Gould, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 178 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gould, Inc. and International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , UAW. Case 10-CA-11145
January 13, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On September 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in'this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of-Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in the proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at=
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Gould, Inc., Cookeville,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order except that the attached notice is
substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
give, evidence, it has been decided that we, Gould,
Inc.,.have violated the National Labor Relations Act
and wee have been ordered to post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, certain rights including the right:
To self-organization
To bargain collectively through a represen-
tative of your own choosing
To form, join or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or
To refrain from any or all such activities.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances:
WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes
with your rights, set forth above.'
WE WILL NOT refuse to recall .or reinstate you
or take any other reprisal against you because
you support or engage in activities on behalf of
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT report you to the Tennessee De-
- 'partment of Employee Security in order to har-
ass 'you for supporting the above-named labor
organization or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to recall Leota Moss, Linda
Mayberry, Betty Barlow, Virginia Williams, Bet-
ty Buttram, Ada Ruth Pearson, and Billie Haw-
kins-and WE WILL make up all pay lost by them
as the result of our refusal to recall them earlier,
plus 6-percent interest.
'Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's denial of its
motion for production of pretrial affidavits in the General Counsel's posses-
sion under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, et seq., as
amended-by Public Law 93-502 effective February 19, 1975
As General Counsel gave Respondent a copy of each witness' pretrial
affidavit after such witness' direct testimony, and as Respondent did not ask
the Administrative Law Judge for a continuance of the hearing in order to
appeal his ruling , we find that Respondent has made no showing of preju-
dice, and thus find it unnecessary to determine the effect of the amended
Freedom of Information Act See Case Concrete Co, Inc., 220 NLRB No.
201 (1975), and Gould, Inc, 221 NLRB No. 127 (1975).
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to
GOULD, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
was held in this case during the period June 9 through 13,
1975, at Cookeville, Tennessee, pursuant to-a charge, an
amended charge and a second amended charge filed by
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, here-
inafter referred to as the Union, on March 4 and 26 and
April 11, 1975, respectively, and served on Respondent by
registered mail on March 4 and 26 and April 14, 1975,
respectively, and on a complaint and notice of hearmg dat-
ed April 18, 1975, issued by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10 of the National Labor Relations Board which was
likewise duly served on Respondent. The complaint alleges
222 NLRB No. 28
GOULD, INC. 179
that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by failing and refusing to recall some 18 named em-
ployees on or about January 6, 1975, and thereafter be-
cause of their union and other concerted activities and that
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by noti-
fying the Tennessee-Employment Compensation Claims
Center, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the-Center or
the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, that
certain named laid-off employees receiving unemployment
compensation were receiving earnings for appearing as wit-
nesses against Respondent at a Board-conducted hearing.
In its answer, which was also duly filed, Respondent de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
For reasons which-will appear, I find and conclude that
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by-failing and refusing to recall-certain named employees
but has" not done so by refusing to recall others.' I further
find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by sending the aforedescnbed notice to the Center.
At the hearing,'the General Counsel and the Respondent
were represented by counsel. All parties were given full
opportunity to examine "and cross-examine witnesses, to in-
troduce evidence, and to file briefs. The parties waived oral
argument at the conclusion of the hearing and briefs have
been filed-by Respondent-and-the,General Counsel.-
Upon the entire record 2 in the case, including the briefs
and- from my observation of the witnesses, 1-make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at-all tunes material herein,
a corporation with an office and `place of business located
at Cookeville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manu-
facturing of heating elements for commercial; industrial;
and comfort heating uses.
Respondent, during the calendar year preceding the is-
suance of the complaint, which period is representative of
all times material herein, sold and shipped finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers locat-
ed outside the State of 'Tennessee.
1 Pursuant to the joint motion of the parties at the hearing; I dismissed
from the bench the allegations of the complaint in respect to Linda Steward.
2 On August 6, 1975, I issued to all parties a notice to show cause in
writing to me at my office in Washington, D C., on or before August 22,
1975, why the transcript of the record in these proceedings should not be
corrected in certain particulars Inasmuch as-no party responded to this
notice, certain errors in the transcript are_hereby noted and corrected. The
parties were also directed to show cause'in writing at the same time and
location as aforesaid why I should not take administrative notice that the
following language appears as a footnote 'on the,original of a standard
NLRB subpena (Form NLRB-32, dated 11-74y-even though said language
does not appear Ion the subpena.copy (inadvertently received in evidence
herein instead of the original):
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that
the Respondent is, and has been at all times material-here-
in, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the -answer admits, and I find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
III. BACKGROUND AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
A. Respondent's Supervisors
The parties stipulated, and I find, that the following indi-
viduals occupied the positions stated before their re-
spective names during the periods set forth after their re-
spective names and were supervisors of Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act at such times:
Supt . of Mfg . Ray Bittner Sept . 1973---
Plant Manager at m
apr. 19fi5.
Apr. 1975 to
date of
hearing.
Plant Manager W.P. Leggitt Sept. 1972
Sept. 1973.
Mfg. Mgr . Sept .- 1973---
Apr. 197-5
Personnel Mgr. Ray Wilhoit ' May 1974
Mar. 1975.
Personnel Mgr. Bob Ferris Jan. 1973-
Jan. 1974.
Gen. Foreman James Luper Sept . 1973
Sept. 1974.
Supervisor Ken Klingler June 1974 to
date of -
hearing. 3J
Supervisor Don Malone Mar. 1974 to
date of
hearing.
Supervisor Margaret'Way June 1974 to
date of
hearing.
Supervisor Dick Somme rs Mar. 1974 to
date of
hearing.
Supervisor Virgie Null June 1974---
Dec. 1974.
Supervisor Reba Gentry June 1974 to
date of
hearing.
Notice to Witness-Witness fees for attendance, subsistence, and mile-
age, under this subpoena are payable by the party at whose request the
witness is subpoenaed. A witnessappearing at the request of the Getter-
- al Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board shall submit this
subpoena with the voucher when claiming reimbursement -
Inasmuch as the parties likewise failed to respond to this aspect of the
instant show cause order, I take administrative notice, accordingly
Supervisor Edith - June 1974 to
Holzhausen date of
hearing.
3 Ken Khngler has been a departmental supervisor in department 415 and
elsewhere at the Cookeville plant
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ted Filson has been the general manager of Re-
spondent 's heating division (consisting of the Cookeville
plant and a,plant in Canada) since June 3, 1974. Inasmuch
as Filson determined to shut down the Cookeville plant
and lay off all its employees on December 20, 1974, and to
reopen the plant in January 1975 and since he directed the
activities of Respondent's plant manager, personnel man-
ager, and other officials named above at all times pertinent
hereto, I conclude that he was.at such times a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
Respondent's agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act.
B. The Background of these Proceedings; Summary of
Earlier Board Proceedings Involving the Same Plant
Respondent's plant at Cookeville, Tennessee, here in-
volved, was opened on November 1, 1972.. Additional
product lines were added in 1973. During the period 1973
to 1975 the Cookeville plant has manufactured, inter alia,
duct and strip heaters. _
The complement of the Cookeville plant reached a peak
of about 380 in the summer of 1974. Through attrition this
complement decreased to about 325 employees-in October
1974. Layoffs began thereafter and, on or about December
20, 1974, the plant was shut down completely.
The plant was reopened on January 6, 1975, but with a
sharply reduced work force. Thus, the employee comple-
ment between January 6, 1975, and the hearing in mid-
June 1975 averaged only 100 to 110 employees.
The principal allegation of the complaint in this case is
that Respondent has discriminatorily refused to recall 17
employees since January 6, 1975, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.4
The Union's organizational campaign began in the sum-
mer of 1973. Subsequently, unfair labor practice charges
were filed by the Union against Respondent for its activi-
ties in opposition to the Union's campaign. These charges
ripened into a complaint and after an appropriate hearing
before Administrative Law Judge George Powell the Board
essentially adopted Judge Powell's findings 5 that Respon-
dent during the summer and fall of 1973 had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in coercive interroga-
tion, threats and other forms of restraint and coercion of
its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to
engage in union activities; that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily discharg-
ing four employees after the Union had held its initial or-
ganizational meeting at the home of one of them in Sep-
tember 1973 and, further, that Respondent had violated
4 As noted, the allegation of the complaint in respect to the failure to
recall an eighteenth employee, Linda Steward , was dismissed by me from
the bench based on the joint motion of the parties Another alleged discrimi-
natee, Virginia Williams, has been recalled from time to time since January
6, 1975, but has not worked continuously since then
5 The Board's decision as well as Administrative Law Judge Powell's deci-
sion are reported at 216 NLRB No 183
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act in February 1974 by
reprimanding employee Billie Hawkins (also an alleged
discriminatee in the present case) who had testified in a
prior Board proceeding against Respondent.
A Board-conducted election was held among
Respondent's employees on September 13 and 14, 1974
(Case 10-RC-10079). A majority of the employees voting
in that election cast ballots against the Union. The Union,
however, filed timely objections to this election based on
Respondent's claimed misconduct.
The Union's objections were consolidated for hearing
with a complaint alleging various unfair labor practices by
Respondent and the complaint came on for hearing before
Administrative Law Judge Arnold Ordman in February
1975. Administrative Law Judge Ordman's decision in that
case (Cases 10-CA-10735, 10830, 10937 and
10-RC-10079) was issued on May 21, 1975. Administrative
Law Judge Ordman found that Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act during 1974 by coercive interro-
gation of its employees, threats against their union activi-
ties, promises of benefit to encourage their abandonment
of the Union, creation of the impression of surveillance of
their union activities, and solicitation of grievances to deter
their unionizing efforts. He further found merit in the
Union's election objections and recommended that the
election in Case 10-RC-10079, be set aside by the Board
and that a new election be held. Although the General
Counsel stated in his brief that exceptions to Administra-
tive Law Judge Ordman's decision had been filed, the
Board, as of this writing, has not issued its decision in that
case.
6 The Respondent moved at the outset of the hearing in the present case
for summary judgment in its favor , relying on the Board's decision in Jeffer-
son Chemical Co, Inc , 200 NLRB 992 (1972). I denied this motion from the
bench.
In Jefferson Chemical the Board affirmed a (then ) Trial Examiner's Order
granting summary judgment in favor of a respondent when the -complaint
against it alleged unlawful surface bargaining in violation of Sec . 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act Noting that the General Counsel had already prosecuted a
complaint against the same respondent , the gravamen of which was an un-
lawful unilateral action in violation of Sec 8 (a)(5) and ( 1), and further
noting that the earlier complaint had derived from a separate , but broad,
8(a)(5) and (1) refusal-to-bargain charge, the Board affirmed the Trial
Examiner 's ruling The Board held that , on the basis of the broad gauged
charge and in light of essentially contemporaneous events from which the
earlier complaint emerged, the General Counsel was on notice to investigate
all aspects of the 8(a)(5) and ( 1) allegations of the charge and that his failure
to litigate bad-faith bargaining in that case did not Justify his later attempt
to litigate surface bargaining on the basis of a subsequent charge and com-
plaint
The Respondent seeks to bring the present case under the ambit of the
Jefferson Chemical rule by averring that the earlier complaint herein (in
Administrative Law Judge Ordman's case ) involved violations of the same
Sections of the Act (Sec 8(a)(1) and (3) and that the events on which the
allegations of the present complaint are based-i e., the limited recall of
employees on and after January 6 , 1975-had already taken place when the
hearing in Administrative Law Judge Ordman 's case occurred in the second
half of February 1975 I disagreed because the Board 's decision in Jefferson
Chemical is inapposite . Administrative Law Judge Ordman's case did not
involve a complaint emanating from a broad 8(a)(3) and (I) charge (if there
is such a phenomenon) nor does the present case constitute a different
aspect of the same 8(a)(3) and ( 1) violation alleged in the complaint in
Judge Ordman 's case The earlier complaint alleged an unlawful discharge
of one person at a certain time whereas the present complaint involves an
alleged unlawful refusal to recall totally different employees at a later time
GOULD, INC. 181
The February 1975 hearings by Administrative Law
Judge Ordman also come into play in the present case in
that the attendance thereat of a number of union adherents
as witnesses or spectators was reported by Respondent to
the Department of Employment Security of the State of
Tennessee. Respondent's action in reporting their atten-
dance is, as previously mentioned, the subject matter of the
allegation of the present complaint that Respondent there-
by independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Administrative Notice of the Aforementioned Prior Board
Proceedings
At the hearing I was asked by the General Counsel and
Respondent to take administrative notice of portions of the
transcript of the proceedings in Administrative Law Judge
Ordman's case and I agreed to do so. Respondent 's-counsel
particularly noted in this regard that he had no objection to
my taking of such notice where that transcript indicated
Respondent's knowledge of the union activities of its em-
ployees.
I shall also take notice of the Board's decision at 216
NLRB No. 183 to the extent that the Board's findings
therein and its conduct shown by the record in the present
case indicate Respondent 's continuing animus towards the
union activities of its employees. Should Respondent file
exceptions to my decision herein, it will have the opportu-
nity at such time to show why the taking of such notice is
improper.7
Further , there is no essential relationship between the acts (discharge and
refusal to recall) which constitute, respectively, the gravamen of the 8(a)(3)
and (1) complaint in the - two cases . Consequently, I see no basis for con-
cluding that the General Counsel was on notice to investigate the possibility
of an alleged unlawful refusal to recall (the substance of the charge herein)
on the basis of the charge (m Administrative Law Judge Ordman's case)
alleging an earlier unlawful discharge . The General Counsel is , after all, not
empowered by the Act to file his own charges and his investigation is usual-
ly limited to inquiry into the allegations of charges filed with him by private
parties. Were the General Counsel to take it upon himself, as a policy, to go
beyond those allegations, any charge filed with him would become a hunt-
ing license and such a license would have no prospective seasonal limitation.
The resulting disruption to the affai rs of a charged party, the administrative
quagmire which the office of the General Counsel would become and the
inordinate delays in obtaining justice as to the normally limited matters
alleged in a charge are hardly difficult to imagine
7 I reject Respondents contention at the hearing and in its brief that no
notice should be taken of facts in respect to anmrus as established in prior
hearings. This argument rests on Respondent 's assertion that Administra-
tive Law Judge Ordman in his Order denying consolidation (G.C Exh 1(k)
herein) "could see no relationship between allegations in the outstanding
complaint and the matters heard before him in the previous trial." This
assertion, however, is directly contrary to Administrative Law Judge
Ordman's conclusion which was that:
... the facts and issues involved [in the present case] apse from and
are directly related to , at least in substantial part, the events involved in
those consolidated cases [previously heard by Judge Ordman] (See G.
C. Exh. 1(k) herein at p. 5; brackets mine).
In any event the notice taken here of facts indicating Respondent's animus
relates to the Board decision in Administrative Law Judge Powell's case
and, as noted ,-is supplemented by facts which are set forth in the record of
the present case and which will be discussed hereinafter . Finally, it is Board
policy to consider an employer 's historic animus towards the union activi-
ties of its employees in evaluating the employer's subsequent activities to
alter or discontinue the employment status of employees so engaged. E.g,
Paramount Cap Manufacturing Company, 119 NLRB 785, 787 (1957), enfd
260 F 2d 109 (C.A 8, 1958)
D. In Further Regard to the Layoffs; the Interrelation of
the Causes of the Layoffs and the Basis Upon Which some
Employees Were Recalled
While the layoffs themselves are not alleged to be an
unfair practice there is, of course, a correlation between the
layoffs and the recall.
On December 18, 1975 , Ted Filson , the general manager
of Respondent 's heating division gave a speech to the em-
ployees of the Cookeville plant in which he announced the
plant shutdown which occurred on or about December 20,
1975. In this speech Filson attributed the need to close the
plant to the general economic condition of the United
States at that time and more particularly to Respondent's
economic losses at the Cookeville plant since its opening.
He stated that Respondent's losses had been caused by:
1. The inefficiency of the employees ("some people not
caring whether this plant survives or not"); 2. absenteeism;
3. disciplinary problems, hostility , and friction ; and 4. in-
flation (price increases and increased labor costs).
In addition to these remarks by Filson dealing with
Respondent 's economic condition at the time and bearing
on the specific subject of Respondent 's manufacturing
problems, Respondent presented a considerable amount of
testimony and exhibits dealing with complaints from its
customers during the latter part of 1974 wherein the cus-
tomers took Respondent to task for the improper manufac-
ture, assembly, or packaging of heaters which the custom-
ers had received from Respondent.
Shortly prior to the time the plant was reopened in early
January 1975, Filson testified that he determined that indi-
vidual employees would be recalled based on certain crite-
ria. These criteria were: 1. productivity (or efficiency), i.e.,
the ability to produce products at a,reasonable rate of
speed ; 2. absenteeism i.e., whether the employee had a
good prior record for showing up for work , when sched-
uled; 3. the record of the employee for staying at his work
station and keeping on the job ; and 4 . the employee's ver-
satility, viz , his or her ability to perform different jobs.
Respondent argues that it did , in fact, apply these crite-
na in recalling employees and that this method of recall
has paid off by enabling it to have a better , albeit smaller,
work force since the recalls began on January 6, 1975.
Thus, Respondent points out the uncontradicted testimony
of its witnesses that whereas plantwide employee produc-
tivity prior to the layoff was in the range of 76 to 83 per-
cent of expected output, it has been in the range of 90 to 95
percent subsequent to the recall . Respondent also points to
the testimony of its line supervisors that the quality of heat-
ers produced since the recall has improved and Respon-
dent notes in its brief the absence of evidence of further
customer complaint on this score.
From the foregoing Respondent asserts that since its se-
lection of employees for recall has borne fruit in enhancing
the efficient operation of the plant, this, proves its conten-
tion that employees must have been selected for recall on
the basis of the nondiscriminatory criteria to which Filson
testified.
I reject this line of argument . What Respondent is at-
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tempting to establish here is the following cause-effect rela-
tionship. It seeks to argue that since its plant efficiency
immediately improved with the elimination of these 17 em-
ployees, then these 17 must have been the employees who
were the least efficient, most absent, etc., whereas the em-
ployees recalled must be more efficient, less absent, etc.,
than the 17. But such an argument is invalid on the basis of
the record here, that is, it could only have validity if the
instant 17 employees were the only employees not recalled.
However, as Respondent concedes in its brief, some 180
other employees likewise have not been recalled.8 Hence, it
has not- been established on the basis of the present im-
proved plant 'efficiency that the 17-as a group-are less
efficient, worse in attendance, etc., than the employees re-
called. Such a determination could only be arrived at after
comparison of the records of the 17 with the records of the
100 to 110 recalled. No such demonstration appears in this
record. -
For his part the General Counsel presents an argument
(by way of introduction to his contentions with respect to
each individual alleged discriminatee) which- passes
through the same area as the foregoing argument of Re-
spondent, albeit in the opposite direction. Since this argu-
ment of the General Counsel, although not presented as
such, could, if meritorious, dispose of the entire case on the
8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint I will treat it as if it had
been offered for that purpose. -
Thus, the General Counsel concedes that the
Respondent's recall system-whatever it was-was obvi-
ously designed to reestablish the work force with people
who would not cause the same problems which had in sub-
stantial part resulted in the shutdown of the plant in De-
cember 1974.
Against the background of this concession the General
Counsel then proceeds to analyze these problems as out-
lined in Filson's speech on December 18, 1974. Such prob-
lems again , according to Filson, were inefficiency, absen-
teeism , disciplinary problems, hostility, friction, and,
finally, inflation (high cost of labor and materials). Taking
these problems seriatim the General Counsel first notes
that there is nothing that Respondent could do to control
inflation. As to the other problems-leaving aside for the
moment the matter of employee hostility and friction-the
General Counsel points out that during 1974, and, particu-
larly, the second half of the year, Respondent vigorously
pursued a program of doing away with the employee prob-
lems of inefficiency, absenteeism, and misconduct through
the gradual steps of counseling, oral warning, written repri-
mand, suspension, and, ultimately, discharge of malinger-
ers. By means of this program, the General Counsel asserts,
the Respondent should have been able to identify those
employees experiencing difficulties in these various perfor-
mance areas long before the layoff in December 1974 and
should have either-eliminated the problem or the employee
himself by that time. From this, the General Counsel
would deduce that the criteria which Filson claimed he
used in recalling employees, i.e., individual efficiency, good
S
And, indeed, one of the alleged discnmmatees herein, Virginia Williams,
has been recalled from time to time since January 6, 1975, as previously
mentioned
attendance, etc., were all redundant.
The General Counsel, having thus rejected Respondent's
claimed criteria for recall, then proceeds, in effect, to argue
that the only employee problem adverted to by Filson in
his instant speech which still remained at the time of the
layoff was employee hostility and friction. And, equating
such "hostility and friction" with the union activities of
some of the employees, the General Counsel asserts that
the real criterion which governed Respondent's decision as
to which employees to recall was whether or not the em-
ployee was a union adherent. Since all 17 alleged discrimi-
natees herein were union adherents, the General Counsel
concludes that Respondent's refusal to recall them must,
therefore; have been for this reason.
While I agree, as will appear, that Respondent's stated
company philosophy was opposition to labor unions, I find
no merit in such a simplistic approach to the case.
For there are varying degrees of efficiency, absenteeism,
steadfastness, etc., among employees and there is no reason
why an employer in the exercise of good-management in a
limited recall after layoff may not recall his best employ-
ees, that is, those whose past performance has been the
most efficient and characterized by the least amount of
absenteeism or dereliction, etc. On such a basis, an em-
ployee with a lower performance-albeit not a problem
performance-would not be among the first recalled.
This is not to say that Respondent did in fact recall only
its best employees here. What I hold here is that Respon-
dent obviously had the right to do so. By the same token I
do not hold that Respondent was only motivated by a de-
sire to improve, plant efficiency when it selected certain
employees for recall on and after January, 6, 1975, but re-
jected others. Nor do I now hold-that Respondent was only
motivated by a desire to eliminate union adherents (the
causes of hostility and friction) when it rejected these 17
for recall.
Thus, all that can be said at this juncture is that there is
no easy way to resolve the 8(a)(3) allegations of the com-
plaint. Hence the question of the illegality of Respondent's
refusal to recall any-one of the 17 employees must turn, as
usual, on establishment by the General Counsel by a pre-
ponderance of the relevant probative evidence that such an
employee was denied recall because of his or her union
activities rather than-since Respondent here has ad-
vanced this affirmative defense-the failure of such em-
ployee to meet its criteri a for recall.
In evaluating the Respondent's defense the validity of
the criteria as purportedly applied to each discriminatee
will be- analyzed and some comparison will be made be-
tween the capabilities of the 17 alleged discriminatees and
the performance of employees who have been recalled in
the various areas of the plant where the instant 17 employ-
ees worked prior to the layoff. This analysis will also con-
sider the factor of employee seniority in view of the asser-
tion of Respondent's plant manager, Bittner, at the hearing
that seniority was used as a tie-breaker (in cases where two
or more employees of equal ability were considered for
recall to onejob), and likewise in view of the circumstances
that some 180 or more other employees are still laid off in
addition to the alleged discriminatees. -
E. Work Areas of the Plant Involved Herein; Job
Functions,- Some Nomenclature
GOULD, INC. 183
No. 183) in respect to Respondent's animus towards the
organization of its employees at the time of the hearing in
Administrative Law Judge Powell's case in 1974:
The plant areas where-the alleged discriminatees, vari-
ously, worked were departments 405, 406, 415, and 416.
While there- was some confusion -in the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses on the division of work between
departments 405-and 406, it appears that 'both before the
December 1974 layoff and since the recall the basic weld-
mg, sheet metal; and wire cutting work for the -frame or
support structures of -both strip heaters and duct heaters
has been performed in departments 405- and 406.9
In department 415 strip heaters were and are now assem-
bled and packed. Prior to the layoff there were three as-
sembly fines, the third- of which was discontinued after the
December 1974 layoff. Line "1" did and now does consist
of employees working under an overhead merry-go-round
conveyor. The support structure (racks) for strip heaters
are placed on this conveyor. Employees sitting at tables
below and to the side of this conveyor remove the rack
from the conveyor, string coils on it and return it to the
conveyor. The next group of employees along the conveyor
then remove the rack plus coils and "tie off" the wires
attaching the appropriate nuts, bolts, and washers. The
completed heater is then checked, packed, and sent to stor-
age for shipment. A certain amount of welding may also be
performed on line 1. -
The functions of line 2 of department 415 include in
essence the same functions as line 1, that is, stringing of
coils, "tying off," checking, and.packmg.
Between the lines are operators of miscellaneous but re-
lated machines such as coiling machines and punch press-
es.
Certain work has been and is still done off line from
lines 1 or 2-where employees working-at their own pace
perform the entire heater assembly; i.e., stringing and tying
off.
Department 416 handles the assembly of duct heaters.
There is a standard heater line and a special heater line. On
the'standard duct heater line the standard heaters are run
down a roller conveyor- where operators install compo-
nents, wire the components, assemble the heaters, attach
the doors, inspect the completed products, and package
them. -
On the special line each operator usually performs the
entire assembly of the heater on which he or she is work-
ing. These employees Out the rack together, put wrappers
on, assemble all the components, wire the components, put
heater doors on, attach the manual disconnect switches,
clean and inspect the heater, and box it for shipment.
Other miscellaneous operations are also performed in
department 416- off line.
F. Respondent's Animus Towards the Union
As I have previously noted, I have taken notice of the
following finding in -this, regard by Administrative Law
Judge Powell which was adopted by the Board (216 NLRB
9 With their subdivisions 407 and 408.
Respondent's attitude toward unions is demonstrat-
ed by its policy of questioning prospective employees
at job interviews as to their union membership or sym-
pathies. Job applicants were told that Respondent did
not have a union and did not need a union. Frank
Howard, a machinist who at one time had-conducted
several interviews as the only representative of Re-
spondent in Cookeville,, admitted asking employees if
they had been- involved in any union activities, ex-
plaining that he "did not want to be responsible for
hiring or being instrumental in hiring someone with a
union background." He advised one applicant (An-
derson) to deny the fact that he had once been the vice
president of a local union if anyone asked him.
The "stated Company philosophy" concerning la-
bor unions was also revealed by Leggitt (Manager of
Manufacturing) at meetings with employees to.be that
Respondent did not desire to have third party repre-
sentation "because we feel like we don't need anyone
to speak for [the employees].,,
Nor had Respondent's attitude towards ` the Union
changed by the time of the events in question in the present
case. Thus, as will appear -in the next section of this Deci-
sion, Respondent engaged in a particularly vindictive har-
assment of its union adherents by reporting to the Tennes-
see Department of Employment Security the identity of
employees who were in attendance at the hearing of the
Union's charge against the Respondent which was heard
by Administrative Law Judge 'Ordman in February 1975.
Further at the time of the hearing in the present case a
notice was published on Respondent's bulletin board at the
plant in which Respondent adverted to Administrative
Law Judge Ordman's recommendation to set the Septem=
ber 1974 Board-conducted' election-aside and to hold a new
one. In this notice Respondent exhorted its employees to
vote against the Union in any new election. -
G. The Independent 8(a)(1) Allegation that Respondent
Reported the Attendance-of Union Adherents at
Administrative Law Judge Ordman's Hearing to the
Tennessee Department' of Employment Security
Administrative Law Judge Ordman's hearing in consoli-
dated Cases 10-CA-10735, et al. was'conducted during the
period February 18 through 27, 1975. On February 21,
1975; Respondent sent the following letter to the Tennessee
Department of Employment Security:
Clyde Warren
Claims Center, TDFS
263 W. Spring St.
P.O. Box 509
Cookeville, Tennessee 38501
Dear Mr. Warren:
Enclosed is a partial list of Gould employees pres-
ently on layoff and drawing unemployment compere
sation. A number of these people contained on this list
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been appearing in court as witnesses against
Gould-and will be paid $20 per day plus mileage and
expenses. This list is not complete by any means, but I
thought it would serve as a reminder to you to check
their earnings.
If you need any further information from me please
call.
Ray A. Wilhoit
Personnel Manager
The list of employees enclosed contained names of em-
ployees who were called as witnesses by the General Coun-
sel but also, as Respondent concedes in its brief, numerous
others who were merely in attendance at the hearing. Clyde
Warren, the official to whom the letter was directed, did
call the listed employees into his office to inquire whether
they had received witness fees and either Warren or one of
his assistants interviewed them. Those who had merely
been spectators at the hearing so informed Warren. Some
of the employees on the list who were merely spectators,
and not witnesses, were Ina Gore, Virginia Dietz, Joe Far-
ley, Linda Grider, Reba James, Ruth Myers, Mary Hunt,
Bertha Gibbons, Mary Pistole, J. B. Davis, Gary Burgess,
Linda Anderson, Conroe Moss, and William Nevins. Em-
ployee Ken Romines was also reported even though he was
not in the State of Tennessee at the time.
Respondent contends that it reported these employees to
the Tennessee Department of Employment Security in or-
der to keep its unemployment taxes at a minimum . That is,
says the Respondent, it is customary for employers to re-
quest a check on the earnings, of their laid-off employees,
because any laid-off employee who has obtained other em-
ployment cannot claim unemployment compensation for
such period. By maintaining such a check, says Respon-
dent, it can hold down the number of unemployment
claims against its state account and thereby reduce its un-
employment tax. And it is clear that the State of Tennessee
considers witness fees and fees for jury duty as income due
to employment.10
I reject this contention for the simple reason that the
above-named employee spectators did not testify and there
is no evidence that any of them were subpenaed by the
General Counsel to testify. Moreover, had Respondent
been willing to wait until the last day of Administrative
Law Judge Ordman's hearing (February 27, 1975) it would
have known they would not testify.
Respondent also contends that its list was nondiscrimi-
natory because it contained the name of Gary Burgess, a
supervisor. While Burgess is not on the list of stipulated
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
submitted at the hearing, the record shows that he was a
line supervisor in 1974 with duties similar to those of stipu-
lated supervisors, Margaret Way and Reba Gentry. I, ac-
cordingly, find that as, of 1974 Burgess was a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Even
though I find that Burgess was a supervisor at that time, I
nevertheless reject this contention. I so hold for the reasons
that others named on the list were employees and the list
was discriminatory, that is, it was very carefully drawn to
10 Warren credibly so testified
isolate and identify employees which constituted the group
from which witnesses against Respondent were to be
drawn, that is, employees who supported the union in the
case. This implication in the letter is clear from the letter's
statement that individuals on the list had been appearing
as "witnesses against Gould." The letter made no mention
of witnesses for or supporters of the Respondent, itself.
Moreover, several of the above-named spectators had been
union adherents long prior to February 1975 hearing
which, as will appear, Respondent well knew. These in-
cluded Ruth Meyers and Betty Buttram, both of whom are
alleged discriminatees in the present case. Another alleged
discriminatee, Virginia Williams, whose name also ap-
peared on the list but who did appear as a witness for the
General Counsel in the February hearing had, in fact, been
recalled by Respondent during the period in which she tes-
tified, hence could not have been considered by Respon-
dent as an employee drawing unemployment compensa-
tion chargeable to Respondent's account.
From the foregoing, I conclude that Respondent sent
this letter to the Tennesse Department of Employment Se-
curity, at least insofar as the named employee spectators
and Williams are concerned, in order to harass these em-
ployees for supporting the Union's charges against Re-
spondent and that Respondent thereby interfered with the
employees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
H. The Allegedly Unlawful Refusal To Recall Laid-off
Employees
1. Leota Moss
Leota Moss began her employment at the Cookeville
plant on March 19, 1973, and was laid off on December 19,
1974. She worked in department 416, the duct heater as-
sembly department, where she was assigned to the assem-
bly line. She ran wire machines, assembled all types of duct
heaters, and built sample heaters from blueprints, some of
which were for customers and others were used as models
by operators on the assembly line." She was sixth in se-
niority in her department-the employees above her in se-
niority being Billie Hawkins, Virginia Williams, Lois Rog-
ers, Sue Gant, and Sandy Stover.
In approximately May 1974 Moss signed a union card.
She handed out union literature (which she also kept at her
desk); she attended most of the union meetings and testi-
fied at the February 1975 Board hearings before Adminis-
trative Law Judge Ordman. Her adherence to the Union
was, however, well known to the Respondent because she
showed her union organizer's card to admitted Supervisor
Margaret Way about a week after the Board-conducted
election in September 1974 (at the same time as employees
Virginia Williams and Billie Hawkins showed Way their
1 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Moss in this
regard To the extent that Moss' testimony about building samples disagrees
with that of Respondent's witness, supervisor Margaret Way, I do not credit
the testimomy of Way. For Way admitted that she was not Moss' supervisor
and could not observe Moss' work as closely as Way watched the work of
her own supervisees Moss' direct line supervisor, Burgess, and Moss' de-
partmental supervisor, McClain, did not testify
GOULD, INC. 185
organizer's cards).
Respondent's present plant manager, Ray Bittner, was
the Respondent representative who was contacted by the
Regional Office during the investigation of the Union's
charges herein and provided the explanation to the Region-
al Office why each of the alleged discriminatees were not
recalled. Bittner also testified at the hearing. Supervisors
who worked in the same departments as the alleged dis-
criminatees also testified.
According to Bittner, Moss was not recalled because she
spent most of her time "crimping" wires (fastening termi-
nals on to lead wires using a machine) whereas this job has
not been eliminated as a full-time job and is instead done
by the employee who performs the other assembly work on
the duct heaters. The implication in Bittner's testimony is,
of course, that Moss was insufficiently versatile to do other
work in the department. The further implication in
Bittner's testimony is that this is the only reason why Moss
was not recalled because he conceded that Moss was a
good employee, did -good work, and had no disciplinary
problems.
Moss credibly testified, and Respondent's witness, Su-
pervisor Way, confirmed, that Moss spent about half of her
time building or wiring standard duct heaters or assisting
employee Sue Gant mounting components for the standard
duct heater line. Way also confirmed Moss' testimony that
Moss would build an entire heater by herself. This testimo-
ny is not essentially disputed by Bittner who conceded that
Moss could build some heaters and had worked on the
assembly line.
From the foregoing it is clear, contrary to the implica-
tion in Bittner's testimony earlier referred to, that Moss is a
versatile employee. Moreover it was further shown that
three other employees-Jean Barlow, Linda Clouse, and
Judy Cherry-all of whom are junior in seniority to
Moss-have been recalled and perform the wiring of duct
heaters 100 percent of the time, viz, were recalled without
any apparent requirement that they do other work. Since
the wiring of duct heaters was one of the jobs which Moss
was performing at the time of the layoff-along with
others-it follows that the matter of versatility had nothing
to do with the decision not to recall Moss. Moreover, even
at this function, it was not shown that Moss' speed at wir-
ing duct heaters is less than that of any of these three
named employees. Hence, based on objective consider-
ations, since Moss is more versatile than these three em-
ployees and is more senior to them, she should have been
recalled before them.
In reaching this conclusion I am not unmindful of
Respondent's argument that an employer is not required
by law to recall laid-off employees on the basis of seniority
when an employer had no contractual obligation in this
respect. However, as I have previously pointed out in this
Decision, Bittner admitted that seniority was applied by
Respondent in recalling laid-off employees in 1975 consis-
tent with the seniority provisions of Respondent's person-
nel handbook (at least where there,was a tie in the relative
qualifications of two or more employees considered for re-
call to the same job). Since I have found that Moss is at
least the equal of the three instant employees from the
standpoint of versatility-the only reason given why she
was not recalled-and since she has considerable experi-
ence in the same work they are now doing, the true expla-
nation why she was not recalled ahead of them based on
her seniority must lie elsewhere.
In these circumstances and against the background of
Respondent's animus towards the Union, I conclude-that
Respondent did not recall Moss because of her union ac-
tivities and that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. and 3. Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry
Inasmuch as Respondent's reasons for refusing to recall
these two employees are in large measure the, same and
since they worked together in the same area, I will combine
for purposes of discussion hereinafter the issues with re-
spect to the failure to recall each of them.
Both were active and well known union adherents. Thus,
Betty Barlow signed a union card; helped get cards signed;
attended union meetings; handed out union literature in-
side the plant building before worktime; testified in behalf
of the General Counsel- in the February 1975 hearing be-
fore Administrative Law Judge Ordman; showed her fore-
man, Carlos Turner,12 her union organizer's card about a
week after the election in September 1974, and served as a
union observer in that election.
Linda Mayberry signed a union card in December 1973
and solicited other employees to sign union cards. She at-
tended most of the union meetings, about 15 in number,
wore a union decal on her purse, and showed, her union
organizer's card to supervisors Carlos Turner and Don
Malone. Linda Mayberry also testified on behalf of the
General Counsel in the February 1975 hearing before Ad-
mimstrative Law Judge Ordman.
Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry were both good, ex-
perienced, and versatile employees with high seniority in
department 405-the department from which they were
laid off. Neither had any oral or written reprimands, nor
was either shown to have had any disciplinary problems,or
to have required counseling for any performance problem.
Both had been complimented on their work by,Supervisor
Sommers and another supervisor by the name of Kirby.
Sommers on one occasion told Linda Mayberry and Betty
Barlow that they were very skilled.
Betty Barlow began work for Respondent on December
4, 1972, in department 415 as ,a welder, where she also
pulled leads, strung, and tied off. Thereafter she bid into
department 406 where she ran a brake press, a welder, and
a shearing machine, and also did work on layout and on
punch presses-five different functions. She was first .in
seniority in her department (406) at the time she was laid
off on December 19, 1974.
Mayberry began work on November 7, 1973, in the
crank case department where she formed heaters, "high
pot" tested, performed packing and molding work, ran a
12 Inasmuch as Turner occupied the position of department foreman and
inasmuch as Dick Sommers , stipulated to be a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act, occupied the same position in another department, I find
that Turner like Sommers is a supervisor within the meaning of Sec: 2(11) of
the Act.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
welder and a punch press , and cut wire . Thereafter, she
transferred to department 406 where she did layout and
ran shearing machines , punch presses, and the brake press.
She also performed set up on the brake press and shearing
machines . She'likewise trained other employees . Thus, in-
cluding training she performed five different functions. She
was fifth in seniority in 406 at the time of the layoff.
_ Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry worked together
when running the brake press machine . Since they also per-
formed setup work on this machine they received 10-cent-
per-hour extra pay for this duty.
The variety of work experience of Barlow and Mayberry
was essentially corroborated by Respondent 's witness,
Dick Sommers , their supervisor . Sommers further testified
that they worked on the brake press 80-90 percent of the
time, whereas Linda Mayberry testified that she worked on
this machine only half to five-eighths of her time . -While
Betty Barlow could not recall how much of her time was
spent on" other jobs besides the brake press, I conclude,
since-Mayberry would have a better idea than her supervi-
sor as to how much time she { spent on the brake press, that
her testimony is more -reliable on this -point than that -of
Sommers. I therefore conclude that she'did indeed spend
from half to five-eighths of her time - on that machine prior
to the December layoff, and I further conclude, since she
and Betty Barlow worked together on that machine, that
Barlow's time spent at such work was about the same as
that of Mayberry.t3
Bittner claimed at the hearing that Barlow was not re-
called because others who were recalled were more versa-
tile than she - He'then mentioned that some four recalled
employees could each - perform four or five of the
department's functions . Bittner and Sommers both testified
that the brake press is now run only about 20 percent to 30
percent of the time. Bittner also asserted at the hearing that
he heard from Respondent's nurse that Barlow has a back
problem which causes her to have trouble lifting.
Bittner asserted at the hearing that Linda Mayberry was
not recalled for essentially the same reasons as Betty Bar-
low, i.e., -she could not do other work, other recalled em-
ployees were 'more versatile than she, and that the brake
press is now operating only part of the time.
As to Bittner's contention that Betty Barlow has a back
problem and cannot do lifting ,- these matters were not men-
tioned by Bittner when he provided the Board investigator
with Respondent's'reasons for refusing to recall Betty Bar-
low. In any event , Barlow's testimony , which I credit, was
that she has ' had no back trouble for 2 years and was never
unable to perform work for this reason . She did suffer a
pinched nerve in her neck due to an injury to her cervical
rib suffered at'work during the early part of 1974 and was
off for 2 months at that time but she was dismissed by the
doctor in June 1974. Thereafter she did lifting when neces-
sary but also obtained assistance at times from male em-
ployees-which was not an uncommon occurrence at the
plant. 14
13 I do not credit the testimony of Plant Manager Bittner that Barlow only
worked the brake press because'this testimony is at odds with the testimony
of Sommers, the supervisor on the scene.
14 Sommers admitted that Barlow did lifting in the second half of 1974
Bittner's claim that Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry
could not perform other work is'not borne out by the testi-
mony of either Barlow -or Mayberry or Sommers. Other
employees described by Bittner as "more versatile" than
Mayberry or Barlow could only perform about four or five
assignments altogether=the same, as I have found, that
Barlow and Mayberry could perform.--Still other recalled
employees have performed only one or primarily one job
both before and since the December 1974 layoff. While
Sommers - testified- that Barlow and Mayberry were not
good at operating the shear-when he, Sommers, first came
into the department he admitted he never reprimanded
them for their performance and he did not deny that he
had complimented them. Sommers further admitted that
both operated the shearing machines up until the time of
the December 1974 layoff.
, While it is true that the brake press-now operates only
20-30 percent of the time, other functions which Barlow
and Mayberry can perform, such as operating the shear
machine and punch, press, doing, layout work, welding
(which Linda Mayberry did in the crank case department
and Barlow did in department 406) are still being carried
out.
There are at least 12 employees now working in depart-
ment 406, all of whom are junior in seniority to Barlow and
8 of whom-at least-are junior to Mayberry. While it has
been shown that Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry are as
versatile as,- or more versatile than, these employees the
seniority of Barlow and Mayberry was not used as a "tie
breaker" to cause their recall, despite Bittner's testimony
that seniority was relied upon where ties occurred. As with
Moss, the reason why Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry
were not recalled lies elsewhere than in the explanation
offered by Respondent.
Against the background of Respondents animus towards
the Union and its desire to do away with employee "hostili-
ty and friction" I conclude that Betty Barlow and Linda
Mayberry were not recalled because of their union activi-
ties, and that by refusing to recall each of them, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.ls
15 In dealing with the cases of Betty Barlow and Linda Mayberry I have
in several instances credited their testimony particularly where , as noted, it
involved matters where their knowledge would be greater than that of
Respondent's witnesses, Bittner and Sommers Both Betty Barlow and Lin-
da Mayberry impressed me as sincere witnesses who testified in a straight-
forward manner
I reject the attack on Barlow's credibility based on statements made by
her to the Tennessee Department of Employment Security that she received
$20 only as "expenses" (and not as a witness fee) from the Board when she
testified in the prior proceeding in February 1975. At the time she spoke to
Tennessee State officials about this matter, she had received no money,
hence had no written explanation as to what she would be paid for. More-
over, her subpena did not clearly advise her that she would receive witnesses
fees qua fees for testifying Thus the subpena states:
Notice to Witness-Witness fees for attendance , subsistence, and
mileage under this subpoena are payable by the party at whose request
the witness is subpoenaed.
This can be read in such a manner that "attendance , subsistence, and
mileage" are the compound objects of the preposition "of " While the
sentence may also be parsed to the result that "witness fees . . subsis-
tence and mileage" are the compound subjects of the verb "are" (paya-
ble), it is not surprising in my judgment that a subpoena recipient might
give the sentence the alternative construction, supra
GOULD, INC. 187
4. Virginia Williams
Williams was hired on January 3, 1973. Since that time
she has assembled and wired duct heaters, has worked on
the strip line, welded, assisted the welder, strung and tied,
pulled leads, put on lids and dust covers, cleaned heaters,
swept the floor, and built some of the larger special heaters.
Williams was laid off on December 20, 1974, but unlike the
other alleged discriminatees herein, she has been recalled
on occasions since that time. Thus she worked from Febru-
ary 14 to March 14, 1975, again from April 7 to May 6,
1975, and was working at the time of the hearing herein,
having been recalled again on June 2, 1975.
Williams is first in seniority in her department (No. 416)
at the present time and was second behind alleged discri-
mmatee Billie Hawkins at the time of the December 1974
layoff. She has-been complimented for her work by various
supervisors and officers of Respondent such as . Burgess,
McClain (department supervisory for department 416),
Leggitt, Malone, and Wilhoit.
She signed a union card, attended union meetings, and
showed her union organizing card to Supervisor Margaret
Way at the same time the other alleged discriminatees, Bil-
lie Hawkins and Leota Moss, showed their organizing
cards to Way in September 1974. Williams also testified in
behalf of the General Counsel in the February 1975 hear-
ings before Administrative Law Judge Ordman.
In its brief Respondent contends that Williams has been
recalled only sporadically when there has been work in the
standard duct heater line. Respondent contends, however,
that Williams has not been recalled to work at other func-
tions because she "consistently complained" when she had
been assigned other work.
In support of its contention that Williams was only re-
called when there was work for the standard line, Respon-
dent cites Williams' own testimony wherein Respondent
claims she testified that she was recalled and laid off with
the same group. Her ultimate testimony in this regard,
however, was that different ones were laid off when she
was and that there was a possiblity that she "would get the
names mixed up." More importantly, however, her testimo-
ny is undisputed that, while she was in layoff status, other
employees were performing the same type of work as she
performed.
As to Williams' constant complaining the record indi-
cates some two complaints having largely to do with her
preference to work under the supervision of Burgess rather
than that of Way.
I, accordingly, conclude that the failure of Respondent
to recall Williams on a continuing basis had nothing to do
with lack of work she could perform proficiently nor with
her complaining. I conclude rather, against the background
of Respondent's animus towards the Union and its particu-
lar animus towards the support of Williams for the
Union-as shown by its aforementioned effort to report
her to the Tennessee Department of Employment Security
at a time when she was actually working for Respondent-
that Respondent has refused to recall Williams to work
continuously since January 6, 1975, because of her Union
activities and that Respondent has thereby, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Billy Mayberry
Billy Mayberry was hired on or about October 9, 1973,
in department 406 and was laid off on December 19, 1974.
At the beginning of his employment- he worked about 3
months as a welder, then for about-3 months as a brake
press operator and thereafter until his layoff he did layout
at which he was engaged 90 percent of his time. He also did
work on the shearing machine and trained other employees
to do layout work.
Mayberry signed a union authorization` card, attended
union meetings, passed out union literature from his table
in his department, and discussed the upcoming election in
September 1974 with his supervisor, Sommers, at- which
time he told Sommers that employees would vote for the
Union because of the way Respondent had been treating
the employees.
According to Bittner, Mayberry was not recalled be-
cause he was slow, repeatedly made mistakes, and caused
rework. This was confirmed by Mayberry's supervisor who
testified that Mayberry's errors in layoff caused a consider-
able amount of scrap most of which could not be -reused.
This scrap problem also resulted in downtime to operators
and also to supervisors or stockers when the latter had to
replace the scrapped parts. Mayberry admitted causing
scrap. While he contended that some of this was due to
errors in engineering, he further admitted that he had diffi-
culty making new layouts, thus suggesting that he himself
suffered from some lack of expertise. He also admitted he
would permit as many as 300 to 400 improperly designed
pieces to be run on a machine before calling it to anyone's
attention. Finally, he conceded that there were other jobs
in the department which he could not perform such as op-
erating the n.c. press, performing rack assembly, fabricat-
ing flexatherm, or setting up the power punch press.
The layout work in this department is- now being- per-
formed by Ronnie Malone and it takes 30 to 50 percent of
Malone's time. Malone does all of the set up work now and
there is no-longer a scrap problem. Malone also does weld-
ing, sets up and operates the n.c. press, fabricates flexat-
herm, and sets up the punch press-most of which May-
berry cannot do.
From the foregoing it is clear that Respondent recalled
Malone as a better and more versatile employee than May-
berry and that Malone's performance since recall has ex-
ceeded that of Mayberry prior to the layoff. Since it is well
settled that union adherence does not insulate the adherent
from the process of employee selection based on economic
necessity I conclude that Respondent's failure to recall
Mayberry was for good cause and not for discriminatory
reasons and that Respondent did not thereby violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I shall, accordingly, recom-
mend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
6. Betty Buttram
Betty Buttram began working for Respondent on April
4, 1973. She is now in layoff status. She worked on line two
in department 416, the duct heater department. Her duties
involved wiring of the heater and performing the complete
assembly of its components including the stringing of coils,
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wrapping of coils, putting on doors and door panels, and
installing the frame and box.16 As with other employees in
line two she received 10 cents more per hour because she
assembled special heaters. She was ninth in seniority in her
department prior to the, layoff. Way named some 18 people
who have been recalled to work in department 416-also,
as noted, alleged discrimmatees Moss and Hawkins, who
are senior to Buttram, have not been recalled.
Buttram signed a union authorization card, attended
union meetings, carried a union key chain with her locker
key on it, was offered an antiunion badge by her supervisor
which she took off after an hour, and attended the hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Ordman as a spectator
on February 26, 1975, which was, however, the only day
she so attended. The fact that she was reported by Respon-
dent-in its aforementioned letter dated February 21, 1975
(5 days before her attendance at the hearing) to the Ten-
nessee Department of Employment Security shows beyond
cavil that Respondent was already aware that she support-
ed the Union. As I have already held with respect to her
and other spectators at the hearing who were identified in
Respondent's letter, this fact also shows Respondent's har-
assment of her because she gave the Union such support.
Bittner testified that she was not recalled because she
lacked the versatility of other employees, was below aver-
age in productivity and was warned about leaving her work
area early on one occasion to go to the timeclock. Way
likewise testified that Buttram's only job was to wire spe-
cial duct heaters, that she lacked versatility and was slower
than the other girls.
As to the matter of leaving early, some 15 to 20 other
employees were lined up at the timeclock on the same oc-
casion as that on which Buttram was warned. One of them,
Polly Cowan, has been recalled to work in department 416.
As to the testimony of Bittner and Way that Buttram
could only wire special duct heaters, I specifically discredit
it. It is not only contrary to Buttram's testimony but is also
contrary to the testimony of Bittner that employees on the
special line in this department did the whole heater assem-
bly (except on'those occasions when a rush order comes in
at which time some people do one part of the operation
and others do the rest).
As to the matter of Buttram's versatility, Bittner stated
that, but for her claimed lack of the degree of this quality
possessed by employees now working in this department,
she would probably have been recalled. Consistent with my
rejection, supra, of the other claims of Bittner and Way
that Buttram could only wire special heaters, I likewise
reject this contention. Buttram performed all aspects of
heater assembly as noted. Further, she assisted in the as-
sembly of the largest heater ever produced by Respon-
dent-a photograph of which appeared in a local newspa-
per. Buttram and others who worked on the heater are also
in this photograph. Buttram installed the frame compo-
nents and box and did the wiring on this particular heater.
Finally some four employees recalled in this department
each did only one job both before and after the layoff.
As to the testimony of Way that Buttram was not as fast
as "other girls," Way did not specify who the "other girls"
were. Hence there is no basis to conclude that she was
slower than all other girls recalled in her department. Fur-
ther, Buttram was never counseled for slow productivity,
nor is there any indication that she was reprimanded about
this matter.
I conclude, therefore, that the reason why Buttram was
not recalled was because of her union activities and her
support for the Union and that by refusing to recall But-
tram for these reasons Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
7. Cecil Barlow
Elmer Cecil Barlow is the husband of Betty Barlow. Ce-
cil Barlow began his employment with Respondent on Oc-
tober 7, 1973, in the duct heater department (416). He was
laid off on December 19, 1974. He began in the assembly
and wiring of heaters. After 3 months he became a materi-
als handler until about 2 months before his layoff when he
was replaced by Anna Lisa Hammock and Shirley Rogers
in that work and he returned to assembling heaters. His
work when he returned to the heater assembly included
putting coils into a heater, wiring it, and putting doors on
it-as he said, the complete job "start to finish."
Cecil Barlow signed a union card, attended all the union
meetings, and showed his union organizer's card to four
different supervisors, including Ken Klingler and Margaret
Way. He testified in the February hearing before Adminis-
trative Law Judge Ordman. His testimony was that he
showed Klinger his union organizer's card about 3 weeks
before the Board-conducted election in September 1974.
According to Bittner, Barlow was not recalled because of
low efficiency, lack of versatility, low seniority, and disci-
plinary problems.
The record indicates that Barlow was in fact disciplined
on one occasion for insubordination to Supervisor Way.
He was also counseled by Supervisor Tilton for "goofing
off." He was written up by Tilton for this offense in Janu-
ary 1974.17 While he did in fact do complete assembly of
heaters as well as materials handling work, he made no
claims in respect to his speed at this work. He further ad-
mitted goofing off at times which I conclude was more
than the one incident for which he was written up-which
is consistent with the testimony of Way on the subject.
Finally, he admitted that he was the least senior "man" in
department 416. And his later use of the word "man" to
admit further that he was the least senior employee on line
two indicates that he meant least senior "person" by the
expression "man" wherever he used it in the context of
discussing his seniority.
His prior job of materials handler to the extent that it is
still being carried on has been combined with the function
of coordinator. And the combined job is now being per-
formed by Anna Lisa Hammock. I find no indication in
the record that Shirley Rogers has been recalled. As noted,
Rogers, along with Hammock, replaced Barlow at materi-
als handling prior to the layoff in December 1974.
17 The writeup incorrectly shows the date as January 1973 However, as
16 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Buttram in this found , Barlow was only employed from October 1973 to December 1974,
regard hence the writeup must have been given in January 1974.
GOULD, INC. 189
Union membership and activities do not, of course, insu-
late a union adherent from the hazards of selection for
recall based on past performance nor does union adher-
ence create a right to recall prior to employees more senior.
From the foregoing I conclude that Respondent has es-
tablished that Barlow was not recalled for the reasons of
his low seniority, his work output and disciplinary prob-
lems-at least insofar as his "goofing off" was concerned. I
further conclude that by failing to recall Cecil Barlow, Re-
spondent has not violated- Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
and I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint
be dismissed.
8. Barbara Allen
Barbara Allen began her employment with Respondent
on May 13, 1974, as an assembler in department 415. She
was one of the last employees hired and one of the lowest
in seniority in her department. She was laid off on Decem-
ber 7, 1974. In department 415 Allen performed the jobs of
stringing and tying off. She also installed thermostats,
made boxes, packed, did repair work, hung racks, and
stamped. She worked in lines one and two and the low
volume line, which have been previously described in this
Decision.
She signed a union card after the election, passed out
union literature, attended union meetings, and wore a
union sticker on her pocketbook. On the day of the elec-
tion in September 1974 (or the day before) she refused to
wear a "Vote No" pin offered her by Personnel Manager
Wilhoit.
Bittner testified that Allen was not recalled because of
her low efficiency, lack of mutual dexterity, her trouble
keeping up with the line, and that there were more versatile
and efficient employees to recall before Allen.
Allen received a verbal warning in October 1974 for low
efficiency and a written warning for low efficiency in No-
vember 1974. She also admitted having racks pile up on her
when she was working on the production line.
The General Counsel presents a lengthy argument sug-
gesting that various discriminatees including Allen were
placed, purposely and discriminatorily, in low volume
work-where their production is measured-that her repri-
mands for low production came that time and that, in any
event, other employees have been recalled who had been
given warnings for low efficiency. In these circumstances,
the General Counsel argues, Respondent's failure to recall
Allen has to have been because of her union activities. I
disagree.
Allen's inefficiency-racks piling up-began before she
was put on the low volume line. And she was put on the
low volume line on or about September 1, 1974, almost 2
weeks before the election and some 10 days before Respon-
dent would have any basis to believe she was a union sup-
porter (by her refusal of the "Vote No" button) heretofore
described'and, in any event, the record does not show that
only the alleged discriminatees from this department were
relegated to the low volume line.
Her problems with low efficiency continued in October
and November. This means that she had low production
problems in about half of the 6 plus months that she
worked. Her efficiency was measured at an average of 65
percent during 7 weeks in September, October and Novem-
ber, -1974 18 which sharply contrasts with the average effi-
ciency rating of the recalled employees which is 90-95 per-
cent.
As with Cecil Barlow, Allen's union affiliation cannot
serve to protect her from rejection for recall based on a
past history of inadequate performance.- I conclude that
Allen was not recalled because of her low production and
that by failing to recall her for this reason Respondent did
not thereby violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Hence, I shall recommend that this allegation-of the com-
plaint be dismissed.
9. Doris Cowan
Doris Cowan was employed by Respondent on Decem-
ber 10, 1973, and was laid off on December 20, 1974. She
worked in department 415, performing such functions as
tying off, stringing , hanging racks, stocking, and installing
thermostats. -Her principal job, however, was stringing coils
at which she was engaged most of the time.
Cowan signed a union card 2 months before the Septem-
ber 1974 election and attended union meetings. She, also
attended the February 1975 hearing before Administrative
Law Judge Ordman.
Bittner testified that Cowan was not recalled because of
low efficiency (low productivity). Cowan's supervisor,
Reba Gentry, confirmed that Cowan did not keep up with
production when Cowan was assigned to assembly line
work. This was noticed because units would stack up at her
work station, on her table and on the floor beside her. She
told Gentry on one occasion that she did not care how high
they stacked up and that she would get to them when she
could.19
For her part Cowan admitted that units sometimes piled
up on her. The record also shows that she was assigned to
off-line work periodically from June to December 1974
consistent with Respondent's practice for such assignments
where an employee was having efficiency problems. Since
off-line work was measured, unlike the production line,
these efficiency problems could be isolated , and an em-
ployee working would have the opportunity to develop
greater efficiency without the pressure of keeping up with
the conveyor belt pace of the production line.
On the basis of the foregoing it is clear, as Respondent
argues , that Cowan did indeed have efficiency problems. It
further appears that these problems extended over a signif-
icant portion of her employment.
In all the circumstances I am satisfied that this is the true
reason why she was not recalled. For there is no probative
showing that Respondent had any valid basis for knowing
18 This is established by G C Exh. 12 which shows that she was on the
efficiency report beginning on September I The efficiency report shows
that the productivity of employees in the low volume line where work was
measured
19 The findings as to this remark are based on the credible testimony of
Gentry in this regard . Cowan waffled in her testimony on the point, first
denying she made the remark but later saying she could not remember
making it
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or assuming that Cowan was a union supporter 20 until she
was a spectator at the February 1975 hearing where she sat
with other union supporters behind the General Counsel's
table. Even if I were to assume-which I do not-that
Cowan was noticed by Respondent at that time 2' I am
contrained to observe this event occurred about _a month
and a half after the January 1975 recalls began and at a
time after .a recall peak in the employee complement 22
Thus, insofar as this record shows, Respondent had al-
ready decided not to recall her and such decision was made
at a time when Respondent did not know she was a sup-
porter of the_Umon.
I, accordingly, conclude that by failing to recall Cowan
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act and I shall recommend that this allegation of the com-
plaint be dismissed.
10. Tim La Fever
La Fever began his employment with Respondent in De-
cember 1973 and was laid off on -December 20, 1974. He
worked in department 415 where he spent half of his time
welding and most of the remainder as a materials handler.
He also spent 2-3 percent of his time stringing and 2-3
percent of his time tying off when there was no work for
him to do in his principal functions. His seniority was
somewhere about the middle in his department.
La Fever passed out union cards and had them signed
and distributed union literature. He wore a "Vote Yes"
button on the day of the Board-conducted election .-About
a month before the election he was queried about his feel-
ings in regard to the Union by his supervisor, Vergie Null
(heretofore found to be a supervisor within the meaning of
Sec. 2(11) of the Act).
According to Bittner, La Fever was not recalled because
he lacked versatility and had low efficiency, a high record
of absenteeism and tardiness, and on a number of occa-
sions he left work early. Bittner added that La Fever re-
peatedly left his work area without authorization. In fur-
ther explanation of the claim that La Fever was not
versatile , Bittner testified that La Fever had no training in
other areas besides welding and that there is little welding
which is now required under Respondent's reduced opera-
tions. In this same regard Bittner testified that La Fever
20 General Counsel asserts , as a basis to establish Respondent 's knowl-
edge of Cowan 's union activities , that Cowan closely associated with other
union adherents and the evidence advanced by the General Counsel to
support the latter contention is the fact that Cowan ate lunch most days in
her work area with such union adherents
I reject this contention . Some of the employees with whom Cowan ate
lunch were shown to be union advocates, but as to others there is no such
showing In describing her luncheon associates Cowan states simply that the
group she lunched with were "mainly the tie off" personnel and that this
group usually ate lunch together
21 It is not certain that she was noticed. For her name was not listed in the
group of union supporters , previously discussed , whose names were fur-
nished by Respondent to the Tennessee Department of Employment Securi-
ty on February 21, 1975
22 The existence of this peak on or about February 16, 1975, is established
by the facts that discriminatee Virginia Williams (who, as previously found,
has been recalled from time to time) was recalled along with some four
other employees on or about that date (whereas recalls initially took place
on or about January 6, 1975) and the further fact that a number of these five
individuals including Williams were subsequently again laid off.
had told a supervisor that La Fever could not do lifting
work because of a back problem.
La Fever admitted that he injured his back 2 or 3
months after he began employment with Respondent, that
he took off work several times because of it, and that his
supervisor got help for him to do lifting work up until 2 or
3 months before he was laid off. He also admitted that his
back continued to hurt until he was laid off and-that he still
goes to the doctor once per month for checkups on his
back. He also admitted that he has no training in tying off
even though he has occasionally done this work.
La Fever further conceded that he was given a warning
by his foreman, James Luper, for excessive absences and
that his line supervisor, Holzhausen,,spoke to him two or
three times about leaving the job. He also testified that
Ken Klingler spoke to him on one occasion about the low
level of La Fever's efficiency rating during at least 3 weeks
of his employment. The efficiency ratings for these weeks
were, respectively, 16, 40 and 36 percent.
From the foregoing it is,clear that La Fever's principal
functions were welding and materials handling. Insofar as
the limited welding now going on is concerned it is carried
out by Jackie Farley who, according to La Fever, is a faster
welder than La Fever, and Edmondson23 Edmondson can
also perform stringing, tying off, staking, lead pulling (for
which La Fever testified, he has not been trained), and
materials handling. Farley can also do materials handling
and packing. While La Fever did material handling work
up until his layoff his back continued to hurt him and he
would thus not be a prime candidate for recall in that ca-
pacity.
It was not shown whether Edmondson and Farley are
senior to La Fever whose seniority, as noted, was about in
the middle of those employed in his department before the
layoff. -
In all the circumstances I am satisfied that welding, un-
der Respondent's reduced operations, is now being carried
out only in a limited manner and is better performed, at
least by Farley, than it was by La Fever. La Fever's recall
to materials handling work, at which he spent most of the
remainder of his time, would not have been well advised-
certainly not prior to healthy employees-because of his
continuing back problem of which Respondent was aware.
Finally, serious questions are also raised as to his efficiency
and his staying on the job.
I therefore conclude that Respondent's reason for refus-
ing to recall him was not because of his union activities
and therefore said refusal did not violate Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. I shall, accordingly, recommend dis-
missal of this allegation of the complaint.
11. Mary Hunt
Mary Hunt began her employment with Respondent on
November 26, 1973, in department 415 and was laid off on
December 20, 1974. Her initial assignment was on the strip
heater line. After about 3 or 4 months she became a check-
23 Respondent would have me take official notice from the transcript in
Administrative Law Judge Ordman's hearing that Edmondson was a known
union adherent However , Bittner admitted that he was not aware at the
time Edmondson was recalled of her feelings in regard to the Union
GOULD, INC. 191
er-packer or inspector which became her principal employ-
ment thereafter. However, at various times,- she also per-
formed such functions as hanging racks, stringing racks,
tying off, installing thermostats, ink stamping, spot weld-
ing, ceramic-installation, and rack bending. She did quite a
bit of stringing and tying off during the last 4 months of
her employment in addition to her checker-packer duties.
Hunt never signed a union card. However, she attended
union meetings, carried a union organizer's card and asso-
ciated with other union adherents. She was also a spectator
at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Ordman
in February 1975.
Bittner testified that Hunt was not recalled because of
high absenteeism and tardiness (including 21 late arrivals
in 1974) and also because she was reprimanded for dis-
tracting the work of others and for disciplinary problems.
Hunt admitted receiving a reprimand for distracting the
work of another employee 2 weeks before the election in
September 1974, and also received a reprimand from her
supervisor, Holzhausen, about 2 weeks before her layoff on
December 20, 1974. She also admitted leaving work early
on- a number of occasions and she acknowledged that she
received a warning in May 1974 for her failure to wear
safety glasses. The record also shows, under the general
rubric of disciplinary problems, that on one occasion in the
summer of 1974 Hunt let her racks pile up while she took
an unauthorized break. -
Some five - checker-packers (inspectors) have been re-
called. These include Pat Cantrell Klingler, Pat Goodman,
Nellie Elmore, Evelyn Allison, and Mildred Horner. While
Goodman, and Klingler were shown, like Hunt, to have
received reprimands both have more seniority than Hunt 24
Allison is also more senior than Hunt according to Hunt. It
is uncertain what is the seniority of Elmore and Homer. 5
There is no indication that Allison, Elmore, and Horner
received any warnings or reprimands nor was any other
question raised in respect to their performances before or
after the layoff.
In all circumstances I do not conclude that the General
Counsel has established by a preponderance of the proba-
tive credible evidence that Hunt was discharged because of
her union activities. To- begin with there is no direct evi-
dence that-Respondent had any awareness of her support
for the Union until Hunt was a spectator at the hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Ordman in February
1975 (and was reported by Respondent as a potential Gen-
eral Counsel witness in Respondent's letter to the Tennes-
see Department of Employment Security), But, as I just
pointed out in respect to the discussion of Cowan (supra)
this occurred after-the peak of the recall had already
passed. The only direct evidence bearing on the subject of
24 While Hunt at first testified that she thought Goodman, who started
work the same day as Hunt, became a checker-packer a week later, Hunt
later testified that she was unsure of this While uncertain of her seniority,
generally, Hunt admitted that Pat Cantrell Klingler was more senior than
she and that Goodman was likewise more senior based on Goodman's al-
phabetical listing prior to Hunt on the day Hunt and Goodman both began
work.
25 Gentry testified on direct that she believed that both were senior to
Hunt but admitted on cross that she, Gentry, did not really know the senior-
ity among the girls
Respondent's awareness was a report by Hunt to
Respondent's officials that she and her husband had re-
ceived obscene phone calls which she thought constituted a
threat against her by the Union. The implication of this
evidence is that Respondent had every reason to believe
that Hunt was opposed to the Union. While a respondent's
knowledge of the union activities of its employees may also
be established on the basis of the circumstances, I find no
probative circumstantial evidence on which such a finding,
in my judgment, can properly be made here?6
Added to this, of course, is Respondent's proof of its
assertions that she was absent, tardy, left work early, had
received reprimands, and had caused disciplinary prob-
lems.
I accordingly, conclude that Respondent's failure to re-
call Hunt was not because of her union activities and I find
that such failure did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. I shall, therefore, recommend that this allegation
of the complaint be dismissed.
12. Harold Underwood
Harold Underwood began working for Respondent on
February 20, 1974, and was laid off on December 19, 1974.
His initial employment was in running a shear machine
cutting sheet metal. In April 1974 he was transferred to the
wire department (#405) where he set up and ran wire cut-
tmg and wire bending machines for fabrication of strip
racks for strip heaters. His supervisor in department 405
was Carlos Turner. His seniority was number one in de-
partment 405. On or about December 1 he and at least one
other employee were transferred to the supervision of Dick
Sommers who had until that time been the department 406
supervisor in charge of fabrication of duct heaters. From
that time on Sommers was in charge of the wire cutting
and bending operations for both strip and duct rack fabri-
cations?" After his transfer, Underwood testified , his se-
niority was second from the bottom in department 406.
Underwood signed a union card shortly after his em-
ployment with Respondent and attended practically all the
meetings held at the labor temple. He also testified on be-
half of the General Counsel in the February 1975 hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Ordman. He refused to
wear on his shirt a pin saying "Gould is all right with me"
which was offered to him by his supervisor, Carlos Turner.
Bittner testified that Underwood was not recalled be-
cause of his seniority and that there are three people in the
z6 Thus, while Hunt testified that she associated "with the Union girls"
she did not name them nor did she explain whether this occurred at work
where it would be expected to have been noticed or away from work where
all her union activities shown here occurred. Although Hunt also testified
that she accepted a "Vote No" sticker from Bittner , which she thought was
later thrown away, there is no evidence that Bruner saw her throw it away,
whether Hunt threw it away after first wearing it, whether Bittner or any
other supervisor saw her not wearing it after it was thrown away, etc. Had
she on the other hand refused to accept the sticker when Bittner offered it,
the implication-of Respondent's knowledge of her union preference would
be clear.
27 Due to the confusion in testimony of Respondent's witnesses , Supervi-
sors Turner and Sommers, and the testimony of Bittner , it is not clear
whether the consolidated operation is now under department 406, whether it
is newly created department 408 or a combination of departments 407 and
408 The consolidated operation is, however, supervised by Sommers.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department who can run the machines previously operated
by Underwood.
With Respondent's reduced operations, the wire cutting
and bending is now performed for both strip and duct rack
fabrication essentially by one individual, Ralph Cumbie.28
Cumbie has greater plantwide seniority than Underwood
and was already working in department 406 when the oper-
ations were consolidated. Cumbie has worked on the wire
machines, according to the undisputed testimony of Turn-
er, then became a materials handler, then returned to the
operation of the wire machines some months before the
layoff. While Underwood testified that he, Underwood,
trained Cumbie to operate the machines at the time Cum-
bie left his job as materials handler to return to wire cutting
duties, I conclude in the light of Turner's foregoing testi-
mony that such "training" by Underwood was only- in the
nature of a refresher for Cumbie. Cumbie was clearly com-
petent in his work for Underwood testified that both Un-
derwood and Cumbie had been assigned to train yet other
employees in the operation of the wire machines prior to
the layoff. Cumbie also told the supervisor of the wire sec-
tion, Sommers, prior to the December layoff, that he, Cum-
bie, believed in the UAW. Finally, the testimony of Turner
is undisputed that Underwood told Turner that he, Under-
wood, desired to be laid off.
In all the circumstances, I do not conclude that Respon-
dent refused to recall Underwood because of Underwood's
union activities or, stated another way, I do not find that
Respondent recalled Cumbie over Underwood because of
Underwood's union activities. I further conclude that
Respondent's failure to recall Underwood did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and shall recommend
that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
13. Reba Jones
Reba Jones began her employment with Respondent on
February 4, 1974, and was laid off on December 20, 1974.
She worked in department 415 where she performed such
jobs as hanging racks, stringing, tying off, installing ther-
mostats, checking, packing, and bending racks. Her senior-
ity was about 35th of some 70 employees in her department
prior to the layoff.
Jones signed a union card, had a union sticker on her
toolbag, and attended union meetings. Jones commented
on one occasion at a gathering of personnel in her depart-
ment which included her supervisor, Reba Gentry, that
Jones' husband worked for a company by the name of
McCords and that her husband liked the union at that
company. Jones attended the Board hearing before Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Ordman in February 1975 and was
thereafter reported by Respondent to the Tennessee De-
partment of Employment Security.
Bittner testified that Jones was not recalled because of
low efficiency and for being a troublesome employee who
constantly complained about her job. He also stated that
she did not have manual dexterity in that she could string
only and was not "versatile on other jobs."
28 According to the credible testimony of Sommers in this regard
Bittner's testimony was inaccurate in respect to Jones'
principal assignment which was not stringing, as he said,
but was rather tying off according to Jones' supervisor,
Gentry, who said that Jones strung only occasionally.29 ,
Gentry however, confirmed most of the other reasons
advanced by Bittner. Thus Jones did have only one princi-
pal assignment (tying off rather than stringing, as noted).
Further, Jones could not keep up with production line
either in stringing or in tying off and racks frequently piled
up beside her. As to Jones' manual dexterity and trouble-
someness , Jones on several occasions installed fuses upside
down, caused ceramic parts to crack, installed lock washers
loosely, etc. These failings necessitated considerable re-
pairs on racks she had assembled. On one occasion when
Gentry took Jones to task for a poorly assembled rack
Jones denied that it was hers even though Jones' initials
were on it30 Jones received a verbal warning for her low
efficiency in September 1974, and in October 1974 she re-
ceived two written disciplinary warnings for problems un-
covered in her work, such as parts broken, fuses or washers
loose, parts broken or in the wrong position, etc. Because
of personal invective directed at Ken Klingler at the time
of the second of these warnings, Jones was given an addi-
tional written warning for insubordination.
While it was further shown that Respondent had prob-
lems in efficiency and quality in department 415 during the
fall of 1974, that these problems involved other employees
besides Jones, and that some (unnamed) employees who
had received reprimands prior to the layoff have been re-
called, still other employees with such problems and repri-
mands have not been recalled. There is no indication that
the only employees with reprimands who were not recalled
are union adherents. No named employee with less senior-
ity but with the same or a worse record than Jones in re-
spect to the particulars discussed above was shown to have
been recalled. Some such recalled employees junior in se-
niority to Jones were named by her and are Roberts, Li-
brary, Haney, Nelson, and Diane Smith. Smith and Rob-
erts, according to the credible testimony of Gentry in the
regard, were more efficient than Jones with no quality
problems. While there is no showing as to the individual
performances of Library, Haney, and Nelson, the efficien-
cy of the department in the aggregate has improved since
the recall with significantly fewer quality problems.
Jones' union affilitation provides, of course, no basis to
require her recall ahead of more competent employees. In
view of Respondent's establishment of its defense that
Jones' performance prior to the layoff was marked by low
efficiency and poor quality, I conclude that she was not
recalled for these reasons and that Respondent's failure to
recall her did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
29 Since Gentry was the supervisor on the scene, I credit her over Bittner
in this regard
30 These findings are based on the credible and generally straightforward
testimony of Gentry in this regard as supported in substantial part by rec-
ords of warnings, to be discussed, which were put in evidence. To the extent
that the testimony of Jones disagrees I do not credit it I found Jones,
particularly on cross-examination , to be argumentative , hence evasive, as
the record substantially shows
GOULD, INC 193
14. Ada Ruth Pearson
Pearson began work for Respondent on November 26,
1973, in department 415 and was laid off on December 20,
1974.
Pearson inspected racks to be hung on the line, strung
coil, tied off and straightened racks, and installed thermo-
stats. She also worked in the coiling operation stretching
coil and pulling leads.31
Pearson signed a union card about 4 months prior to the
September 1974 election and attended all the union meet-
ings She also made known her preference for the Union at
the plant by talking about the Union on shopbreaks and at
lunchtime and she associated with other union adherents
such as Reba Jones, Emmaline Simpson, and Mary Myers
On one occasion Pearson refused to wear an antiunion pin
proffered her by Pat Cantrell.32
Bittner testified that Pearson was not recalled because
she was not versatile and could only string. I have already
specifically discredited the testimony that she could only
string because it is at odds with the testimony of Pearson
who would be in a better position to know what Pearson
did. No line supervisor testified in respect to Pearson's
work on the line. Bittner's statement that Pearson was not
versatile is at variance not only with the testimony of Pear-
son but with Bittner's own testimony that Pearson was as-
signed to off-line production for a period of 3 weeks at one
time during her employment. As has been pointed out else-
where in this decision, an employee on off-line work in
department 415 performed the entire assembly of the heat-
er not just its stringing. And Bittner admitted that
Pearson's productivity in off-line work was not bad, which
I conclude, means that her work in all assembly operations
was not bad.33
It follows from the foregoing that Respondent's defense
has failed.
Accordingly, in the light of Respondent's animus to-
wards the Union, heretofore described, I conclude that its
3' To the extent that the testimony of Bittner (that Pearson could only
string and lacked versatility) disagrees, Bntner 's testimony is discredited
Bittner was not a line supervisor and could not be expected to know all the
activities of each employee He was also in error , as previously pointed out,
in respect to the work of Reba Jones
32 Cantrell is now Pat Cantrell Klmgler, the wife of supervisor, Ken Klm-
gler, whom Pat Cantrell married on February 14 1975
1 find that Pat Cantrell Klingler was an agent of Respondent at the time
of its antiunion campaign during September 1974 This campaign consisted
of Respondent's supervisors , such as Butner , along with Pat Cantrell Klm-
gler passing out such antiunion materials as "Vote No" stickers Even if
Cantrell were not the agent of Respondent at that time , I would still be
satisfied , in the circumstances , that Respondent through Pat Cantrell Klm-
gler learned of Pearson 's union adherence For Pat Cantrell Khngler is the
sister of Supervisor Reba Gentry and Khngler, Gentry, and Pearson all
worked in department 415
I conclude that Pearson refused the pin from Pat Cantrell Klingler in
September 1974 Just prior to the election which was the time Respondent
was passing out such materials Pearson 's refusal to accept the pin, of
course , showed her preference to vote "Yes" for the Union
33 Evidence was also introduced that Pearson received a verbal warning
from Ken Klingler on October 7 concerning the quality of certain racks
produced by her on September 19 and 20, 1974 This warning, however, was
not mentioned by Bittner as playing a part in the decision not to recall her
There is no indication that the problem ever again cropped up and its lack
of seriousness , in any event , can easily be assessed from the fact that it was
not mentioned to Pearson until some 3 weeks after it occurred
refusal to recall Pearson was because of her union activities
and sympathies and that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Emmaline Simpson
Simpson began work on November 26, 1973, and was
laid off in December 1974 She was an assembler in the
strip heater line in department 415. She tied off, did string-
ing, bent racks, installed thermostats, put wrappers on, did
rework, checked, and sometimes stamped. She was one of
the first five employees hired on line 2 in department 415
Simpson signed a union card on May 1, 1974, she at-
tended all the union meetings, wore a UAW sticker on her
purse, asked other employees to sign union cards, and gave
other employees union stickers to wear on their purses.
Simpson also attended the February 1975 hearings before
Administrative Law Judge Ordman.
According to Bittner, Simpson was not recalled because
she had low efficiency or productivity and lacked versatili-
ty Simpson, in her full testimony, admitted that her main
job had been tying off and that after she had trouble keep-
ing up with the line on tying she was given stringing assign-
ments where she also had trouble keeping up. Her supervi-
sor, Gentry, confirmed that Simpson had trouble keeping
up with the line in both stringing and tying off, that Simp-
son let units pile up and that, in addition to her low effi-
ciency, Simpson had poor quality 34 Simpson received a
written disciplinary warning on November 7, 1974, for
poor efficiencies in 3 successive weeks in October 1974-
her performance being, respectively, 53 percent, 68 per-
cent, and 62 percent. Simpson admitted that she received a
verbal reprimand from Ken Klingler in October 1974 for
15 bad heaters, at least six of which she was certain had
been assembled by her Gentry testified that there is no
comparison between the performance of the girls working
on the line now and that of Simpson (as has been previous-
ly noted, the efficiency of department 415 has improved
since the layoff and there were few quality problems at the
time of the hearing) For her part Simpson admitted that
she is not as fast as several employees-who have been
recalled-McCloud, Stanton, and Roberts-and that she
was not aware of any quality or efficiency problems in
respect to these named employees.
From the foregoing it is clear that Simpson's efficiency
was low in view of her relative lack of success in maintain-
ing efficiency or high quality in either stringing or tying
off-the principal assembly line functions. This same lack
of success in both areas further indicates that she could not
validly be considered versatile. Her union activities provide
no warrant to require her recall ahead of more competent
employees. I, accordingly, conclude that she was not re-
called by Respondent by reason of her low efficiency and
inadequate versatility and that the failure to recall her did
not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I shall recom-
mend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
34 While it is true that Simpson was timed on three different occasions
and on each such occasion assembled a heater in standard or better time.
this does not change the picture in respect to her overall performance If
anything it suggests that her overall performance was less than her capabili-
ty
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16. Mary Ruth Myers
Myers began her employment with Respondent on Feb-
ruary 22, 1974, and was laid off on December 20, 1974. She
worked in department 415 where she was assigned at dif-
ferent times to all three lines and performed such functions
as stringing, tying off, installation of thermostats, packing,
and sweeping the floor. As will appear, however, her prin-
cipal function was tying off. She believed that her seniority
was at about the middle of some 60 employees working in
her department at the time of the December layoff
Myers signed a union card in May, attended all of the
union meetings and was an observer for the Union in the
Board-conducted election in September 1974 She also at-
tended the hearing which was held before Administrative
Law Judge Ordman in February 1975. She was thereafter
reported by the Respondent to the Tennessee Department
of Employment Security. She had a union sticker on her
purse which she kept at her work station.
Bittner testified that the principal reason why Myers was
not recalled was because of low efficiency but that her lack
of versatility also played a part in the decision not to recall
her. According to the testimony of Gentry, Myers' supervi-
sor, whom I credit in this regard, Myer's performance was
principally as a tie-off girl and that occasionally Myers did
stringing. 55 In neither assignment was Myers able to keep
up with the line. She was also reprimanded on one occa-
sion in October 1974 for poor quality work on 2 days in
September 1974.
Myers in her testimony did not essentially dispute any of
the foregoing. She admitted that she previously did tie-off
work and had trouble keeping up with the line. She did not
deny having efficiency problems and she admitted that
Klingler spoke to her about putting out bad racks. While
she claimed that her ability to keep up with the line was no
worse than some (unnamed) employees now working, she
was unaware that any employee now doing work which
she, Myers, had performed was junior to her in seniority.
Here again as with other employees discussed, supra,
Myers' union adherence provides no basis to require her
recall when her performance was wanting. I therefore con-
clude in the light of the foregoing that the General Counsel
has not established by a preponderance of probative credi-
ble evidence that Respondent's failure to recall Myers was
because of Myers' union activities I shall accordingly, rec-
ommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
17. Billie Hawkins
Hawkins began work with Respondent on December 4,
1972, and was laid off on December 19, 1974. She had top
seniority in her department (#416) and was 12th in senior-
ity plantwide. Hawkins wired and assembled duct heaters,
stacked, coiled, put wrappers and covers on the heaters,
cleaned heaters, strung, tied off, operated the coiling ma-
chine, and prewired heaters.
35 1 credit Gentry here for the reason that Myers, on cross-examination,
admitted that she did not string much stating rather that she "tied off " This
response suggests , consistent with the testimony of Gentry that Myers' prin-
cipal function was tying off
Her union activities were extensive and well known. She
signed a union card, passed out union literature inside the
plant and on the road outside, attended all the union meet-
ings, and showed her union organizer's card to Supervisor
Margaret Way on September 10, 1974. She has also testi-
fied on behalf of the General Counsel on three separate
occasions prior to this one in respect to complaints brought
by the General Counsel against Respondent The Board
has held that Respondent, on February 8, 1974, took repri-
sals against Hawkins for testifying in behalf of the General
Counsel in one such proceeding (on February 7, 1974) and
that by engaging in such reprisals, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and (4) of the Act. Q After testifying
at Administrative Law Judge Ordman's hearing in Febru-
ary 1975, Hawkins was reported by Respondent to the
Tennessee Department of Employment Security.
Bittner's testimony in respect to the reasons why Haw-
kins was not recalled is not clear At first he stated that
Respondent refused to recall her because she was just an
average worker who had disciplinary problems. Later,
upon being confronted with his own admission that other
average workers have been recalled to work in department
416, he changed the reasons for refusal to recall Hawkins
to lack of versatility and disciplinary problems, which con-
cerned lateness and absenteeism A line supervisor in the
department where Hawkins worked, Way, admitted that
Hawkins kept up with the production line and had no
problems of efficiency, production, or performance. Inso-
far as Bittner's belated claim that Hawkins was not versa-
tile is concerned, it is, of course, at odds with her own
testimony, which I credit on the point since she is in a
better position to know.37 While Way also testified in re-
spect to the assignments of Hawkins and stated that for the
past year before the layoff Hawkins' job was wiring up
standard duct heaters, Way admitted that she, Way, did
not always supervise Hawkins directly. Burgess did. And
Way was not familiar with all assignments given Burgess'
supervisees. In any event other employees who performed
one job prior to the layoff have been recalled in depart-
ment 416.
This leaves only the matter of disciplinary problems
which were limited to absences and tardiness. Respondent
introduced none of its attendance records. Way testified,
however, that Hawkins was habitually late and "missed a
good deal." 38 Taking first the absences, Hawkins (I find,
based on her undisputed testimony) was absent three times
in 1974. All three absences were excused-two for a Board
hearing and one because of an automobile accident. Other
employees such as Cherry, Rogers, and Gant have been
recalled by Respondent despite the fact that they were ab-
sent as much as three or four times per month during the
last 6 months of 1974 even though their absences, like that
36 Gould, Inc, 216 NLRB No 183 (1975)
77 An attempt was made at the hearing to discredit Hawkins because
Hawkins told an official of the Tennessee Department of Employment Se-
curity in February 1975 that she, Hawkins, was paid expenses by the Gov-
ernment when she had previously testified I find no reason to discredit
Hawkins on this basis Hawkins' position in the matter , she testified, was
based on the wording of the Board's subpena Her reading of the Board's
subpena, as I have previously held in respect to Betty Barlow is not unrea-
sonable
38 1 decline to reconsider any matter where an alleged attempt to disci-
pline Hawkins has been found by the Board to be an unfair labor practice
GOULD, INC.
of Hawkins, were apparently excused.39
- Respondent's case against Hawkins thus narrows to the
matter of tardiness. Indeed its -brief states, "In conclusion,
Hawkins was not recalled because of her disciplinary prob-
lems-involving `exceeding tolerable tardiness in 30 days pe-
riod as described on page 2 and 3 of Handbook.' "
- Hawkins admitted that she has been tardy on occasion,
although, according to her `undisputed testimony, she al-
ways called in as the employees had been instructed to do
by the then personnel manager, Bob Ferris, when Hawkins
was first employed. III any event she was suspended for 3
days because of tardiness on September 19, 1974, shortly
after showing her supervisor her union organizer's card.
This suspension was contrary to the requirement of the
very employee handbook (G.C. Exh. 13) upon which Re-
spondent relies. Thus, the handbook states that prior to
any suspension a two-step procedure will occur-first,
counseling after the employee has accrued three absences
or -tardiness in 30 days and second, if there is no improve-
ment, a written warning. Only after the written warning
and further lack of improvement will the suspension occur.
According to Hawkins' unrebutted testimony on the point,
she had not been counseled or warned prior to September
19, 1974, in respect to tardiness or absences. The only prior
warning shown 'by this record was a warning from Fore-
man Luper in October or November 1973 for leaving work
after 8 hours apparently without remaining to work over-
time.40 -
While the General-Counsel has not proceeded on Haw-
kins' charge (in another case) that her foregoing suspension
was an unfair labor practice, this failure does not preclude
me from holding, as _I do, that the suspension was contrary
to Respondent's own rules, hence invalid if only for that
reason.
After returning to work -in, September 1974, Hawkins,
according to her undisputed testimony, was not tardy nor
absent again before the layoff in December 1974 and she
received no more warnings or reprimands on this subject.
In the circumstances, I find no merit in Respondent's
defense(s) to the charges that it discriminatorily refused to
recall Hawkins. Against the background of Respondent's
animus towards the Union, generally, and also its animus
towards the union-related and protected activities of Haw-
kins particularly, I find that Respondent refused to recall
Hawkins because she was an active union adherent and
that Respondent hereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act 41
39 Filson admitted that excused absences did not count against an em-
plooee
Hawkins' suspension notification contains a notation that this warning
(suspension) was the second written warning for the same offense . This note
was put on after Hawkins saw the suspension notification and the note itself
has not been received in evidence In any event the only other warning to
Hawkins shown by the record was the above mentioned Luper matter deal-
ing with Hawkins leaving work at the end of the day
Moreover, in rejecting Respondent's defense that it failed to recall
Hawkins because of excessive tardiness and absences and in crediting the
testimony of Hawkins in regard to these matters, I have especially taken
into account the fact that Respondent did not introduce its attendance rec-
ords. Its failure to do so gives rise to the inference , which I drew, that such
records would be inconsistent with its defense Georgia Highway Express,
Inc., 165 NLRB 514, 517 (1967), 403 F 2d 921 (C A D.C., 1968).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
195
The activities of Respondent, set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead. to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of -commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the conventional
provisions involving findings of interference, restraint, and
coercion and unlawful refusal to recall employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Such order will
direct Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and to post a notice to that effect which
also state the affirmative action Respondent will be re-
quired to take to remedy its unlawful refusal to recall Leota
Moss, Linda Mayberry, Betty Barlow, Virginia Williams,
Betty Buttram, Ada Ruth Pearson, and Billie Hawkins.
Thus, Respondent will be ordered to offer Leota Moss,
Linda Mayberry, Betty Barlow, Virginia Williams,42 Betty
Buttram, Ada Ruth Pearson, and Billie Hawkins full and
immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges. Each will also be made whole for any loss
of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrim-
ination against her by payment to her of the sum of money
she would have earned from the date of the discrimination
against her until she is offered reinstatement, less net earn-
ings, if any, during such period to be computed in the man-
ner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with 6-percent interest thereon as required by
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
It will also be recommended in view of the unfair labor
practices in which Respondent has engaged (see N.L.R.B.
v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941) ),
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in-
fringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed its
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. By failing or refusing to recall Leota Moss, Linda
Mayberry, Betty Barlow, Virginia Williams, Betty Buttram,
Ada Ruth Pearson, and Billie Hawkins because of their
activities on behalf of the Union, the Respondent has en-
42 While Williams was working at the time of the hearing, it was also
shown that she had been recalled and again laid off since the recall began
on January 6, 1975. Accordingly, I do not feel that her present status consti-
tutes a full reinstatement as the Board normally requires . That is , in the light
of her several recalls and subsequent layoffs, her recall poor to the hearing
can only be considered temporary.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By reporting employees to the Tennessee Department
of Employment Security in order to harass them for ap-
pearing as spectators in support of the Union at a hearing,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint (in Case 10-CA-11145) ex-
cept as found herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER 43
Respondent, Gould, Inc., Cookeville, Tennessee, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities in behalf
of, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily re-
fusing to recall or reinstate Respondent's employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to the hire or
tenure or any other term and condition of employment of
any of Respondent's employees in order to discourage
union membership or activities.
(b) Reporting employees to the Tennessee Department
of Employment Security in order to harass them for sup-
porting the above-named labor organization.
43 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, coercing, or
restraining employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Leota Moss, Linda Mayberry, Betty Barlow,
Virginia Williams, Betty Buttram, Ada Ruth Pearson, and
Billie Hawkins immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions or, if their positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make each
of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as
the result of the discrimination against her in the manner
set forth in The Remedy section herein.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or to its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in or near Cookeville,
Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 44 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here-
by is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices
not found herein.
as In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "