General Aniline & Film Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 102 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of March 13, 1959, Respondents' attorney advised that the jobs of all strikers had
either been filled or eliminated prior to February 24, and that, in any event, the
Respondent would not reemploy some of the strikers because of alleged misconduct
during the strike.
The undisputed evidence shows that prior to the request for reinstatement (1)
some of the strikers ' jobs had been eliminated as a result of the merger of Respondent
Rubber with Respondent Insular, and ( 2) the remaining jobs of the strikers had been
filled during the strike. As the strike was not an unfair labor practice strike, it was
not discrimination in violation of the Act for Respondents to refuse to reinstate
or reemploy the strikers under the circumstances.'7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The record does not preponderantly establish that Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
371 therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether the strikers engaged in un-
protected activity during the strike.
Ozalid Division of General Aniline & Film Corp. and Printing
Specialties & Paper Products Joint Council No. 2, Inter-
national Printing Pressmen . & Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-3701. July 19, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 28, 1960, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
128 NLRB No. 26.
OZALID DIVISION OF GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORP . 103
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed on August 25, 1959, and on
November 4, 1959, respectively, by Printing Specialities & Paper Products Joint
Council No. 2, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel' and the
Board, through the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles,
California), issued a complaint, dated November 17, 1959, against Ozalid Division
of General Aniline & Film Corp., herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act.
Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing thereon, were duly served
upon Respondent and the Union.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that on or about August 12, 1959, Respondent
discharged Robert W. Canfield, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, because he
had joined or assisted the Union or had engaged in other protected concerted
activities.
Respondent duly and timely filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on Decem-
ber 10 and 11, 1959, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel who participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the
record at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or
before January 8, 1960. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel
and from Respondent's counsel which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent , a Delaware corporation , is a division of General Aniline and Film
Corporation , herein called General Aniline, whose principal offices are located in
New York, New York. General Aniline has two other principal divisions , viz, the
Ansco Division , located at Binghamton , New York, and the Dyestuff and Chemical
Division, with manufacturing plants at Linden , New Jersey , at Rensselaer, New
York, at Calvert City, Kentucky , and Huntsville , Alabama.
Respondent , the Nation 's leader in the white print industry , manufactures direct
copy machines and sensitized material. Its sales organization is international in
scope with 11 branches and over 50 distributors in this country , and with representa-
tives in over 45 foreign countries.
Respondent operates a plant at La Habra, California , the employees of which
are the only ones involved in this proceeding , where it manufactures sensitized
material which is sold throughout the western States.
Respondent annually ships from its La Habra plant finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 to points located outside the State of California.
Upon the above undisputed facts, the Trial Examiner finds that Respondent is,
and during all times material was , engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
1 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The sole issue here to be resolved, as the General Counsel states in his brief, is
whether Robert W. Canfield was discharged for engaging in protected concerted
activities or for cause.
In December 1957, the Respondent moved its Oakland, California, plant to La
Habra, California, and commenced manufacturing operations at the new location
shortly after December 8 of that year.
On August 12, 1958, the Union filed a representation petition (Case No.
21-RC-5365) which it withdrew on September 10, 1958. A second petition seeking
certification as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's production
and maintenance employees was filed on March 3, 1959 2 (Case No. 21-RC-5681).
A Board-conducted election was held, pursuant to the second petition, on May 18,
which election the Union won. The Union was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees involved on May 26.
B. The pertinent facts
The first in a series of 15 bargaining meetings was held on July 10. The Union's
negotiating commmttee consisted of Business Representative Glenn Buell, employees
Canfield, Frank Cohan, Rod Miley, Mae Bohnenkamp, and Virginia Garthwaite.3
The negotiations on behalf of Respondent were initially handled by Gordon Jermyn,
personnel director for the Ozalid Division, and by La Habra plant Personnel Rela-
tions Supervisor Robert Yothers Jermyn was Respondent's chief spokesman during
most of the 15 meetings held between July 10 and August 15, the date when agree-
ment was finally reached.
During the week immediately preceding July 28, Jermyn informed his supervisor,
George Picolli, director of labor relations for General Aniline, that there were
positive signs of a production slowdown in the plant, which was becoming increas-
ingly worse. Accordingly, Picolli came to La Habra from his New York offices
and attended, as Respondent's chief negotiator, the July 28 negotiation meeting
and each such meeting thereafter.
Although the parties were close to reaching agreement on July 28, the union-
security clause and several minor issues remained unresolved. On August 3, the
Union presented a package proposal to Respondent which Respondent took under
advisement and, on August 4, agreed to accept. However, the umon committee
declined to recommend its own proposal to the membership because Respondent
had refused to grant a full union-security clause. Nevertheless, the Union agreed
to present this proposal to the membership and asked to let the employees have
the use of Respondent's cafeteria for the purpose of holding the ratification meeting.
Respondent agreed to this request and, in order to assure all employees of an
opportunity to attend, shut down its operations from 3 to 6 p.m.
The ratification meeting was held in the cafeteria as scheduled. At the conclusion
of the meeting, Buell advised Respondent that the union members had rejected
the proposed contract. When questioned as to the reason for the rejection, Buell
said: "In my judgment, if you had the Union job (shop), it would have gone over,
but without that, they were not buying "
The next and final negotiating meeting was held on August 15. At this meeting
the parties went over the contract which the Union had submitted on August 3 and
which was agreed to by Respondent on August 4, and the committee agreed to
recommend this contract to the membership for ratification The Union again
requested use of the cafeteria, but Respondent declined because of "the incident
which occurred at the last meeting" (the union exclusion of non-union employees).
The contract was subsequently ratified and, on August 19, was executed by the
parties.
Approximately 3 weeks prior to August 10, Respondent noticed definite signs
indicating that the employees were engaged in a concerted slowdown. The effects
of this slowdown were reflected in Respondent's standards and efficiency records
and, as time wore on, became of more and more concern to Respondent's super-
visory staff.
3 All dates hereinafter mentioned refer to 1959
a Union Representative DIcCanghen substituted for Buell at the first few meetings when
Buell was sick, Leonard Iiicider, an assistant to Buell, also attended one or two meet-
ings ; Cohan took employee Donald Schleicher's place on the committee shortly after nego-
tiations began, and employee AleSperitt apparently never participated in the negotiations.
OZALID DIVISION OF GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORP. 105
Although there were a few days during this period when it appeared that production
was improving, the slowdown activities gradually increased until Thursday and
Friday, August 7 and 8, when things got completely out of hand. Thus, Foreman
Gilbert Blevins, who was on vacation prior to August 6, noticed a terrific slowdown
in the plant upon his return; it became necessary to hold supervisory meetings almost
daily to discuss the slowdown; and special instructions were issued to the foremen
regarding the procedure to follow in combating the slowdown.
On or about August 6, Plant Operations Manager George Schoner assembled the
shipping and warehouse employees and stated to them, according to Schoner's
credible and undenied testimony,
I reviewed with them that it had come to my attention that not only was
there a slowdown going on, and not only were there also all sorts of
shenanigans going on, but they had added incidents which were so dangerous
to the safety and security of the corporation as a whole, and to many of our
customers-I pointed out that we are prime contractors of the Government,
and the missing documents, some of which involved Government orders to the
Space Technology Division, to the Atomic Energy Commission, that it is too
dangerous, and that those things will have to be stopped immediately or else
we will have to take all possible disciplinary action under the law.
I gave them some instances, for example, the official weighing scale had been
tampered with, and we were forced, our own maintenance department was
unable to fix it because it is on pivots. It is a special type of adjustment that
is required.
We called the Toledo Scales people, the servicemen, and they put it back
in shape again.
There was another incident where a lift truck, a fork truck, was very
definitely, deliberately tampered with. Someone had opened the heavy steel
plate and jerked out the ignition wire, either cut or jerked it off so that it
couldn't operate.
There was another incident where manifolds, including Government order
manifolds were missing, and some never turned up, which meant, of course,
that we couldn't ship, which in turn placed the receiving activity of the
Government into jeopardy.
Those things I explained to them that they must very definitely cut it out,
because that's going too far, that no one could tolerate that.
-In addition to Schoner talking to the shipping department employees, and pursuant
to Piccoli's instructions to the supervisors, a number of oral warnings and several
written warnings were issued to the employees by the supervisors.
The credible evidence further discloses that during the first week or so of August,
Schoner spoke to Canfield on two or three different occasions about not doing his
work properly; that about a week prior to August 10, Canfield was given a warning
by his supervisor, Shipping and Receiving Foreman Leonard Scott, for not doing
his work properly; and on August 7, Converting Department Foreman Gilbert
Blevins gave Canfield "a stiff warning about his production and about the fact that
he had spent too much time away from his job."
In addition to Schoner's above-referred-to speech to the shipping and warehouse
employees, Respondent on several occasions brought up the matter of the slowdown
during the negotiations, on which occasions Respondent's spokesman stated that if
the situation was not remedied Respondent would take strong disciplinary action
against the employees who engaged in such tactics.
At about 9:30 on the morning of August 10, Canfield was at his work station
performing his duties as a shipping and receiving clerk when another employee,
Ronald Wendel, came up to him and engaged him in a conversation. Wendel asked
Canfield if there was any work for the former to do. Canfield replied in the
negative explaining that he was finishing up his last assigned piece of work. The
conversation then turned to the bargaining negotiations .4 About this time, Foreman
Blevins came up to where Wendel, Canfield, and employee Lou Allen were.
Blevins credibly testified that he asked Wendel whether he had any work to do, and
that when the latter replied in the affirmative, the following ensued:
And I said, "Well, let's do it. Let's get the work out. We're behind as
it is."
Tx1AL EXAM ER: Where were they standing?
,'Canfield was chairman of the employees' negotiating committee.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The WITNESS: They were standing in, at the time-it was in Bob 's work area,
Bob Canfield's work area.
He said, "Why don't you make me?"
And I said, "Come on, Ronald," I said, "we've got a dot of work, let's get
it out."
So he says, "Why don't you do something about it?"
Well, I was kind of stumped at first, because I have never had this happen
to me before.
So I said to him, "I will." And I turned and walked away, going back to
what Mr. Piccoli had instructed us to do, to get a witness .5
I was going to make a phone call to get Mr. Novae, and I happened to see
Mr. Novae [a foreman] on the floor, so I called to him and asked him to
come over, that I had a problem with an employee.
Mr. Novae came up. He didn't say anything.
I then asked Ronald if he was going back to work, and he says, "No." He
says, "Why don't you make me?"
I says, "Ronald, I am ordering you to go back to work."
And he said, "Why don't you do something about it?"
I says, "Okay. Come along with me to the front office."
That was the extent of the conversation at that point.
Q. What did you do at this point then?
A. I started for the front office with Ronald and Mr. Novae, when I saw
Don Christiansen, who is a converting department foreman, coming toward us.
I also asked Don to come along to the front office, because I wanted him to
hear what had happened.
Q. Now, before you met Mr. Christiansen, did Mr. Canfield say anything
to you?
A. Bob asked me, or he asked Ronald, rather-he didn't ask me-he asked
Ronald if he wanted him to go along with him to the front office, and Ronald
nodded his head with a "yes" motion.
I told Bob that he could not go to the front office, to go back to his job.
Bob says, "Well , I am a shop steward and I've got a right to go."
I said, "Bob, no one ever informed me that you were a shop steward. Go
back to your job."
Bob said, "Well, nobody has to tell you. I'm telling you."
At this point I didn't comment on it, but Lou Allen asked me if I was
refusing to let him go with him to the front office, and I said, "Yes. Both of
you go back to your job," and with this I left and started for the front office.
Q. Thereafter, did you have any further words with Mr. Canfield?
A. In approaching the door leading to the front office, I looked down the
aisleway between the converting department and the shipping department, and
I saw Bob Canfield. He was completely out of his work area at this time. And
I yelled to Bob if he was going back to work.6
And Bob said , "Go to hell."
I says to Bob, "What did you say?"
And he said, "I said `go to hell.' "
And with this, myself, Mr. Novae, Mr. Christiansen and Ronald Wendel went
into the front office. I didn't comment to Bob about it.
Wendel was then taken into Schoner's office and, in the presence of the three
aforementioned foremen and Schoner, Yothers, Jermyn, and Piccoli, refused to say
why he refused to work. After asking for an explanation at least three times, and
being met with silence, Piccoli told Wendel he had no alternative but to suspend
him for 3 days. Schoner then told Blevins to take Wendel out into the plant, punch
him out, and see that he left the premises.
Meanwhile, and unbeknownst to the supervisors who were present in Schoner's
office when Wendel was being suspended, Canfield, after telling Blevins to "Go to
6 Piccoli credibly testified that be issued such Instructions because "After awhile it
became quite apparent that there was a movement on foot to create an incident which
might precipitate a walkout. I wanted, to make absolutely certain, number one, that
we were not exposed to an unfair labor practice charge strike, and I directed our fore-
men, together with Mr Schoner, that they should never expose themselves alone. 'If you
go in and talk to a man, make sure that you are accompanied by a supervisor.' "
e Canfield was then between 60 and 70 feet from Blevins.
OZALID DIVISION OF GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORP. 107
hell," went into the coating department. The coating foreman, Edwin Abreu, saw
Canfield enter and asked him what he wanted.7 Canfield said he wanted to see
Cohan .8 Abreu turned and said, "Just a minute, Bob," but Canfield proceeded
toward Cohan who was standing at his work station.
Abreu followed Canfield to where he was engaged in conversation with Cohan.
By the time Abreu joined them, he heard Canfield tell Cohan to shut down the
machines. Abreu immediately told Cohan to keep the machines running, otherwise
he would be through.
Upon leaving Cohan's department, Canfield went to Bohnenkamp's, another mem-
ber of the employees' negotiating committee, work area, and after telling her what
had transpired between him, Wendell, and Blevins, said, "Go ahead and shut the
place down."
Schoner credibly testified that after the meeting in his office at which Wendel was
suspended, he went into the plant's factory area and that the following then transpired:
I noticed Bob Canfield standing there, and there were a number of employees
either milling around or passing by. It was bedlam in that particular section.
So I walked up to Bob Canfield, and I asked Bob, I said, "Bob, please to back
to work."
And Bob Canfield explained that he would not go back to work unless I
reinstated Ron Wendel.
I explained that Ron Wendel was suspended for three days; I would expect
him to go back to work.
Bob Canfield said , "No. I will not go to work unless you reinstate Ron Wendel."
So I asked him once more, I said, "Bob, I am directing you to go back to
work or else I may have to suspend you."
He said, "I will not go back to work unless you reinstate Ron Wendel."
Thereupon, I told Bob Canfield that he is herewith suspended for three days,
and to leave the factory, and punch his time card.
He asked if he could have permission to go back to his regular work station,
which was about 100 feet or so away, sort of his headquarters or his desk, to
clean out some personal belongings , and then go.
I said, "Sure, I will go with you. I will escort you."
And we did that. And he picked up a few things that belong to him.
From there we walked to the time clock. He punched his time card out and
he walked out of the factory.
Q. At this time that you had the conversation with Canfield, did you have
any idea that the strike was beginning or anything of that kind?
A. No. As I said, I walked out to see what I could do.
Q. You suspended him. What was the reason for that three-day suspension
that you gave him at that time?
A. The reason for the suspension was outright insubordination. I asked him
repeatedly to go back to work. He didn't do it so I suspended him.
I-under no circumstances-you can't run a corporation with insubordination
of that type. I would have terminated him but in view, again, of Mr. Piccoli's
previous assertions to keep things going as much as possible and so forth, well,
I bent over backward and suspended Bob rather than terminating him.
After Canfield left the plant he went around to the door leading from the coating
department to the outside and conversed with Cohan. Cohan testified, and the Trial
Examiner finds, that during the conversation which ensued between him and Canfield
the following was said:
"What happened, Bob?"
And Bob said, "Well, they suspended me and Ron Wendel and some others,
and we've walked out."
So I asked him, I says, "Is it a strike?"
And be said that as far as he was concerned it was a strike and I says, "Is
everyone out?"
He says, "No, some of the people are working."
He thought that some of them were working because all of them didn't know
about what happened. They didn't give them a chance to tell them.
So I asked Canfield, I says, "Shall I shut my machine down?"
'Abreu had no way of knowing what bad occurred in the shipping department only
seconds before , and he was simply following standard procedure in checking all employees
from other departments.
8 A member of the negotiating committee.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And Canfield says, "You can do what you want. You can shut them down
or not. It's up to you."
So I said, "I'll shut them down if it's a strike."
After concluding his conversation, Cohan returned to his department where he
noticed that Yothers, Blevins, and Roy Wood, plant engineer, had come into the
department. Thereupon, Cohan walked over to the three named persons and asked
what had happened. After hearing Respondent's side of the Wendel-Canfield incident
Cohan asked for and was given permission to leave the plant in order to hear Canfield's
side of the story.
When Cohan met Canfield outside, there were only about 9 or 10 other employees
who had walked out, a fact which prompted Cohan to ask Canfield if everyone was
going to come out or "is .there just going to be these few?"
Following his conversation with Canfield, Cohan walked back through the plant
toward the coating department and met Schoner. Schoner advised Cohan to shut
his machines down rn an orderly fashion. Thereafter, Cohan did, in fact, shut the
machines down in an orderly fashion, and he and a number of other employees
participated in the strike.
As some of the employees were leaving, Piccoli came out into the plant area and
talked to them. Piccoli asked them to listen to him before they left, that he had a
few things he wanted to tell them. He then explained the Wendel incident and the
facts surrounding the suspension of Canfield. He discussed the negotiations and
Respondent's offer to the Union and then said:
I want to make it very clear, if you people want to go, I can't stop you. That
must be your decision. If you feel that you want to participate in the strike, you
go ahead and do it. That is your right. We have no contract. I am urging
you however, not to, because I think you would be a lot happier working with
us, and I am sure that those who participate in this thing will discover in a very
short time that they were-their move was an unwise one .9
On August 12, Canfield received the following telegram from the Respondent:
AS A RESULT OF A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION COVERING YOUR
CONDUCT ON MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1959, BETWEEN 9:45 A.M. AND
10:00 A M. THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED: 1. THAT
YOU DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO RETURN TO YOUR ASSIGNED
JOB WHEN SO REQUESTED BY TWO DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF
SUPERVISION ON AT LEAST 4 OCCASIONS. 2. THAT YOU ON TWO
SEPARATE OCCASIONS DIRECTED PROFANE LANGUAGE AGAINST
YOUR SUPERVISOR. 3. THAT YOU DELIBERATELY AND WITHOUT
PERMISSION ENTERED A DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN THE ONE TO
WHICH YOU ARE ASSIGNED AND DIRECTED THE EMPLOYEES TO
SHUT DOWN THEIR OPERATIONS. FOR THE REASONS ENUMER-
ATED ABOVE YOU ARE HEREBY DISCHARGED EFFECTIVE .AS OF
THE TIME YOU PUNCHED OUT ON MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1959.
YOU MAY PICK UP YOUR FINAL PAY CHECK AND ANY OTHER
PERSONAL PROPERTY AT THE PERSONNEL OFFICE
On August 12, the Union decided to abandon the strike and return to work. A
meeting was set up between Respondent and the Union to arrange settlement terms
and, as a result of this meeting, the parties entered into a strike settlement agreement.
The terms of the aforesaid agreement reads as follows:
(1) Effective 'as of this date, all picketing and interference in any way with
incoming and outgoing trucking, or incoming or outgoing employees will be
terminated.
(2) On Friday, August 14, 1959, all bargaining unit employees who left
their jobs to participate in the strike will return to their respective jobs, at their
regular starting time and shift. It being understood that this shall not include
the two employees who were discharged on August 10, 1959.
(3) All employees upon return will perform their jobs in accordance with
their normal standard of performance.
(4) The representatives of the Company and the Union agree to meet for
the purpose of consummating the agreement on Saturday, August 15, 1959,
,at 10 A.M.
9 After Piccoll had finished his speech, a number of employees left the plant and some
remained.
OZALID DIVISION OF GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORP . 109'
(5) It is understood that the conditions previously agreed to covering wages„
hours and working conditions, and security clause will not be exceeded.
(6) It is also understood that the consummation of any Agreement will not
be contingent upon the reaching of an Agreement with respect to the two
employees who are discharged.' However, the Company will discuss this
matter with the Union.
(7) It is understood that Everett Allen shall be recognized effective as of
Friday, August 14, 1959, as acting shop steward, representing the Printing
Specialties and Paper Products Union.
On August 15 the parties met for the purpose of concluding negotiations. After
the union committee had agreed to recommend the contract to the membership,
the discharge of Canfield and Wendel was discussed. Respondent adhered to its
position and Canfield and Wendel have not been reinstated.
C. The concluding findings
The credited evidence, as epitomized above, leads to the conclusion that Can-
field's discharge was not violative of the Act. This conclusion becomes inescapable
when consideration is given to the following: (1) There is absolutely no evidence
in this record of any present or past antipathy on Respondent's part toward the
Union or any other labor organization. In fact, an examination of the Board's
decisions reveals no case either under the present Act or under the so-called Wagner
Act in which the Board found Respondent, or its parent company, General Aniline
& Film Corp., or the Ansco division of General Aniline & Film Corp, had violated
the Act; (2) Canfield's refusal to return to work when instructed by Blevins and
Schoner. The fact that Canfield was chairman of the employees' negotiating com-
mittee and otherwise active on behalf of the Union and if it were proven that the
Union was a labor organization which Respondent sought to eliminate, did not give
Canfield immunity for refusing to comply with reasonable directions of manage-
ment; 11 (3) the complete lack of any evidence-substantial or otherwise-that
Blevins' or Schoner's instructions to Canfield to return to work were prompted by
anything else than legitimate business consideration.
Furthermore, Canfield's own reasons for his refusal to obey those instructions,
do not stand up under scrutiny. Thus, Canfield testified that he was elected chairman
of the employees' negotiating committee and shop steward at a union meeting in
June, that Union Business Representative Buell advised him of the duties of a shop
steward, and that he had met with Respondent's representatives in August to discuss
the discharge of employee Mike Hoover. Of the six supervisors 12 who testified,
each swore, and the Trial Examiner finds, that he had no knowledge that Canfield
had been designated or elected shop steward. In fact, Piccoli credibly, and
without contradiction, 13 testified that at the meeting between Respondent and the
Union, held on or about August 17, which was called to discuss the reinstatement
of Canfield and Wendel, the following took place:
I was advised by Mr. Buell at the last meeting that I attended-I think it was
August 17th-this was after the discharge-Mr. Buell told me that, we got to
talking about the telegram 14 and the various points that we charged Mr.
Canfield with, and Mr. Buell told me that Canfield had a right to leave his
department because he was a steward.
I think there was a feeling of shock amongst Jermyn, myself and the others.
I said, "When did you ever notify the company that he was a steward?"
Well, he said, "I just assume, when he is chairman of the committee, that
you treat him as a steward."
10 Referring to 'Canfield and Wendel.
"See Globe Wireless, Ltd., 88 NLRB 1262; N L.R B. v. Ross Gear & Tool Company,
158 F. 2d 607 (CA. 7). The directions in the instant case were not on their face so
arbitrary as to warrant the inference that it was given in order to be violated. Cf. The
Russell Manufacturing Co. Inc., et at., 82 NLRB 1081
'3 Namely, Yothers, Blevins, Scott, Abreu, Schoner, and Piccoli.
13Buell was in the hearing room at the time Canfield was testifying, and, in fact,
Buell was present most of the time during the 2-day hearing , but he was not called as-
a witness.
14 Directed to Canfield and dated August 12.
-110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I said, "We don't assume anything."
I said, "The way I do business we recognize a man whom we are advised
of in advance. Did you ever send a letter to anybody?"
He said, "No."
"Did you ever tell anybody?"
He said, "No, but in my plants," he said, "the chairman of the committee is
recognized as a steward."
I said, "I don't know what you do in your plants. We do not do that in this
plant. Mr. Canfield was never recognized as a steward and is not recognized
as a steward now."
Moreover, Schoner denied, and the Trial Examiner accepts his denial, that Buell ever
-informed him, by telephone 15 or otherwise, that Canfield was a shop steward.
In addition, of all the employees who were given oral or written warnings or
disciplined, between June and August 10, not one was represented by Canfield nor
did Canfield ever discuss their cases with Respondent. As far as the record shows
Canfield was apparently completely unaware of the discharge of employee Huson,
a discharge which subsequently resulted in an unfair labor practice charge being
filed by the Union and later withdrawn following Board investigation. Similarly,
his actions with respect to the McSperrit grievance were highly unusual if he was
in fact authorized to present grievances or to represent employees in the plant; that
is, he not only failed to participate in the discussion of this grievance but he was
not even informed of its disposition.
Regarding the Mike Hoover discharge, the record clearly indicates, and the Trial
Examiner finds, that Canfield never discussed Hoover's discharge with any respondent
representative prior to said discharge; even after the discharge Canfield's only action
with respect thereto was to telephone Buell and inform him that Hoover had been
discharged; in fact it was Buell who raised the Hoover discharge at a negotiating
meeting; it was Buell whom Piccoli arranged to meet with Yothers and discuss the
discharge; and, finally, it was at a meeting between Buell and Piccoli, which Canfield
did not attend, that the Hoover discharge was adjusted.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner finds that the allegations
of the complaint that Canfield's discharge was violative of the Act have not been
sustained by substantial evidence. This finding is buttressed by the fact that the
record clearly discloses that Canfield was discharged because (1) he flatly and
admittedly refused to obey Blevins' and Schoner's legitimate and reasonable instruc-
tions to return to work; 16 (2) on two separate occasions Canfield directed profane
language against his supervisor; and (3) deliberately, and without permission,
entered into a department, other than his own, and directed a coworker to shut down
his machine
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ozalid Division of General Aniline & Film Corp., La Habra, California, is
engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Printing Specialties & Paper Products Joint Council No. 2, International Print-
ing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act have not been sustained by substantial evidence.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
'S Canfield testified that at the August 17 meeting between the Union and the Respond-
ent, at which his and Wendel's reinstatements were under discussion, Buell stated that
he (Buell) had notified Schoner by telephone that Canfield was shop steward.
'- Neither the orders themselves nor Respondent's enforcement of them by discharging
Canfield are shown by substantial evidence to have been motivated by any dislike for the
Union or Canfield's activities in its behalf