Glazer Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION 7
United States are followed only in so "far as practicable,"
and that the circumstances of the instant case warranted
departure from strict compliance with the rule against
admission of hearsay evidence. In support of this position
counsel cited authority to the effect that in certain
situations where hearsay evidence has rational , probative
force and is corroborated it may constitute substantial
evidence in a Board proceeding. Part of the corroboration
on which counsel would rely, to admit this hearsay
evidence, is the claim that the evidence reveals Lamon
worked primarily on Austad work as distinguished from
Johnston work until after the strike began in October 1965.
But this would be slight, if any, corroboration of an
allegation that Respondent indulged in unlawful
preemployment interrogations . General Counsel also
sought to elicit the testimony of Harley Olson concerning a
conversation he had with affiant Lamon, which, counsel
stated, would support the statements contained in the
affidavit. This proffer of testimony was also rejected on the
ground that it would be hearsay. Whatever the rule may be
as to admissiblity of hearsay evidence if properly
corroborated, it is not likely that the rule permits
corroboration of hearsay evidence by hearsay testimony. I
have not been persuaded that the ruling rejecting the
affidavit was in error, and such rejection is hereby
affirmed.
Because the affidavit of Lamon was not admitted as
evidence, further discussion is not necessary, but this
further observation is made. If the incident, toward
which the affidavit was directed as proof, had been
proven it would at most have established an isolated
instance of interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
No other independent acts of violation of Section
8(a)(1) were alleged or sought to be proven. If Lamon
had been present to testify, and if after cross-
examination , his testimony stood substantially as in
his affidavit, it would likely be deemed to violate the
Act. There is this however to consider in mitigation of
the conversation Respondent's supervisor had with
Lamon, as it is set forth in the affidavit. Respondent
was involved in an unusual situation respecting the
Union and its employees. With certain of the
employees deemed to be in a unit of employees of
another employer, represented by a union that had no
connection with Respondent's employees, as such, an
employer with the purest of attitudes toward unions,
might be excused for asking a prospective employee
which group he preferred to work with. In such a
case, if not here, it might be necessary to look toward
other conduct on the part of such an employer, to find
a violation . The statements of dispatcher Severson, as
ascribed to him in the affidavit of Lamon, do scarcely
more than make such inquiry.
Counsel for the General Counsel seeks to make a point
of the fact Severson did not take the stand to deny the
conversation set forth in the Lamon affidavit; but trial
procedure does not require refutation of a statement not in
evidence, to escape the onus of a claim made outside the
record.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Because of the findings and conclusions hereinbefore
set forth , it is recommended that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
Glazer Steel Corporation and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
15-CA-2666.
FEBRUARY 17,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND ZAGORIA
On August 24, 1966, Trial Examiner David E.
Davis issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of these allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
with supporting briefs, and Respondent filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The Board has
considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
exceptions and briefs,' and the entire record in this
proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,2
conclusions,3 and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied because, in
our opinion , the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately set
forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 We also reject Respondent 's request that we disregard the
Trial Examiner's findings and make our own findings de novo
from the record . We have reviewed the Trial Examiner 's findings
in the light of the record and conclude that they are supported by
it. i
The Respondent 's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision are in large part directed to the credibility resolutions of
the Trial Examiner . We will not, however , overturn a Trial
Examiner ' s resolutions of credibility issues unless the party
excepting to such findings demonstrates by a clear
preponderance of the relevant evidence that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d
363 (C.A. 3). Respondent , in our opinion , has not sustained that
burden here.
In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Bell,
Longe, Royal, and Ray, we rely not only on the Trial Examiner's
subsidiary findings, but also on the fact that each of these
individuals signed an authorization card for the Union.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner 4 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Glazer Steel
Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
4 We do not , however, adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommendation , not included in his Recommended Order, that
the Respondent read to its assembled employees the notice which
our Order requires the Respondent to post
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed by
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union , on June 29 , 1965, amended on August 24, 1965,
the General Counsel , by the Regional Director of
Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called the Board , issued a complaint and notice of hearing
on November 30, 1965, copies of which were duly served
upon the parties. The complaint alleges that Glazer Steel
Corporation , herein called the Respondent , engaged in
certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called
the Act. The Respondent duly filed an answer denying that
it had engaged in any conduct violative of the Act.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was conducted before
me in New Orleans , Louisiana , on May 3 and 4 and June 6,
1966 . All parties were represented and given full
opportunity to be heard . Briefs have been received from
the Respondent and the General Counsel and have been
carefully considered. i
Upon the entire record2 in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
and (7) of the Act and that it would effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Statement
In the latter part of April or early in May 1965,3 Sidney
Walker, an employee of the Respondent, brought into the
Respondent 's plant authorization cards of the Union. He
contacted Jack Bell, another of Respondent's employees
who worked on the night shift , and commenced an
organizational campaign of the Respondent 's employees
who numbered about 60, about 16 of whom were on the
night shift which commenced about 5 p.m. Thereafter
Jerome Glazer, about May 14, made a speech to the
assembled employees and another one about May 21. In
between the two speeches, Jerome Glazer summoned
approximately six employees into his private office and
had personal conferences with them concerning the
Union . Louis Glazer , the Respondent ' s executive vice
president , summoned about 12 employees for similar
conferences . In addition, six employees were discharged;
Willie Jones on May 21, Samuel L. Mock on May 28, Lee
Oscar Longe, Joseph Royal, William Ray, Jr., on June 4,
and Jack Bell on June 5. The latter four were discharged
because of alleged participation in gambling . The General
Counsel contends that the stated reasons for the
discharges were pretextual and that the discharges were in
reality motivated by the known union activities and
sympathies of these employees. The General Counsel
further contends that Jerome Glazer's speeches and
interviews as well as Louis Glazer's interviews were
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent, in
its answer , denied that it had engaged in any conduct
violative of the Act.
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Respondent is a Tennessee corporation engaged
in the fabrication and wholesale distribution of steel and
related products from its principal office and place of
business in New Orleans, Louisiana, the only location
involved in these proceedings; that during the past 12
months, a representative period, it has in the course and
conduct of its business purchased and received, at its New
Orleans, Louisiana, plant, directly from points outside the
State of Louisiana , steel and other materials valued in
excess of $100,000; that during the same representative
period it has sold and shipped from its New Orleans,
Louisiana, plant, directly to points outside the State of
Louisiana, steel and other products valued in excess of
$100,000. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
i Prior to the opening of the formal hearing , the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds Associate
Chief Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner denied the Respondent's
motion by telegraphic communication on April 27, 1966 It was
stipulated at the hearing that no action was required by me on
Respondent 's motion to revoke a certain subpoena duces tecum
because the Respondent had complied with its terms to the
satisfaction of the General Counsel
B. The Speeches and Interviews
Jerome Glazer4 testified that he became aware of the
Union 's organizational campaign a few days before his first
speech. He described the manner in which he obtained
such knowledge as follows:
I was walking out through the plant , which I do fairly
regularly .... And of course I got some oldtimers
around, and they said, "What's going on with this
union again , Mr. Glazer?" And I just took a stab in the
back they were coming around again, whether the
oldtimers might have known it or not.
Testifying as to the reason for his first speech, Jerome said
that as, "a couple fellows" mentioned it, it prompted him
"to get busy and see what I can do about it."
The employees were notified by their foreman to
proceed to the No. 2 shed of the plant. The testimony is
2 Respondent 's counsel submitted a motion to correct certain
portions of the record. The General Counsel did not file any
opposition and the motion is hereby granted
3 Hereafter all dates will refer to the year 1965 unless otherwise
specified
' Hereafter Jerome Glazer will be referred to as Jerome and
Louis Glazer as Louis
GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION
vague as to the exact date, but it was on a Friday night
about 4:30 p.m. so employees on both the day shift and the
night shift could attend.5
The speech, a copy of which was introduced in
evidences was as follows:
Men, I have a short message which is of great
importance to us all. Please listen carefully.
If you all cannot hear me, please raise your hands.
Some Union people are trying to get our employees
to sign up with them. I don't know what they are
promising, but I understand they are trying to make
you believe they can take this business over and make
you rich over night.
Let me give you the facts, so you won't be fooled.
First, you didn't get your job here from any Union,
and this Union is not going to get you a job anywhere
else if you lose your job here.
Second, Union people are being paid by the Union
to sign you up so they can get your money. They are
only after your money-and that's the simple truth.
They don't work for nothing, and they keep their jobs
as long as they can collect dues money from people
like you.
Third, the Union can't make us sign a contract, or
pay higher wages, or keep an undesirable
employee-it can't make us do anything we think is
bad for the company's business. Anybody can make
promises, but the law is clear: We do not have to
make any concessions to any Union.
Fourth, about all the Union can really guarantee to
get for the money they may take from you is the
constant risks of work stoppages and strikes. If they
don't get their way, they will always be trying to shut
us down with a strike. Is this what you want? Have
you thought what it would be like if you didn't have
your paycheck every week? Where would you get the
money to pay rent, buy groceries, keep up the
installments on your car, your TV and furniture, pay
your other bills? You wouldn't even be able to draw
unemployment pay if the Union called a strike.
Because I think some of our people may not
understand clearly how the company feels about this
Union thing, I am going to give it to you straight.
Here it is:
THIS COMPANY DOES NOT WANT A UNION
IN THIS PLANT.
We know how Unions can destroy jobs and
companies with their strikes and other troubles.
This means that if you let yourself get mixed up in
this thing, you will be in a fight against us , and the
paid Union men will be standing around, without
risking their jobs or their paychecks, watching you
and the company in a fight. The Union can't lose
anything by telling you to fight us, but we can lose this
plant and you can lose everything you've got here.
I would like to make these suggestions to you:
NUMBER ONE. If you are asked to sign a Union
card, my advice is DON'T DO IT. Think before you
act. Ask yourself, "What can this Union do for me, and
what can it do to hurt me?" DON'T let anyone push
you into making what may be the biggest mistake of
your life.
NUMBER TWO. Don't let these Union people
pester you or bother you into doing something you
don't really want to do. You have the right to walk
5 It is apparent that the first speech by Jerome was given on
either May 7 or May 14 1 am inclined to fix the date as May 7 for
9
away from them, and to keep them away from you.
They will try all kinds of tricks to try to get you to sign
a card. They will tell you that your friends have
signed. They will try to shame you into signing by
pretending it will help someone else. Believe me,
nobody is going to help you if this Union pulls you out
on strike and makes you lose your job.
NUMBER THREE. If you have any questions about
this matter, come to us for the answers. We want you
to have the TRUTH. We want to answer all of your
questions. We will be glad to see you in our office, or
at your home, or anywhere you may want to talk with
us. If we don't have the answers to all your questions,
we will get the accurate information and give it to you.
[Emphasis in speech as in original.]
Jerome in testifying as to the reasons for calling in
various employees for interviews stated:
I had my supervisors out there, and I couldn't get
across my point to them, I felt, and I discussed this
with legal counsel and decided that I'd call them [the
employees] into my office.
Jerome then said that he selected about six employees
for interviews on a random basis primarily from
warehouses No. 2 and No. 3. Louis interviewed about 12
employees. Each of the employees were notified by their
respective supervisors to appear at either Jerome's or
Louis' office. The interviews were held between Jerome's
first and second speeches. I conclude that the interviews
occurred between May 10 and May 20.
Sidney Walker was employed by the Respondent from
December 1961 to October 1965. He testified that the
Wednesday following Jerome's first speech, he was called
into Jerome's office and asked if he had anything to do
with the Union and whether he had brought the (union)
cards into the plant. Walker denied it and Jerome said,
"what I hate is a man looking me in the eye and telling me
a lie." Walker further testified that Jerome said the Union
doesn't do anything for the people except call them out on
strike, that the men have nothing in their "basket," no
food in the house, and "no rent to pay." Finally, according
to Walker, Jerome said that he had some good people
outside that would tell him anything he wanted to know
and that he had three "fellows" who told him that Walker
organized the Union.
Jerome testified that he called Walker and told him that
if a union got into the plant and they had an election and if
there was no agreement on everything that the Union
asked for, the Respondent did not have to sign a contract,
even though they did negotiate. He testified that he told
Walker he did not intend to close the plant, that he was
prepared for a strike, and that the men who did not work
would be replaced and would be ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Jerome denied asking or accusing
Walker of starting the union organization or that he
accused Walker of lying.
I credit Walker' s version of his interview with Jerome
and do not credit Jerome's denials. Walker was no longer
in the employ of the Respondent when he testified and
appeared to be an individual who harbored no personal
resentment against the Respondent. On the other hand, I
was not impressed with Jerome's demeanor nor the
manner in which he gave his testimony. I do not believe
Jerome spelled out, as he testified, all the legal
technicalities which would enable the Respondent to hire
replacements. I believe, as will appear later in this
the first speech and May 21 for Jerome 's second speech
' Resp Exh 5
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Decision , that Jerome and Louis called in those who were
protagonists of the Union , in order to put their main thesis
across in plainer language and without refinements which
Jerome felt were necessary in his prepared speeches to the
assembled employees.
Earl Norman testified credibly that about a week after
Jerome's first speech he was called into Jerome's office,
that Jerome had his application for employment and that
he asked him about his schooling , about his family, and
how would they get an education if he did not work. He
then asked Norman if he had signed one of the little white
cards. When Norman denied that he had , he was told that
he had permission to run them off the premises if they
tried , and Jerome then said that they tried to organize once
before but all that were involved in that organizational
attempt were fired . Jerome testified that he did not
interview Norman and the Respondent ' s brief argues
that Louis actually interviewed Norman and therefore
Norman should be discredited . It is further argued that
Norman should not be credited because he has a claim for
personal injuries pending against the Respondent.
However, I credit Norman as a forthright , sincere witness
who told the truth concerning his interview, and I
conclude that Jerome, in fact , did interview Norman.
Jerome testified he had no record of which , or the number
of, employees he interviewed . Louis' testimony likewise
failed to disclose any record of those interviewed or the
number.
Jack Bell was employed by Respondent from
February 20, 1963, until his discharge on June 4. Bell
credibly testified that he was interviewed by Louis who
told him that he was called to the office because of the
Union, that the Respondent did not want a union , that it
was not good for anything . Louis then said that he noticed
he was a young man with three children , that he had
borrowed money, that this was the way he tried to help the
employees, that he had his permission to run anyone off
the premises who wanted him to sign a card.
Lee O . Longe was employed by the Respondent from
February 19, 1964, until he was discharged on June 4. He
testified that he was asked by Louis if he were approached
"with those little white cards to be signed ." Longe said he
had not . Louis then said "I am not going to tell you what to
do, but I would advise you not to sign them." Louis also
said, according to Longe's credited testimony , that he
knew what was happening , that if anything happened, he
could find out in an hour or so and could fire any or all the
employees at any time for any reason.
Joseph Louis Royal was employed by the Respondent
from July 29 , 1963, and was discharged June 4. He was
interviewed by Louis. When he arrived in Louis' office,
Louis said to him, "Well , I guess you heard , I'm calling all
the guys in here to find out just how they feel about the
Union ." Louis then went on and said that he wasn 't pulling
any punches , that he was making it plain that he didn't
want a union , and, "Furthermore , any guy that is for the
union , I don't want him in here either ." Louis continued by
saying that any one with the Company for more than 1 year
should be for the Company and that he did not see why
they would not be for the Company . In concluding the
conversation Louis said that he knew that some employees
had signed cards and he was trying to find out about it and
he asked Royal if he signed one. Royal replied that he had
not because he was afraid of losing his job.
' Jerome later attempted to modify this testimony by stating he
used the figure of 20 to 30 men because he had heard it mentioned
at the hearing The record, however , shows that Jerome testified
Willie Earl Jones , Jr., was employed by the Respondent
from May 11 , 1964, until his discharge on May 21. Jones
was interviewed by Louis sometime between the first and
second of Jerome 's speeches . Louis asked him how long
he had worked for the Respondent and Jones replied that
it would soon be a year . Jones then credibly testified that
Louis asked him about the Union and when Jones replied
that he did not know anything about it, Louis said , "that's
strange. I thought they had notified everybody on the night
shift." Louis went on and told Jones that if anyone gave
him a white card , he should not sign it, but to come to him
or Jerome and they would tell him what to do. Louis also
said that the guy at Building 2 and the little guy on the
night shift at Building 1 were giving the trouble and added,
"god damn , I'll find a way to fire them within a week."
Apparently to show that he was not participating in union
activity , Jones volunteered that he slept in one of the
trucks during his lunch hour . Louis made no remark
concerning this proffered information.
Jones further testified credibly that about a week later
he went to Jerome to borrow $50. Jerome said to him, "I
am going to let you have it, but first we are going to have a
little talk-about this union out here trying to get in here. I
want you to tell me what you know about it." When Jones
denied having any knowledge , Jerome said , "that 's funny,
I thought they had notified everybody on the night shift."
When Jones persisted in his denial , Jerome said that he
had his permission to make them leave him alone if they
came snooping around.
William Ray was employed by the Respondent from
May 21 , 1964, until discharged on June 4. He was
interviewed by Louis who had his application in front of
him. Louis asked Ray if he was single and upon receiving
an affirmative reply, Louis said , "well you ain't got nothing
to worry about , because you don't give a damn. We at
Glazer 's don 't want a union. If you happen to sign a union
card , you can seek a job elsewhere . We at Glazer 's don't
want a union . We won 't tolerate it." On cross-examination
Ray testified that Louis elicited from him the fact that Ray
had a brother and a brother -in-law working for the
Respondent . I fully credit Ray's version of his interview
with Louis . The interview itself affords a further insight
into the entire purpose of these personal and individual
conferences staged by Jerome and Louis. Clearly the
intent was to intimidate those interviewed by convincing
them that union organization or even union activity would
lead to discharge , loss of income , and loss of opportunity to
support or educate their families . Where, as here, the
individual was unmarried , the approach was more direct
and belligerent by telling him that he "didn't give a damn"
and then bluntly informing him that adherence to the
Union meant discharge.
Sometime between the date of Jerome's first speech,
which I find occurred on May 7, and his second speech,
which I find occurred on May 21 , the Respondent called
the "State Unemployment Office" and requested that they
send some men over. According to Jerome , Louis and the
Respondent 's personnel and credit manager handled this
matter and they informed him that , because of
construction activity around the personnel manager's
office, they had arranged to take the applications in the
center of warehouse No. 2. He also testified that they
expected 20 to 30 applicants on a particular day.7
concerning information from his brother Louis , and that his
testimony was "they expected twenty or thirty men that day "
[Emphasis supplied ]
GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION
In evidence " was a list of job applicants who filed
applications and were not hired from March 1 to
December 31. This exhibit shows that there were 11 such
applicants on May 13 and 1 on May 14. At no other time
during the period covered by the exhibit were there more
than three applicants on any one day.
Walker testified that 9 regular employees were working
in warehouse No. 2 when approximately 25 applicants
were filling out applications for employment and that all
the regular employees saw this. Norman testified he saw
15 to 20 men filling out applications for employment in
warehouse No. 2 on a day between Jerome 's first and
second speech . He also testified that on the same day
someone from the personnel office started to take pictures
of the regular employees . He asked his foreman , Bailey C.
Ford , why they were taking pictures and Ford replied,
"For to go on your record."
Jerome further testified that the taking of applications
was in anticipation of a strike, he testified , "I didn't know
how fast they were moving. I had no idea." He also stated,
"of course in my second speech I made it clear after I
heard that we had a lot of people coming , and I just let
them know in case of a strike I was ready for them."
In response to my question as to what prompted his
second speech , Jerome replied: "after I had spoken to
these people none of them had indicated a union to any
great extent , except for about a white card, so I felt that I
should go out and tell them about , we had made
arrangements just in case these white cards were signed,
and that they were possibly going to pull a picket deal on
me, that I was going to be ready for them , and I wanted to
let them know that I had these applications , that we had
arrangements , we had these ready in case we needed ten
or fifteen men in a hurry." [Emphasis supplied.]
I note that despite Jerome's and Louis' denials that any
of the employees interviewed in their private offices were
asked whether they had signed a union card , Jerome in the
above testimony stated as one of his reasons for the second
speech that, "none of them had indicated a union to any
great extent ." Thus Jerome, himself, indirectly confirmed
the fact that information concerning the Union and the
extent of union adherence of the employees was elicited
during the interviews . This, in my view , constitutes
additional ground for crediting the testimony concerning
the interrogation as set forth above.
Thereafter on May 21 Jerome assembled the employees
and gave the following speech . ( Resp . Exh. 6.)
During the past few days many men have been
coming in here looking for jobs. I want you to know we
are taking applications to get ready to hire all of the
qualified men we can use because of the turnover we
have had here. Additionally, we know that the Union
which if fooling around with you men is the same
Union which pulled men out on strike at Evans
Cooperage Company. If the same thing happens here,
we hope to be ready for it.
I am sure the employees at Evans Cooperage who
lost their jobs during the strike there never thought it
would happen when they let the Union men talk them
into signing cards. We want you to know that it could
happen here just as it did there , because we do not
intend to let any Union close this plant or put us out of
business.
There are some of you men standing here right now
who lost your jobs at Southwest Steel , Flintkote, and
8 G C Exh 2. Apparently there were applicants who did not
leave applications
11
other places right here in New Orleans where the
Unions got in and ran off the Company 's business.
Some of those very same men are in here right now
trying to stab their company and me in the back. Let
me say to the rest of you-Don't let them get away
with it.
I am telling you right now-This company is going
to stay in business , the same as Evans Cooperage
stayed in business when the Steelworker ' s Union
called a strike there. Just ask the Steelworker's
Union-and the men they caused to lose their
jobs-What happened at Evans Cooperage
Company? If you don' t believe what they tell you-or
if they don't tell you what I am telling you-then, just
check for yourself with Evans Cooperage Company
which is located on Peters Road in Harvey, Louisiana.
You men owe a lot of thanks to our workers here
who have seen to it that this Union never caused
trouble here. My advice to you is to listen to those
men and not to some professional troublemakers.
Now-This is all I am going to say right now. But
before you do anything , please be sure you
understand what this is all about.
C. The Discharges
1. Willie Jones: Jones was discharged for sleeping on
the job on May 21 . Jones, a candid witness, freely admitted
that he had a propensity for sleeping and the rare ability to
doze off at any given time. He slept in the cab of his crane
and in the trucks regularly during the lunch hour and on
occasion overslept . He engaged in this extracurricular
pastime during the entire period of his employment from
May 1964 . These facts were well known to his supervisors,
Roy A . Daigle, the night foreman , and Foreman Ford.
Jones' union activity was limited to signing a union
authorization card. He was employed on the night shift,
which management knew to be heavily staffed by union
adherents . Calice, the admitted informer , see infra, was
also employed on the night shift and was present when
Jones signed his card . Jerome, when talking with Jones on
the occasion when Jones wanted to borrow $50, asked
Jones about the Union and when Jones replied that he did
not know anything about it, Jerome said , "that 's strange. I
thought they had notified everybody on the night shift." It
was during this same interview that Jerome made it clear
that he would fire certain employees whom he knew to be
union solicitors . Louis, in his private interview with Jones,
likewise expressed the opinion that everyone on the night
shift had signed union designations . While it was
established that Jones was warned on May 17 for
oversleeping , it is plain that Daigle was upset, because, on
this occasion , Jones was 20 minutes late in returning to
work . Daigle's warning was couched in terms that the next
time it would be "fatal." Nevertheless Jones was
discharged without another opportunity. In view of the
findings I make herein , I am convinced that except for the
extreme sensitivity and aversion of the Respondent to
union activity, Jones would not have been discharged
without another chance . I credit neither Daigle's nor
Ford' s testimony that Jones had been a subject of
discussion between them on four to six occasions over a
period of several months.
2. Samuel L. Mock: Mock was employed on February 24
and discharged on May 28 because of poor work . Although
the testimony shows that part of Mock's poor
workmanship was due to faulty equipment and that Mock
was given inadequate training , I conclude that that
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence is insufficient to establish that the reason given
for the discharge was pretextual. Mock engaged in
minimal union activity and was a short-term employee,
having been employed about 3 months. I believe that the
General Counsel' s argument , under these circumstances,
to the effect that Mock's alleged deficiencies were
tolerated until his union adherence became known,
provides only a basis for suspicion . Accordingly I will
recommend that the 8(a)(3) allegation with respect to Mock
be dismissed.
3. Jack Bell, Lee Oscar Longe, Joseph Royal, William
Ray, Jr.: Each of the above employees was discharged
because of gambling. It was stipulated that each of them
received a notice on June 4 which read as follows:
GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION
The work force is being reduced. You are being
included in the reduction because you were shooting
dice on the night shift.
The General Counsel's witnesses including the above
dischargees testified that the dice playing occurred at
lunchtime on the night shift from 10 to 10:30 p.m. They
testified that Longe did not at any time participate in the
dice games; that Jones participated on one occasion; that
Donald Barard and Roland Calice regularly participated;
that the dice games were quite frequent, two or three
times per week during the last 6 weeks to 3 months of their
employment; that the night foreman, Daigle, passed by on
several occasions; that they made no attempt to hide their
dice game-they shouted and talked loudly while the dice
game was in progress ; that the stakes were pennies,
nickels, and dimes; that there was no rule against
gambling on the Respondent's premises ; and that they had
never been told that gambling was a cause for discharge. I
credit the above testimony and so find.
The dice games came to the attention of the Respondent
when Calice contacted Louis on Friday, May 28, about a
transfer from the night shift to the day shift because the
night work interfered with his military obligations to the
Armed Forces. Louis told him to contact him on the next
day, Saturday. Calice did not show up on Saturday but did
come to Louis' office on Monday, May 31. Louis testified
that when Cahce came in on Monday morning he "started
pumping him" and that he then "pulled out" of Calice the
identity of those gambling with him, how long it had been
going on , what stakes were involved, and how often it was
done. After receiving this information Louis said "Well
now, this is information that I want you to tell my brother
also." Louis and Calice then went to Jerome's office and
Louis said, "I want you to hear what this boy's got to say."
Jerome, after hearing what Calice had to say, then asked
Calice if he would sign a statement to that effect. Louis
testified that while Calice was talking to Jerome he went to
the next door office and dictated a statement which was
typed. He said he brought back the statement to Calice
who said that there were not enough names in it . Jerome,
in his own handwriting, then added the names of Lee
Longe and William Ray. Calice placed his initials beside
each name and signed the statement.9
Jerome testified that prior to hearing Calice's story he
had no knowledge of any gambling and "that's why I was
disgusted."
Calice was first employed by the Respondent in March
1965 and was terminated for gambling on June 4, 1965,
s See Resp Exh. 18.
when he received a notice similar to those received by Bell
and the other alleged dice players.
Calice testified that on Monday, May 31, when he
contacted Louis about changing to the day shift, Louis said
that he heard about gambling going on and that Louis
asked him if he was involved in it. Calice replied that he
was and then named the others. He then signed the
statement, as described above, after repeating the story to
Jerome. Calice further testified that the stakes were from
$.50 to $2 and that on one occasion he won $8 to $10 from
Willie Jones in the dressing room, which caused them to
be late going to work.
In his testimony at the hearing Calice said he played
dice every night for more than a month prior to his
termination and that after working Monday on the night
shift he was transferred to the day shift commencing
June 1 until terminated on June 4. His signed statement
(Resp. Exh. 18) given to the Respondent states that he
engaged in dice playing "at least ten times" during the
past few weeks.
Daigle, the night-shift foreman, testified in agreement
with other witnesses that he called on his walkie-talkie to
notify the night-shift employees when it was time to go to
lunch and when the lunch period (10 to 10:30 p.m.) was
over and it was time to return to work. He testified that he
always ate his own lunch in warehouse No. 3 and that the
employees sometimes ate in warehouse No.1 and
sometimes in warehouse No. 2. He stated that he knew
this because after the lunch period he would walk from
warehouse No. 3 and see the group of employees emerging
from warehouse No. 1 or No. 2. He denied that he was
aware of or had any knowledge of the dice games. I
expressed my disbelief of this testimony during the
hearing and I now affirm this disbelief and discredit his
testimony. I find under the circumstances under which the
dice games were conducted (the fact that Daigle did walk
around the plant during the lunch period on occasion) that
he knew about and tolerated the gambling that was being
engaged in by the employees on their own time and not in
violation of any company rule.
I discredit completely Louis' account of his Friday
evening, May 28, visit to the plant when he testified that he
saw gambling going on. I consider this testimony to have
been designed to bolster the justification for the
discharges. Not only did Louis make an unfavorable
impression by his general demeanor but analysis of the
testimony of Louis, Jerome, and Calice inevitably leads to
the above conclusion.
Louis testified that he saw Calice gambling, yet Calice
testified that Louis said he "heard" there was gambling
and asked him if he was involved. Louis testified that when
he saw the gambling he was "disgusted." Jerome was also
"disgusted" when he first heard about it on Monday from
Calice. Louis testified that he did not look up Daigle that
night (Friday) because his wife was waiting outside and
was impatient. In my view neither Louis nor Jerome would
be so "disgusted" as to refrain from reacting to the
gambling if they indeed had considered this a serious
offense. Clearly, at the very least, Louis would have let the
men know that they should discontinue immediately and
would have informed Daigle prior to Monday. Certainly he
would have talked with Jerome prior to Monday. Louis'
statement to Jerome when he brought Calice to Jerome on
Monday was "I want you to listen to this" and to Calice "I
want you to tell this to my brother." If Louis had in fact
seen gambling, the above remarks would have been
unnecessary and out of place and Jerome would have
known about it before Monday. Even after Louis and
GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION
Jerome learned about the gambling from Calice, they did
nothing about it. Calice was transferred to the day shift as
he requested and the "gamblers" were permitted to work
the rest of the week and presumably to gamble.
Subsequently Calice and the others were included in the
claimed "economic" layoff on June 4, the following Friday.
This is not the reaction of men who are "disgusted" and
upset by an offense which they consider serious, certainly
not the type of reaction Louis and Jerome would have, in
my opinion. I also have considered the fact that Louis
testified approximately 1 month after all the other
witnesses and that he admitted that he had read the
transcript of their testimony. I believe, as I have stated
above, that Louis contrived this implausible tale of his
Friday night visit to lend credence to the defense. I have
no doubt that the inclusion of Bell, Ray, Longe, and Royal
in the layoff was because of their known union adherence
and that the gambling was a coincidental fact employed as
the pretext. Actually, whether Louis visited the plant on
Friday is immaterial to my finding.
I am further persuaded to this view by the fact that
Louis and Jerome were so imbued with antipathy toward
union organization that they did not pass up any
opportunity to interrogate their employees concerning the
Union and union activity. Thus, I conclude, as Louis
13
testified, that when Calice requested a transfer to the day
shift, Louis "pumped" him and learned the identity of the
union adherents on the night shift and that the gambling
came out during this "pumping" process. I discredit
Calice's testimony that Longe participated in the dice
games at any time and believe that his name was included
as an afterthought. This is substantiated by the fact that
Jerome, himself, added Longe's name after Calice's
statement was typed. In my opinion, Longe's name was
added at Louis' or Jerome's suggestion because of Calice's
disclosure that he was a union sympathizer.
Jerome testified at some length concerning the
"economic" layoff of June 4. He related how the
threatened steel strike of 1964 and the longshore strike on
the East Coast which ended in February 1965 created
conditions which required more manpower and that, in the
latter part of May 1965, the number of men then employed
was excessive for the work available.10
His elaboration of the effect of the threatened steel
strike and the longshore strike on the Respondent's
business consisted of conclusionary statements. No
production records, no monetary or volume figures of
sales, shipments, or receipts were introduced. However,
General Counsel's Exhibit 3, produced by the Respondent
at the General Counsel's request, is quite enlightening on
the subject:
Week ending: June 5 June 12 June 19 June 26
No. of employees 64 49 49 49
No. of hours 2939 2713 2745 2811
Average hours
per man
45.9 55.3 56 57.4
I have not carried the computation any further as I
believe that the statistics for the 3 weeks following the
,layoff of 15 men amply demonstrate that the 49 men
retained worked considerable overtime and therefore
totaled almost as many hours as the 64 men who worked
during the week of June 5. Indeed, the difference in man-
hours between June 5 and June 26 is only 128 hours, while
the difference between June 5 and June 12 is 226. Thus
the difference would show that in effect three to five men
working about 43 hours per week was all that was saved.
Of the 64 employees for the week ending June 5, Jack Bell
was 25th in seniority, Royal 30th, Longe 33d, and Ray
37th. Examination of this exhibit shows that most senior
employees were retained. Thus if seniority was used to
effect an economic layoff, Bell, Royal, Longe, or Ray
would not have been laid off except for the pretextual
reason that they were gambling. Moreover, the above chart
demonstrates that following the June 5 layoff the average
hours worked by the employees increased as much as 11-
1/2 hours per week by June 26. This constituted for the 49
remaining employees a decided increase in their take-
home pay. It could be interpreted as a further inducement
to the employees to withhold their support of the Union.
However, I make no such finding.
I further conclude, from the only statistics that are
available, that there was not such a decline in business
which warranted an economic layoff commencing June 5.
Contrary to the testimony of Louis and Jerome, whom I
find to be untrustworthy witnesses, I conclude that the
"economic" layoff of June 4-5 was hastily decided on or
about Tuesday, June 1, as a device to rid itself of the night
shift, the hotbed of union activity, and that the information
furnished by Calice concerning the union activity on that
shift acted as the catalyst. Gambling was another
circumstance which was used as a pretext to eliminate
union adherents. I find that the layoff of June 4-5, was a
culmination of the determined campaign waged by the
Respondent against the Union and union organization and
was designed to stifle union organization and to deter
employees from engaging in union activity. Accordingly, I
find that Bell, Royal, Longe, and Ray were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Even if there
was some justification for a minor reduction in force, the
selection of Bell, Royal, Longe, and Ray was made for a
discriminatory purpose and would likewise constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Calice, in my opinion,
was included in the layoff as window dressing." The first
10 Yet Jerome, in his second speech, on May 21, said that they
were planning to hire more men because of turnover
11 "If discouragement of union membership is a substantial,
motivating reason for a layoff, the existence of an alternate ground
of justification is no defense The charge is sufficiently
established if, in addition to an economic ground shown . there
is proof from which [I] may fairly find that the layoffs were
motivated by a purpose to interfere with union organizational
activities " N.L.R.B. v Lexington Chair Company, 361 F 2d 283
(C A. 4). See also Nachman Corporation v N L R B , 337 F.2d 421,
423 (C.A 7); Marshfield Steel Company v. N L.R B., 324 F.2d 333,
337 (C A 8); 0. A Fuller Super Markets, Inc, 152 NLRB 217;
Heck's Inc, 156 NLRB 760.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reaction to Calice's "confession " was to comply with his
request for transfer to the day shift. Louis testified that he
made the transfer on Tuesday, "so I could keep him away
from these boys." Apparently this protective attitude was
quickly dissolved by Friday to the expediency for "even
justice," for Calice, on that day, received the same
notification of layoff for gambling as the others.
As I have indicated above, I conclude that Jones would
not have been discharged without another opportunity
except for his suspected union sympathies . Accordingly, I
find that the discharge of Jones was likewise a violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.12
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The record fully demonstrates that the Respondent, as
soon as it obtained knowledge of union organization,
reacted quickly by embarking on a campaign of
intimidation directed against its employees . The initial
step was the first speech of Jerome on May 7. I find that
this speech , in thinly disguised verbiage , was intended to
and did convey to the employees dire threats of economic
disaster if the employees joined or assisted the Union. This
speech , viewed in the entire context of the Respondent's
course of conduct as found herein , was merely the
introductory phase of a "scare" campaign directed against
its employees . I therefore find it to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. 13 Even when this speech is viewed in
isolation , it must be concluded that Section 8(c) of the Act
cannot protect the clear threats which it expressed. The
message of dire forebodings in the speech referred not
only to the possible eventuality of a union majority and
breakdown in collective bargaining , but also extended to
the mere designation of the Union by its employees . This is
the plain message contained in "Number One" of the
speech which reads as follows:
If you are asked to sign a union card , my advice is
(DON'T DO IT). Think before you act. Ask yourself,
what can this Union do for me, and what can it do to
hurt me? Don't let anyone push you into making what
may be the biggest mistake of your life 114
The conclusion is inescapable that the speech equated
union designation or union adherence of its employees
with a strike; that union designation or union adherence
placed the employees in a fight with the Respondent; and
that union designation or union adherence would cause
hardship and loss of jobs and income. The language of the
speech in its overall context conveyed to the employees
the implication if not the conviction that there would be no
true and good -faith collective bargaining in the spirit of the
Act, but that there would be strikes , hardships , and loss of
employment . Accordingly, I find this speech to be an
independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.15
Each of the interviews conducted by Louis and Jerome,
between Jerome ' s two speeches, was accompanied by
coercive interrogation , threats of economic reprisals, and
notice that union activity was under surveillance. Such
12 Although Barard was named as a gambler it is apparent that
he was not a union sympathizer and therefore he was not
discharged
13 Grolier Manufacturing Company , Inc , 158 NLRB 244.
14 Emphasis in original.
15 Virginia Electric and Power Company v. N L R B , 314 U S
469 Unlike the Virginia case the Respondent here did not advise
the employees that they do have a right to join or designate the
Union as their collective - bargaining representative
conduct constitutes classic violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, long condemned by the Board.ls
It was stipulated at the hearing that a bargaining
demand was made May 25 by letter dated May 24 and that
a petition for an election was not filed until May 27. As it
has been found above, that Jerome 's first speech was
made on May 7; that the personal interviews by Jerome
and Louis were staged between May 10 and May 20; that
during this period, about May 13, applicants for
employment were paraded in the work area of the
employees; and that Jerome 's second speech was
delivered on May 21, the record shows that the Union had
not, as yet, even made a demand for recognition. It is
apparent that the interrogation did not have any legitimate
purpose.17 It is found therefore that each interview
described above in section B of this Decision constituted
an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'s
Louis testified that he followed a pattern , that he had the
application in front of him, that he told them they had a
job, continuous work, continuous income, that this insured
ability to get ahead and raise a family , that this income
should not be interrupted , that if the Union came in and
organized the plant there was a possibility of a strike, a lot
of trouble, danger of personal injury, and inability to care
for one's family. He further said that he emphasized that
the Company did not want a union , that a single man did
not have responsibilities , that he called attention to the
open door policy of the Company and the availability of
small loans. Even if Louis' version be credited, I would
find these remarks in the entire context to be violative of
Section 8(a)(1). Clearly these remarks are coercive and
intended to put fear of loss of jobs, income , etc., into the
employees ' minds. However, I have concluded above, by
crediting the versions of the employees, that Louis and
Jerome went much further in their remarks than admitted
by them.
I also find that Jerome' s second speech was part and
parcel of Respondent 's overall scare campaign against the
Union and was delivered, as Jerome testified, to
demonstrate to employees that replacements were
available and imminent . Under these circumstances I find
Jerome's second speech to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. '9
The open display of applicants to the employees in
warehouse No. 2, in between the two speeches, was staged
for the purpose of threatening the employees with loss of
their jobs. There seems little doubt of this when Jerome's
testimony is considered . In redirect examination, in
response to his counsel's question whether anyone had
mentioned the possibility of a strike or whether there was
any discussion of a strike or picketing , Jerome replied, "I
was scared the thing was going to move awfully fast and I
had to be prepared at this time." As this was prior to the
demand for recognition and the petition for election and as
there was not even a hint of a possible strike, this
"ostentatious flaunting of a large number of applicants for
jobs by having them fill out job applications in the plant
16 The Union News Company , 112 NLRB 420, 424 , Gruber's
Food Center , Inc, 159 NLRB 629.
17 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591
18 Gruber's Food Center , supra.
19 N L R B v Marsh Supermarkets , Inc., 327 F 2d 109, 111
(C A 7), cert denied 377 U .S. 944 , citing Hendrix Manufacturing
Company, Inc v N L R B , 321 F 2d 100, 104, where the Fifth
Circuit held that similar remarks were "subject to construction by
the listener as a plain warning that Union victory meant [loss of
employment] "
GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION - 15
under the eyes of employees,"20 had as its principal
purpose the intimidation of its employees; that if they
designated or adhered to the Union, they would be
replaced.
I find that the receipt of mass applications for
employment in full view of its employees was an
independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I have previously referred to the Respondent's top
management , Louis and Jerome, as having a high degree
of sensitivity and aversion to union organization of their
plant. The entire antiunion campaign21 of the Respondent
displayed a callous disregard of the rights of the
employees under the Act and was carried on by blatant
and flagrant violations of the Act as described herein. This
attitude apparently persisted when, in September, Ford
interrogated Walker concerning his union activity. As
testified to by Walker, Ford gave him a ride sometime in
September after work and asked Walker if he had
anything to do with the Union or bringing the cards into the
plant. Ford said that six men had said that Walker brought
in the cards. Walker denied it and Ford said, "I don't
believe that you did." I find this interrogation was coercive
and constituted an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and post appropriate notice to its employees to
that effect.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices found to have been engaged in by the
Respondent, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
As the employees in general appear to me to be at a low
level of literacy and education, I shall also recommend
that in addition to the posting of the notice herein
recommended, that the Respondent shall read said notice
to the employees who shall be assembled together for that
purpose. In view of the character and the involvement of
top management in the unfair labor practices found
herein, I further recommend that the Regional Director or
a duly designated representative shall be present when the
aforesaid notice is so read.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent's discharges of Jones,
Bell, Longe, Royal, and Ray22 violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the
Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
practiced against them, by payment to each a sum of
money equal to that which each normally would have
earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the
date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net
earnings of each during said period, with backpay and
interest thereon to be computed in the manner proscribed
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Having
further found that the Respondent has engaged in other
20 Southland Cork Company, 146 NLRB 906,908.
21 Pertinent to the entire context is the statement of the Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia, "an employer's
`prediction ' of untoward events may constitute an illegal threat if
he has it within his power to make the prediction come true
[citations omitted] . It seems clear that Contress did not
intend to protect an unqualified assertion of such importance
[i e., reduction of workweek] unless the utterer can show that he
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the
Act.
2. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
in section III, hereof, Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct described in section III,
C, above, Respondent discriminated against employees in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, and terms
and conditions thereof in order to discourage membership
in the Union, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. All of the allegations of the complaint to which
findings of violation have not been made are hereby
dismissed.
In the light of the preceding conclusions, Respondent's
motion to enter an order of dismissal is without merit and
is hereby denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Respondent, Glazer Steel Corporation, New Orleans,
Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively questioning its employees concerning
their union membership, activities, and sympathies;
engaging in surveillance or giving the employees the
has some reasonable basis for it." International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers (NECO Electrical
Products Corp) v N L R B , 289 F.2d 757, 763
22 Bell, Longe, Royal, and Ray ostensibly were laid off rather
than discharged However, throughout the hearing the parties
treated this layoff as a discharge which in fact it was and I have so
found
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
impression of surveillance of its employees' union
activities; threatening its employees with loss of jobs, loss
of income, and family hardship because they engaged in
union activity or signed union authorization cards; or in
any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in or activities in behalf
of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging
any of their employees or in any other manner
discriminating regarding hire, tenure, or condition of
employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Willie Jones, Jack Bell, Lee O.
Longe, Joseph Louis Royal, and William Ray to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole in the manner described in the
portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any
loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against them.
(b) Notify Willie Jones, Jack Bell, Lee O. Longe, Joseph
Louis Royal, and William Ray, if they are serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms hereof.
(d) Post at its premises at New Orleans, Louisiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."23
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.24
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
union , by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any of our employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their union
membership, activities, or desires or intimidate them
from joining or assisting the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by coercively interrogating our
employees concerning their union activities, or
threatening economic reprisals in the event the plant
becomes unionized.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Willie Jones, Jack Bell, Lee O.
Longe, Joseph Louis Royal, and William Ray
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority, vacation, or other rights and
privileges, and will make them whole for any loss of
earnings suffered as the result of the discrimination
against them.
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
GLAZER STEEL
CORPORATION
(Employer)
22 On the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by
the Board, the words "an Order" shall be substituted for "a
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the
further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a United
States Court of Appeals the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for "an
Order "
24 In the event that this Recommended is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any questions concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 527-6391.