Halliburton Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

FREIGHTMASTER 3
Freightmaster, a Division of Halliburton Services and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW. Case 16-CA-3664
October 15, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On May 21, 1970, Trial Examiner David E. Davis
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam-
iner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision, a supporting brief, and a brief in answer to
the Charging Party's 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,2 and recom-
mendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Freightmaster, a Division of Halli-
burton Services, Fort Worth, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as modified below.3
1968, and in one instance referred to supervisor Revers where it is apparent
from the context that the reference was to employee Stafford . The Decision
is hereby corrected in these respects.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt pro forma the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that Respondent did not violate the Act by the
circulation and promulgation of a no-solicitation rule.
3 Paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order is hereby amended by
deleting the language including and preceding the words "equivalent
position" and substituting therefor : "Offer to Juan Nieto, George Stafford,
and W. P. Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions...."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner: This case, heard in Fort
Worth, Texas, on 5 days between February 9 and 13, 1970,
pursuant to a charge filed on July 3, 1969,1 amended on
July 10, September 2, and October 17, and a complaint
issued on October 17, placed in issue whether Freightmas-
ter, a division of Halliburton Services , referred to herein as
Respondent , engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein call the Act, by the discharge of four
named employees and by certain alleged interference with,
restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent, in its
answer filed on October 30, admitted certain allegations of
the complaint but denied that it had engaged in any
violations of the Act.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and careful consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent
and General Counsel, I make the following:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, a division of Halliburton Services, a
Delaware corporation, operates a plant in Fort Worth,
Texas, where it manufactures and sells hydraulic cushions
and coupling devices for railroad cars. It annually ships
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the
State of Texas. It is admitted and I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. It is also admitted and I find that the
Charging Party herein, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, UAW, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Statement
It is admitted and I find that the following named persons
were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act at all times material herein:
I These findings are based , in part, on credibility determinations of the
Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted . After careful review
of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary
to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find
no basis for disturbing these findings . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
We note that the Trial Examiner 's Decision , apparently inadvertently,
referred to an earlier election as being held in April 1969, instead of April
John Carpenter Franklin Marshall
Ben Holland Eugene Bennett
Richard Nieswiadomy Billy Joe Bevers
Harold Hayner W. C. Wright
I Hereafter, all dates refer to the year 1969, unless otherwise specified.
186 NLRB No. 3
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The evidence shows that the Union had lost an election at
Respondent's plant in April 1969, but continued organizing
efforts thereafter. It intensified its organizational efforts
commencing about February 15 and in March filed another
representation petition which resulted in an election on
May 15. In this election , the Union achieved a majority and
was certified on May 23. Bargaining was entered into
shortly thereafter and was in process at the time of the
instant hearing in February 1970.
B. 8(a)(1) Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
On May 16, a notice, identified as a bulletin, was put on
the bulletin board.2 It reads as follows:
As indicated by Bill Wright's notice last night, the
results of the election were 163 votes for the union, 133
votes for the company, with 17 challenged votes.
Although the UAW received a majority of the votes
cast, the union members are not running this company,
and every employee will follow the rules and policies
established by the company.
Regardless of what you might have been told, you do
not have to join the union to work for FreightMaster. It
is against the law in Texas to make union membership a
condition of employment. We will protect your right to
join or not to join as you desire.
Employees are not allowed to leave their work
stations during working hours to solicit union member-
ship. We will not allow any threats, pressure tactics, or
coercion in attempts to get employees to join the union.
Report any such attempts to your supervisor.
Employees who violate these rules will be subject to
discharge.
These rules will be enforced by all supervisors
T W Painter
Prentice Stroud credibly testified that he was presently
employed by Respondent as a general machinist. Stroud
testified that he was employed for about 8 years at the time
of the hearing and was a leadman supervisor for one year
from March 1968 to March 1969 when he requested to be
relieved of his supervisory duties and returned to the
general machinist classification. For 2 months preceding
the May 15 election, Stroud was active in the Union's
organizational campaign by securing signed membership
cards from fellow employees. On May 26, the Union
notified Respondent that Stroud was one of the employees
selected to serve on the Union's negotiating and bargaining
committee.3 The others so named were J. C. Kemp,
Gwendolyn Greer, James Calhoun, Mike Solis, and Don
Lewis.
Within a week after the receipt of this notification,4
Stroud placed it about June 1, Richard Nieswiadomy,
Stroud's supervisor, went to Stroud's machine and told
Stroud that he was not to wander around the plant, to stay
with the job, and not to talk to anyone. Nieswiadomy then
proceeded to the other employees in the department and
told them to stay away from Stroud. Stroud also testified
that I or 2 days after the election , Nieswiadomy told the
department that "the Company had put an updated policy
on the board"; that the employees were not to get anything
from the vending machines except on breaks and that these
rules were going to be enforced; that shortly after the
election Nieswiadomy told the employees in Stroud's
department that if anyone was caught handing out
membership cards on company time that they would be
terminated, that thereafter Stroud saw Supervisor Gene
Bennett trying to sell an automobile on company time; that
Supervisor Harold Comer was selling a line of products
called "Amway"; that Stroud purchased one such item,
shoe polish, on company time right after the election; that
football and baseball pools were conducted on company
time with Supervisors Ed Taylor and James Creacy
collecting money for such pools.
Mike Solis, a machinist and one of the employees
designated as a member of the negotiating committee in
General Counsel's Exhibit 2, testified that on May 13 he
was wearing three union buttons, two similar to General
Counsel's Exhibit 3 and one which identified him as a
member of the union organizing committee ; that he walked
up to the time rack to fill out his timecard; that his
supervisor, Ben Holland, was standing there talking to two
other employees; that Holland stepped up to Solis and
asked Solis why he was wearing "those union buttons"; that
Solis replied that they were trying to get a union organized;
that Holland said, "Do you know that by wearing those
buttons it would hurt you more than it would help you in
the long run with the Company?"; that on the day following
the election, he needed a certain tool and went over to C. A.
Tackett, who was working near him; that he asked Tackett
if he had tin snips and Tackett replied that he didn't; that
Solis then asked Tackett if he could borrow a big hammer
from him; that supervisor Nieswiadomy at that point came
by and asked Solis what he was doing; that Solis replied he
was asking Tackett for a hammer; that Nieswiadomy
replied that he should not go to Tackett' s area to talk to him
because Gene Bennett, the shop foreman , was watching
him closely and that it would get Tackett in trouble; that
about 20 minutes later Solis was smoking a cigar at his
machine when Gary Wright from production control asked
Solis if he needed any parts; that when Solis replied that he
did not need any at that moment but possibly would in a
few hours that Wright then suggested that Solis get another
pallet when he had time and put it under the one that was
there, that Holland came over and asked Solis if he was
celebrating by smoking a cigar, that Solis grinned and
replied, "Well, it's my cigar and my money, and I guess I
can smoke as long as I work." Holland then said, "Yeah,
well, I just came to tell you that from now on there's
changes going to be made around here. I don't want you to
be talking to any other employees that come by here." Solis
further testified that, prior to the election , talk was
permitted provided the employees did not visit a long time
and that borrowing a tool was also permitted; that smoking
at the machines was likewise permitted and that before the
election no supervisor had ever spoken to him about talking
2 Resp Exh 1
3 See G C Exh 2
4 There was no stipulation or evidence as to when G C Exh 2 was
received However, it was dated May 26 and it is reasonable to infer that it
was received in the ordinary course of mail within a day or two thereafter
FREIGHTMASTER 5
to other employees; that about 3 weeks after the election,
Adolpho Alemany, a rank-and-file employee, solicited
other employees during worktime to purchase hats; that,
about a week after the election, Supervisor Holland
brought a slip of paper with rules and told Solis to sign it;
that Solis signed and returned the paper to Holland; that
one of the rules prohibited employees from patronizing the
vending machines during working time, only on breaks and
lunch; that the employees in Solis' department all wore
buttons and obeyed the rule; that he saw other employees
(Timmie Rider, Jim Lasater, Jr., John English, and Calvin
Bennett) patronize the vending machines during worktime;
that Bennett was the son of Gene Bennett, the shop
foreman; that Lasater was the son of the shop superintend-
ent and neither of the sons nor English wore union buttons
or attended union meetings ; that supervisors saw them at
the vending machines and nothing was said to them; that
those named patronized the machines daily and the rule
was not enforced as against them; that on May 16, Holland
told him that he, Solis, could not have union membership
cards signed on company time but that an inspector, Gene
Gibson, was permitted to solicit signatures on company
time to a petition requesting that the hours of a work shift
be changed.
On cross-examination, Solis testified that prior to the
time Holland showed him the rules he had gone to the
vending machines for cokes and cigarettes during working
time; that, after the rules were called to the attention of the
men in his department, Solis saw no union man go to the
vending machines and therefore had not seen or heard a
supervisor reprimand anyone; that he also saw some
forklift drivers from the warehouse patronizing the vending
machines, that Harold Comer, a supervisor, was around the
vending machine when the persons named by Solis were
buying items from the machines; that Alemany did not
wear a union button; that the vending machines were
located in an area where approximately 75 employees and
four supervisors were stationed; that the shop foreman's
office was about 15 feet from the location of the vending
machines; that Solis when operating his machine was
facing the vending machines from a distance of about 25
feet.
W. P. Williams, in the employ of Respondent from
March 1965, until he was terminated on June 27, testified
that he was a radial drill press operator for about 3 months
at the time of his discharge; that he was active in the union
campaign by displaying union stickers on his toolbox,
wearing a union pin on his cap, and getting union
authorization cards signed by other employees; that, about
the middle of April, Supervisor Holland was at Williams'
machine while Williams was signing a receipt for his
paycheck; that Holland reached over and pulled the union
stickers off his toolbox, saying, "This is my tool box and I
don't want any UAW sticker on it." Williams replied that
he had purchased and paid Holland for the tool box and
5 G. C. Exh. 4.
6 Employees ' parking area was located on the roof of the plant.
I General Counsel conceded that this incident was not alleged in the
complaint as an unfair labor practice and was merely introduced to show
Respondent's knowledge of Williams' union status and as background. The
evidence was received on that basis.
8 The evidence shows that about half of the cards were union
that it was now his; that about 3 or 4 weeks later, Gene
Bennett, the shop foreman, asked Williams to come into his
office because Williams was about 5 minutes late getting to
work; that Williams explained his tardiness by telling
Bennett that traffic had been delayed because of an
accident; that Bennett asked, "Are you sure you wasn't up
on the roof 6 getting cards signed?" Williams replied that
this was not so and if he had been it would be on his own
time. Williams also testified to an incident occurring about
a month before his termination and after the Board
conducted an election. This incident concerned a visit by
Williams to the toolroom to replace a tool which had been
sharpened improperly. On the way to the toolroom,
Williams met Holland and Bennett. Williams said to
Bennett "Mr. Bennett, this tool is cut wrong. It is sharpened
wrong and it is cutting a hole too large." Holland,
thereupon, interposed: "Well, this is the way we sharpen
them for union workers." Bennett interceded and said,
"Wait just a minute, Ben (Holland). You can't do this."
Bennett then took Holland aside for further conversation.7
George S. Stafford, a machinist employed by Respondent
from January to May 27 when he was terminated, testified
that he was active in the union organizing campaign and
secured signatures of fellow employees to 40-50 union
cards; 8 that he attended four or five union meetings and
wore a union sticker9 on the back of his shirt; that he wore
several union buttons 10 and the union sticker for about 2
months prior to the election; that a day or two prior to the
election he wore a T-shirt which was imprinted with the
phrase: "Vote UAW"; that the day after the Union won the
election he solicited John Carpenter, his leadman, by giving
him an application for union membership; 11 that about 3
months before the election Supervisor Bill Bevers asked
him what he thought about the Union; that after Stafford
expressed strong approval, Bevers asked, "You sure about
this?" Stafford also testified that, about 1 week after the
election, Bevers asked him how many cards had been
signed; that Stafford said he didn't know; that the Monday
following the election Bevers asked him how many
attended the meeting held the day before, a Sunday; that
Stafford replied a hundred or more; that the night after the
election, Supervisor Charlie Williams told him that the rules
regarding visits to the vending machines had been changed;
that later in the week, Stafford went to the toolroom just
before his break for lunch; that when he was returning he
purchased a sweet roll from a vending machine next to the
toolroom; that he returned to his work station and put the
sweet roll into his lunch pail; that he ate the sweet roll
during his luncheon break; that after lunch Supervisor
Williams told him that James Winchester, the night
foreman, wanted to see him in his office. When Stafford
arrived in Winchester's office, Winchester asked him,
"Hasn't Charlie told you about this rule and regulation?"
Stafford admitted that he had been told and Winchester
said, "Do you know this could lead up to a termination?"
authorization cards secured prior to the election and the other half union
membership applications secured after the election.
9 G. C. Exh. 4.
10 G. C. Exh. 3.
11 G. C. Exh. 6. It appears that prior to the election signatures were
solicited by union adherents to authorization cards while after the election
signatures were solicited for union membership and check-off.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Again Stafford said, "Yes" and Winchester said that he was
not going to let Stafford go this time but if it happened
again Stafford would be terminated.
The most far-reaching incident under this heading
concerns a statement by supervisor Carpenter to Stafford
on the night of the election after the result became known.
Stafford testified that Carpenter came over to his machine
and ,said that he had overheard that union men would be
whittled down one by one, but that if Stafford repeated this
statement , Carpenter would call him a liar . Stafford replied,
"That could happen."
Juan T. Nieto started his employment with Respondent
in November 1967, and was terminated on May 27. At the
time of his discharge, Nieto was concluding a 30-day trial to
qualify for a job as a machine operator of a center mill
machine . When the union organizational drive was
intensified in February , Nieto attended two meetings and
secured signatures to approximately 20 union authorization
cards . About 3 weeks before the election , Holland saw
Nieto's membership card when it fell out of his pocket
while Holland was observing Nieto's work . Holland asked
Nieto what it was and Nieto replied that it was his
membership card . Nieto further testified that about 3
months prior to the 1969 election , he was near the entrance
to the warehouse when he met his supervisor, Frank
Marshall ; that Nieto remarked to Marshall that when they
got the Union the burnisher 12 would be considered a
machine . Marshall replied, "I don't know about that."
Nieto then told Holland that he was all for the Union.
About 3 weeks later, Supervisor Harold Hayner ap-
proached Nieto while Nieto was working at the burnisher
and asked Nieto to clear the area around the machine.
Nieto said he didn't have any place to put the material that
was crowding the area . Harold Hayner then asked, "Are
you one of these Union men?" Nieto replied "Yes ." Hayner
then said "What good will the Union do for you?" Nieto
replied "We'll get better benefits ." Hayner then said, "All
the Union wants is the monthly dues."
Contrary to the testimony of W. P. Williams , Holland
denied that he had pulled a sticker from Williams ' toolbox.
Holland also denied that he had remarked to Williams that
improperly sharpened tools were sharpened that way for
union employees. I do not credit Holland in the above
respects as I find him to be unreliable and evasive. On the
other hand, W. P. Williams' descriptions of the two
incidents involving Holland were detailed in such a manner
that the undersigned was impressed with the truth of the
accounts . Accordingly, I credit Williams ' in the foregoing
respects and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by Holland's conduct in pulling a union sticker
from Williams' toolbox . The incident , where Holland told
Williams' that improperly sharpened tools were sharpened
that way for union members , was not alleged as a violation
of the Act. I therefore make no finding in this regard.
However, I have considered the incident as background to
establish Respondent's knowledge of Williams' union
sympathies and Respondent 's union animus.
Holland, in his testimonial account, stated that he saw no
increase in union activity prior to the May 15 election; that
he couldn't recall whether supervisors had any meeting
before the election saying, "If they had any supervisors'
meetings, yes, I went to them." When asked if he went to a
meeting close to the election which was addressed by Mr.
Painter, Respondent's vice-president, Holland replied,
"Well, if Mr. Painter had one, yes, I believe I attended it."
Asked if at the meeting Painter mentioned something about
the Union, Holland replied "If he mentioned it, you know, I
was there." When pressed further, Holland then said he
didn't recall Painter mentioning the Union because there
had been so many meetings. In response to another
question, he stated "Well, it seems like the Union was
brought up at just about every meeting, you know, it
seemed like." Holland denied that there was a meeting
concerning the enforcement of rules or that employees
should be kept away from the vending machines and said
that it was always company policy that employees should
patronize the vending machines on their own time; that he
saw various employees at the vending machine including
Solis and never reprimanded them. Because of Holland's
evasiveness and fleeting memory, I do not credit his
testimony with respect to the enforement of the rules
against patronizing the vending machines.
I credit the testimony of Supervisor Charles Williams
that, within a day or two after the success of the union in
the election, Painter told supervisors to enforce strictly the
rule against employees' patronizing vending machines
during worktime and to prevent employees from talking to
one another. I also credit Solis' and Stroud's testimony in
this regard and find that Supervisor Nieswiadomy attempt-
ed to insulate Stroud from contact with other employees
because of Stroud's known union activity and sympathies.
Nieswiadomy's warning to Stroud and the notice he gave to
other employees to stay away from Stroud constituted,
under all the circumstances, disparate treatment and
uneven enforcement of a rule that was largely tolerated
when employees not known to be active union adherents
were involved. I find that Nieswiadomy's conduct in these
respects violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I conclude that the reprimand administered to Stafford
by Foreman Winchester because Stafford patronized the
vending machine after the election further constituted
disparate treatment of a known union adherent and thus
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On May 16, immediately after the Union won the
election, Respondent issued a bulletin,13 which prohibited
employees from leaving their station to solicit union
membership during working hours. The notice, itself, issued
so soon after the success of the Union in the election, in its
entire context, constitutes an unlawful attempt to interfere
with, discourage, and coerce union adherence, activity, and
membership. The linking up of the various phrases with a
rule threatening discharge to employees who leave their
stations to solicit union membership while at the same time
continuing to tolerate solicitation for purchases of various
12 Nieto was operating a burnisher at the time . The burnisher operation Respondent as qualification for a "machine operator " classification and
was the last step in the manufacture of a piston . It rolled the metal together the operator was paid at a lower level.
and hardened it. After this operation , the piston was complete and ready to 13 Resp. Exh. 1.
be placed into the cylinder. The burnisher operator was not considered by
FREIGHTMASTER 7
products and baseball and football pools, clearly establish-
es discriminatory purposes. However, as the circulation and
promulgation of this rule was not alleged to be an unfair
labor practice, I make no specific finding of a violation of
the Act in this regard.
The credited evidence shows that known union adherents
like Solis and Stafford were closely watched by supervisors
when near vending machines and when Solis went to
borrow a tool from a fellow employee. I credit Solis'
testimony that Supervisor Nieswiadomy told Solis that by
asking Tackett to lend him a tool, Solis might cause trouble
for Tackett as Foreman Bennett was watching him closely.
I also credit Solis' testimony, that, on the occasion when
Solis was talking to Wright concerning his need for
additional parts, Supervisor Holland told him, ". . . from
now on there's changes going to be made around here. I
don't want you talking to any other employees that come
by here."
I am convinced that prior to the election a rule against
visiting and talking, if it was in existence, was not strictly
enforced and that after the election pursuant to instructions
to supervisors at a meeting, strict enforcement was required
against Union adherents. Accordingly, I find that the
enforcement of the rule against purchases from the vending
machine during working time was discriminately enforced
in violation of Section 8(a)(1). As recited above, Nieswiado-
my specially singled out Solis and Stroud, members of the
union negotiating committee, and warned them that they
should not talk to other employees during worktime. I find
this treatment in each case a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
I find that Holland unlawfully and coercively interrogat-
ed Solis in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
Holland asked why Solis was wearing union buttons on or
about May 13 and that Holland's statement that Solis'
display of the buttons would hurt rather than help him with
the Company was coercive.
I credit Nieto's undenied testimony that Supervisor
Hayner asked him if he was "one of those Union men,"
Hayner's subsequent question as to what good the Union
would do him and Hayner's comment that all the Union
wanted was his dues. I find the entire conversation
constituted coercive interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Stafford testified that on three occasions, he was
interrogated by Supervisor Bill Bevers . On the first
occasion, Bevers asked Stafford his views of the Union and,
when Stafford replied that he thought it would help a man
to belong, Bevers asked "Are you sure?" On the second
occasion, Bevers asked Stafford how many cards had been
signed and on the third occasion, after the election, Bevers
asked Stafford how many had attended the union meeting
held the previous day: As I credit Stafford, I find that each
of these incidents constituted unlawful interrogation in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I credit W. P. Williams' testimony that on the occasion
when Williams was a few minutes late reporting for work,
Foreman Bennett asked Williams , "Are you sure that you
were not on top of the roof getting cards signed?" While it is
clear that Williams was not intimidated by the question,
nevertheless, that is not the test. The question or accusation
clearly was designed to deter Williams from pursuing
lawful union activity and thus violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
I have already credited Stafford in certain aspects of his
testimony. I come now to what I consider one of the more
crucial testimonial accounts recited by Stafford, that in
which he quotes Supervisor Carpenter as saying that he had
heard that union adherents would be whittled down one by
one. Stafford's entire testimonial account showed remarka-
ble candor and sincerity. His lack of guile was displayed by
his attitude toward his supervisors. In fact his supervisors,
Bevers, Carpenter, and Charles Williams, showed that they
regarded him highly with respect to his work and his
cooperative attitude. In these circumstances and because of
Carpenter's evasiveness with regard to the precise question,
I fully credit Stafford and find that Carpenter truthfully
told Stafford that Respondent intended to whittle down
union adherents one by one. I conclude that the evidence
beginning with Respondent's Exhibit 1 demonstrates that
Respondent, having been keenly disappointed in the results
of the May 15 election after having defeated previous union
attempts to organize its employees, embarked on a
campaign of reprisal to thwart augmentation of union
membership and adherence. I come now to:
C. The Discharges of Nieto, Stafford, Calhoun, and
Williams
1. The Discharge of Stafford
Stafford, it is established, was one of the most active
union adherents. Not only did Stafford secure 40-50
signatures of employees to union authorization and
membership cards but also wore a profusion of union
buttons and signs . The testimony shows that Stafford
attracted the attention of high management including
William Wright, the production superintendent. I infer
from the circumstances that Stafford attracted this undue
attention by the fact that he was lit up like a beacon by the
number of union designations on his person. Thus, it is
clear, that Stafford's open and flamboyant display of his
union preference was readily apparent to management. In
view of Carpenter's confidential report to Stafford, for
whom Carpenter apparently had friendly feelings, that
management would whittle down the union adherents one
by one, it is not surprising that Stafford was marked as one
of those slated for elimination. In furtherance of this plan, I
find that Stafford was "set up" in a transparent trap from
which there was no escape for him because of his inability
to read or write and because of Respondent' s classification
system. Stafford's employment history is quite revealing in
this regard.
Stafford, prior to his employment by Respondent, was
working for American Manufacturing Company as a
machine maintenance man. He left his employment at
American to work for Respondent. In seeking employment
with Respondent, Stafford was interviewed by Jack Adams,
Respondent's personnel manager . He told Adams he was a
maintenance man, and Adams informed him that they
needed a set-up man. Stafford said he could handle it.
Before being hired, he was interviewed by his prospective
supervisor, Bevers . He told Bevers that he was a
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance man but would like to tackle the set-upjob if
Bevers showed him the machines Stafford would be
working on.
Later, when Adams gave him an employment application
card to complete, Stafford told him that he was going to
take it home and have somebody read it and fill it out for
him. Stafford told Adams that the limit of his reading
ability was to read letters and numbers. When hired,
Stafford was classified as a machinist as Respondent didn't
have a set-up man classification. He started on January 6 at
a rate of $3.06 per hour. After approximately 60 days, he
was increased to $3.17 per hour and when a general
increase was put into effect on April 20, he was increased to
$3.37 per hour. When Stafford was discharged on May 27,
he was still receiving $3.37 per hour. During the entire
period Stafford was working as a set-up man; Carpenter
worked with him on set-up jobs. From time to time when no
set-ups were required, Stafford operated various production
machines and repaired electric hydraulic controls.
On the night of the election, May 15, after the results
were known, Stafford was transferred by Foreman
Winchester to the operation of a milling machine under the
supervision of Charles Williams. Winchester told Williams,
in Stafford's presence, that Stafford was to replace a man
who was transferred out of the department. Williams asked
Stafford if he could run the mill and Stafford replied that he
was not a machinist but if he were shown how to do it, he
could, saying that he had never operated such a machine
before but he could learn quickly. On May 27 about 8:30
p.m., Williams informed Stafford that he was no longer an
employee of Respondent. Williams said that Winchester
told him that Stafford was being let go because he was not a
machinist. Stafford then told Williams that he never
claimed to be a machinist. Stafford then went to
Winchester and inquired why he was being let go. When
informed by Winchester that he was being terminated
because he was not a machinist, Stafford reminded
Winchester that the night he was transferred he had told
Williams in Winchester's presence that he was not a
machinist. Stafford left the plant but returned about a week
later and talked with Adams. Stafford in his discussion with
Adams said that Williams had informed him that he had
told Winchester that Stafford's work was good, but Adams
replied that there was no way Stafford could return.
In cross-examination of Stafford, it was developed that
on May 13, 2 weeks before his discharge, Stafford was
summoned to Winchester's office in the presence of
Carpenter and Bevers. Winchester complained of his work,
saying he was lazy among other faults. A day or two later,
both Carpenter and Bevers told Stafford that they thought
his work was good and the reason they were present in
Winchester's office was because they wanted to keep
Stafford in their department.
James Winchester testified that he was foreman of the
night shift during the first 6 months of 1969. In that
position, he had supervisory jurisdiction over the machine
shop and related operations. Winchester related that
Stafford "never did really take onto his job and go with it";
that both of his leadmen, Carpenter and Bevers, com-
plained to him repeatedly that he wasn't doing hisjob and
unable to complete one without help. Winchester on one
occasion talked with Stafford in the shop and "tried to
encourage him to latch onto his job." On another occasion,
Winchester called Stafford into his office in the presence of
Carpenter and Bevers. According to Winchester, "We tried
to impress upon him that if he stayed there and held his job
he was going to have to get with it"; Winchester told
Stafford that higher officials had seen him sitting around
and they had asked him what he was supposed to be doing.
Winchester then testified, "Also we told him that he was
going to have to learn his job. He hadn't really learned his
job yet. Actually, I feel like George (Stafford) was
hampered in a lot of ways. Really he wasn't qualified to be
a machinist, anyway, because he couldn't read and write."
After that discussion, Winchester testified that both
Carpenter and Bevers reported that Stafford was not doing
any better. Winchester decided to have another man, a
machine operator from the work department, who could
read and write, exchange jobs with Stafford. Thereafter,
Winchester noticed that while Stafford was operating
machines he was not doing the more skilled work of the
previous incumbent. Winchester testified that he thought
Williams was assigning Stafford rough work not in keeping
with Stafford' s rating as a machinist. Under these
circumstances, he told Williams to terminate Stafford. He
further testified that before ordering Stafford's termination
he had consulted with J. C. Lasater, the shop superintend-
ent, discussing Stafford's work performance with him on a
number of occasions. Winchester, elucidating further, said,
"We had been desperate for people for a long time, and we
needed a lot of production. So we had to carry along with a
lot of things that we wouldn't under ordinary circum-
stances. This is the main reason that we hadn't already
discharged George." Winchester acknowledged that he
knew Stafford was and had been wearing a union button
but denied that that fact had anything to do with his
discharge.14
On cross-examination, Winchester stated that he learned
of Stafford's inability to read or write a month after his
employment when Bevers informed him; that he knew
Stafford was classified as a machinist when he first started
to work; that Stafford had worked in set-up for 4 months
before his transfer; that he did nothing about Stafford's
employment when he learned of Stafford's illiteracy but
hoped he would "pick up and make a hand ... we were
desperate in need of people." Winchester testified, however,
that at the time of Stafford's discharge the need for men
was also desperate; that Carpenter did not report to him
that Stafford was doing about as good as any other
employee in the department; that he had not conferred with
Williams about Stafford's work prior to discharging
Stafford and he had not discussed with Stafford his
performance under Williams; that he knew of no particular
event that caused him to discharge Stafford on that
particular night.
Johnnie L. Carpenter, who was Stafford's leadman,
testified that he observed Stafford's work when he was
employed as a set-up man by Respondent and that in his
opinion it was not as good as it should have been for the
amount of experience that Stafford had on the machines;
14 This statement , as explicated, infra, is not credited
FREIGHTMASTER 9
that he had to show him a lot of different things; that he
told Stafford he "needed to pick it up"; that he and Bevers
discussed Stafford's work several times and thought it
wasn't as good as it should have been as they had to be
around when he was setting up a machine; that, when they
were in Winchester's office with Stafford, Stafford wanted
to transfer to maintenance but would not take a cut in pay;
that Stafford said he would try to do better and that if he
couldn't do better he would quit. In a conversation with
Williams after Stafford's transfer, Carpenter admitted that
Stafford's work performance as a set-up man had been
good. He also admitted that when Stafford was transferred
Winchester did not ask him what he thought about it and
that he did not recommend a transfer. Carpenter denied
telling Stafford that union men would be whittled down one
by one, rather that he told him that all employees would be
treated alike and that Stafford was frequently away from
his job during working hours.
On cross-examination , Carpenter stated that he became a
supervisor-leadman about a month before Stafford's
transfer to Williams' section 15 and that he told Williams
that Stafford had done as good as a job at set-up as anyone
else had. Elaborating on his appraisal of Stafford's work
performance, Carpenter testified that Stafford came in to
work for Respondent as a set-up man while other set-up
men came out of the shop without training for set-up. As a
result , he expected more from Stafford than from other set-
up men. Carpenter admitted that much of his help to
Stafford consisted of interpreting blueprints and reading
instructions. Another factor was that Carpenter did not
know all about the machines that Respondent had in the
shop. Pressed by the General Counsel to explain what it
was that he said to Stafford which was not to be spread in
the shop, Carpenter initially evaded the question and then
said that one of the matters he was told not to repeat in the
shop was that all employees were to be treated equally.
Carpenter said he did not remember everything that was
said at meetings of supervisors, but that another matter he
was not supposed to repeat concerned the discharge of
anyone caught signing a union card on company time.
Carpenter also conceded that supervisors were told to
enforce the rule against patronizing the vending machines
except on free time.16
Billy Bevers, presently a night foreman, was a supervisory
leadman in the machine shop area and was the supervisor
of leadman Carpenter while Carpenter was supervising
Stafford.
Bevers testified that when Stafford was seeking a job with
Respondent, Bevers showed him the machines in the shop
and asked Stafford if he had been a set-up man. Stafford
replied he thought he could do it, but that he had been in
maintenance with American. He was then taken to Adams,
the personnel manager , and subsequently came to work
under Bevers and Carpenter. Bevers stated that Stafford
had trouble with blueprints and that a set-up man is
required to be able to read blueprints to do his work. Bevers
testified the reason Carpenter, Stafford, and he went into
Winchester's office was that Stafford was reluctant to
operate a machine when set-up work was not available.17
Stafford, according to Bevers, said he would try to do better
and was sent back to work. Bevers further testified that
Stafford did better for a while; then he commenced just
standing around or going to the restroom for as long as 30
minutes; 18 that on one occasion Lasater and Wright timed
Stafford sitting on a bench for 1 hour. Bevers then
described another occasion when Winchester offered
Stafford a maintenance job at a cut in pay but Stafford
refused to take a cut; that shortly thereafter Stafford was
transferred to the rework area under the supervision of
Williams.
On further examination, Bevers testified that he was on
vacation when Stafford was terminated and was not
consulted; that he discovered Bevers could not read or
write 2 weeks after his employment; that Bevers had to help
Stafford make out his timecards; that Adams did not
discuss with him Stafford's inability to read or write. 19
Charles P. Williams testified that he was the supervisory
leadman in the rework department when Stafford was
transferred there; that when Stafford was brought into his
department by Winchester, no explanation was given to
him; that he asked Stafford in Winchester's presence if he
was a mill operator; that Stafford replied that he was not
but that he could run one if shown; that Williams was
surprised how quickly he (Stafford) could catch on, saying,
"You could more or less say that he was evidently gifted
with a mechanical device. I just went through the procedure
on a certain set-up on the mill or the lathes either one,
which he run both the mill and lathe." Williams further
testified that he never complained to Winchester about
Stafford's work, rather that after two or three days,
Winchester inquired how Stafford was doing and he told
Winchester that he was doing a good job, catching on
quickly and could be depended on; that Winchester said,
"O.K. But, now, he is not a machinist. If he can't do the job
you let me know and we'll get rid of him." According to
Williams, there was "heavy" emphasis in this statement;
that when Stafford patronized the vending machine during
worktime Winchester wanted to discharge him but
Williams, when asked, said he would not do so; that
Stafford was given a warning only; that Stafford continued
to work under Williams and was a "good hand"; that,
about a week later, Winchester called Williams into his
office and said, "I thought it over, George Stafford has got
to go. I should have fired him the other night." Williams
then told Winchester that Stafford was doing a good job
with a minimum amount of supervision and Winchester
replied, "I can't help it. George has got to go." Winchester
ordered Williams to discharge Stafford and Williams then
notified Stafford he was discharged effective immediately.
As I fully credit Williams' testimony in this regard, as I
have in other respects, and as I have a high regard for
Stafford's truthfulness, I am convinced that Stafford was
15 The evidence shows Carpenter was made a leadman supervisor on
February 23.
16 As indicated above, I do not credit Carpenter. I view his testimony as
evasive, contradictory and untrustworthy . Where it is in conflict with other
testimony particularly that of Stafford and Charles Williams, I credit the
latter two.
17 I note this reason is different than Winchester's.
18 I credit Stafford's denial of this habit.
19 It is rather amazing for the hiring procedure to ignore Stafford's
illiteracy , especially his inability to read blueprints if this was a prime
qualification of a set -up man.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subjected to a determined campaign by Respondent to
induce him to voluntarily quit20 and finally was discharged
because of his open and effective union activity. Lasater's
and Wright's testimony that they saw Stafford idle and
called Winchester's and Bever's attention to it is not
credited. I conclude that they saw Stafford displaying his
union sympathies in a flamboyant manner and had marked
him for elimination in conformance with the whittling
down process of union adherents which Carpenter had
confidentially disclosed to Stafford. Winchester's statement
to Williams that he couldn't help it but Stafford has "got to
go" is quite revealing and discloses that pressure was
brought on Winchester by higher management to discharge
Stafford and not to delay any longer. Carpenter, Bevers,
and Williams despite Stafford's disability due to his
illiteracy all found Stafford to be a good and agreeable
worker. I believe that Carpenter's reluctant and evasive
testimony favorable to Respondent's defense was induced
by his knowledge that this was what management wanted
him to say. Nevertheless, he could not bring himself to say
that Stafford was in fact a poor worker, on the contrary, he
insisted that he set a higher standard for Stafford and thus
found Stafford had shortcomings. Winchester himself was
hard put to find any reason for his final decision to
discharge Stafford. Winchester merely repeated that he was
not a machinist, a fact that was known to management
from the first day. It is also apparent that management and
supervisors knew that Stafford could not read and write
and that Stafford, because he did have an unusual aptitude
for mechanical work, functioned satisfactorily despite his
handicap. I conclude that they became aware of his
illiteracy on the very first day.21
I find that the various reasons advanced by Respondent
for Stafford's discharge are pretextual and that the real
reason was Stafford's well-known union activities and
sympathies. Accordingly, I find that Stafford's discharge
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The Discharge of Juan Nieto
I find that Nieto was discharged because of his known
union activity and sympathy. The evidence disclosed that
Nieto was on vacation at the time he was discharged and it
is admitted by Respondent that if this were true, he would
not have been discharged. Respondent relies on Supervisor
Frank Marshall's testimony that he had changed Nieto's
vacation schedule and therefore Nieto was scheduled for
work on the day he was discharged. I do not credit Marshall
in this regard. The failure of Marshall to notify the front
office of the change, his failure to note it on the circulated
schedule, and the credited testimony of Nieto in this regard
convinces me that Marshall's testimony is contrived to
provide a plausible defense for the discharge. While a case
may have been established for the discharge of Nieto
because of frequent absences and his physical condition,
the failure to establish that absence without leave was a
cause for discharge, and the falsity of the reason given for
the discharge, leads me to conclude that the entire defense
20 The offer of maintenance job at a reduced wage rate.
21 Carpenter and Bevers did help Stafford with interpreting blueprints
and directions, as well as giving him assistance with his timecard.
22 Bennett, when told by Williams that he was held up by a traffic
in this regard constitutes a pretext. Especially is this true
when the evidence shows long toleration of frequent
absences by Nieto and an equal toleration of absences from
employees in general. Accordingly, I find that Nieto's
discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
3. The Discharge of W. P. Williams
Evidence introduced by Respondent in the cross-exami-
nation of Williams showed that Williams, some years
before his discharge, had played a prominent part in
bringing pressure on Respondent by the Federal Govern-
ment which resulted in opening up more skilled jobs to
black employees. The evidence also showed that it was well
known to Respondent's supervisory hierachy that Williams
was an active adherent of the Union.
Respondent's high sensitivity to the solicitation of union
cards is well illustrated by the findings above with reference
to Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Bennett's remark to
Williams, on the occasion when Williams was a few
minutes late ,22 further establishes Respondent's hostility to
employees engaging in union solicitation, and demonstrates
that Williams' activity in this regard was known to
Respondent.
With this background, Williams' discharge because of
low production becomes circumspect. Williams had been in
the employ of Respondent from March 1965 and had
worked on at least three different machines after he was
given an opportunity to do machine work; nevertheless,
Respondent's supervisors testified that during the entire
period, Williams was inept and his production was poor.
The records 23 produced by Respondent to support this
general opinion testimony woefully fall short of the mark.
Indeed, the records tend to prove the opposite if
consideration is given to the fact, as testified to by Stroud,
that the operator of a radial press working on HD cylinders
did not load two cylinders at once while an operator
working on ARF cylinders did. I appreciate there is a
conflict in Stroud's testimony with that of Marshall and
Parker in this regard. However, Stroud built the radial press
and I am inclined to the view that his testimony is more
expert in this -regard. At any rate, I conclude that the
limited production records fail to establish Williams'
production record was poor or that he was less productive
than other radial drill press operators. Respondent, in
further defense to Williams' discharge, has laid much stress
on Williams' disagreement with Supervisor Lloyd Parker
concerning the use of a guard on the radial drill. I credit
Williams' testimony that he removed the guard after the
dispute was taken to Foreman Bennett, and he was ordered
by Bennett to remove it. Parker's testimony to the contrary
is not credited. It seems rather plain that if, after Bennett's
intercession, Williams had continued his operation of the
radial drill with the guard in defiance of Bennett's order, he
would have been discharged immediately. I am also
convinced that the dispute over the guard was not of such a
serious character that it warranted the emphasis placed on
it by Respondent at the hearing. It seems rather that
accident, asked Williams , "Are you sure you weren't passing cards out on
the roof?"
23 G. C. Exh. 5.
FREIGHTMASTER 11
Respondent was attempting to resurrect every minor
difficulty with Williams, even those of ancient vintage, in
an attempt to disguise the unlawful nature of Williams'
discharge. Illustrative is the testimony concerning Williams'
tardiness and absences as well as the testimony concerning
Williams' deficiencies in the operation of machines to
which he was assigned months and years ago. If indeed
Williams' absentee record and ineptitude were genuine,
Williams would have been discharged long ago. Consider-
ing all the facts in their entirety, I conclude that Williams
was discharged because of his known union activity and
sympathy and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act, pursuant to Respondent's plan to eliminate union
adherents.
4. The Discharge of James Calhoun
James Calhoun, a general machinist , a member of the
union's negotiating committee , was employed by Respon-
dent from July 1963, to June 23 when he was terminated
because of his failure to report for work on the night shift
on June 23. The evidence shows that Calhoun operated a
farm on which cut and baled hay had been lying. on the
ground since Saturday, June 21. According, to Calhoun, he
had planned to haul the hay to the barn on nonwork time
during the following week. On his way to work on June 23,
about 4 p.m., he noticed that a thunderstorm was imminent.
Calhoun returned to his home, called Day Foreman
Bennett asking to be excused from work for that night.
Bennett referred him to Lasater, the night-shift foreman.
Lasater refused to grant his request and Calhoun asked if
that meant that he would be fired if he didn't come in.
Lasater replied, "Yes, I guess it does." Thereafter Calhoun
talked with Adams, the personnel manager, and asked if he
could advance his vacation. Upon being refused this
request, Calhoun said he would try to secure someone else
to haul the hay and would come to work later. According to
Calhoun, Adams said, "0. K. but don't stay out all night."
As Calhoun was unable to secure help, he personally hauled
as much hay as he could before the storm made it
impossible to work any longer. Calhoun testified that he
called his immediate supervisor, Jose Rodriguez, about 8:30
p.m., and asked if it was all right to come in now. Rodriguez
replied that Calhoun's termination had been brought in and
that he had been terminated.
Rodriguez testified that he learned early in the evening
that Calhoun would be late and that about 10 or 10:30 p.m.
he learned that Calhoun had been terminated; that he was
surprised by this information; that he received a call from
Calhoun about 11 or 11:30 p.m. and told Calhoun that he
had been terminated.
Adams testified that when he talked with Calhoun about
4 p.m., he told Calhoun that it would be all right if he were
an hour or so late; that Calhoun had said he would make
arrangements in that time for someone to haul his hay.
Adams then informed Lasater that Calhoun would be an
hour or so late.
I credit Adams and Rodriguez with regard to the above
recited summaries of their testimony. Rodriguez particular-
ly impressed me with his truthfulness. Without any
compunction, Rodriguez stated that he did not recommend,
nor was he consulted, with reference to Calhoun's discharge
and that he was surprised when he saw his termination
papers. I credit him, therefore, in his assertion that Calhoun
did not call him until 11 or 11:30 p.m.
I credit Adams with respect to his statement that it would
be all right if Calhoun were an hour or so late because
Adams knew that Lasater had refused to permit Calhoun to
take the entire night off. By allowing Calhoun an hour or so
leeway, Adams, in some degree, was countermanding
Lasater. I am convinced that Adams would not go any
further under the circumstances.
Having found that Calhoun in fact did not call Rodriguez
until 11 or 11:30 p.m., it is apparent that he could not report
for work until approximately midnight. By that time, most
of the shift was over as the shift commenced at 4:45 p.m.
Moreover, if Calhoun in fact had called at 8 p.m. or 8:30
p.m., he would have been able to report to work about 9
p.m. If that were the case, I believe Calhoun would have
reported for work without calling in, as he would have been
only 4 hours into a night shift that was scheduled for 10
hours.
Under all the circumstances, I find that Calhoun, in open
defiance of Lasater's and Adams' refusal to grant him the
evening off, failed to report within a reasonable time even
after some latitude was granted him by Adams. According-
ly, I find that Calhoun was discharged for cause and that
the discharge was not violative of the Act.
I am fully aware of Calhoun's prominence in the union
cause, and I take cognizance of the general lax rules of
Respondent with regard to taking time off. However, in
Calhoun's case, Lasater apparently on that particular night
was concerned with production requirements and insisted
on Calhoun's presence within a reasonable time. Calhoun,
clearly forewarned of management's attitude, placed his
private interest above that of his obligation to Respondent
and in open defiance of Respondent's unambiguous
instructions 24 Although, the matter is not free from doubt,
I do not believe my findings above concerning Respon-
dent's other violations and general attitude toward union
protagonists warrants a different conclusion.
D. The Wage Increases
On April 20, Respondent placed into effect a general
wage increase of 6 percent. This wage increase was
applicable to all employees (5,624) of Halliburton Services,
a corporation operating in many parts of the world. The
wage increase included those employed (400) at Respon-
dent's plant, Freightmaster Division.
William E. Wright, manufacturing manager, testified that
he first learned of the wage increase 2 days earlier from the
headquarters of Halliburton Services at Duncan, Oklaho-
ma. Wright further testified that four previous general wage
increases since August 1963 had also been applicable on a
worldwide basis.
Apparently, Wright did know some time in February that
a wage increase was pending. Stroud testified without
24 That damage to the hay represented a monetary loss to Calhoun is
irrelevant under the circumstances.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contradiction that Wright, in a meeting with supervisors in
February, had told them that a wage increase would be
forthcoming in March. Wright, according to Stroud, also
stated that if the Union charged that this increase was an
unfair labor practice, Respondent would cross that bridge
when it came to it.
As the union campaign was intensified in February and
was in full swing by April 20, it is clear that the wage
increase granted on April 20 constitutes conduct which
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights
under the Act. Motive of Respondent is neither material or
controlling.25
However, I believe that there are other circumstances
which warrant consideration on the question whether the
wage increase was violative of the Act. As noted above, the
increase affected 5 to 6 thousand employees in a worldwide
organization of which approximately 400 were employed in
Respondent's plant. If the wage increase had been withheld
from the employees at Respondent's plant, surely it would
have been a serious development and clearly a discrimina-
tory decision. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that the
decision to grant 5,000 to 6,000 employees a wage increase
should be construed as designed to influence 400 employees
in Respondent's plant. It is true that case law holds motive
and intent irrelevant; however, in view of the success of the
Union in the election, it would appear that the effect on the
employees was de-minimis. Considering all the facts in their
entirety, I am pursuaded that finding the wage increase
violative of the Act is unwarranted. Accordingly, I find that
the wage increase granted on April 20 did not constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled, 8(a)(1) Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion, to the extent therein found, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against and discharging George
Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W. P. Williams, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By the discharge of James Calhoun, Respondent did
not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By the general wage increase of April 20, 1969,
Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Allegations of the complaint not found herein to
constitute violations of the Act are hereby dismissed.
8. The unfair labor practices found herein are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Juan Nieto on May 26, 1969, George Stafford on May 27,
1969, and W. P. Williams on June 27, 1969, I shall
recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions, or if any of the
positions are unavailable through change in Respondent's
operations, then to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority rights and privileges,
and Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay that
they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to the aforesaid
Nieto, Stafford, and Williams a sum of money equal to that
which they would have normally received as wages from the
date of their discriminatory discharge until the day that
Respondent reinstates them, less any net earnings for the
interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As the unfair labor practices found herein strike at the
very roots of the employees' rights which the Act is
designed to protect, I shall recommend a broad cease-and-
desist order.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it
is recommended that Freightmaster, a division of Hallibur-
ton Services, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW, or in any other labor
organization by discharging or by discriminating against
any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Removing union insignia from the toolboxes of
employees.
(c) Discriminatorily and disparately singling out known
union adherents for enforcement of rules prohibiting
employees from patronizing vending machines during
working hours or rules prohibiting employees from talking
to one another during working hours.
(d) Interrogating or threatening employees in a manner
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
25 Exchange Parts Company, 131 NLRB 806, 812, 375 US 405,
American Freightways Co, Inc, 124 NLRB 146, 147
FREIGHTMASTER 13
(a) Offer to Juan Nieto, George Stafford, and W. P.
Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discimination
against them , in the manner described in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision.
(b) Notify Juan Nieto, George Stafford, and W. P.
Williams, 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, as
amended, after discharge 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, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 26 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
16, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's
representative, be posted by the Company 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 by the Company to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this
Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.27
26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 . 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 be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
27 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 16 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
in behalf of International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, or any other union by discharging or
by discriminating against any of our employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT give different treatment to employees
who are members of or active in the Union by
threatening them with punishment if they talk or
patronize plant vending machines during working
hours.
WE WILL NOT remove union signs from our
employee's toolboxes.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that union members
or sympathizers will be whittled down one by one.
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning
their union membership and activities or ask them how
many employees attended union meetings.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that wearing union
signs will hurt them with the Company.
WE WILL immediately offer to reinstate George
Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W. P. Williams to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice or their
seniority or other rights or privileges and pay them any
money lost by them as a result of their disciminatory
discharge with interest at 6 percent per annum.
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, join, or assist the
above-named or any other union, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other mutual and/or protection, or to refrain
from such activities.
WE WILL notify George Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W.
P. Williams 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, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
FREIGHTMASTER, A DIVISION
OF HALLIBURTON SERVICES
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 8A24
Federal Office Building, 810 Taylor Street, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.