternoon, and that;
she gave Hilfiger a doctor's certificate to, deliver to
Raymer on September, 17. According to Schweigart,
Heymann replied that he had not seen the certificate.
Schweigart then asked why she had not been told that
she was so close to discharge but Heymann remained
mute.30 ,
49 I find these discussions from credited and mutually corroborative
testimony of Schweigart, Hilfiger, and Treat i
ao The above facts are found on the credited testimony of Schweigart
and Heymann Testimony of Heymann at variance therewith is not
credited In this regard , I note Heymann ' s failure to deny telling Schwei-
gart that he had not seen the doctor ' s certificate While somewhat
ambiguous , the uncontroverted remark suggests that Heymann had no
knowledge of its existence . Yet, Heymann testified that he knew the
certificate was turned in and it, obviously, was a subject of discussion
at the September, 19 meeting when Chilson argued before Heymann
that it did not cover a period beyond the afternoon of September
16 At the hearing , Respondent emphasized certain omissions in Schwei-
gart's affidavit as a basis for rejecting her testimony Thus, in the
affidavit , Schweigart failed to state that , during the termination inter-
views , she mentioned the names of Treat and Hilfiger to Fitzpatrick
and those of Hurler , Treat, and Hilfiger to Heymann . Schweigart
explained that she gave the Board's agent the same facts she related
in her testimony including the names disclosed to Fitzpatrick and Hey-
mann, but that he failed to record all of the information imparted.
Schweigart elaborated on her testimony stating that the affidavit was
taken after midnight, that she was unable to read the entire statement
GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY
In the meantime, Raymer was instructed to release
Hilfiger so that she might drive Schweigart home and
Hilfiger was so advised. Hilfiger then proceeded to Hey-
mann 's office, and, like Schweigart before, asked why
Schweigart had been let' go. Heymann replied that it
was because of a violation of the 3-day no-word rule.
Hilfiger rejoined that she reported Schweigart off to
her supervisor on one day and to the monitor on the
next. Heymann disclaimed knowledge of the fact but
promised to: talk to Fitzpatrick to try to get him, "to
bend the rule." Hilfiger asked what rule as Schweigart
has been reported off but Heymann evaded saying that
he would contact Hilfiger after he had conferred with
Fitzpatrick. At some point, Heymann told Hilfiger she
was excused to take Schweigart home. However, since
arrangements had already been made with Treat for
this purpose Hilfiger returned to work.31
Sometime later the same day, Hurler learned that
Schweigart had been discharged and, as Heymann
walked down an aisle near her station, she confronted
him and inquired whether he remembered that she report-
ed Schweigart off to him. According to Hurler, Heymann
replied, "it had slipped his mind" but he would f talk
it over with Fitzpatrick. Heymann testified that he told
Hurler he did not recall but would not doubt her word.
After Heymann left Fitzpatrick's office, Hurler stopped
him again this time asking what Fitzpatrick said. To
this Heymann responded that it would not have mattered
that Hurler reported Schweigart off because the rule
requires a personal call or a written note. Hurler stated
that she never knew that to be the rule.32 Still later
that day, Cornish told Heymann that she knew Schwei-
gart had been sick .33
About, 2 or 3 days after the discharge, ' Schweigart
received a statement of her final wages and deductions
from the Respondent with a notation that payment would
be made after certain tweezers and a glass, used for
inspection purposes, were returned. As noted, Heymann
promised to contact Schweigart after checking into her
claim that she was reported off but the promise was
not fulfilled and the discharge, effected December 19,
was final.
Schweigart applied to the Pennsylvania Department
of Labor and Industry for unemployment compensation.
The Bureau of Employment Security ruled, that Schwei-
gart was ineligible. She appealed. After a hearing, a
referee of the Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review reversed the decision of the Bureau and allowed
x
because parts of it were illegible but , that she signed the statement
because she assumed the Board agent recorded what she told him
Granted the affidavit omits ' certain information, such omissions were
satisfactorily explained by Schweigart in her testimony relative thereto
Moreover , Schweigart impressed me as a truthful and forthright witness,
sincerely recounting what she remembered to the best of her ability
I am satisfied , therefore , that her testimony is worthy of belief and
that the omissions in her affidavit were due to inattentiveness engendered
by the lateness of the hour
31 I find these facts on the credited testimony of Hilfiger Testimony
of Heymann in conflict therewith is not credited.
31 I find these facts on the credible testimony of Hurler and the
implied admission of Heymann Testimony of Heymann at variance
therewith is not credited
33 This finding is based on the undisputed testimony of Cornish.
141
benefits. In, essence,' the referee found that Schweigart
"was properly reported off." Respondent appealed and
a further hearing was held before the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review which affirmed the refer-
ee and allowed benefits. Respondent did not appeal
the ruling of the board of review.
3. Analysis and conclusions
The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges,
and the answer admits, that the Respondent discharged
Schweigart on December 19. The complaint further alleg-
es, and the answer denies , that Schweigart , was dis-
charged "because of her activities on behalf of the
Union, because she engaged in concerted activities with
other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection . . . . " The Respond-
ent, conversely , maintains that Schweigart was dis-
charged because she failed to abide by the company
rule requiring notification of absence.
It is clear that Schweigart was the leader of the
Union's forces in the plant to the knowledge of the
Respondent . It is also evident from Myers ' testimony
that Raymer wanted Schweigart out of the plant asserted-
ly because she was causing disruption within his depart-
ment by engaging in what he assumed was union talk.
But, as found , there is no evidence , beyond the naked
assertion , of any disruption in the LVA department
chargeable to Schweigart and no proof of any rule
barring general conversations during working hours. In
the final analysis, it is quite clear and I find that the
wish expressed by Raymer to Myers was to get rid
of,.Schweigart because of her union activities. And,
the, wish was echoed by Myers in the form of warnings:
to.Treat , before , the first election , that Raymer wanted
Schweigart out of, the plant because of "too much
union pressure in his section"; to ,Tarabori, between
the first and second elections , that Schweigart and others
would probably lose their jobs because of the union;
and, to Schweigart, Hilfiger , and Pennell, on the night
of or the night following the second election , that Schwei-
gart and others would lose their jobs if they, were
not careful . In addition ,, Respondent has admitted that
it announced and granted wage increases to its employ-
ees, during the Union ' s organizational campaign in Sep-
tember 1968 to dissuade them from supporting the Union.
In light of the announcement and grant of wage increases
during the height of the Union ' s organizational effort
and the specific warnings of Myers which indicated
Respondent's union animus and a propensity toward
discriminatory action against Schweigart , the reasons
given by Respondent for the final discharge require
close scrutiny , and Respondent is required to adduce
cogent proof in support of those reasons to rebut the
case of discrimination indicated by all the above facts.
Respondent bases the discharge upon Schweigart's
alleged failure to notify the Respondent of an absence
for 3 successive workdays prior to her discharge on
December 19. The record shows that Respondent consid-
ered a failure to report off under the rule a serious'
matter for within 3 years it has terminated about 70
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees for failure to obey the Company's 3-day
no-word rule .34
To determine whether the Respondent was motivated
by legitimate considerations in the discharge of Schwei-
gart, it is necessary to examine the Company's reporting-
off rule, the reason for the rule, and the practice thereun-
der.
On September 29, 1966, Personnel Manager Chilson
retyped the standard rule, changing some of the wording,
and posted the rule as modified, on the Company's
bulletin boards. It reads as follows:
September 29, 1966
NOTICE
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This notice will serve the purpose of refreshing,
all employees on the standard policy for reporting
absence from work.
1. Any absence for a period of three (3) calendar
days, without notifying the Personnel Department,
will be considered valid reason for separation.
2. In case of absence, the Personnel Department
must be notified by telephone or in writing. If
you must send word by another operator, please
put it in writing. Quite often another operator will
inadvertently forget to inform the Personnel Depart-
ment, and the absence will be considered unex-
cused.
3. If the duration of your absence is for a period
of more than (3) days you must continue to contact
the department at (3) day intervals.
4. An absence of five (5) or more consecutive
days in case of illness must be accompanied by
a Doctor's Statement upon your return.
5. In any case where there is a question as'
to the length of absence anticipated, please request
a Leave of Absence. These requests will afford
production supervisors a better opportunity to
schedule the workload. Remember, requests for
a Medical Leave must be accompanied by a Doc-
tor's Statement.
GALETON
PRODUCTION
COMPANY
In addition , Chilson prepared an employee ' s booklet
which was distributed , in September 1967, to all new
employees and, 3 months later , to all old employees.
On page 7 thereof , the following statement appears:
An employee absent for three (3) days without
contacting the plant will be considered as having
resigned.
The reason for the rule, as Fitzpatrick explained, is
to insure that employees report absences and to clear
from the rolls the names of those from whom no word
is received for 3 successive days.
All parties agree , however , that , under the rule in
34 Resp Exh 3A-3YY In its brief , Respondent estimates the number
to be at least 99
practice, an employee may be discharged if she fails
to report an absence for 3 consecutive days; that she
is not required to report off in person but may do
so through someone else ; and that a report may be
oral or in writing. Further, it was established that notice
may be given to the plant owner, personnel manager,
the supervisor concerned, plant nurse, office manager,
general foreman, or switchboard operator, anyone of
whom is authorized to accept word of an absence.35
Each supervisor prepares a daily absentee report on
which he records whether or not an employee has been
reported off. The reports are forwarded to the plant
nurse who collates them and draws up a master list
of absentees indicating thereon whether or not an
employee has been reported off, the number of days
of absence, and, if known, the reason therefor. Copies
of the master list are then sent to the plant owner,
plant manager, office manager, and supervisors. In the
event the list shows that no word has been received
from an absent employee for 3 successive days, the
plant manager sets in motion the discharge procedures.
However, before final action is taken, a check is made
toward the end of the third day to see whether, late
word was received. If there has been no word, the
plant manager instructs the supervisor concerned to
send the employee to him for discharge should she
appear the next day. If the employee does not report
on the fourth day, a discharge letter is sent out that
day.
Turning now to the offense for which Schweigart
stands indicted by the Respondent, namely, an alleged
violation of the Company's reporting-off rule for 3 suc-
cessive days immediately preceding the , date; of. her, ,
termination, Schweigart's answer,'on.which tlie,,General
Counsel must rely, is simply that there was full com"pli-
ance with the rule in practice.'In this regard'the credited
testimony of Hilfiger and Hurler clearly reveals that",'
on December 16-the first day of the absence-Hilfiger
reported Schweigart off to Supervisor Raymer at the
start of the workday and, later the same day, Hurler
reported her off to Plant Owner Heymann. Finally,
on the basis of the credited testimony of Hilfiger, it
was also established that, on December 17, Hilfiger
told Cornish that Schweigart was still absent, that Hilfiger
overheard Cornish relay this information to Raymer,
and that Cornish later confirmed her report concerning
Schweigart's absence to Hilfiger. These facts impel me
to the conclusion that Respondent's reliance upon non-
as The finding with respect to persons authorized to accept an absence
report is based on a synthesis of the testimony of Heymann and
Raymer
There is some confusion in the record as to whether the monitors
are also authorized to act for the Respondent in this regard Heymann
was uncertain as to their authority but finally affirmed testimony given
in the employment compensation proceeding to the effect that the
monitors are authorized to accept absence reports. However, Eileen
Brass and Clara Smogyi, other witnesses for the Respondent and monitors
in LVA, testified that, prior to January 1969, they referred all requests
to report off to their supervisor And, Betty Cornish, an acting monitor
in LVA, averred that it was "highly unusual" for anyone to report
off to a monitor. For the purpose of deciding this case, I find it
unnecessary to decide whether the monitors were authorized to accept
absence reports at times material herein, and I do not pass upon
the question
GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY
compliance with the reporting -off rule was not a valid
basis for the discharge Hence , I must find , in agreement
with the General Counsel , that Schweigart complied
with the rule in practice , on three separate occasions,
by reports from Hilfiger to Raymer on December 16,
Hurler to Heymann the same day , and Hilfiger to Ray-
mer-by way of Cornish-on December 17, anyone
of which was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
the rule Since Schweigart effectively complied with
the rule in practice on December 16 and 17 and thereby
put management on notice of her absence, I must infer
that Respondent 's reliance on Schweigart's alleged fail-
ure to comply is a mere pretext to conceal another
motive for the discharge 36 The only apparent motive
was Schweigart ' s activity in the Union ' s abortive attempt
to gain recognition The fact that the discharge was
effected after the Union lost the final election and after
the record in the representation proceeding was closed
by the Region on December 16-the first day of Schwei-
gart ' s absence-only demonstrates Respondent ' s deter-
mination to stifle any lingering hope of union representa-
tion among its employees by eliminating the leader of
the Union 's organizational effort And , contrary to the
assertion of the Respondent , the further fact that other
known union supporters were still employed by the
Respondent at the time of the hearing does not establish
the absence of a discriminatory motive 37
The discriminatory character of the discharge is also
indicated by the following circumstances
(1) While it is clear from the record that an employee
could report off through someone else under the rule
in practice , Fitzpatrick told Schweigart that it would
not have mattered if this had been done in her case
because the rule requires that an absentee report off
in person Shortly after this, Heymann advised Schwei-
gart that Fitzpatrick, who replaced Myers on November
11, was "setting the rules," that he had to back him
up, but would try to get him to "bend the rule", and,
sometime later , Heymann echoed Fitzpatrick ' s rule to
Hurler It is evident , therefore , that Respondent imposed
upon Schweigart a new and different rule from that
which theretofore had been the rule in practice and
thereby subjected her to disparate treatment
(2) Near the close of the final interview with Heymann
on December 19, Heymann advised Schweigart that
she was perilously close to discharge on September
19 for another alleged infraction of the 3 -day no-word
rule but was saved from discharge by his intervention
following a late report from Mr Schweigart As detailed
above , the facts are that , as of the close of business
on September 19, Schweigart was absent only 2 days
without word as Hilfiger had reported her off to Raymer
the morning of September 17 There is no room for
doubt on this score since Raymer made the appropriate
entry for that day in the calendar section of Schweigart's
S" See Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v N L R B 362 F 2d
466 470 (C A 9)
39 An employers failure to discharge all the union adherents does
not necessarily indicate an absence of discriminatory intent as to those
he did discharge " W C Nabors Company 89 NLRB 538 542 enfd
196 F 2d 272 (C A 5) Duro Test Corporation 81 NLRB 976 979
Stewart Warner Corporation 55 NLRB 593 610
143
personal record In light of the foregoing , it is clearly
evident that there was no violation of the rule by Schwei-
gart in September and hence no occasion for Respondent
to have invoked the automatic discharge machinery
In these circumstances , Raymer ' s journey to Chilson's
office on September 19 for a "ruling" on the doctor's
certificate was a frivolous mission and Heymann's rep-
rieve later that day, based on Mr Schweigart's report,
was irrelevant These facts demonstrate a predisposition
by Respondent to rid itself of Schweigart as forecasted
by Myers and give support to her claim that the discharge
was not motivated by any failure on her part to abide
by the rule in practice
(3) Although Heymann promised to contact the indi-
viduals Schweigart claimed reported her off and report
back to Schweigart , having first refused to make an
on-the -spot investigation for the reason that he had
other things to do , Schweigart has not heard from Hey-
mann in this regard since the date of the discharge
Considering all pertinent facts and circumstances, I
must conclude that Respondent has not come forward
with substantial proof which is adequate to rebut the
case of discrimination made by the General Counsel
and that all the substantial and pertinent evidence in
the whole record supports the finding that Respondent
discharged Lottie L Schweigart on December 19, 1968,
not for indifference to company rule but because of
her known union adherence and activity , and that it
used as a pretext to cover that motive an alleged failure
to comply with the company reporting off rule Having
failed in the attempt to bring about Schweigart's termina-
tion on the eve of the second election in September,
Respondent then seized upon the December incident
as an excuse to accomplish its objective as found immedi-
ately above I, therefore , conclude and find that Respond-
ent's discharge of Schweigart was discriminatory, tend-
ing to discourage membership in a labor organization,
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with the operations of
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 commerce
and the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act It will , therefore , be recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist from such
unfair labor practices , and take such affirmative action
as may be required to effectuate the policies of the
Act It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Lottie L Schweigart on December 19, 1968,
and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate her to
her former position It will , therefore , be recommended
that Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position,
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay
suffered by her as a result of the discrimination against
her, from the date of the discrimination to the date
of the offer of reinstatement Loss of pay shall be
computed as prescribed in F W Woolworth Company
90 NLRB 289, and interest on such backpay shall be
computed at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716 Respond-
ent shall make available to the Board, upon request,
payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the
determination of backpay due
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
go to "the very heart of the Act"38 and there exists
the danger of the commission of other unfair labor
practices by Respondent in the future Accordingly,
a broad cease and-desist order will be recommended 39
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record, the Trial Examiner makes
the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Rodney Heymann, d/bla Galeton Production Com-
pany, Respondent herein, is, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the jurisdic-
tional standards of the Board
2 International Molders' and Allied Workers' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By discharging Lottie L Schweigart, on December
19, 1968, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate
her because of her membership in or activities on behalf
of the Union, Respondent has discriminatorily discharged
said employee to discourage membership in a labor
organization, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act
4 By announcing and granting wage increases to
employees, on or about September 18, 1968, for the
purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union,
thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7, Respondent has engaged 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 affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 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, it is
hereby recommended that Respondent , Rodney Hey-
mann , d/b/a Galeton Production Company, of Galeton,
ae N L R B v Entwistle Mfg Co 120 F 2d 532 536 (C A 4)
38 N L R B v Express Publishing Company 312 U S 426 437
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in International Mold-
ers' and Allied Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discrim-
inating in regard to hire or tenure of terms and conditions
of employment of its employees because of their union
affiliation or activity
(b) Announcing and granting wage increases to
employees for the purpose of dissuading them from
supporting the Union
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist International
Molders' and Allied Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choos
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Lottie L Schweigart immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss
of earnings which she may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against her in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy "
(b) Notify Lottie L Schweigart if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of her full
right to 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) 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 and compute the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended
Order
(d) Post at its plant in Galeton, Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "40 Copies
of this notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
40 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY 145
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of
this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have
been taken to comply therewith 41
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations
of the complaint not specifically found to be in violation
of the Act be dismissed
41 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional
Director for Region 6 in writing within 10 days from the date of
this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all
such activities , except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment , in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act
WE WILL offer Lottie L Schweigart immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniori-
ty and other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her
WE WILL notify the above -named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement , upon appli
cation , in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
the above -named labor organization or any other labor
organization
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna - RODNEY HEYMAN,
tional Molders ' and Allied Workers' Union of North D/B/A GALETON
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- PRODUCTION COMPANY
tion, by discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure or terms and conditions of employment of
our employees because of their union affiliation
or activity, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act
WE WILL NOT announce and grant wage increases
to employees for the purpose of dissuading them
from supporting the above-named Union or any
other labor organization
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist the above named Union, or any other
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, 1536 Federal Building , 1000 Liberty Avenue,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Telephone 412-644-2977