Granwood Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1465 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1465
5. By the acts described herein, Respondent Teamsters and Respondent Ulrich
and each of them did engage in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the Act.
6. The acts of Respondent Teamsters and Respondent Ulrich described herein
have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the flow of commerce.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Granwood Furniture Company and Furniture and Bedding
Workers Union , Local 18-B, UFWA, AFL-CIO. Case No.
13-CA-3307. January 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to them. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Granwood Fur-
niture Company, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from coercively questioning employees as to their
union sympathies, membership, and activities, threatening employees
with reprisals because of such activities, and in any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
1 Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner 's inference that because of the
small size of its plant the Respondent had knowledge of the union activities of Bahan and
Jackson, although he concurs in the Trial Examiner 's finding, based on other evidence,
that Respondent did, in fact, know that they were union adherents.
129 NLRB No. 182.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
Furniture and Bedding Workers Union, Local 18-B, UFWA, AFL-
CIO, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notifiy the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed with respect to the violations of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3), alleged in the complaint, which were not found by the Trial
Examiner.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO Am EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT question employees coercively concerning their
union sympathies, membership, and activities, or threaten em-
ployees with reprisals because of such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
form, join, or assist Furniture and Bedding Workers Union, Local
18-B, UFWA, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1467
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (00)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated----------- ----- By-------------------------------------
( Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , in which all parties were represented , was heard before me in
Chicago, Illinois, on April 13 and 14, 1960, upon the complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of Granwood Furniture Company, herein referred to as the
Respondent . After the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs
which have been fully considered . The issues litigated at the hearing were whether
the Respondent , by discharging Ancel Bahan and Louisia Jackson , and by engaging
in certain other acts and conduct , violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent , an Illinois corporation having a factory at Chicago, Illinois, is
engaged in manufacturing and selling living room tables. During 1959, the Respond-
ent shipped tables directly outside the State of Illinois valued in excess of $50,000.
I find , as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate The policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Furniture and Bedding Workers Union , Local 18-B , UFWA, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Respondent operates a small factory employing from 8 to 10 employees
during slack periods and up to 25 employees when operating at full capacity. Its
business fluctuates seasonally , its peak periods generally following the December
and June furniture shows, at which its new lines of tables are shown . February,
March, and April are usually months of expanding operations , as are August and
September . In the intervening months work slackens off.
Gerald Ritz is the president of the Respondent. He has charge of the Respond-
ent's sales and office work, and schedules the daily level of production in the factory.
Ritz entrusts the supervision over production in the plant to Anton Stulgo , the Re-
spondent's foreman . Stulgo has complete authority over hiring and firing, at least
insofar as employees of the skills here involved are concerned.
1468 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The affiliation of the employees with the Union; the request for recognition
Discussions among the Respondent's employees concerning unsatisfactory working
conditions and the lack of employee benefits led to the decision on their part in early
May 1959 to affiliate with a union. Ancel Bahan, who had been employed by the
Respondent for a little over a month, agreed to obtain information about joining a
union. After calling the office of the Union for advice, he visited the office on
Monday evening, May 4, where Organizer Joseph Angilello gave him bargaining
authorization cards to be signed by the employees at the plant.
In the next day or two Bahan personally obtained the signatures on the cards of
virtually all of the nonsupervisory employees in the plant. There were approximately
15 or 16 such employees at that time. Bahan solicited employees' signatures in the
parking lot before and after work, and during the lunch hour in the plant. He re-
turned the signed cards to Organizer Angilello Wednesday or Thursday of that
same week.
On the following Monday, May 11, Organizer Angilello and a representative of the
International Union, Augie Parr, visited President Ritz in his office. They informed
Ritz that the Union represented a majority of the employees, and requested recog-
nition of the Union as their bargaining agent. Ritz, according to Angilello's credited
testimony, which Ritz admitted was substantially correct, "took it as a joke; he said
`my people don't want a union; they are well paid,' and he started laughing." The
union representatives told Ritz that they would take the matter to the Board, and
departed.
The next day Ritz called Angilello and told him that he had spoken to his foreman,
indicated that he had no objections to the Union, and suggested that if Angilello
came in perhaps they could sit down and work out an agreement. Angilello, the
union attorney, David Rothstein, and Sloan, a business agent of the Union, went out
to the plant on the afternoon of May 13 and talked with Ritz and Foreman Stulgo.
After a discussion about other shops represented by the Union, dues, initiation fees,
and the amount of payroll deductions for employees' insurance benefits, Ritz stated
that he would consider the Union's proposed agreement, which had been previously
given him, and would decide what to do. The Union never heard anything further
from Ritz.
C. The discharge of Ancel Bahan and Louisia Jackson on May 14
1. Bahan
At 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon on May 14, Foreman Stulgo took Bahan over to
the side of the room and told him, according to Bahan's credited testimony:
. work was slowing up, they were caught up with production and that he had
to lay somebody off, and since I was the last one hired, I would have to be the
one; and be said he would call me back as soon as work picked up.
The conversation continued, according to Stulgo's undenied testimony which I credit,
with Bahan saying
if that is the case, I don 't want to work in this place." I [Stulgo] said
"'if that is the way you feel about it, I am sorry. That is all I can do, but if
things pick up I will hire you back again." And then he [Bahan] said, "No,
I don't want anything to do with the place."
Bahan, who had had over 2 years' previous experience working in furniture fac-
tories, had applied for a job at the Respondent's plant about the end of March 1959
in response to a newspaper advertisement for a sander operator. He was informed
by Foreman Stulgo at that time that the sander job had been filled, but that he would
take him on as a laborer until such time as a more skilled position opened up.
Bahan accepted.
Bahan, at the time of his discharge, was the most recently hired laborer. James
Peterson, the next junior laborer, had been assigned labor work in connection with
the Respondent's furniture operations a day or so before Bahan was hired. How-
ever, for about a month prior to that time Peterson had been employed by the Re-
spondent as the helper to a carpenter who was making extensive repairs to the plant
which were necessitated by a serious fire which occurred in November 1958. While
Bahan was the jumor laborer, he was not the junior machine operator in the plant.
Edward Baysmore was hired about a week before Bahan was discharged. How-
ever, I find that he was hired to perform highly skilled operations.
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1469
At times, while performing general labor , Bahan was assigned to more skilled
operations , such as running the drill press ,,the cutout saw, and the planer. The other
laborers were not assigned to these operations during the period of Bahan's
employment.
One of the Respondent 's machine operators , Anton Herr, quit in April. Harold
Johnson, a longtime skilled employee was put in his place. However , Johnson was
very irregular in his attendance , staying out for a week or two at a time on various
occasions . Dissatisfaction with Johnson led Foreman Stulgo to -approach Bahan
,about May 11 with regard to working on machines in Johnson 's place. Stulgo men-
tioned that he would be on piece rates and could make more money. Bahan ac-
cepted, and worked on the saw and the drill for a day or two. On Thursday morning,
May 14, Bahan went back to the drill press where he had been working the afternoon
'before. Foreman Stulgo came up and told him to let his drill operation go, and to
sweep up and help bring up the lumber . That afternoon at 3:30 Bahan was dis-
charged, as stated above.
Stulgo testified that about this time-the exact date is not given-President Ritz
advised him that "orders are slacking off" and that consequently he assembled the
four laborers and told them he was "going to lay the newest guys off." Immediately
thereafter Stulgo notified Bahan of his layoff.
2. Jackson
Jackson was discharged the same afternoon Bahan was. Foreman Stulgo came up
to her as she was patching some legs and told her, according to Jackson 's credited
.testimony:
"Louisia, I have got bad news for you," and I said , "Well, what is that?" He
said, "I will have to lay you off," he said , "I have to lay you off because .
me and the wife is going on vacation , and I have to have somebody that is
able to take the packing over,"
Jackson told him, as she further testified:
Tony, I am sorry ; I was doing what you told me . If you had told me to be a
hand packer , I would have packed.
Jackson was hired by Stulgo sometime in April. Several years earlier she had
worked on various machines in another furniture factory. She was first assigned to
assist Stulgo 's wife, who was engaged at the plant in the inspection and packing of
the Respondent 's tables for shipment . Several days before she was discharged,
Jackson was relieved of the packing operations and assigned to leg patching. Gre-
goria Marti , a Puerto Rican girl who could not speak English, was hired and given
Jackson's job helping Mrs. Stulgo with the packing . Stulgo had another Puerto Rican
employee interpret for her and instruct her as to the numbers to mark on the shipping
cartons. With this assistance , according to Stulgo's credited testimony, Marti
satisfactorily performs her packing duties. Stulgo admittedly never in any way
'reprimanded or criticized Jackson for the way she performed her packing operations.
About May 5 or 6 Bahan had solicited Jacksoh to sign the union authorization
card in the plant at lunch time, in the presence of Mrs. Stulgo . Jackson signed the
card and gave it back to Bahan at that time . On the morning of May 14, there
was considerable discussion of the Union in the plant . This prompted Jackson to
tell Mrs. Stulgo that she belonged to a union , and Jackson showed her the union
book which she had received when she had previously worked in a furniture factory.
Stulgo admitted that his wife had reported to him at some unspecified time that
Jackson had "belonged to the same Union that was trying to get into the Granwood
Company." i
The Respondent contends that Foreman Stulgo found Jackson 's performance as
a packer unsatisfactory , and that for this reason he decided to replace her with
someone he could leave in charge of packing during the time he and his wife were
away on vacation . Instead of discharging her at this time, however, as Stulgo
testified , he assigned Jackson to patching and sanding legs. Stulgo further testified
that when President Ritz informed him that orders had dropped off, he let Jackson
go, as she was the junior employee doing this kind of work.
I Stulgo also testified that his wife told him in this same conversation that Jackson had
"'told the wife she didn't know whether it would be the benefit or do any good to have
the union come in here ,' and the wife said , 'Why 9' And she said, 'When the company
gives a raise, the union dues go up.' "
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Subsequent conduct of President Ritz and Foreman Stulgo
1. President Ritz ' talk with the employees
Sometime in May , apparently after the discharge of Bahan and Jackson , President
Ritz had Foreman Stulgo assemble all of the employees on the second floor of the
plant where he talked to them for about 15 to 20 minutes about the Union .2 Ritz
told the employees that he did not understand why they felt that they could not
bring their complaints to him , that "they didn 't have to go to anybody else to tell
them about their problems," and that they should come to him and talk over such
matters. He also mentioned that when he had a lot of orders , the older employees
would be given vacation and holiday pay.3 As Ritz admitted , he also mentioned
the fact that the union dues would have to come out of their wages. Eldemiro
Quinones testified that Ritz made a statement on this occasion to the effect that the
employees would only be working a 3- or 4 -day week if the Union came in because
work would be slow. As related by Tommy Bracy, who was no longer in the
Respondent 's employ, Ritz said on this occasion that he did not have any objection
to the Union , but he was not able to pay the union wages , and that "he would have
to work maybe three days in a week or four days in a week . . . if the Union
came in."
Ritz testified that the only reference he made to a 3- or 4 -day week was in con-
nection with a statement made by him that "the Union couldn't promise them a
full five-day week any more than [he ] could . . . it would have to depend on
orders." I do not credit Ritz ' testimony in this regard . The testimony of Quinones
and Bracy is inferentially corroborated by that of Archer who stated that he sub-
sequently overheard President Ritz telling Foreman Stulgo that if we "get a Union,
we wouldn 't be working but three or four days a week because we wouldn 't be able
to afford Union scales." This testimony was not denied by either Ritz or Stulgo.
Accordingly , I credit the testimony of Quinones and Bracy , above set forth that
President Ritz stated in his speech , in effect, that if a union succeeded in organizing
the plant , the employees might only be working 3 or 4 days a week because he could
not afford to pay the union wage scale.
2. Foreman Stulgo 's antiunion activities
About the time of the discharge of Bahan and Jackson , Foreman Stulgo, as he
admitted , had conversations with various employees about the Union. According
to Tommy Bracy, the following transpired on the one occasion on which Stulgo
spoke to him about the Union:
He [Stulgo ] spoke and asked me , he said was we going to get the Union. I
told him, "I don 't know, I signed the card , that is all I know," and he said,
"Well, I am not against the Union ," he said , "The Union is a good thing to
have, but if you get a Union in , we would have to hire more experienced men,
or white men with experience ," because a lot of us were not experienced; . . .
Nubin Archer, who was still in the Respondent 's employ, testified that Stulgo,
after asking him whether he was going to join the Union and saying that the decision
was up to the employees , commented about the possibility "if he got the Union,
that he would lay off the colored and hire most of the white."
Wesley Walker , who was also still employed by the Respondent , testified that
after he signed a union card Stulgo questioned him as follows:
He asked me if I go for the Union, and I said yeah; he said the Union was
all right , that he was for it , but now wasn 't the time for us to get no Union there.
According to Eldemiro Quinones , Stulgo told him that:
the Union was okay for the worker , you know, for the plant ; but only we
would be working maybe , just a couple people, maybe he would have the
Union ; maybe he would have to close the plant or ,go out of business , you know,
that is all he could say.
Foreman Stulgo admitted questioning various employees about their union svm-
pathies. Stulgo stated that he told the employees in these conversations that he had
nothing against unions , that it was up to them what to do, but that his "feeling"
was "that it wasn 't the time to get it in there ." According to Stulgo 's testimony, he
2 The record does not indicate more precisely when this meeting was held. The exact
date is immaterial
8 The foregoing is the credited testimony of Foreman Stulgo.
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1471
explained this by saying that "it was only three months since we had a big fire in
the plant, and that there were no orders. And it was not the proper time to get the
union in." While at first denying that he had made statements to the effect that
Negro employees would be replaced by white employees if the union organized
the plant, Stulgo, after being confronted with a statement previously given counsel
for the General Counsel, admitted telling some of his colored employees that they
might be replaced with white help if the Union came in. He testified that he
merely repeated what one of the employees had told him about what had happened
at another plant after a union succeeded in organizing it. Stulgo was not specifically
questioned about the threat to close the plant which was attributed to him by
employee Quinones. However, the inference from Stulgo's testimony as a whole is
that he made no statements to employees about the Union other than those referred
to in the testimony above set forth.
While Foreman Stulgo at times was quite frank in admitting facts which were
adverse to the interests of the Respondent and himself, at other times he appeared
to shading his testimony in favor of the Respondent. In fact, on several occasions
he was forced to change his testimony when confronted with an affidavit which he
had previously given counsel for the General Counsel. Employees Bracy, Archer,
Walker, and Quinones appeared to be testifying to the best of their recollections,
without overstating matters. They generally impressed me as credible witnesses.
Weighing their testimony as to the statements made to them by Foreman Stulgo
against Stulgo's partial denials, and bearing in mind Stulgo's admitted opposition
to the organization of the Respondent's employees at that time, I conclude that the
testimony of the employees is entitled to credit. Accordingly, I find that Foreman
Stulgo made the statements attributed to him by employees Bracy, Archer, Walker,
and Quinones, as hereinabove set forth.
E. Conclusions concerning the alleged unfair labor practices
1. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
a. President Ritz' speech
The General Counsel contends that President Ritz in his speech to the employees
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by making the statement to the effect that if
a union succeeded in organizing the plant, the employees might only be working
3 or 4 days a week because he could not afford to pay the union scale. I do not
agree. By this statement, Ritz was not threatening that he would take reprisals
against the employees for joining the Union. Rather, as his reference to his in-
ability to pay the union scale indicates, Ritz was making an argument as to the
economic effect on his business of his agreeing with the Union to pay the union
wage scale. Such an argument is protected by the proviso to Section 8(c) of the
Act. Cf. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 184.4
b. Foreman Stulgo's interrogation and threats
As stated above, not long after the employees signed union cards, Foreman Stulgo
sought out employees Bracy, Archer, and Walker and questioned them about their
union sympathies. In the course of his conversation with Bracy and Archer, who
were Negroes as were most of the Respondent's employees, Stulgo mentioned the
possibility of their being replaced with white employees if the Union succeeded in
organizing the plant. Such a statement, in the circumstances of this case, un-
questionably has coercive implications and is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Campbell Coal Co., 112 NLRB 941, 949-953, 956. Similarly violative of
the Act is Stulgo's statement to Quinones that "maybe he would have to close the
plant or go out of business" if the Union came in. And in the context of Stulgo's
threats of reprisals, his questioning of employees about their union sympathies also
exceeded permissible bounds. N.L.R.B. v. Wagner Iron Works and Bridge, Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers Shopmen's Local 471 (AFL), 220 F. 2d 126, 139
(C.A. 7), cert. denied 350 U.S. 981.
2. The discharges
As noted above, the Respondent contends that Bahan and Jackson were dis-
charged in the course of a reduction in force necessitated by a lack of orders, and
* For the reasons stated above, President Ritz' statement to Foreman Stulgo about a
possible reduction in the workweek because of his inability to pay the union scale, which
was overheard by Archer , is also within the protection of Section 8(c), regardless of
whether the statement was intended for Archer 's ears,
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they were chosen for discharge because they were the junior employees in their
respective lines of work. The General Counsel does not challenge the Respondent's
contention that there was an economic necessity for the layoffs on May 14. If it is
true, as contended by the Respondent, that both Bahan and Jackson were the junior
employees, then the General Counsel has a heavy burden, indeed, to sustain, if he
is to prevail. For normally the selection of the junior employee for layoff in the
course of an economic reduction in force indicates that the selection was made on
a nondiscriminatory basis.
With respect to Bahan, the General Counsel does not dispute the fact that Bahan
was the last employee hired as a laborer .5 Instead, the General Counsel contends
that the Respondent did not rigidly observe seniority in personnel actions at the
plant. The General Counsel points to the fact that only a few days before his dis-
charge Stulgo had transferred Bahan from labor work to machine operations, and
asserts that Bahan was given this assignment in preference to Peterson, who had
more seniority, because Bahan had had experience on machines. The General
Counsel further notes that upon Bahan's discharge, Peterson who had had no
experience on machines, was given Bahan's machine job. The inconsistency in the
Respondent's actions in this regard, the General Counsel argues, indicates that the
Respondent had an ulterior motive in transferring Bahan back from machine work
to labor work on the morning of his discharge. The Respondent's real motive, the
General Counsel urges, was to enable it to get rid of Bahan, who was the principal
instigator of the Union in the plant.
This argument is not without some persuasive force. There is no doubt that the
Respondent was opposed to having the Union in the plant at that time. President
Ritz' speech to the employees and Foreman Stulgo's antiunion threats and state-
ments leave no doubt on this score. Nor is there any question in my mind but that
both Ritz and Stulgo, despite their testimony to the contrary, were aware that
Bahan had an active role in the union movement. Not only did Bahan solicit
Jackson to sign a union card in the plant in the presence of Mrs. Stulgo, the fore-
man's wife, but Bahan solicited other employees in the plant and on the parking lot
which was used by Foreman Stulgo and President Ritz. In such a small plant as
the Respondent's it is unlikely that such activities would not come to the attention
of management.
However, notwithstanding all this, the evidence as a whole does not persuade me
that Bahan's discharge was motivated by antiunion considerations. Bahan's solicita-
tion of signatures on union cards occurred the first part of the week of May 4, and
must have come to Stulgo's attention about that time. Thereafter Bahan did not
engage in any further activity on behalf of the Union, so far as the record shows.
On May 11, Stulgo gave Bahan a better assignment and a chance to earn more
money despite the fact that he had been the instigator of the union movement in
the plant. Such action in my opinion tends to refute the contention that Stulgo took
action against Bahan because of his union activities. There is another fact to be
taken into consideration. Peterson, the employee who was retained in preference
to Bahan, testified that Stulgo had asked him at the time of Bahan's discharge "who
was the older man." Peterson told Stulgo that he was The record does not show
whether this conversation occurred before or after Stulgo's transfer of Bahan back
to labor work. If, however, the conversation occurred after Bahan's transfer back to
labor work, this fact indicates that Stulgo may not have been aware, at the time he
made the transfer, who in fact was the junior employee. If such was the case, of
course, no significance attaches to Stulgo's retransfer of Bahan, and the General
Counsel's theory collapses. This gap in the record weakens the General Counsel's
contention concerning Bahan.
Although the matter is not free from doubt, I find, under all the circumstances,
that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the testimony
that Stulgo had ulterior motives in retransferring Bahan back to labor work on
May 14, 1959, and that consequently his discharge was not violative of the Act.6
s I do not accept the General Counsel ' s contention that Peterson , the laborer who was
retained in preference to Bahan, had only a few days more seniority than Bahan. Al-
though he had not been engaged in furniture makink , operations for more than a few days
before lichen was hired , Peterson , as stated above, had been employed by the Respondent
in the plant as a carpenter 's helper for more than a month prior to the time he was
transferred to furniture operations.
'
O The complaint alleges that the Respondent 's ,failure to reinstate Bahan was also an
unfair labor practice While Stulgo did offer to recall Bahan when work became avail-
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1473
Regarding Jackson , the Respondent's contention is that she failed satisfactorily to
perform her duties as a packer and consequently was transferred to other work, and
thereafter had to be discharged when this other work ran out. The General Counsel
calls attention to the fact, admitted by Foreman Stulgo himself, that he had never
reprimanded Jackson for inefficiency in her packing work . The General Counsel
also points out that the Respondent, at the time Jackson was transferred from pack-
ing, needed an experienced packer, and that the girl with whom the Respondent
replaced Jackson was wholly inexperienced and had to be assisted in the performance
of her packing duties by an interpreter because she could not speak English. The
General Counsel argues that these circumstances, when viewed in light of the
Respondent's hostility to the organization of its employees, demonstrate that Jackson's
replacement was motivated by antiunion bias.
The question before me on this phase of the case, therefore, is whether the Re-
spondent was motivated by considerations of efficiency or by hostility to the Union
in transferring Jackson from packing operations. Stulgo's testimony that it was the
former-that Jackson, in her packing operations failed to include the corner pads in
the cartons on some occasions, the legs on other occasions, and that she could not
remember the model numbers to mark on the cartons, and had to be replaced for
these reasons-is not inherently implausible. It is consistent with the explanation
given Jackson at the time of her discharge, as Jackson testified. There is tittle or
no specific evidence refuting Stulgo's testimony concerning Jackson's asserted short-
comings as a packer, as Jackson was not questioned about these matters, with the
possible exception set forth in the note below.?
The circumstances relied upon by the General Counsel do cast doubt on Stulgo's
claim that reasons of efficiency dictated Jackson's transfer. A countervailing con-
sideration, however, is the fact that Jackson was not at all active in the Union. At
the time of ,her placement her sole activity on behalf of the Union had been to sign
a union card. Almost all the other employees had done the same, yet only the two
junior employees were discharged.
In my opinion, the various circumstances upon which the General Counsel relies
do not outweigh Stulgo's detailed and specific testimony as to the reasons for ie-
placing Jackson. Although I have rejected Stulgo's testimony in certain respects,
his testimony in other respects, as noted above, was quite frank even when it re-
flected adversely upon the Respondent. In this instance I believe Stulgo was telling
the truth. Accordingly, I must reject the General Counsel's contention that Jackson's
discharge was discriminatorily motivated.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in coercive questioning of em-
ployees concerning their union sympathies and threatened them with reprisals be-
cause of their union activities, my recommended order, among other things, will
direct the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to cease and desist from
engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. By coercively questioning employees concerning their union sympathies and
threatening them with reprisals for engaging in union activities, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging, and
failing to reinstate, Ancel Bahan and I:ouisia Jackson.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
able and apparently never did so, I find, in view of Bahan ' s explicit and repeated state-
ments to Stulgo that he did not wish to work for the Respondent under any circumstances,
that the Respondent was relieved of any obligation to recall him
4 Jackson testified in effect that It was not difficult to remember the model numbers to
be stamped on the cartons.