Hanna Mold, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 853 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I \NSA 1O1 D). IN(
Hansa Mold, Ilic. and General Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen and elpers nion I,ocal 467, Interna-
tional Brotherhod of Teamsters, ('hauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. (Cause 31 ('A
833(
JulN 31. 1979
DFCISION AN[) OR()DFR
BY' MI(MBIRS JNKINS, MtRPItlY. AND) IRt'SI )AI 1
On May 15, 1979, Administrative L.aw Judge Rich-
ard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed lim-
ited exceptions and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings) and
conclusions of the Administrative l.aw Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Hansa Mold, Inc., Colton.
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns.
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drn Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 363 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respondent cease
and desist from "in any other manner" interfering with the employees' Sec. 7
rights. We find that the issuance of a broad order is warranted in this case
where Respondent's unlawful conduct including interrogations, threats to
close. and three discharges was extensive and reached most, if not all, of the
entire employee complement Cf. Hickmot Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357
(1979).
DECISION
STATFMENI OF THE CASF
RICHARD J. BOYE., Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard before me in San Bernardino. California,
on February 21 and 22, 1979. The charge was filed on Au-
gust 28, 1978X. and amended on September 1. ()ciober 4.
and ecember 27 bv General ruck Drivers. Warehouse-
men and Helpers I mnion I.cal 467. International Brother-
hood of I eamsters, (hauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
rs o(, America (tinion). Ihe compl;lillnt suel on
November 24 was amended on January 5, 1979). and aIlleges
that lansa Mold, Inc. (Respondenlt). colmmllilttd cerl;L
violalilons of Section 8(;t)( I) and (3) of the N;llionlal I.thor
Relations Act, as amended (Act).
Post-trial briefs \werc iled for the (nerall ('ounl and
for Respondent.
I. it RISI)I( 1IIt i
Respondent is (altOrnia corporation engaged t a
plant in Colton. ('alifornia. in the manufa'acture ot' plastic
keyboards for calculators and computers. It a;nnuall re-
ceives goods and supplies o' a value exceeding $50,0O(t) Irom
firms in C'alifornia who had obtained them directly from
outside the State. Respondent is an emplo er engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (71
of the Act.
11. I AH()R ()R(iANI/\III)N
The Union is a labor organization \within Section 2(5) of,
the Act.
Ill. SSl i:S
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(I) in July and August 1978 by interrogating emploees
concerning their union activities, by soliciting employee
grievances to dilute their support of the Union, and by
threatening to close the plant should the Union become the
employees' bargaining representative. The complaint fur-
ther alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) by discharging John LeRo) on July 31.' inda lernan-
dez on August 2. and Betty Paule) on August 21.
The answer denies an) wrongdoing.
IV. Til A FI(;tl) IN)EPI-I)ENI 8(a)[ VIOl.Ali)NS
A. John Re nold
The allegations. The complaint alleges that Reynolds, Re-
spondent's production foreman and an admitted supervisor.
violated Section 8(aXI) on about July 31 and August 18.
1978, by interrogating employees concerning their union
activities; and, on about August 18. by threatening employ-
ees with plant closure should then Union get in.
Facts. In late July 1978 certain of Respondent's produc-
tion employees launched a campaign to obtain union repre-
sentation. Reynolds, learning of the campaign on the morn-
ing of August 1. admittedly asked everyone on the day shift
that day--five or six employees- if they had "heard any-
thing" about it,
On August 18 Respondent received a letter from the
Union demanding recognition: Reynolds then told employ-
i As will be seen, LeRoy was discharged on August I.
243 NLRB No. 146
853
I)I('ISIO()NS ()I NA IIONAI I.AH(BOR RELA II()NS BOARI)
ees Betty Pauley and Sandra Perez that he did not like
unions and did not think one "would Ido us any good.' after
which he admittedly asked them it they were "involvcld in
it" or had heard anything about it. Reynolds stated. in the
same conversation, that Respondent "will have to close
down," or words to that effect, should the Union get in. 2
Concluvions. It is concluded that Reynolds violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(I) as alleged by interrogating employees on Au-
gust 2 and 18 and raising the prospect of closure on August
18.
B. larold Mueller
The allegations: The complaint alleges that Mueller, Re-
spondent's president and owner, violated Section 8(a)( I ) on
about August 2 and 18, 1978, by interrogating employees
concerning their union activities: and on about August 2
and 21 by soliciting grievances from employees to discour-
age their engagement in union activities and by threatening
employees with plant closure should the union get in.
Facts: On August 2. prompted by word of the union cam-
paign, Mueller met with the employees on each of the three
shifts. In each of the meetings and in individual conversa-
tions as well he admittedly asked the employees "if' there
was indeed a union drive," and who was interested in it and
why; he admittedly urged them to tell him if there was
"anything they don't like, or if there was anything which is
wrong," adding that he had to know "in order to do some-
thing about it": and he admittedly announced that. "if the
Union would come into our company. I would be forced to
sell," explaining that Respondent would be unable to meet
union demands.
On August 18, this time prompted by the Union's de-
mand letter. Mueller again spoke with the employees in
shift meetings and individually. He admittedly asked Betty
Pauley if she had been approached about signing a union
card, if she was for the Union, and if she had any com-
plaints. It is uncontroverted, moreover. that he also asked
others if anyone from the Union had approached them;
and, citing the Union's claim of majority, he told others
that he had to know who backed the Union. In those in-
stances in which he inquired of an employee's union sympa-
thies on August 18 he apparently first gave assurances
against reprisal.
Conclusions. It is concluded that Mueller violated Section
8(a)(1) as alleged by interrogating employees on August 2
and 18,' by holding forth the prospect on August 2 that
their complaints would be remedied if only they would
2 Pauley and Perez are credited that Reynolds expressly raised the possibil-
ity of closure. Reynolds denied so stating, testifying that he instead said that
he "sure didn't want to lose [hisl job" over the Union, which perhaps is a
distinction without a difference. As is later developed, Harold Mueller. Re-
spondent's president and owner, previously had spoken of a need to sell in
the same context, which lends credence to Pauley and Perez.
The assurances against reprisal were not enough to sanitize the interroga-
tions about employee union sympathies on August 18, inasmuch as the em-
ployees were not polled by secret ballot. Indeed, Mueller said that he had to
know who supported the Union. and Mueller's other improper comments
had created a coercive atmosphere. See Siruksnes Consiruction Co.. 165
NLRB 1062, 1063 (1967).
voice thetm to him,4 and by stating on August 2 that he
would have to sell should the Union get in.
(. Larry Johnwoni
7'he al/legation. The complaint alleges that John son, Re-
spondent's production manager and an admitted supervi-
sor. violated Section 8(a (I) on about August 18X. 1978. by
interrogating an employee concerning her union activities.
teL/s.: On August 18 after Mueller had interrogaled em
ployees as previously described whether thes had been ap-
proached in connection with the organizational efftrt and
about their union sympathies. Johnson admittedly asked
Betty Pauley. Sandra Perez, and an employee believed to be
Diana Garrett if they understood what it was that Mueller
had asked them and his purpose in asking. Johnson did this.
he testified, because Mueller's German accent and lack of
familiarity with idiomatic English sometimes leads to con-
fusion. Pauley credibly testified that Johnson then asked
her if she had been approached by the Union.
Conclus.ion. It is concluded that Johnson violated Section
8(a(1 ) as alleged. While facially innocuous, his asking the
employees if they understood what Mueller had asked and
why was an extension of and incurred stigma from Muel-
ler's earlier unlawful utterances. His asking Pauley if she
had been approached likewise was improper.
\. Iit : I)IS( IAR(iES
A. John LeRov
The eidencec. LeRoy began working for Respondent on
June 29, 1978. and was discharged before the start of his
shift on August I. Hie was on the day shift. His duties were
varied and included filling moldings machines with plastic.
operating molding machines, cleaning up around the plant,
and driving a truck. Hie was Respondent's only truckdriver
when terminated; his duties involved making deliveries to
Respondent's primary customer, Hi-Tek Corporation, in
Garden Grove, Califirnia.
The discharge reputedly was an outgrowth of a major
curtailment of orders by Hi-Tek in late July. As a result of
that development, the genuineness of which is not in dis-
pute, Mueller, Johnson, and Reynolds met the evening of
Friday. July 28, to consider a reduction in force. Four em-
ployees received almost immediate terminations as a result:
Thomas Carlson. supervisor on the graveyard shift: Peter
Tucker, a material handler on the graveyard shift: Rachael
Ramirez. the inspector on the graveyard shift; and Delia
Aguila. a molding machine operator on the day shift.
LeRoy's discharge also was supposedly decided upon dur-
ing this meeting. This is not believed, however, for unlike at
least three of the other four, he worked his next succeeding
shift. Monday, July 31; and, as indicated above, he did not
learn of his severance until the morning of August .
4 .g., Reliance Electric Companv. 191 NLRB 44. 46 (1971).
Tucker clocked out for the last ime on July 28 at 7:01 a.m., Ramirez on
July 29 at 7:00 a.m., and Aguila on July 28 at 3:31 p.m. The record does not
reflect when Carlson. a supervisor not required to punch the timeclock, last
worked.
854
HANSA MOLD. IN('.
Reynolds broke the news to l.eRoy on August I, citing a
"lack of production" because of the Hli-Tek situation and
LeRoy's "attitude." To LeRoy's question about the pros-
pect of recall. Reynolds said that he was not eligible be-
cause of his attitude and slowness.6 LeRoy then confronted
Mueller. who gave the loss of orders and l.eRo's slowness
as reasons for the discharge.
Regarding slowness LeRoy had been asked several times
before by Mueller and Reynolds why his trips to Hi-Tek
took so long. He replied that each time he had a lunchbreak
en route, which was permissible. and that he observed the
speed limit. He was never told that his job was in jeopardy
over this. Mueller testified that LeRoy was a "very slow
performer" and his work "very, very poor." Johnson ech-
oed this, stating that he was "generally slow" and a "poor"
worker. Reynolds testified that the discharge decision was
based on LeRoy's "attitude and work performance." These
aspersions notwithstanding, LeRoy's 4-week probationary
period had ended only a few days before the discharge.
apparently without admonition or other comment rom
management.
LeRoy and another of the alleged discriminatees Linda
Hernandez, instigated the union campaign. Hernandez
made the initial union contact, by telephone, on about July
24, after which LeRoy obtained blank authorization cards
from the Union the same day. The two of them passed out
cards during the next 2 or 3 days. LeRoy passed out about
eight cards at that time, endeavoring as he did so to conceal
his activities from management.
Mueller and Reynolds both testified that they had no
inkling of the organizational activity until LeRoy's conver-
sation with Mueller after Reynolds had told him of the
discharge. The first clue, according to both, was a remark
by LeRoy to Mueller that he was going to involve the
Union and the Board in his discharge.' With that. accord-
ing to Reynolds, Reynolds promptly began to interrogate
the employees, as described earlier, whether they had
"heard anything" about a union campaign. Reynolds stated
that this led him to Charles Baird. who told him that LeRoy
had given him a union card. and that this was his first
knowledge of LeRoy's activist role.
Baird became a swing-shift foreman or supervisor on Au-
gust I as an incident of Carlson's being relieved from the
same position on graveyard. On August 2. following one of
the employee meetings held by Mueller. mentioned above.
Baird told two of the employees, Gerald Brooks and Joyce
Scott, that LeRoy "got fired because they heard about a
union; he was trying to start a union."'
6 LeRoy is credited that Reynolds made a reference to his attitude in the
context of recall. as against Reynolds' testimony that he said that I.eRo, was
ineligible only because "too slow ." Reynolds did not expressly dens such a
reference and admittedly referred to attitude as a ground for discharge
LeRoy's version. thus. is highly plausible
LeRoy denied that he referred to the Union In this conversalton. It
would seem eminently likely. in these circumstances. that he would have
Consequently. while Mueller and Reynolds took Innumerable liberties with
the truth during the course of their testimonies as is more fulls apparent
later, they are credited in this instance
' This is based on Brooks' credited uncontradicted testimony . Neither
Baird nor Scott testified. Baird no longer was with Respondent at the time ot
trial. The parties stipulated that shift foremen. or supersisors as the 5 some-
times are called. are supervisors within the meaning f the Act Respondent
(,oncllsion It is concluded that l.eRovy's discharge vio-
lated Section 8a)(3) and (1) as alleged. ie was one of two
principal proponents of the lUnion the two being dis-
charged in rapid succession at about the time that Respon-
dent learned of the organizational effort. and Respondent's
assorted other responses to the union peril indicate an ani-
mus capable of the extreme sanction of discharge.
Beyond that, the claim that LeRoy was included in the
legitimate cutback of July 28 already has been discredited
because of the lag before he learned of his discharge and is
inconsistent as well with Reynolds having ad' ised him that
he was ineligible for recall. In addition, the uncharitable
testimonial depictions of his performance by Mueller, John-
son, and Reynolds do not square with his ha\ ing survived
the probationary period unscathed only days before the dis-
charge. Moreover, it is fair to infer in the circumstances
that the nebulous references to LeRoy's attitude as a Factor
in the discharge and in his ineligibility for recall were veiled
references to his union sympathies and activities.
True, as Respondent points out, there is no clear proof
that the decisionmakers knew of the organizational effort.
let alone L.eRoy's part in it. as of the discharge. It is clear.
however, that Baird. who became a supervisor the same
day, had told Reynolds of being solicited bh l.eRo\. he
question is whether this came just after the discharge. as
Reynolds testified, or just before. Given the precipitative
nature of the discharge, the blatant lack of candor of Re-
spondent's officials Reynolds included concerning this
and the other discharges in issue, and the abundance of
other indicia that this was a union-motivated discharge. the
weight of plausibilit suggests that Baird's disclosure came
before. This conclusion is reinforced, although not depen-
dent upon. Baird's later revelation to Gerald Brooks and
Joyce Scott that eRos "got fired because thes heard about
a union; he was trying to start a union.
B. I.tnda Hertlnndt:
The cwidcncc. : Hernandez began working for Respondent
on April 12. 1978. as a molding machine operator on the
graveyard shift. She later was assigned, at her request, to
the day shift and was discharged before the start of that
shift on August 2. She was Respondent's most senior ma-
chine operator when discharged.
This discharge, like LeRoy's. assertedly emanated from
the Hi-Tek situation. Mueller at first testified that the deci-
sion was made during the July 28 meeting. later amending
that it was reached in a management meeting the evening of
August I. Johnson reputedly told Reynolds on August I
that, despite the reduction in force decreed on July 28. Re-
spondent was still overstaffed, whereupon those two and
Mueller agreed that Hernandez should go. Reynolds noti-
takes the posilltn. howeser. that Baird did not become a satutor\ supersl.lor
upon becoming the swing-shift foreman. Mueller estiling that "he s as
rather s,ung and told me he had not enough know,ledge of hundling people"
Mueller admitted. howeser. that Baird had authorits It} tell the machine
operators on his shift "wha to do and when to do it " Mueller denied that
Baird had authority to hire and tire. although the shift lorermen generalls had
that powser It is concluded hblaed on the stipulatn. th admtlted scope of
Baird's aulhoritl. and the hiring and firing .liuthritl of the shlt lremen
generall Ithat Baird became a slaiturN superisior a o Agust I
855
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARD
fled her the morning of August 2, giving "lack of work" as
the reason. Hernandez replied that Respondent would be
"hearing from" her, which led Reynolds to believe-so he
testified- that she had "something to do with the Union."
Even apart from Mueller's equivocation over the timing
of the decision on Hernandez. the content of the delibera-
tions preceding her discharge is at best sketchy. Reynolds'
testimony is all but devoid of factual substance in this area.
even though he was the one to tell Hernandez: Johnson's
testimony is couched in nebulous and hypothetical terms.
Thus, Johnson testified that it "probably was a joint deci-
sion," reached during a meeting that "would have oc-
curred" the night of August 1, prompted by "some kind of
telephone conversation . . . I would have to have" with Hli-
Tek on August I concerning the prospect of future orders.
Then, after conceding that he had no recall of such a tele-
phone conversation, Johnson lamely purported to recon-
struct one.
On August 1, the day that Johnson is said to have told
Reynolds of the continued overstaffing, Respondent hired
Joyce Scott to be a molding machine operator on the grave-
yard shift. Hernandez was not first given a chance to switch
to graveyard, and Scott had been fired only I month or so
before for missing too many hours of work. One or two
machine operators besides Scott also were hired between
August I and 5, and one of those discharged out of the July
28 meeting, Aguila, was rehired on August 8--all without
prior offer to Hernandez.
Asked to explain this spate of hiring, given the profess-
edly straitened circumstances, Mueller testified at one point
that "voluntary quits" during that period necessitated hir-
ing to maintain even a reduced complement. Later, after it
had developed that no one had quite between August I and
16, Mueller offered that Respondent had been "forced" to
hire to offset heavy absenteeism. Regarding the rehire of
Aguila over Hernandez, Mueller testified that Aguila was
the "better worker" and that. "in a small company, you
have to go completely by performance." Asked to explain
why it had been decided to let Aguila but not Hernandez go
during the July 28 meeting, Mueller asserted that Hernan-
dez was spared because of her greater seniority. Still else-
where, Mueller testified that job performance "was the only
thing" considered on July 28. and that Hernandez was re-
tained because she "was better than the rest."
Abetting the confusion. Reynolds testified on the one
hand that he recommended "the poorest quality employees
for layoff first" in the July 28 meeting, of whom Aguila
seemingly was one; and, one the other, that he recommend-
ed Aguila's later rehire because he had "liked her work
performance and her attitude" previously. Reynolds, like
Mueller. stated that despite the July 28 emphasis on per-
formance Hernandez survived that first cut because of se-
niority.
Concerning Hernandez' performance, Mueller testified
she was dependable, but that her slowness as a molding-
machine operator created "special problems." He added
that while most operators have this same difficulty, she was
slower than the others. Mueller also testified that he had
become "upset" by Hernandez' attitude, amplifying that
she had been reluctant to do a task assigned by Mueller's
wife and never did complete it. Reynolds testified that Her-
nandez "wasn't as good as some and she was better than
others" as an employee, but that. "toward the end, her atti-
tude was getting bad." He did not explain what he meant
by this. He did state, however. that Hernandez would be
eligible for rehire only if Respondent were "hurting real
bad for help." citing the present unfair labor practice mat-
ter and her "ou will be hearing from me" remark when
told of her discharge from which he avowedly had inferred
that "she had something to do with the L:nion.
As previously mentioned. Hernandez made the first con-
tact with the Union on about July 24. after which she
passed out cards 10 to 12 in all. She was among those
interrogated by Reynolds about the Union the morning of
August I. denying that she knew anything. On the evening
of August 2 Gerald Brooks asked Charles Baird why Her-
nandez had been fired. Baird answvered that Reynolds had
said it was because she "took over the union" after LeRoy's
discharge. *
Conchlsion: It is concluded that tlernandez' discharge
also violated Section 8(a}(3) and (I) as alleged. She was a
prime union proponent, her discharge occurred within
about I day after Respondent learned of' the union cam-
paign and discharged the other chief proponent, and there
are the sundry intimations of a strong antiunion animus, as
noted earlier. As in the case of LeRoy, there also are the tell
tale references to Hernandez' attitude as a actor in the
discharge: and, perhaps most revealing, the testimonies of
Mueller, Johnson, and Reynolds regarding this discharge
are abjectly confused, vague, internally inconsistent, and
generally unbelievable. The illegality of Hernandez' dis-
charge is so overwhelmingly apparent that Baird's com-
ment to Brooks that Reynolds had said she was fired for
taking over the Union-can be treated as superfluous epi-
logue.
C. Bettl Palev,
The eidence. Pauley began working for Respondent on
April 24. 1978. and was discharged on August 21. She was
the day-shift inspector when discharged and also operated a
molding machine and did certain shipping-and-receiving
tasks from time to time.
Mueller testified that Pauley was discharged because of'
"too many rejections" i.e.. because Hi-Tek too often had
refused to accept parts which she had inspected and ap-
proved. He elaborated that the precipitating event occurred
August 17 when Hi-Tek telephonically informed Respon-
dent that it was refusing a shipment of 2,600 parts, and that
the decision to discharge Pauley was made that same eve-
ning. Invited to explain the delay until August 21 to notif
and release her, Mueller testified that he had spent the in-
tervening days trying "to convince them Hi-Tek] to use the
parts," and that a final decision on Pauley was withheld
"until we had the final decision from the customer." Muell-
er conceded that the nature of the defect to which Hi-Tek
objected was "unclear." becoming apparent to him only
after Hi-Tek's explanation.
' Brooks is credited that Baird made this ,comment. Baird. its previously
noted. did not testily:: and. as previously concluded. he was a statutory su-
pervisoir on August 2. Revnolds testified that he made no such tatement to
Baird.
856
HANSA MOLI) INC
Johnson informed Pauley of the discharge. stating that
her slowness as a machine operator and the high incidence
of rejections left "no alternative." Johnson testified that the
decision was made by Mueller and him the evening of Au-
gust 18 when the two met over the "constant rejection prob-
lem." The "last large rejection," he continued. was the trig-
gering incident, with Pauley's attitude an additional
contributing factor. He expanded, concerning her attitude.
that "she seemed to shrug off her duties" and "neglected
her duties and inspection . . or those rejections wouldn't
have happened." Johnson did not discuss the latest Hli-Tek
rejection with Pauley betfre the August 21 discharge con-
versation, avowedly "because it was under discussion to ter-
minate her."
Perhaps two-thirds of the parts involved in the lastest IHi-
Tek rejection had been produced by shifts other than the
day shift and had been inspected and approved by employ-
ees other than Pauley. Indeed, those parts produced bh the
graveyard shift had been passed by that shift's foreman,
Jerome Brooks, who had assumed the role after the Juls 28
discharge of Rachael Ramirez, the former inspector on
graveyard. Respondent nevertheless contends that Paule
was deserving of the ultimate blame. Mueller testifying that
she was the "final inspector," with responsibility "on top of
the regular inspection . . to make doubly sure that e
don't miss any mistakes." Mueller testified at one point that
he was "sure" that he had told Pauley that she was to per-
form final inspections, but, at another point that he had not
but that he assumed a supervisor had.
In the same vein. Johnson testified that he had instructed
Pauley to make a "final spot check" of all parts before theN
were shipped. It later developed, however, that this was
said in May, when Pauley became Respondent's first and
only inspector. A few days later two other inspectors were
named, giving each shift one inspector. Pauley credibly tes-
tified that she thereupon confined her inspection effort to
the output of the day shift. She further credibly testified
that she never was told, at least after the other inspector
positions were created, that she had a final responsibility:
her successor, Sandra Perez, likewise testified that no one
said anything to her about being a final inspector. Nor is
there evidence that anyone else was designated as final in-
spector after Pauley left.
About 2 weeks before her discharge Pauley asked to be
relieved of her inspection duties. Johnson responded that
she was needed for inspecting, was doing an "adequate
job," had nothing to worry about, and that he would help
her as needed. Rejections previous to the one in question
occurred on July 13, 1978, involving 4,070 parts, on Jul 26
involving 400 parts. and on August 3 involving 4,992 parts.
Johnson concededly had never told Paulev that her job was
in peril because of rejections.
As previously stated, Respondent received the Union's
demand letter on August 18. Also on August 18, as detailed
earlier, Reynolds asked Pauley and Perez if they were in-
volved with the Union or knew anything about it: Mueller
asked Pauley if' she had been approached about signing a
union card, if she was for the Union. and if she had an
complaints; Johnson asked Pauley and others if the) under-
stood what Mueller had asked them and asked Paulec if she
had been approached b the Union. Pauley at no time ad-
mitted to being prounion. In response to Mueller, however
she "just got red in the face." as Reynolds recalled, "and
didn't say anything," prompting Mueller to remark that she
"looked funny."
Conclsio, n It is concluded that Pauley's discharge as
well violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I). It came shortly after
the August 18 receipt of the Union's demand letter and
Mueller's unlawful interrogation of Pauley. in which he re-
marked ominously. as it turned out--that she "looked
funny." In addition. the testimonial efforts of Mueller and
Johnson to bestow the title and responsibility of final in-
spector on PauleI reek of pretrial contrivance to justitf
blaming her alone for the latest li-l'ek rejection. Even if it
were her sole responsibility. it scarcely could have been
viewed as the result of neglect inasmuch as Mueller never-
theless pressed Hi-Tek to accept the parts and himself was
unable to detect their flaws without Ili-Tek's guidance. Fi-
nally, as with l.eRoy and Hernandez, Respondent cited at-
titude as a factor in Pauley's discharge a likely allusion in
the circumstances to her perceived union smpathies.
(()'oN( SO()NS o) LAW
1. By interrogating its employees whether then had
"heard anything" about a union campaign. were "involved
in" such a campaign, had been "approached" by a union or
about signing a union card. were "for" a union, or if the
understood similar questions asked of them b other man-
agement people, and by further interrogating its employees
concerning who was interested in a union and whx. all as
found herein, Respondent in each instance violated Section
8(a)( 1 ) of the Act.
2. B) telling its employees that it would be "forced to
sell" the business or to "close down" should theN obtain
union representation, as found herein. Respondent in each
instance committed additional violations of Section 8(a)(1).
3. By encouraging its employees to voice their com-
plaints to management about working conditions and rais-
ing the prospect that those complaints would be remedied
for the purpose of undermining the employees' union sym-
pathies, as found herein. Respondent further violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( 1 ).
4. By discharging John LeRoy on August 1. 1978, Linda
Hernandez on August 2, 1978, and Betty Pauley on August
21, 1978. because of their perceived union sympathies and
activities, as found herein, Respondent in each instance vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record. and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"'
The Respondent, Hansa Mold. Inc., Colton. (alifornia
its officers, agents. successors, and assigns. shall:
10 All ouistanding miolns nconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided hb Sec 1 4 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National abor Relations Board. the findings. con-
clumions. nd recommended Order herein shall. as proi cded In Sec 10248 A1
the Rules and Regulaiions. he adopted h t hBoard and hcoile its tindings.
conclusions. and Order. Ian all obhectilons therelo shall be deened .i ted
for .A prposes
857
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees whether they have
"heard anything" about a union campaign. are "involved
in" such a campaign, have been "approached" by a union
or about signing a union card, are "for" a union, or if they
understood similar questions asked of them by other man-
agement people, and from interrogating its employees con-
cerning who was interested in a union and why.
(b) Telling its employees that it would be "forced to sell"
the business or to "close down" should they obtain union
representation.
(c) Encouraging its employees to voice their complaints
to management about working conditions and raising the
prospect that those conditions will be remedied for the pur-
pose of undermining the employees' union sympathies.
(d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because of their union activities or sympathies.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining. or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed un-
der Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take this affirmative action:
(a) Offer to John LeRoy, Linda Hernandez, and Betty
Pauley immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and made them whole fr any loss of
earnings or benefits they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, with backpay to be computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Compuanvy 90 NLRB
289 (1950)., with interest thereon to be computed as set forth
in Florida Sleel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See,
generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records. timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Post at its Colton, California, plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31.,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States court of appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
Id) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31. in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
Noll cl 'T'O EMI'I.()Y is
Post II) BY ORDER 0() 11Il
NAIINAI LABOR Rl.lA II()NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form. join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any' or all such activity except to
the extent that the employees' bargaining represent-
ative and employer have a collective-bargaining
agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that
employees become union members.
WE wii.l, NOti interrogate our employees whether
they have "heard anything" about a union campaign,
or are "involved in" such a campaign, or have been
"approached" by a union or about signing a union
card, or are "for" a union, or if they understood similar
questions asked of them by other management people:
and WE WLt. NOt interrogate our employees concern-
ing who was interested in a union and why.
Wl WiLL NotI tell our employees that we would be
"forced to sell" the business. or to "close down."
should they obtain union representation.
WtE vl.i NOt encourage our employees to voice
their complaints to management about their working
conditions and raise the prospect that those complaints
will be remedied, for the purpose of undermining the
employees' union sympathies.
WI w\vt. Not discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because of their union activities or
sympathies.
WE Wil. N in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
under the Act.
WE vIl.,L offer John LeRoy, Linda Hernandez, and
Betty Pauley immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist. to substan-
tially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges. and make them whole
with interest for any loss of earnings or benefits they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them.
858
HANSA MOLD1). IN( .