Haynes Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Haynes Industries, Inc. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 10-CA-12365
and 10-CA-12421
October 12, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 7, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Robert
G. Romano issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herewith, to modify his
remedy so that interest is to be computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977),' and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for
the reasons stated by him, that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating
employees, by threatening to discharge union sup-
porters, and by soliciting employee signatures on an
antiunion petition.2 We further agree that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by laying off
employee Johnson. However, contrary to the Admin-
istrative Law Judge, we find for reasons set forth
below that the discharge of employees Usry, Mobley,
and Wilson violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
In late September 1976, employees Usry, Mobley,
Wilson, and Cox, and trainee "Crawford, Jr." first
contacted the Union about organizing Respondent's
plant, which rebuilds wornout railroad car parts. On
October 21 a major organizational meeting was held
off the plant's premises, at which 18 of Respondent's
25 employees signed authorization cards. Cox, Usry,
Mobley, and Wilson were selected to lead the
organizing effort. The latter three employees solicited
cards at the plant during the next week.
On the night of October 25, Respondent's owner,
Haynes, informed general Foreman Woodruff that
Usry, Mobley, and Wilson were to be discharged.
These employees were given their termination papers
the next morning. Cox was not discharged, but was
promoted to assistant foreman shortly thereafter.
See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716(1962).
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to order Respon-
232 NLRB No. 176
"Crawford, Jr." continued his employment under a
Government-sponsored veterans training program.
The Administrative Law Judge held that Respon-
dent lawfully discharged Usry, Mobley, and Wilson
for unsatisfactory work. He found no evidence that
Respondent was aware of their union activities and
also found that Haynes and Woodruff were dissatis-
fied with certain work done at the plant.
We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that the discharge did not violate Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. The circumstances of the dis-
charges warrant the inference that Respondent knew
of these employees' prominent involvement in the
organizing campaign and discharged them for that
reason.
Respondent employs only 25 workers. Usry,
Mobley, and Wilson solicited cards at the plant
immediately after they were selected as leaders of the
organizing campaign at a union meeting attended by
18 employees. Further, Haynes and Woodruff
circulated throughout the work area, thus having an
opportunity to observe the union activity of these
employees.
The abruptness, timing, and specific impact of the
discharges is probative evidence of Respondent's
knowledge and motive. By firing Usry, Mobley, and
Wilson and promoting Cox to assistant foreman,
Respondent rid the proposed unit of the leading
union advocates. None of the three was warned of
any imminent danger of discharge and no employee
unconnected with the Union was disciplined at the
time of the discharges.
Respondent contends that the discharges were for
unsatisfactory work, citing several instances when
Haynes and Woodruff had criticized the work being
performed at the plant. However, those criticisms
either occurred several months before the discharges
or were not specifically linked to Usry, Mobley, or
Wilson. It is also significant that these individuals
were the most senior rank-and-file employees and
received high wages.
Evidence of Respondent's union animus lends
further support to the conclusion that the reason
given for the discharges was a pretext. Soon after the
discharges Woodruff interrogated employees and
threatened to fire anyone who supported the Union.
This was followed by Respondent's coercive solicita-
tion of signatures on an antiunion petition. Johnson,
the only employee who refused to sign this petition,
was unlawfully laid off 1 week later because of that
refusal.
We find that these circumstances warrant the
inference that Respondent was aware of the dis-
charged employees' prominent role in the union
dent to stop its unlawful antiunion solicitation. We shall amend his
recommended Order to correct that oversight.
1092
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
movement. In light of that knowledge, the clearly
pretextual basis asserted for the discharges, and
Respondent's union animus, we further find that the
discharges were for discriminatory reasons and
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
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 Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Haynes Industries, Inc., Waycross, Georgia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a) of
the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der:
"(a) Discriminatorily discharging, laying off, and
refusing to reinstate any employee for supporting
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or
any other union."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c) and
reletter the subsequent paragraph l(d):
"(c) Soliciting employee support for no-union
petitions."
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer Thomas Usry, Alphonzo Mobley, Bobby
L. Wilson, and Eddie Lee Johnson immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if such jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to seniority or rights and privileges,
and make them whole for their lost earnings in the
manner set forth in 'The Remedy,' as amended."
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employ-
ees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help a union
To bargain collectively with their employ-
er through a representative of their own free
choice
To act together to seek collective bargain-
ing, or other aid or protection
To freely decide not to do any of the
above things.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question employees
concerning their union sympathies or activities in
support of a union; or threaten employees with
loss of job security if they seek to designate the
Union as their bargaining representatives; or
solicit employees' signatures on antiunion peti-
tions.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discharge, lay
off, or refuse to reinstate any employee in order to
discourage membership in, or support of, United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL offer Thomas Usry, Alphonzo Mob-
ley, Bobby L. Wilson, and Eddie Lee Johnson
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges; and wE
WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful
discrimination found practiced against them, with
interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the above rights which are guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT G. RoMANO, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Waycross, Georgia, on February 10 and
ii, 1977.1 The charges in Case 10-CA-12365 and in Case
10-CA-12421 were filed by the Union on November I and
22, respectively. Thereafter, a complaint issued on Decem-
ber 1, alleging that Respondent, through certain conduct of
its supervisors and agents, had interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees by interrogation and threats, by
creating an impression of surveillance of employees' union
activities, and by preparation and circulation of a petition
stating that employees did not desire to be represented by
the Union, in violation of Section 8(aX)() of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Additionally, the
complaint alleges that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged three active union supporters and discriminatorily
laid off a fourth active union supporter in violation of
Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent's original
answer, filed December 10, 1976, denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices and answered that it discharged
I All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise stated.
1093
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the three individuals for inefficiency after having warned
the employees repeatedly prior to their discharge; and that
it laid off the fourth employee for lack of work. At hearing,
Respondent amended its answer to join in issue the alleged
supervisory and agency status of one Danny Cox, an
assistant foreman. At the conclusion of the hearing the
parties waived oral argument and briefs were subsequently
filed on or about March 22, 1977.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after careful consideration
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and by the
Company, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Georgia corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture and installation of railroad car parts at
Waycross, Georgia. During the past calendar year, which
period is representative, the Company sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside the State of Georgia. The
Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
I. The nature of employer's operation
The Employer's operation herein is essentially a business
of purchasing from supplier-customers certain wornout
scrapped parts of railroad cars, couplings and sides
(particularly during times material herein, yokes used in
the couplings and bolsters in which axles are housed); and
through various welding and grinding processes reclaiming
same into saleable replacement parts for repurchase by its
supplier-customers for use on their railroad cars. As of
October, the company was conducting these operations
with approximately 25 employees who were supervised by
its owner Billy Haynes and by its general foreman, Ed
Woodruff, the latter conceded by employer to be, and both
of whom I find to be supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Origin and extent of the union organizational
activity
Initial discussions by employees of interest in a union
began in late September. Principally involved in this initial
activity was employee Danny Cox who clearly was, and I
find to be, a nonsupervisory employee at that time.2 Also
involved initially were employees Alphonzo Mobley,
Bobby L. "Bud" Wilson, and Thomas Usry, each of whom
is alleged in the complaint to have been subsequently
discriminatorily discharged on October 26. Crawford
David Johnson, Jr., called by employees and herein
2 General Counsel's initial position was that Cox was not a supervisor
until promoted on October 26.
referred to as "Crawford, Jr." was also actively involved
initially in the union movement. "Crawford, Jr." personally
knew one George Brown, an employee of another compa-
ny, whom it was believed would be able to make a contact
with the Union on the behalf of Haynes' employees.
"Crawford, Jr." thus acted as a middleman in enabling
Danny Cox to make the contact with Brown. A meeting
was arranged. The meeting was held at Shoney's Big Boy
Restaurant in Waycross, Georgia, about the first or second
week in October. Initially meeting with Brown were
Haynes' employees Cox, "Crawford, Jr.", Wilson, and
Mobley. Usry was unable to attend. Brown inquired
whether most of the Haynes employees really wanted a
union and was promptly informed that they did by Cox,
who acted as spokesman for the group in attendance.
Brown then assured the employees he would make the
necessary contact with James Buckley, a staff representa-
tive of the Union, who would thereafter conduct an
organizational meeting for the employees of Haynes
Industries. It was decided that each man would be
instructed to bring a man that he trusted to the first
meeting. The meeting was arranged for October 21.
The organizational meeting was held as scheduled on
Thursday evening, October 21, at Georgia Power Building
in Waycross, Georgia. In attendance were 18 Haynes
employees including Cox, Mobley, Wilson, and Usry. Each
of these named employees took an active part in the
meeting, posing various questions to the union representa-
tive. During the meeting, all employees present signed
union authorization cards and also an attendance sheet. At
the conclusion of the meeting, on Brown's recommenda-
tion, Cox and Wilson, and by additional individual
selection of Buckley, Usry and Mobley also, were singled
out to act as leaders for the group. They were each given
Buckley's business card and authorized to make calls to
Buckley collect should any employee problems later
develop. Buckley gave them additional union authorization
cards requesting Usry and Wilson to attempt to get the
cards filled out from the remaining employees who had not
been in attendance at that meeting.
Wilson, Mobley, and Usry were individually involved in
obtaining two of five additional card signings that were
obtained between the Thursday meeting, October 21, and
the following Tuesday, October 26, the day on which they
were discharged. On the latter date, after the discharges,
five to six additional cards were given to Buckley by
Wilson, including at least one of which had been signed at
the plant the day before by Danny Thornton, a son-in-law
of General Foreman Ed Woodruff. Thornton did not
testify in this proceeding. By October 26, the Union thus
had authorization cards signed by 23 of the 25 employees
employed at Haynes Industries.
Also present at the October 21 union meeting was Eddie
Lee Johnson whom the complaint alleges was discriminato-
rily laid off on November 5, 1976. In the interim a no-
union petition was circulated by Cox in circumstances
more fully discussed infra. Eddie Lee Johnson was the only
employee who refused to sign that petition. On November
10, the Union filed a petition in Case 10-RC-10911,
1094
processing of which is presently blocked by the charges
filed herein.
3. Alleged supervisory status of Danny Cox
At the outset it is important to note that the complaint
alleged that Danny Cox was an assistant foreman and at
material times was a supervisor and agent of Respondent.
Respondent, as heretofore noted in its original answer,
initially admitted same. However, at hearing, Respondent's
counsel filed a motion to amend its answer to deny that
Danny Cox was a supervisor. The motion was filed with a
supporting affidavit of counsel that preparation for hearing
had revealed Cox was not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. The amendment was allowed and issue joined
thereon with appropriate and full opportunity thereafter
afforded General Counsel to introduce available evidence
bearing on that issue. However, neither General Counsel
nor Respondent called Cox as a witness. It is appropriate
also to note that at the conclusion of the General Counsel's
case, Respondent concluded that the General Counsel's
evidence had failed to make out a case on the complaint
allegations and offered no testimonial evidence thereon.
Consequently, the posture of the case before me is such
that if the credible evidence offered by the General
Counsel, as refined and clarified by cross-examination, and
with the probative effect of documentary exhibits fully
considered, together with all reasonable inferences flowing
therefrom, is sufficient to make out a prima facie case on
the various allegations of the complaint, the General
Counsel must be concluded to have prevailed thereon; and
contrariwise, if the General Counsel's proof be determined
to have failed in any essential element bearing on the
complaint allegations, or to have raised no more than what
may properly be regarded as suspicious circumstances, the
affected allegations of the complaint must be dismissed.
No evidence appears of record that Cox at any material
time had been given or had exercised supervisory authority
to hire or fire, or effectively recommend same, nor to
discipline employees or to exercise independent judgment
in directing the work force. No announcement has ever
been made by Respondent that Cox was a supervisor.
General Counsel has conceded as much in his brief, while
continuing to contend that Cox was at least an agent of
Respondent for certain purposes. In any event, I find that
at no material time herein has Danny Cox been shown to
be a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of the
Act. Accordingly, and in apparent agreement with the
General Counsel, it will be recommended that those
complaint allegations directly based on Cox's alleged
supervisory status be dismissed; namely, that he had
created the impression of surveillance of employees by
certain of his conduct.
It remains to note that it also follows that certain other
testimony of witnesses, as to statements made by Cox
which were received over objection as potentially binding
on Respondent subject to the establishment of Cox's
supervisory status, must now be rejected as well. I shall
give them no consideration herein. Whether Cox was
acting as agent of Respondent or that his conduct in
circulating a no-union petition for signature by employees
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
is otherwise attributable to Respondent will be considered
infra.
B. Consideration of the Specific Unfair Labor
Practices Alleged
1. Alleged interrogations and threats by General
Foreman Woodruff
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through conduct
of General Foreman Ed Woodruff on or about October 26,
interrogated employees regarding their union sympathies,
activities, and desires; and threatened to close its Waycross
facility if the employees designated the Union as bargain-
ing representative. In support thereof General Counsel
relies on testimony of Crawford, Jr.
According to credited testimony of Crawford, Jr. it was
either on Wednesday or Thursday morning, thus October
27 or 28, that General Foreman Woodruff came up to him
as the latter employee worked at a drill press in the plant.
At that time Woodruff asked Crawford, Jr. had he signed a
petition for the Union or had he signed anything concern-
ing the Union. Crawford, Jr., replied he hadn't signed
anything for a union - or hadn't to his knowledge. With
that, Woodruff inquired what he had signed. Crawford, Jr.,
replied, "Food stamps as far as I know." Woodruff then
told Crawford, Jr., that signing things and not knowing
what he signed was a good way to lose his job or put his job
in jeopardy explaining he was not saying he was going to
fire him or anything like that, but that he was jeopardizing
the Company because at that time they were in no shape to
form a union or anything like this. Crawford, Jr., also
testified that he observed Woodruff immediately go off and
talk to another employee in the vicinity. However, the
burden of the testimony of Crawford, Jr., otherwise was
only to the effect of hearing a rumor about the plant
closing because of the Union.
On the basis of the above credited and uncontradicted
evidence, I find that Respondent, on October 27 or 28,
unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union
activities, sympathies, and desires, in a manner constituting
an unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion of their
Section 7 rights. I further find that in warning an employee
in substance and effect that the act of signing a petition for
a union was a good way to lose his job as it put the
Company in jeopardy, General Foreman Woodruff unlaw-
fully threatened the job security of employees if they
designated the Union as their bargaining representative
within the scope of the aforesaid complaint allegation and
in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
2. The discharges of Wilson, Usry, and Mobley
on October 26
The evidence reveals that on the morning of October 26,
employees Wilson, Usry, and Mobley were terminated
when they reported for work under the following circum-
stances:
Wilson was the first to be so notified as he reported
about 20 minutes before usual starting time at 7 a.m. As
soon as Wilson came to work he noticed his card was not in
the time rack and he immediately went to Foreman
1095
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woodruff about it. Wilson asked what the matter was,
inquiring also if he had been fired. Woodruff gave Wilson
his "separation papers" and two checks, one for the
previous week and one for work performed on the prior
Monday. Wilson read the papers and saw the assigned
reason "unsatisfactory work," and asked, "Why?" Wood-
ruff replied he didn't know, that Haynes had called him at
home at approximately midnight and told Woodruff that
he was going to let Wilson, Mobley, and Usry go.3 Wilson's
testimony as to what occurred thereafter was neither clear
nor consistent, nor was it in all respects convincing. Rather
I am convinced on the basis of substantial variances
appearing of record and from my observations of his
demeanor at heanng that parts of his testimony were
actually statements of conclusions on his part in regard to
the developing discharge conversation. In that state, being
uncorroborated, and in the context of employer's conduct
thereafter, I find unreliable Wilson's assertions to the effect
that Woodruff on this occasion said the Company was not
going to let the Union come in or that the plant would be
closed. The gravamen of the testimony of Wilson that I
find reliable and do credit is as follows: Wilson, on
learning that he was being fired, told General Foreman
Woodruff that he thought Woodruff should know at that
time that he was firing a union member of the Steelworkers
Union; and that he would be contacted by a union
representative about it later. Woodruff replied that that
would make no difference; that there was no contract and
there wasn't anything the Union could do about it. 4
Usry testified that when he arrived, an unidentified
employee told him that three men had been fired. When
Usry got to the office Wilson told him he might as well "go
and get yours too." When Usry went into the office he
found Danny Cox was already there with Ed Woodruff.
Woodruff simply handed Usry his "separation papers" and
two checks. Usry read his separation notice which gave as
reason "unsatisfactory work." Usry then left without
saying anything further to Woodruff. As Usry left he met
Wilson again and asked Wilson, "What now?" According
to Usry, Wilson replied, "Well, I've already told him about
the fact we're members of the Union." Usry agreed there
was no use going into that again with Woodruff. 5 After
Mobley arrived and also had received his "separation
papers," Wilson, Usry, and Mobley then left the plant and
contacted Buckley to notify him that they had been
terminated.
3 Wilson recalled only Mobley and Usry in addition to himself as
identified by Woodruff as being fired.
4 General Counsel in his brief contends this immediate but carefully
considered response suggests prior knowledge of Wilson's union member-
ship. However Eddie Lee Johnson testified credibly that Woodruff had
informed him that Woodruff had been in the Union himself for a "pretty
good many years," a circumstance that would readily explain such a reply.
I Neither Usry (nor Mobley, infra) made mention of any report by
Wilson or Woodruff referring to a plant closure or keeping the Union out.
6 In view of Cox's nonsupervisory status, the statement of Mobley in
referencing Cox's report of an inquiry about the Union by Woodruff clearly
involves a double hearsay declaration. The testimony of Mobley as to Cox's
statement to him was received as part of the res gestae of the developing
discharge situation. However, the statement of Cox, in absence of a
supervisory status of declarant Cox. can have no probative value to establish
any violation of 8(a)(X) by Respondent. Nor is the additional hearsay
declaration competent evidence of the fact contained therein that Woodruff
had interrogated Cox on an earlier occasion. I shall place no reliance on the
Mobley's testimony is that on arriving at the plant with
Crawford, Jr., he saw Cox sitting in a truck. Cox, on seeing
Mobley arrive, came over to meet him and told Mobley
"Daddy's hot." Mobley asked what about. Cox replied
Haynes knew everything about the Union. Mobley then
said, "Well, I figured for it to leak out sooner or later."
According to Mobley, Cox told him that he had worked
overtime the night before. Cox told Mobley Woodruff had
asked him about a union. 6 Cox said he told Woodruff he
didn't know anything about a union. Woodruff said he
knew all about it. Mobley went on into the plant where he
met Wilson who told him that there wasn't any use in
clocking in. Mobley asked, "why?" Wilson said, "We've
been fired," and showed him the separation papers which
he had received. At that point Woodruff called Mobley
into the office. Mobley went in and was handed his
separation papers. Mobley read them and walked out.
Crawford, Jr., reports that employees were mad at that
time and there was talk that everybody involved in the
Union was going to get fired. Crawford, Jr., went to Cox to
find out whether he also was going to be fired. Cox told
Crawford, Jr., that Cox also had been fired but that Mr.
Haynes wanted him to wait because he wanted to talk to
him before Woodruff gave him his checks, and that's why
he was waiting around. Before lunch Cox met with Haynes
and Woodruff in the office. Some time after Cox came out
Crawford, Jr., again approached him and asked Cox did he
get fired. Cox replied that he had an option. He could
either accept a straight salary and be an assistant foreman
on the new coal car line or leave the Company. He had the
rest of the day to think about it. Cox left the plant and
returned to the plant some time later toward the end of the
day and thereafter continued to work.
Bobby L. "Bud" Wilson had been employed with
Haynes Industries, Inc., for about 16 months at the time of
his discharge, thus, since about June 1975. According to
Wilson only Foreman Woodruff, Mobley, and about three
other employees had more seniority.7 Wilson had received
a 50-cent raise on the occasion of being promoted to a
leadman about 2 months before his termination. On
Monday, the day before his termination, he had also
received his welding certification which qualified him for
all-position welding. At the time of discharge Wilson was
the highest paid employee earning $4.50 an hour.
Upon cross-examination inquiry, Wilson testified that he
had engaged in drinking on the job with supervision in
factual recitement of an interrogation of Cox by Woodruff contained
therein, nor make any finding thereon. (Cf. Borin Packing Co., Inc., 208
NLRB 280, 287 (1974).) Moreover, I would note in any event with regard to
any latent ambiguity indicative that such inquiry was made the night before
that the only direct evidence before me would suggest to the contrary
inasmuch as Wilson had initially been interviewed by General Foreman
Woodruff at which time it was Wilson who had informed Woodruff of
union presence in the plant. Further, it is established that Cox was observed
thereafter with Woodruff in the latter's office at the time Usry arrived.
Finally, the direct evidence is that Mobley's discharge conversation with
Woodruff occurred immediately after his conversation with Cox who by
that time was already outside the plant.
7 Wilson, Mobley, and Usry, however, were not employed by Respon-
dent when it moved its business several months earlier to its present
location. I find that there has been a significant history of turnover among
employees which in part accounted for their advancement to positions as
more senior employees.
1096
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
times past but conceded the rule had been changed several
months earlier because there had been criticism leveled
against the work being performed by employees. Wilson
initially testified that he had drunk no further on the
company's premises. However, on cross-examination he
admitted that at least on one occasion thereafter, while
taking a welding test on his own time, he did have a drink
on the premises. At or about the time of his discharge,
work was becoming slack though Wilson expected his
employment to continue in the Employer's new coal car
business.8
Although scheduled to work, Wilson did not work the
Friday prior to his discharge. Wilson did not call in to
report that he would not be reporting to work that Friday;
nor did he work on Saturday or Sunday. Wilson testified
that on Monday he expected to get a chewing out about his
absence because he was aware that General Foreman
Woodruff had himself already gotten one that morning
from owner Haynes. Woodruff called Wilson into the
office and Haynes chewed him out for not coming to work
the previous Friday. Although Wilson offered the excuse
that his wife was sick, it was not accepted. Wilson frankly
conceded that Haynes was very upset and excited at the
time over Wilson's failure to come to work.9
Usry testified that he was employed with Respondent for
about 15 months, thus, from August 1975 to October 26.
Usry began his employment as a grinder, subsequently did
some inspecting, drove a truck, did some welding on
bolsters and sideplates, yokes and couplings. However, he
had not worked on buildup of bolsters and certain yokes.
For an appreciable period of his employment he ran the
boring mill; subsequently, for a time he had been putting
plates and rings and bolsters on sides; and a week before
termination he had been returned to run the boring mill.
The function of the horizontal boring mill is to bore
standardized rings in the bolsters and to bore the reclaimed
yokes. He also had recently received a welding certification
on the Friday before. However, his certification was only
for flat position and not the more versatile vertical or
overhead welding qualifications that Wilson and Woodruff
possessed. Usry testified he seldom missed work and that
only Mobley, Wilson, and Foreman Woodruff (presumably
in his area of work) were more senior. At the time of his
termination he was making $4 an hour.
Usry testified that on one occasion, considerably before
his termination, he had been made a leadman on the night
shift by "Daddy" Haynes who warned him that his
problem was that he liked to talk too much and that he
would have to learn to control it. Subsequently, the night
shift was discontinued after about 5 weeks' operation with
the stated reason that it was done so because of a lack of
production on that shift. Usry also was an employee who
had engaged in drinking on the job prior to the new rules
announcement. The evidence is no more conclusive that
s On Monday October 25, two other employees were laid off for lack of
work.
9 Some time after his discharge. Wilson traded with Haynes a bird dog
for a CH radio. On that occasion Wilson told Haynes that whatever came of
it he had no hard feelings. He would just have to say what he had to say.
'0 This was the same day Wilson was absent from work.
1" Mobley's separation papers, in addition to the "unsatisfactory work"
shown for Wilson and Usry, also contained the reason "been warned on
drinking on the job by him thereafter was regarded as a
problem by Respondent than was the case with Wilson.
There is documentary evidence that serious complaints
about the work being performed by employees were
received by Respondent from a certain customer on June
21, and July 19. Thereafter all employees were told that
their work would have to improve. Following the receipt of
the second letter Usry was made an inspector of the work.
Due to a pressing need to produce the work, after a few
weeks, his assignment of continuously performing inspec-
tion duties apparently ceased. In any event, the evidence is
inconclusive that Usry's performance of work as inspector
was unsatisfactory. I further note that it was about this
time that the new rule prohibiting drinking on the premises
was promulgated.
Usry denied receiving any personal warning about his
work in the boring mill. However, Usry himself testified
that on Monday, October 25, (the very day before he was
fired and during a period when he was working the boring
mill), he overheard Haynes, who was then looking at a ring
made in a bolster, say to general foreman Woodruff, "If the
work around here don't pick up, we're going to find a
whole new crew."
Mobley had worked for Respondent about 18 months
and asserted he was the oldest employee in seniority. For
over a year he had been grinding bolsters and had trained
new employees how to grind. He also had been a leadman
on the last night shift but without receiving any increase.
Haynes had told Mobley on that occasion that there would
be extra pay once he showed the Company that he could
do the work. However, when the night shift was subse-
quently disestablished with management expressing the
view it wasn't turning out the work Mobley then went back
to daytime work.
On the Friday before Mobley was fired, he was put on
coal cars by Haynes. Mobley testified that he worked that
Friday at the request of Haynes though he was to be off to
keep a previously scheduled doctor's appointment.s He
also worked Saturday on the coal cars. On Monday
Mobley worked only one half a day leaving with Haynes'
permission to keep the rescheduled doctor's appointment.
On cross-examination Mobley was asked whether or not
after coming off night shift was he not found not working
to the extent that another employee had to request that he
get back to work. Mobley's response was both evasive and
unconvincing. Mobley answered that there was need for an
individual to go to the bathroom, and referenced generally
his knowledge and ability to do the work. Mobley admitted
that Woodruff had told several employees (including
himself) that they had to pick up because the work was
falling behind. There is documentary evidence that Mobley
had received personal warnings. t1
Neither party, for reason of its own, called Danny Cox to
explain the circumstances of the acceptance of his new
numerous times." I additionally note that Respondent offered the applica-
tion for unemployment compensation which was received in evidence
without objection. It also contained employer's statement as follows under
date of October 27, 1976: "Al was dismissed because of unsatisfactory work.
He had been warned numerous times. Our foreman, Ed Woodruff, warned
Al on October 19, that if he did not stop standing around and talking and do
better work that he would be out of a job." The latter warning would have
taken place before the organizational meeting of October 2 1.
1097
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position. Crawford, Jr., however, testified that on Tuesday,
after the discharge of the other men, Haynes took
Crawford, Jr. (who was equally active as a union adherent),
and another employee, Kirkland, a welder (who also had
signed for the Union), and began showing them how to do
the new coal car work. Crawford, Jr., also testified that at
the same time that the Company fired Wilson and Usry (as
seen otherwise because of claimed dissatisfaction with their
work), Haynes offered the job to Cox.
Contentions of the Parties
Essentially, the General Counsel contends that the
evidence shows Mobley, Wilson, and Usry were active for
the Union. General Counsel, while conceding that there is
no direct evidence of company knowledge of their union
activity, urges the application of the small-plant rule.
General Counsel would then explain that the precipitous
discharge by the employer of three senior employees who
had been former leadmen for the employer at various times
in the past was because of their union activity of which the
Company thus recently became aware. General Counsel
further argues that certain inquiries by Respondent on
cross-examination into areas that were either remote in
time or nonproductive for Respondent were therefore
indicative of pretextual reasons being advanced as cause
for discharge that further support General Counsel's
contention that the discharges were actually for union
activity. In the latter regard General Counsel points to
Respondent's basically unproductive inquiry concerning
continued consumption of alcohol on the job; and
specifically as to Usry and Mobley, its inquiry into the
matter of remote instances of supposed deficient work
performances in the summer; and finally as to Wilson, a
suggestion of recent defective workmanship on a welding
table which was not established.
Respondent's position, as asserted at hearing, is essen-
tially that considering all of the evidence presented by the
General Counsel there is simply a failure of the proof
offered by General Counsel to preponderate that Respon-
dent fired Mobley, Wilson, and Usry because of their
union activity, rather than unsatisfactory work perfor-
mances that also appear of record.
Analysis, Conclusions and Findings on the
Discharges of Wilson, Usry, and Mobley
There is no question on this record that each of these
individuals was established as an active union adherent.
Nor is the consideration that others equally active were not
fired; itself a disposition of the issue before me. The
General Counsel, conceding the record lacks showing of
actual company knowledge, argues for application of the
small-plant rule.
The small-plant rule has been applied where timing of
discharges appeared abrupt and discharge coverage suffi-
ciently exact; and where the extent and nature of the union
activity of the employees who were involved (for example,
"in-plant") was such as to make it likely that an employer
would have become aware of it; and where the employer
assigned reasons for discharge were deemed so implausible
as to be capable of the conclusion that their advancement
was pretextual. Tayco Industries, Inc., 214 NLRB 84 (1974);
Patrick Plaza Dodge, Inc., 210 NLRB 870 (1974).
The evidence has established that this is a small plant of
approximately 25 employees and a discharge of 3 promi-
nent union adherents occurred only 5 days following a
major union meeting away from the plant in which they
had actively participated. Two thirds of the work force had
also participated and signed authorization cards. Although
evidence of actual "in-plant" union activity appears to
have been considerably limited, there was some; and 5
additional employees also joined the union movement
bringing involvement of employees in the plant to 23 of 25,
thus involving substantially all of the work force. However,
these observations appear to relate more significantly to
basis for an inference of company awareness of general
union activity, at best, rather than of company awareness
of specific involvement of individuals.
In any event it would appear that the General Counsel, if
he is ultimately to prevail in his basic contention, must not
only show that the discharge could have been for union
activity by an inferred company awareness of union
activity through an application of the small-plant rule; but
must also establish herein by a preponderance of the
evidence that the aforesaid union activity was at least a
contributory factor in the employer's motivation in the
above discharges. Generally, such tainted motivation may
be shown by revealing admissions of company supervisors
to that effect; or appear from the probative effect of other
evidence that may be present and establish union animus
in degree and nature sufficient to warrant a conclusion that
it was operative in the motivation of the discharges at the
time the discharges occur. However, when utilizing circum-
stantial evidence to establish company awareness of an
individual employee's union activity as well as in proof of
his discriminatory discharge or layoff therefor, the above
forms of evidence must be substantial and clear enough in
their combined probative effect as to raise the inference
which is to be drawn from the relation of the timing of the
discharges following union activity to one which is above
the level of mere suspicion. This would appear to be so
whether the small-plant rule be invoked or not, Borin
Packing Co., Inc., 208 NLRB 280, 281 (1974); Bayliner
Marine Corporation, 215 NLRB 12, 13, 19 (1974).
In the above circumstances, an unconvincing advance-
ment by a company of pretextual reasons for the discharge
of the employee may in itself constitute a highly significant
circumstance of discharge, particularly in small plants
where suspicion of an illegal motivation is presented by
virtue of the timing of the discharge following significant
union activity. This is so since in that circumstance and
with animus present one may properly look elsewhere for
the real reason for the discharge of the employee; and the
conclusion is justified that it is the employee's recent union
activity, awareness of which, at least in the case of the
small plant, may the more readily be inferentially supplied.
However, a presence in the record of credible evidence
which itself is supportive of company advanced justifica-
tion for discharge is not to be ignored merely because the
company elects in that circumstance to present no
testimonial denial (as herein); and indeed may be the very
reason for formulating such a position. The more so would
1098
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
this appear to be a justified position if the evidence found
in the record is not only supportive of the Company's
assigned cause for discharge of the employees but is
equally significant in its explanation of the timing of the
discharges. This is so since in that circumstance any initial
prominence of earlier noted union activity of the employ-
ees is itself lessened in clarity of inference as a contributing
factor in the discharges. As indicated earlier, I have found
no evidence herein of supervisory statements suggestive of
an illegal motivation in the discharges. To a consideration
of the other evidence I now turn.
First, I note that the contentions of the General Counsel
based on claimed pretextual reasonings have failed to
consider the same in connection with other and more
recent work performance deficiencies that clearly do
appear of record. It cannot be questioned that by July 19,
Haynes had received serious customer criticism on employ-
ees' work performance, severe enough to have been
accompanied by a threatened loss of work in the future. No
doubt such a development occasioned not only additional
temporary inspection process but more significantly a
contemporaneous tightening of working conditions which
included institution of the new rule that employees would
no longer be permitted to drink on the premises. The
weakness in General Counsel's argument of pretext based
on Respondent's limited showing on cross-examination in
certain areas is that it is nonetheless compatible with
unsatisfactory work performance. The argument of
claimed pretext is much weakened when, as herein, the
background of such inquiries is combined with subsequent
and more recent serious deficiencies in work performance.
The record before me contains credible evidence that such
instances did exist. Thus more pointedly bearing on the
instant discharges are these facts of record: Wilson,
without prior notice to his employer, did not appear on
Friday for scheduled work, and also was not available for
work on Saturday. His absence on Friday was a matter
over which not only he but his foremen were criticized; and
a matter which the record before me reveals had upset
Haynes greatly. This occurred on the very day before
Wilson received notice of his discharge; and I further note
that on the same day Haynes made the decision to
discharge the three men. Similarly, with regard to Usry and
on the very same day, Haynes observed, with openly stated
dissatisfaction, a ring in a bolster, a product of work in
nature and kind that Usry had been working on during the
past week. On that occasion Haynes is seen to remark on
October 25, that if the work didn't pick up "We're going to
find a whole new crew." Finally, management was
observed to be critical of Mobley's work performance, as
well as others, on several occasions in the days immediately
preceding his discharge. Such was established in partial
admissions of Mobley as well as in documentary evidence
to that effect, certain of which depict a very strong warning
even preceding any major union activity. The discharges
occurred at a time when work was growing slack as is
observed from the circumstances that two employees were
laid off for lack of work on the day prior to the discharges.
The record indicates that there has been some history of
employee turnover in the plant. Under these total circum-
stances, I am of the view and I conclude and find that the
General Counsel's evidence does not preponderate in
showing that Wilson, Usry, and Mobley were discharged
on October 26 because the Company had recently learned
of their union activity rather than for reasons advanced by
employer for their discharge, namely, unsatisfactory
service, the particulars of which also appear of record,
albeit without Respondent's testimonial evidence thereon.
3. The circulation of a no-union petition
The complaint alleges that on or about October 27, 1976,
Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Assistant Fore-
man Danny Cox, prepared and circulated among its
employees a petition stating that the signatories did not
desire to be represented by the Union. As indicated
previously, there is no evidence available to support a
conclusion that Cox was a supervisor and I have concluded
to the contrary, that at all times material herein he was an
employee. It thus remains to be considered whether the
evidence of record established that Cox in his activity in
regard to a certain petition acted as agent of Respondent
by expressed or implied authority for the certain purpose
above, or that Respondent by its conduct ratified his
actions in that regard. I have found earlier that on October
26, employee Wilson informed Foreman Woodruff of the
presence of union interest in the plant; and that on October
27 or 28, Foreman Woodruff had unlawfully interrogated
employees concerning their having signed a petition for the
Union and warned employee Crawford, Jr., that the act of
signing a petition for a union was a good way to lose his
job as it put the company injeopardy.
Crawford, Jr., also testified credibly that on October 28
or 29, Danny Cox went around the plant telling employees
that they were going to have a company meeting that
afternoon. According to Crawford, Jr., Woodruff was
present at the time. Crawford, Jr., also testified that it was
very seldom that the Company would have a meeting of
employees. That afternoon, after break, Woodruff and Cox
came up together to the assembled employees. The meeting
was conducted on company time after the usual breaktime
of 10 minutes had elapsed. Cox had a paper on a clipboard
with a typed heading in essence saying employees were free
to join the Union or not. The petition went on to say, "We
the undersigned don't want to participate in the Union."
Cox stated to all the employees, "I'm going to pass this
around and y'all sign it if you want to. If you don't, it's all
right." All the employees except three signed the paper.
Crawford, Jr., then asked Cox why he wasn't going to sign
the paper and Cox replied, "If it will make you feel any
better and get you to sign it, I'll sign it." Thereupon, Cox
signed the paper and Crawford, Jr., signed it after him
followed by still another employee. According to the
testimony of Crawford, Jr., the only employee in the
assembled group who did not sign the paper was Eddie Lee
Johnson who said he wasn't going against anything he
believed in and he refused to sign it.
The version of Eddie Lee Johnson was basically
corroborative. Thus, he corroborates that Cox came
around about 20 minutes before afternoon break and told
employees that "Daddy" wants to see everybody after the
evening break outside the door. Johnson testified that that
afternoon, after normal breaktime was over, Cox came out
1099
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the building with the paper. Cox told the employees that
he'd like the employees to read the paper and to sign it.
Some employees inquired what it meant. Johnson confirms
that initially all but approximately three or four signed the
paper. Johnson relates that he asked Cox what the meaning
was and he asked, "Are we going to be terminated if we
don't sign this?" Cox replied, "You heard what I said, sign
it if you want to." Cox added, "It's in your own best
interest to sign it." Johnson said that he didn't want to be
two-faced about it and sign for something and then turn
around and sign against it. Then Johnson told Cox, "I
might as well go in." Woodruff was standing by the door
and as Johnson went by he said, "What about the ones
who don't sign it? Do you want me to go in?" Woodruff
told Johnson to go on in. Johnson thereafter saw Cox with
the petition in hand walk with Woodruff into the office.
Johnson testified that he was the only one of the group who
did not sign. He also confirms that it took about 15 minutes
in all to get the papers signed by everyone.
It readily appears from the above that the petition was
presented to employees for signature on company time and
in the presence of Supervisor Woodruff. It is also readily
apparent that the matter was accomplished under circum-
stances indicative that it was meeting with Respondent's
approval and support. Thus, the meeting was scheduled as
a company meeting or one that "Daddy" Haynes was
calling. Further, the petition was typed, was brought out by
Cox accompanied by Woodruff, and observed by employ-
ees to be returned to Respondent's office by Cox accompa-
nied by Woodruff. I thus conclude and find that Cox in his
activity in regard to this petition was constituted effectively
an agent of Respondent for that purpose and that his
conduct therein was with Respondent's knowledge and
support and was ratified and approved by Respondent. I
further find that the circulation of the no-union petition
and the procurement of signatures thereon under the
circumstances shown above were interference, restraint,
and coercion of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act; and constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. Sewell, Inc., 207 NLRB 325, at 332 (1973).
4. Alleged discriminatory discharge of Eddie Lee
Johnson on November 5
In the early part of the next week, Ed Woodruff told
Johnson the work was getting slack and he might be laid
off. Johnson inquired whether it was on account of the
circumstances that he didn't sign the paper. Woodruff
replied only that things were getting slack. Johnson asked
Woodruff what he thought about the Union. Woodruff
said he had been in a union before for a pretty good many
years. He also said that Haynes wasn't ready for a union to
come in there yet, and that there wasn't going to be a union
until he got ready for it.
On Wednesday evening of that week, Woodruff came up
to Johnson and told him that Friday would be his last day.
Woodruff also informed Johnson that he might have to lay
off two grinders naming "Swede" Toreman and another
employee, Harris. On Friday, November 5, Johnson was
laid off. No other employee was laid off.
12 During the course of the hearing. Respondent inquired of Johnson
Johnson testified credibly that he and "Swede" were
hired on the same day and had the same seniority date.
Swede's regular work was as a grinder. Johnson's regular
work was as a welder. There is no question that Johnson's
work performance was satisfactory in that shortly after
being hired, he had asked for and promptly received, after
5 days' work, a 50-cent raise because of demonstrated
ability. Johnson testified that at the time he was laid off
there were still some yokes for him to work on and in
sufficient numbers to have lasted at least a couple of days.
Johnson also testified that Woodruff informed him that he
would be recalled as soon as they got more yokes in. As of
the time of hearing, Johnson had not been recalled.
Johnson testified that Swede had told him that on that
Monday he had had his job changed from grinding to
welding and that a whole truckload of yokes and work had
come in. Crawford, Jr., confirms that after Johnson was
laid off, Swede began doing Johnson's work. Crawford, Jr.,
also testified that other new men have been hired since the
first of the year. Johnson had not been recalled.
Analysis, Conclusions, and Findings on the Layoff
of Eddie Lee Johnson
The General Counsel contends that Johnson's layoff by
Respondent on November 5 for lack of work was a pretext;
and contends that the real reason that Johnson was laid off
was because of his union sympathy and because he refused
to sign the no-union petition. Respondent contends that
Johnson was laid off for lack of work. I find on the record
before me that Respondent's contention is totally lacking
in merit. The evidence is conclusive that at the time that
Johnson was laid off there were still several days of work
left for him to do. Further, and even more convincingly,
the evidence clearly establishes that on the very next
workday an entire truckload of new work came in. It is
readily inferrable and I do find that Respondent must have
known that that material would be arriving on the occasion
when it laid off Johnson on the prior Friday for lack of
work. Moreover, Respondent told Johnson that he would
be called back to work when new work came in.
Nonetheless, Respondent did not recall Johnson from
layoff. Furthermore, it moved Johnson out of his regular
welding position, by the layoff, and moved a regular
grinder with no more seniority into the work that Johnson
had previously been doing. And finally, if more is
necessary, it did not recall Johnson though it has hired new
employees since the first of the year. I am fully persuaded
and I find the layoff of Johnson was not because of lack gf
work as asserted by Respondent but clearly because he was
a strong union adherent who alone had refused to sign the
no-union petition, thereby presenting the appearance to the
employer as being the sole strong union adherent for
continued organization of the plant which it was against at
that time. In short, I find General Counsel's evidence
clearly preponderates and has established that Respondent
discriminatorily laid off and refused to recall Johnson in
violation of Section 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act. An
appropriate remedy will be provided hereinafter. 2
whether he would be willing to come back to work for Haynes Industnes if
1100
HAYNES INDUSTRIES, INC.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section 1. above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
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 unlawfully and coercively interrogating employ-
ees concerning their union activities and sympathies, and
by threatening employees with loss of job security if they
designated the Union as their bargaining representative,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
(7) of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily laying off Eddie Lee Johnson
and thereafter refusing to reinstate him thereby discrimi-
nating in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, in
order to discourage membership in the Union, the
Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Company did not violate the Act by creating the
impression of surveillance of employees' union activities,
by threatening to close its Waycross facility, or by
discriminatorily discharging employees Thomas Usry,
Alphonzo Mobley, and Bobby L. Wilson.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order the Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found heretofore that Respondent discriminatori-
ly laid off Eddie Lee Johnson on November 5, 1976,
because of his sympathies and interest in the Union and
because he refused to sign the circulated no-union petition.
I shall, therefore, recommend Respondent reinstate him to
he were offered reinstatement there that day: though it subsequently
indicated it had intended thereby an offer of reinstatement. Johnson. while
at first not understanding an offer of reinstatement was made, expressed a
present desire for reinstatement if he had a chance to pursue his chance of
getting a union in. I have carefully considered the above and other related
matters of record and I am convinced that the usual remedial order of
reinstatement with full rights and privileges and make-whole provisions
remains warranted herein In my view, the statement of Johnson constituted
no more than a request by Johnson for a concurrent acknowledgment by
Respondent of recognition of his nghts protected under the Act to continue
on his return an attempt to organize a union in the plant. Otherwise any
his former job or, if the job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, with all his seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as result of the
discrimination practiced against him. The backpay provid-
ed for herein shall be computed in accordance with the
Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum, computed in the manner prescribed in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Since the unfair labor practices committed by Respon-
dent herein include acts of a character striking at the heart
of rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any other
manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed by
Section 7 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 13
The Respondent, Haynes Industries, Inc., Waycross,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminatorily laying off and refusing to reinstate
any employee for supporting United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other union.
(b) Unlawfully or coercively interrogating any employee
about union activities or sympathies; and threatening
employees with loss of job security if they seek to designate
the Union as their bargaining representative.
(c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Eddie Lee Johnson immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if it no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for his lost earnings in the manner set forth in "The
Remedy."
(b) 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 records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Waycross, Georgia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
issues that may appropnately be raised relating thereto may await
determination, as usual, in subsequent compliance proceedings.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objection thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
4 In the event 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
(Continued)
1101
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, 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 are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
1102