Grish Andonoff Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1626 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT assist, dominate, or interfere with the administration of the
Shop Committee at our plant or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT maintain in effect a plant rule which is calculated to deter
employees from engaging, during nonworking time, in the solicitation of other
employees to sign union authorization cards, and in the solicitation or collection
of union dues, fees, or assessments.
WE HEREBY withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the
Shop Committee at our plant as the representative of our employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with us concerning grievances, wages, hours, or other conditions
of work.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form a labor
organization, to join the said Union or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such rights may be limited by the proviso in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
as modified by the Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make Thomas Waters whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
FERGUSON-LANDER Box Co.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U. S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Knare M. Andonoff , d/b/a Grish Andonoff Company and S. B.
Ervin . Case No. 01-CA-5894-1. April 13, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 24, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a brief in support of the exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was cominitted.' The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
IL In footnote 12 of the Decision, the Trial Examiner Inadvertently found that certain
Incidents occurred on April 19, 1964. The date should read April 9, 1964, and is hereby
corrected.
151 NLRB No. 159.
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1627
Decision and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,2 and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein .3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order
recommended by the Trial Examiner with the following modifica-
tions, and orders that the Respondent Knare M. Andonoff, d/b/a
Grish Andonoff Company, Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Delete paragraph 1(c) and substitute the following:
"(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959."
2. Substitute the attached Appendix in place of the Appendix
attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations of the complaint
alleging violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act not herein found,
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees because of ac-
tivities protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten, interrogate, or interfere with em-
ployees in violation of Section 7 of the Act.
2 The charges of bias are unsupported by the record in this case . The Great Atlantic
f Pacific Tea Company, Inc ., 129 NLRB 757 , footnote 3.
' The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act by
posting a notice to the employees that a new contract had been signed with the Union
establishing a 10-cent wage increase with knowledge that the contract could not be effec-
tive until ratified by the employees . Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the above notice
did not recite that "the new contract was in effect ." We therefore do not adopt the
finding of the Trial Examiner . The Trial Examiner also concluded that the Respondent
violated Section 8 ( a) (1) by "unilaterally changing conditions of employment" There
is no evidence that the Respondent , in fact, made any changes in employment without
consulting the employees ' bargaining representative . Accordingly, we do not adopt this
finding of the Trial Examiner.
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Marshall Roseborough, S. B. Ervin,
Charles Hunter, and Sylvester Jacobs to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions and make them Whole for any
loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
KNARE M. ANDONOFF, D/B/A GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-117e will notify Marshall Roseborough, S. E. Ervin, Charles
Hunter, and Sylvester Jacobs, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance With the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from
the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los
Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint alleges four employees were wrongfully discharged by Respondent
employer and also that Respondent committed other acts of interference , restraint,
and coercion . 1 Respondent employer filed an answer which in material substance
denies the commission of the unfair labor practices charged in the complaint.
A hearing in this matter was held before Eugene K. Kennedy in Los Angeles,
California, and subsequent to the hearing , briefs of the Respondent and the General
Counsel have been received and considered.2
'The complaint was issued on July 2, 1964. and is based upon a charge filed by
S B. Ervin, one of the alleged discriminatees , on behalf of himself and the three other
alleged discriminatees , Charles Hunter, Sylvester Jacobs, and Marshall Roseborough. It
is noted that while these alleged discriminatees had Local No. 396 of the Teamsters
Union for a bargaining representative, the charge was filed by an individual.
2 Subsequent to the hearing the General Counsel moved to correct the transcript in
the following manner: (1) page 98, line 21, substitute atop for start; (2) page 131 , line 16,
substitute on for from.
This motion was unopposed and, since it correctly reflects the testimony given at the
hearing, it is granted.
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1629
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,
I make the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. NATURE OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS; JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Knare M. Andonoff, d/b/a Grish Andonoff Company, herein sometimes called
Respondent, is and at all times material herein has been doing business in Los Angeles,
California, where she is engaged in the services of hauling trash from railway freight
cars. During a representative year Respondent performed services valued in excess
of $50,000 for the Southern Pacific Railroad, an interstate transit system and an
instrumentality of commerce having annual gross revenue in excess of $250,000.
Respondent at all times material has been an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Package and General Utility Drivers Local Union No. 396, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein some-
times called the Union, is and has been at all times material a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The primary issue is whether Respondent discharged employees Roseborough,
Ervin, Hunter, and Jacobs because of their action in seeking improved working
conditions.
The complaint further allages, and the answer denies, violations of the Act occa-
sioned by,
(1) On and after February 12, 1964, General Manager Grish Andonoff interro-
gating employees concerning their Union activities.
(2) On and after February 12, 1964, General Manager Grish Andonoff threaten-
ing employees with discharge.
(3) On or about February 20, 1964, owner Knare Andonoff posting a notice of
a wage increase although such increase had not been submitted to her employees
(all union members pursuant to a union-security provision) for ratification by them.
(4) On or about March 6, 1964, General Manager Grish Andonoff keeping under
surveillance a union meeting held on Respondent's premises.
(5) On or about March 20, 1964, Knare Andonoff instructing Foreman James
Victory to poll employees concerning the 10-cent-per-hour wage increase negotiated
with the Union and to induce employees to vote in favor of such increase.
(6) On or about March 20, 1964, Foreman James Victory polling employees as
to views on a negotiated wage increase and seeking to gain its approval by the
employees.
B. Background
Knare M. Andonoff, the owner of Respondent Company, is the daughter of Grish
Andonoff, the general manager.
Respondent has had a collective-bargaining contract with Teamster's Local 386
effective since December 1957. This agreement was automatically renewed on an
annual basis. Its terms remained unchanged through 1963, including the $2.00 an
hour basic wage rate for truckdrivers. All Respondent's employees except super-
visory personnel were employed as truckdrivers engaged in hauling trash from rail-
road cars, including the four alleged discriminatees. The standard form contract
executed by Respondent and Local 396 had deleted from it provisions relating to
insurance, welfare, and pensions, and also changed holiday pay from 21/2 to 11/2, the
basic wage rate. John Drobish, business manager of Local 396, was subpenaed as
a witness by the General Counsel. His testimony was accompanied by the appear-
ance of special legal counsel for the duration of his role of witness in this proceeding.
In the latter part of 1963 the Union gave notice to Respondent of a desire to renego-
tiate the collective-bargaining agreement.
On or about February 12, 1964, Local 396's business manager, Drobish, received
a letter from an attorney reciting that he represented alleged discriminatees Marshall
Roseborough and S. B. Ervin. In this letter he indicated his clients had been receiv-
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing $2 an hour for the full period of their employment and that they should be
receiving substantially more. The attorney requested Drobish to review the matter
immediately.
After receipt of this letter, Drobish negotiated a new agreement with Knare Ando-
noff. The record contains a copy of a notice posted by Respondent relating to this:
NOTICE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A WAGE PATTERN SET BY THE RUBBISH
ASSOCIATION
A NEW CONTRACT HAS BEEN SIGNED WITH THE UNION SETTING
THE WAGE SCALE AS FOLLOWS:
1964 1965 1966 1967
DRIVERS_________________________ 210 220 230 240
HELPER__________________________ 190 200 210 220
HOLIDAY PAY IS PAYABLE AT TIME AND ONE HALF
1 NEW YEARS 5 LABOR DAY
2 WASHINGTON 6 THANKSGIVING
3 MEMORIAL DAY 7 CHRISTMAS
4 FOURTH OF JULY
SUNDAY PAY IS PAYABLE AT DOUBLE TIME
VACATION PAY
1 YEAR ONE WEEK WITH PAY
2 YEARS TWO WEEKS WITH PAY
8 YEARS THREE WEEKS WITH PAY
IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTION SEE
JOHN DROBISH
AT THE UNION
After the notice was posted, Drobish came to Respondent 's premises to seek rati-
fication of the negotiated agreement by the employees of Respondent.
Drobish testified he selected the premises of Respondent for the meeting with the
permission of Knare Andonoff because he would be able to talk to employees from
the three shifts at the same time. The meeting was held in the open, approximately
25 to 35 feet from the desk of General Manager Grish Andonoff.3 He kept a desk
in the open yard in addition to one in a closed office.
Drobish commenced the meeting by reading the proposed contract to the assembled
employees of Respondent. The proposed agreement was greeted with a vigorous and
outspoken rejection by the alleged discriminatees . Specific statements made by the
alleged discriminatees will be detailed below. Attending the meeting with Respond-
ent's other employees was day shift foreman James Victory. While the employees
were still assembled and discussing the problems relating to a new agreement, Gen-
eral Manager Grish Andonoff approached the assembled employees and instructed
Roseborough and another employee to go to work.
Prior to this meeting on March 6, 1964, Respondent had put into effect the wage
provisions negotiated with Drobish. One of the complaints voiced at this meeting
was that many employees actually earned less because of the reduction in overtime
pay on Sundays which was a regular workday. Since there is no evidence that the
agreement negotiated in 1964 contained any change other than an increase of 10 cents
per hour in the basic wage rate and the reduction in Sunday pay, it would appear
that Drobish and Knare Andonoff entered into an agreement effecting an actual
8 Drobish , whose demeanor at the hearing and his course of conduct as reflected by the
evidence suggested he was indifferent at best to the cause of the alleged discriminatees,
testified that during the meeting, Grish Andonoff was 30 to 35 feet away This estimate
is in line with the estimate of witnesses of the General Counsel and is adopted over the
estimate of Knare Andonoff , whose testimony is discredited for reasons set forth below.
(Her estimate was that her father was about 50 feet distant.)
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1631
reduction in employee wages and they sought to have the employees ratify such
agreement on Respondent 's premises with Respondent 's foreman in their midst and
Respondent 's general manager stationed about 35 feet from the meeting.
The attorney retained by employees Roseborough and Ervin to write to the Union
on February 12, 1964, wrote a letter to Respondent on March 26 , 1964. This letter
recited the attorney represented a substantial number of employees of Respondent;
that Respondent 's wage rates were grossly inadequate and recited that Roseborough
was fired because he had hired a lawyer and demanded his reinstatement.
Subsequent to the March 6, 1964, meeting, Drobish, at the demand of Respondent's
employees , held three meetings at the union hall. (These meetings were timed so that
employees on the three shifts could attend at least one meeting The consensus of
the employees was a demand for an increase to $2.55 an hour . The Respondent then
discharged four employees commencing with Marshall Roseborough on March 23,
1964. According to Drobish , on March 28 , 1964 he advised Knare Andonoff of the
demand for a wage rate of $2.55 an hour and when she refused, he advised her the
employees would probably strike. On April 11, 1964, Respondent discharged
employees Ervin and Hunter, and on April 13 discharged employee Jacobs.
C. Evidence relating to the alleged unlawful discharges
1. Marshall Roseborough
Roseborough commenced work for Respondent in October 1961. Respondent has
a yard in Fontana and one in Los Angeles . Roseborough commenced working in
Fontana and transfered to Los Angeles in August 1963.
The first concerted activity by Roseborough protected by the Act occurred when
he, along with employee Ervin, engaged the services of an attorney to aid in effecting
an increase in wages for the employees . The attorney , in a letter dated February 12,
1964 , in connection with a demand that Drobish negotiate a wage increase , advised
Drobish that he was representing Roseborough and Ervin.
About the 19th or 20th of March 1964 General Manager Grish Andonoff told
employees Hunter and Cammack that he knew Roseborough had got a lawyer and
he was going to fire him .4 Since this was not denied by General Manager Grish
Andonoff who fired Roseborough , the discriminatory discharge of Roseborough is
amply supported by this finding standing alone. It is buttressed by additional sub-
stantial evidence.
At the March 6 meeting , with Foreman Victory included in the gathering and
General Manager Grish Andonoff within hearmg distance, Roseborough asked
Drobish what the $6-a-month union dues were for and why he could not get hospitali-
zation for his family . Drobish did not answer the question relating to the union dues
but said that hospitalization would cost Roseborough $ 17 a month.
On March 6, 1944, before the meeting , Roseborough obtained signatures of employ-
ees on a petition requesting a wage increase to $3.17 an hour . On March 8, 1964,
Roseborough obtained signatures at the Fontana yard from additional employees.
d It is not essential to any specific finding of violation of the Act to determine the
source of Grisch Andonoff ' s information concerning the engaging of an attorney by Rose-
borough to secure higher wages However, the circumstantial evidence indicates the
source as Union Business Manager Drobisb . The circumstantial evidence includes the
fact that Drobish was specifically advised of Roseborough 's action and that no other
source than Drobish supplying the information about Roseborough retaining a lawyer is
suggested by the record That Drobish was a likely source is also suggested by the fact
that for several years when other teamster locals were obtaining substantial increases,
he permitted Respondent to enjoy the wage rates effective in 1959. The standard-form
contract executed with Respondent had several provisions valuable to employees and
representing cost factors to Respondent deleted . Drobish called the meeting of employees
on Respondent ' s premises with Reslondent ' s consent in the vicinity of Respondent's gen-
eral manager with the foreman in attendance Drobish was hostile to employees who
questioned him as to what they were receiving for their dues . Drobish in 1964 executed
a new agreement rejected by the employees on March 6 which effected a reduction in
weekly wages for many employees
5 Respondent did not challenge the testimony of General Counsel ' s witnesses who testi-
fied Grish Andonoff was within hearing distance Respondent seemed to justify the
position of Grish Andonoff on the premises because he was where his desk was and
Drobish, the union representative , selected the location of the hearing.
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The signatures of Foremen James Victory and Morris Blackwell, both appearing as
witnesses for Respondent, were included in the petitions.6 Since Victory later polled
the employees at the request of Knare Andonoff, it seems probable he informed
Respondent of Roseborough's activity in circulating the petitions.
On March 23, 1964, General Manager Grish Andonoff fired Roseborough. He
told Roseborough he was fired because of stealing gas and asked Roseborough if he
had a gas can in the car. Roseborough said he did not and Andonoff insisted he did.
Roseborough opened the trunk of his car and showed him it was empty. Andonoff
then said, "Let it down, let it down. Get out. You're fired, you're fired; you're fired."
Roseborough's testimony is credited to the effect that he never had stolen gas from
Respondent and that prior to his discharge Grish Andonoff had never spoken to him
about stealing gas.
After his discharge, Roseborough's attorney told him to go through the motions
of trying to get his job back. Roseborough, along with Drobish, attended a meeting
with Knare Andonoff on April 7, 1964.
At this meeting Knare Andonoff did not mention stealing gas 7 but said that Rose-
borough caused too much confusion on the job and he was fighting with employees.
On March 21, 1964, Knare Andonoff had spoken to Roseborough about his quar-
rel with his neighbor Morris Blackwell, Respondent's foreman at the Fontana yard.
This was the only occasion fighting with employees was mentioned by Knare
Andonoff.8
On the basis of the above, there is more than ample evidence to support a finding
that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Roseborough by firing him because
he engaged in activities guaranteed by the Act and fired him in order to discourage
such protected concerted activities.
2. Evidence relating to the alleged unlawful discharge of employees Ervin,
Hunter, and Jacobs
Ervin, along with Roseborough, was named in the attorney's letter to Drobish as
being one of the employees who retained him to seek higher wages for employees of
Respondent. Also as in the case of Roseborough, the general manager told Ervin
and other employees Ervin was going to be fired because he retamed a lawyer. Grish
Andonoff told employee Hunter that Ervin "had got a lawyer on him and he learned
it because he had got a letter from the lawyer and he didn't like for a colored boy to
get too smart. He was going to fire him out."
At the March 6 meeting, Ervin, Jacobs, and Hunter were the three employees in
addition to Roseborough who were outspoken in making it clear the Union was not
obtaining enough benefits from Respondent for the employees. As noted previously,
this activity was heard and noted by Respondent's general manager, Grish Andonoff.
Drobish, when asked by Hunter what the $6 union dues were for, said Hunter was
getting under his skin. Jacobs complained that the proposed new agreement actually
represented a cut in wages and that Respondent did not include the number of hours
worked on the paycheck stubs.
6 Foremen Victory and Blackwell presented pathetic images. They, as well as all
of Respondent's employees, were Negroes Knare Andonoff's testimony and demeanor
suggested she would be an extremely demanding employer Victory contradicted her
testimony that she did not ask him to poll the employees and also about many deteails
concerning her version of the discharges. Victory and Blackwell seemed intimidated by
Knare Andonoff and the contradictions, although regarded as correctly reflecting the facts,
appeared to be inadvertencies.
7 Knare Andonoff's testimony to the contrary is not credited. Her manner of testify-
ing reflected an almost hysterical unobiectivity and so much of her testimony seemed
patently fabricated, no reliance is placed on any of it
Thomas O'Neal, a Los Angeles policeman, testified that Knare Andonoff at this meet-
ing told Roseborough he was fired for stealing gas
Because of the nature of his testimony given in connection with employee Jacobs and
the 10-year personal relationship between Officer O'Neal and the Andonoffs, the testimony
of Roseborough on this event, although not vital to the resolution of ultimate issues,
is credited and that of O'Neal rejected.
8 Knare Andonoff 's alleged basis for her belief ( not that of Grish Andonoff who fired
Roseborough ) was that Foreman Blackwell , on March 20, told her that another employee
told him Roseborough was stealing gas. She testified this was the specific reason for
firing him even though no effort was made to verify the alleged second -hand hearsay
report. She admitted further that the other reasons she advanced at the April 17 meet-
ing came up after his discharge.
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1633
The reasons advanced by Respondent for the discharge of these employees appear
so implausible that the finding of unlawful discrimination in connection with their
discharge is bolstered to some extent by an examination of these reasons
Respondent's owner, Knare Andonoff, testified the decision to discharge Ervin,
Jacobs, and Hunter was made by her father, General Manager Grish Andonoff. Grish
Andonoff did not testify although he was present during the entire hearing.9 Despite
this, Knare Andonoff undertook to testify as to the reasons for the discharge of Ervin,
Jacobs, and Hunter.
Before noting the reasons for discharge enumerated by Knare Andonoff in her
testimony, the reasons given to the alleged discriminatees at the time of the discharge
are noted. On April 11, 1964, as Ervin drove into the yard Grish Andonoff asked
him if he had iron on his truck.10 Ervin had a small amount of scrap which James
Victory reported to Grish Andonoff. When punching out his timecard, Grish Ando-
noff told him to wait for his check. A little later, Foreman Victory handed him three
checks indicating Ervin was terminated and said to Ervin "Well, they're letting you
go on account of you had iron on your truck."
Victory unloaded scrap from several trucks on April 11.11 At this time General
Manager Grish Andonoff asked Ervin how the scrap had gotten on his truck. Ervin
explained it was already there on March 6 when he started driving the truck.
Hunter, employed by Respondent since 1959, when returning to the yard after
finishing the graveyard shift on April 11, was asked by Grish Andonoff to give him
the gate key as Andonoff had lost his. Hunter gave him the key and Andonoff told
him to wait until his daughter (Knare Andonoff) made out the checks. Foreman
Victory brought Hunter three checks and told Hunter that Knare Andonoff could not
let Adolph Blackwell go without firing Hunter. Victory also said to Hunter "You
know you had iron on your truck" to which Hunter responded "Yea."
Hunter, about a month previously, had been accused by Grish Andonoff of selling
Grish Andonoff's iron. In connection with an employee named Swim, Knare Ando-
noff testified she was considering discharging him for selling "our iron." It is apparent
that the Andonoffs originally were not concerned with the employees taking iron
that belong to someone else but with the fact that the employees might sell some and
keep the money. Knare Andonoff claimed the reason she was concerned with the
employees having iron on the trucks was because it might get her in bad with the
railroad and her trash hauling contract might be in jeopardy.
However, the following portion of her testimony demonstrates that she, as well
as Grish Andonoff, was actually apprehensive that the employees might sell the scrap
for their own profit.
Q. And this scrap that he was turning in to the junk dealer and taking the
money himself, where was he getting this scrap from, do you know?
A. Apparently from the railroad because he told me he was selling our iron
and Ervin told me he was selling our iron . [Emphasis supplied.]
Respondent called as a witness Kenneth Sagar , an investigator for the Southern
Pacific Railroad. He was never called to investigate thefts by Andonoff employees.
He was, however, called to the premises and shown some scrap in a dump truck part
of it consisting of heavier pieces that should have been placed in bins by the railroad
employees instead of being left in the trash piles hauled away by employees of
Respondent. The testimony of James Victory detailed below establishes that the
bulk of the scrap identified by Sagar was from trucks other than those of Ervin,
Hunter, and Jacobs.
Moreover, Sagar regarded the matter as so unimportant and the scrap of so little
value that he did not even ask Respondent to return it.
On three occasions after Hunter's discharge, Hunter had occasion to drive other
employees to work. On each occasion General Manager Grish Andonoff called for
Hunter to come over to where he was. Each time he said in substance and effect
e Respondent introduced a photograph which showed Grish Andonoff as the same in-
dividual present at the hearing.
"This had reference to scrap which was found in the truck which the employees of
Respondent removed from the railroad cars . Portions of the testimony of Respondent's
witnesses described below demonstrate that having iron on the truck was a reason manu-
factured by Respondent to justify discharges.
n Ervin ' s denial of Victory's testimony that Ervin refused to unload the iron when
requested by Grish Andonoff is credited.
783-133-66-v oI. 151-104
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Hunter was a good boy, that he had gotten in with the wrong crowd who had
gotten a lawyer on him and when the lawsuit was over he would give Hunter his
job back.
About 1 week before his discharge, Jacobs was with employees Cammack, Hunter,
Ervin, and Porter when Grish Andonoff said to them:
He said he was going to get rid of the smart guys that hired this lawyer and he
said that that was his company, the union didn't own his company, he was going
to fire them out and then they could go to the union and see if the union would
give them a job, because that was his company.
On the morning of April 13, when Jacobs went to the Los Angeles yard to get his
paycheck, Grish Andonoff told him Foreman Victory would be back in a minute and
would give him his paycheck. When Victory gave him the three checks he said:
"Well, you've been fired." And I asked him, I said, "What for?"
And he said, "I'm going to tell you what Miss Andonoff told me. You've
been fired for being smart."
And I said, "Being smart how?"
And he said, "That's all she told me."
Jacobs had worked for Respondent since 1962. Since that time he had put scrap
iron in the trucks when it was included in the trash and had taken the scrap iron to
salvage yards for Respondent's account, the last load being either in 1963 or 1964.
He had never received instructions to cease putting the scrap on trucks or to select
only specified types of metal from the trash stacked in the car. The railroad inspector,
Sagar, testified that the type of scrap metal railroad employees were supposed to put
in bins for salvage by another company was occasionally left with the trash pile at
the railroad cars' doors. Respondent's employees were supposed to haul away every-
thing in this pile. When metal was found in the piles, Respondent's employees would
on occasion separate it and accumulate it in the storage part of the truck. When
there was a sufficient accumulation on all the trucks, General Manager Andonoff
would have it all put on one truck and hauled to a salvage yard for sale.
Knare Andonoff's reasons given in her testimony for discharging alleged discrim-
inatees Ervin, Hunter, and Jacobs will now be considered having in mind her testi-
mony that the decision to effect these discharges was that of General Manager Grish
Andonoff.
She testified Ervin was discharged for three reasons: (1) Ervin's truck contained
railroad iron during the 2-week period before his discharge; (2) in September 1963
another employee told her Ervin was not doing his share of work; and (3) in early
1964 Ervin asked Knare Andonoff to have his overtime given to him in a separate
check.
The second and third reasons, in addition to being afterthoughts to support Ervin's
discharge, are insubstantial and must be viewed as pretexts in light of Grish
Andonoff's statement that Ervin was going to be fired because he got a lawyer.
The testimony of Foreman James Victory establishes Respondent's claim that
Ervin, Hunter, and Jacobs were fired because they had railroad iron in their trucks to
be totally without merit.
Grish Andonoff had instructed Foreman Victory to start checking the trucks for
iron 2 weeks before the discharge of Ervin, Hunter, and Jacobs. Knare Andonoff
testified she only looked in the trucks of Hunter, Ervin, and Jacobs and, finding iron
there, decided to fire them.
Victory's testimony establishes that he was the only person to climb on the trucks
to look for scraps and that he found iron in several more than those driven by Ervin
and Jacobs and did not find any in Hunter's. He testified it was a mystery to him
why Hunter was fired.12
Victory's credited testimony in this respect, establishes that most of the iron was
taken from truck No. 20 driven by an employee named Brown. Four additional
trucks containing iron were unloaded onto truck No. 5.
1' About a month previously Hunter's truck had been taken to Respondent's Fontana
yard with iron scrap and a tire Hunter had found with the trash in a railroad car He
Inquired of the Fontana foreman about this who reported to General Manager Grish
Andonoff who instructed Hunter not to load any more iron onto his truck Hunter did
not since that date. Jacobs and Ervin were never told to cease accumulating iron scrap
for salvage and both had small amounts on their trucks on April 19, 1964. On this date
Foreman Victory and another employee unloaded iron from several trucks commencing
with Ervin's and Jacobs'. Grish Andonoff watched while the trucks were unloaded.
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1635
Thus as of April 9, 1961, iron was found on Ervin's and Jacobs' trucks but not
Hunter's, and Ervin, Hunter, and Jacobs were allegedly discharged for having rail-
road iron on their trucks although on that date iron was found on six additional trucks
driven by six other employees with most of it being found on a truck driven by
employee Brown who was not fired.
Knare Andonoff's claim that she gave strict orders in October 1963 to discontinue
loading scrap iron on the trucks is rejected as a fabrication. The record is barren as
to how such order was communicated. The six other employees whose trucks con-
tained scrap iron on April 9, 1964, apparently had never heard of such an order.
The testimony of Foreman Victory indicates he also had never heard of this order.
It is found that the discovery of scrap iron in their trucks was not the cause of
Ervin 's discharge nor of the discharge of Hunter or Jacobs.
With respect to Jacobs, in her testimony, Knare Andonoff ascribed his discharge
to: (1) the difficulty in reaching him by phone; (2) discovery of scrap iron on his
truck; (3) at one time Jacobs had snickered at Grish Andonoff: and (4) Jacobs
refused an order of Grish Andonoff to unload the scrap iron on April 9, 1964.
Knare Andonoff also testified that: "The specific reason for discharging Sylvester
Jacobs is because he had iron in his truck and because he refused to take it off when
asked by his foreman."
A further examination of her testimony reveals that she was not present when the
trucks were unloaded ( although at another point in her testimony she claimed to
have personally seen the iron in Ervin's, Hunter's, and Jacobs' truck before it was
unloaded) and that it was allegedly the order of Grish Andonoff and not the fore-
man whose instructions were disobeyed by Jacobs . Jacobs' denial of the claim he
refused to obey Grish Andonoff's orders is credited and Knare Andonoff's claim to
this effect is rejected as untrustworthy.
Respondent called as a witness Thomas O'Neal, policeman with the city of Los
Angeles. He has been a personal friend of the Andonoff family for 10 years. He
testified that in October 1963, while off duty, he saw the driver of an Andonoff truck
stop his truck and place a package in the brush alongside the road. He claimed he
telephoned Knare Andonoff and gave her the number of the truck. She claimed,
through a check of her records, she ascertained it was Jacobs. O'Neal did not look at
this mysterious cache nor did Knare Andonoff ever mention this event to Jacobs
or ask for an explanation. In addition to the almost ludicrous nature of this testimony,
it was obviously thought of by Knare Andonoff after the discharge of Jacobs.
As indicated previously and illustrated by example herein, so much of her
testimony is distorted, contradictory, or inherently improbable, no credence is placed
on any of it.
With respect to Jacobs' inaccessibility by phone the record fails to indicate Knare
Andonoff ever mentioned this to Jacobs. Her version that she attempted to reach
him at some unspecified dates two or three times and on one occasion sent him a
telegram may or may not be true. It is evident no significance was attached to this
until after Jacobs' discharge and hence was not a cause but a pretext, conjured up
after the discharge. Knare Andonoff's assignment of a cause for Jacobs' discharge
that on one unspecified occasion he snickered at Grish Andonoff is too vague to be
related to the reason assigned to him when he was discharged; this reason being that
"he was too smart." Even assuming this was a partial cause for Jacobs' discharge, it
is plain that the major cause was Jacobs' identification with the group opposing
Respondent and Union Representative Drobish.
To summarize, the reasons advanced by Respondent for the discharge of the alleged
discriminatees are not worthy of credence. Roseborough and Ervin were discharged
because they were active in securing a lawyer, which action Respondent viewed with
intense hostility. Roseborough circulated a petition for higher wages known to
Respondent's foremen, Victory and Blackwell. All four of the alleged discriminatees
in the sight and hearing of General Manager Grish Andonoff and in the presence of
Foreman Victory stood up to Business Agent Drobish and thus were identified as
enemies of the plan agreed to by the Union and Respondent. It is found that these
are the reasons for the discharge of Respondent's employees Roseborough, Ervin,
Hunter, and Jacobs.
D. Interference, restraint, and coercion
(a) The complaint alleges that Grish Andonoff, on and after February 12, 1964,
interrogated employees concerning their union activities.
Victory's polling of the employees as to their willingness to agree to the 10-cent
per hour increase negotiated by Knare Andonoff and Drobish, in the context of the
events established by this record, constitutes unlawful interrogation. The action of
Victory, a supervisor, is binding on Respondent. No legitimate reason existed for
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this interrogation after the employees had rejected the proposed raise and after the
employees (including Foreman Victory) had signed a petition asking for $3.17 an
hour.13
(b) Uncontradicted and credited testimony establishes that General Manager
Grish Andonoff threatened the discharge of employees Ervin and Roseborough. The
threats were made to them and also communicated to other employees. The stated
basis of the threat was because Ervin and Roseborough, acting in concert, had
obtained the services of an attorney. The reason for their obtaining the attorney was
an attempt to have him aid in effecting a wage increase. Such threats are clearly
violative of the Act as they are an unlawful restraint and interference with the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
(c) Respondent posted the notice of the 10-cent increase without a ratification by
the employees. This is unlawful when considered within the totality of Respondent's
conduct and the probable effect of such a notice on the employees. Posting of such
a notice reciting that the new contract was in effect constituted advice to the employ-
ees that Respondent favored the contract. Respondent posted this notice despite the
fact that Drobish told Knare Andonoff he would have to submit it to the
employees. This action by Respondent would tend to fetter Respondent's employees'
freedom of choice relative to approving the proposed contract at a time when they
were seeking , against the opposition of their own union representative , to have a
different position adopted more favorable to them and one which was regarded by
Respondent as less favorable to her. It is therefore found that the posting of the
notice would have the probable effect of interfering with, restraining, and coercing
the employees with respect to their exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
(d) The complaint alleges that General Manager Grish Andonoff, on or about
March 6, 1964 , kept under surveillance a union meeting held on Respondent's
premises.
The evidence establishes the meeting lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes. For
most of the meeting Grish Andonoff sat in a chair looking at the employees participat-
ing and within earshot of the participants. Before approaching the assembled employ-
ees and directing two of them to go to work while the subject matter of the meeting
was still being discussed, Andonoff stood for a few minutes next to the employees.
Since surveillance connotes surreptitious and covert action, these actions of Grish
Andonoff are not found to constitute surveillance but do clearly constitute unlawful
interference.
(e) The complaint alleges as unlawful conduct the instruction of Knare Andonoff
to Foreman Victory to poll the employees relative to the acceptance of the 10- cent-an-
hour wage increase . Since these instructions were made outside the presence of any
employee, there is no basis for finding these instructions, standing alone, had any
effect on the employees and, hence , no finding of unlawful interference , restraint, or
coercion can be predicated on such action of Knare Andonoff.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respodent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial relation to tiade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Respondent 's actions reveal a deep -seated hostility to collective bargaining and,
unless restrained , Respondent would be likely to commit further violations of the Act.
Accordingly , a cease-and -desist order will be recommended encompassing the type
of unfair labor practices found to have been committed and also against any other
unfair labor practice. Affirmatively, it will be recommended that Marshall Rose-
borough, S. B. Ervin, Charles Hunter, and Sylvester Jacobs be offered by Respondent
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges and that Respondent
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them . Backpay and interest to be computed according to the
formulas set out in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
13 When confronted with his affidavit, Victory testified Knare Andonoff asked him to
poll the employees after denying this in his direct testimony . Apparently thinking such
testimony would absolve her, Knare Andonoff falsely testified she did not ask Victory to
poll the employees.
GRISH ANDONOFF COMPANY 1637
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) By its threats, interrogation, interference with a union meeting, and unilaterally
changing conditions of employment, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, thereby committing
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(2) By discharging employees Marshall Roseborough, S. B. Ervin, Charles Hunter,
and Sylvester Jacobs because they engaged in concerted activity to improve their con-
ditions of employment, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
(3) Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(4) The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is
recommended that Respondent, Knare Andonoff, d/b/a Grish Andonoff Company,
her officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against employees because of activities protected by Section 7
,of the Act.
(b) Threatening, interrogating, or interfering with employees in violation of Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Marshall Roseborough, S. B. Ervin, Charles Hunter, and
Sylvester Jacobs to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make them
whole in the manner described in the portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled
"The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them.
(b) Notify Marshall Roseborough, S. B. Ervin, Charles Hunter, and Sylvester
Jacobs if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms thereof.
(d) Post at its plants in Fontana and Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 14 [Board's Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's
Appendix.] Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 21 (Los Angeles, California), shall, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply therewith.15
141n the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words
"a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "