Hobart Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 907 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

HOBART CORPORATION 907
Hobart Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW). Cases 9-CA-
9700 and 9-CA-9759-1
March 18, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On December 14, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Maurice S. Bush issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge, only
to the extent consistent herewith,3 and to adopt his
recommended Order, as modified herein.
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 Hobart
Corporation, Hillsboro, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order, as modified below:
1. Delete paragraphs 1(b) and (c) and insert the
following as paragraph 1(b), relettering paragraphs
1(d) and (e) as paragraphs 1(c) and (d), respectively:
"(b) Threatening to close its operations at the
Hillsboro plant if the Union is successful in its
organizational campaign and a strike is called by the
Union."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i We hereby correct certain findings of fact to which Respondent has
excepted and which in no way affected the Administrative Law Judge's
ultimate conclusions nor those of which we have adopted : ( 1) Employee
Grant Bons attended only one union meeting prior to his discharge ; (2) Boris
normally used the grinder machine 5 to 10 times per week , although on
occasion he used the machine as many as 20 to 30 times per week.
Respondent has also excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative 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 the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In addition , the Administrative Law Judge frequently ascribed emotional
feelings to certain persons and attributed certain conduct to emotional
228 NLRB No. 105
responses which are unwarranted by the evidence in the record . We agree
with Respondent that such a technique is an inadequate substitute for
finding facts based on the evidence in the record . However, the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision contained a residuum of findings which are fully
supported by the evidence on the record and which adequately sustain those
of his conclusions which we are adopting.
2 Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion
that the Company's letter of October 2, 1975, provided additional, albeit
indirect, evidence of the Company's knowledge of Bons' union activities at
the time of his discharge . In reaching our conclusion to adopt the
Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated Sec.
8(aX3), we do not rely on this letter as any evidence of the Company's
knowledge of Boris' union activities at the time he was terminated.
3 Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion
that it violated Sec. 8(aXl) when Supervisor Bill Mains threatened or
interrogated employee Duane Scott concerning the latter 's union activities
and the Union 's organizational drive . We find merit in that exception.
Mains' question to Scott , "How are things going?" did not mention the
Union, and, moreover, was isolated and innocuous in nature . Furthermore,
Mains' statement to Scott , "I hope that you had not signed a (union ] card
because that was one step further towards having the Union," was made in
the course of a discussion about the Union which the employee initiated, and
was merely a part of a casual and informal conversation in an atmosphere
free of any coercive threats or interrogations . See Pepisi-Cola Bottling Co. of
Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870, 872 (1974); and Stumpf Motor Company, Inc.,
208 NLRB 431,433 (1974).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the opportu-
nity to present their evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law
and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend
to abide by the following.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees concern-
ing their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close Hillsboro plant
if the Union is successful in its organizational
campaign and if a strike is called by the Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), or any other labor organization, by
discharging employees, or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form unions, to join, assist, or support the Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), or any other union, to bargain collective-
ly through representatives of their own choosing,
or to engage in any other concerted activities for
the purpose of mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Grant Boris immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of his discharge.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
the above-named Union, or any other union.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent Hobart Corporation is an Ohio corporation
engaged in the manufacture of food processing machinery
at its plant located at Hillsboro, Ohio. During the 12
months preceding the issuance of the complaint herein,
which is a representative period, Respondent had a direct
outflow of goods , in interstate commerce , valued in excess
of $50,000, which it sold and caused to be shipped from its
Hillsboro plant directly to points outside the State of Ohio.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE INVOLVED LABOR ORGANIZATION
HOBART CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE S. BusH, Administrative Law Judge: Respon-
dent Hobart Corporation is a manufacturer of food
processing machinery at a plant in Hillsboro, Ohio, where it
employs approximately 170 employees. The issues in the
case as clarified by the evidence are: (1) whether Respon-
dent on October 1, 1975, discharged Grant Boris because of
his union sympathies and activities ; (2) whether Foreman
Bill Edwards on October 1, 1975, threatened the aforemen-
tioned Grant Boris concerning his union activities;1 (3)
whether Foreman Bill Mains on October 13, 1975, interro-
gated employee Duane Scott about the Union 's organiza-
tional campaign; and (4) whether Respondent's multiplant
director of manufacturing, Kenneth Allen, on October 15,
1975, at an employees meeting, threatened to close the
plant if the Union got in.
One of Respondent's defenses to its alleged discriminato-
ry discharge of Grant Boris is that it had no knowledge of
his union sympathies and activities at the time of his
discharge.
The consolidated complaint herein was issued on Decem-
ber 15, 1975, pursuant to a charge filed in Case 9-CA-9700
on October 6, 1975, and pursuant to a charge filed in Case
9-CA-9759-1, copies of which were duly served upon
Respondent . Respondent 's answer denies the alleged unfair
labor practices.
The case was heard in Greenfield, Ohio, on March 2 and
3, 1975. The briefs filed by the parties on April 19, 1976,
have been carefully reviewed and considered.
For reasons hereinafter indicated, Respondent will be
found in violation of the Act as alleged in the complaint, as
amended.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
This issue arises out of par . 5(a) of the complaint , as amended . Before
the amendment, the complaint accused Foreman Edwards of "interrogating"
I find that the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts: Issue of Company Knowledge
of Union Activities of Alleged Discriminatee Grant
Boris at the Time of his Discharge on October 1,
1975
The Hobart plant at Hillsboro, Ohio, the only facility
here involved, is one of 24 plants owned and operated by
Respondent Hobart Corporation. About half of the Com-
pany's plants are organized ; the remaining plants, which
include the Hillsboro plant, are unorganized. The Hillsboro
plant commenced operations as a new plant in 1970 as a
spinoff of a manufacturing operation formerly carried on at
Respondent's Chicago plant . The Hillsboro plant produces
food wrapping machinery which is designed to automati-
cally wrap foods, chiefly meats, with cellophane. Some of
these machines also weigh the food and stamp the wrappers
with the weight and price. The Hillsboro plant employs
about 175 workers in its operations, some 60 to 65 of which
are women.
There have been at least three attempts to organize the
Hillsboro plant since its opening in 1970. The first attempt
appears to have taken place in 1973; the second occurred in
1974; and the third in 1975, but none so far have been
successful. The alleged unfair labor practices herein arises
out of the UAW's attempt to organize the Hillsboro plant in
the fall of 1975. During the latest attempt to organize the
Hillsboro plant, the Union through handbilling sought to
convince the unorganized workers at the Hillsboro plant
that it would be in their best interests to be represented by
the UAW because at other Hobart plants in Ohio, repre-
sented by unions, the Hobart employees were earning
under union contracts at least $2,000 more per year than
the Hillsboro plant employees were earning for the same
type of work.
The first handbilling or distribution of union literature at
the Hillsboro plant in, 1975 took place on Friday, Septem-
an employee concerning his union activities . The amendment changed the
word "interrogating" to "threatening."
HOBART CORPORATION
ber 19, at a gate located at the 200-yard of a 200-yard
private drive to the one and only entrance and exit to and
from the plant at the front of the plant. All persons entering
or leaving the plant have to go through the gate as it is the
only means of access to and from the plant which has no
rear or side exits . The handbilling took place in the
midafternoon of that day between the changes of the day
and night shifts in order to enable the union representatives
to handbill the employees ending the day shift or starting
the night shift. The handbilling was done by Robert L.
Bateman and Ivory Howard, UAW International represen-
tatives, and Wilbur Bailey, president of UAW's Local 192,
none of whom are employees of Respondent .2
Several other handbillings took place at the gate to the
Hillsboro plant after September 19 and into the month of
October. One of these handbillings took place on Wednes-
day, October 1, 1975. This handbilling also took place in
midafternoon between change of shifts. The October 1
handbilling consisted of three sheets. The first is captioned
in bold letters, "Bulletin" and reads in part, "Compare your
hourly rate with rates of Hobart workers who belong to a
Union! You will see more than a $1.00 an hour difference.
This means a minimum you are shorted: $8.00 a day .. .
$2,040.00 a year!" The second sheet purports to show the
union wage scales for employees at Hobart's Dayton, Ohio,
plant. The third sheet purports to show the union wage
scales for employees at one of Hobart's Troy, Ohio, plants.
Respondent has several plants in Troy, all of which are
under union contracts. Respondent's letterhead shows Troy
to be its "World Headquarters."
In addition to the handbilling at the plant, the Union held
meetings , generally on Wednesday nights. The first meeting
was attended by some eight employees who had been active
in the Union's prior organizational campaign of 1974. The
subsequent meetings embraced additional newly interested
employees at the Hillsboro plant.
One of these newly interested employees was the afore-
mentioned alleged discriminatee, Grant Boris, age 21, who
had been employed at the Hillsboro plant for about 3-1/2
years, prior to his discharge on October 1, 1975. He
attended several union meeting. At the September 24
meeting he signed a union authorization card and took with
him a supply of such cards for distribution among his fellow
workers, more especially in the department where he was
employed. He passed three of the cards out at the homes of
fellow employees because as he stated, "They were afraid to
sign cards in the shops," but three of the cards were passed
out at the shop. In all he received signed cards from six of
the eight employees in his own department and two from
employees in other departments. He collected these signed
cards at rest breaks, lunch hours, and after work. Four of
the workers he contacted refused to sign cards.
One of the employees Boris solicited was Ralph Barnes
who worked in a different department not far from Boris'
department. This solicitation took place at the plant on
September 30, the day before Boris was discharged. During
2 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on the unrebutted
and wholly credited testimony of Bateman. The findings in the next two
paragraphs below are also based on the unrebutted and wholly credited
testimony of Bateman.
9 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on Bons'
unrebutted and wholly credited testimony Bons' umon authorization card,
909
the course of the solicitation Barnes agreed to try to get as
many cards as possible signed . Boris thereupon gave Barnes
a supply of the cards, one of which Barnes was to sign and
return to Boris.3
The next day, October 1, at around 9 a.m., Boris was at
his work station parallel to an aisle leading to the men's
lavatory when he spotted Barnes walking down the aisle
toward the lavatory to the left of Boris' station. After
Barnes had walked down the aisle past Boris for some
distance, Boris turned left toward Barnes and in a voice
loud enough to be heard above the noise of the running
machinery, asked him, "if he had signed his union card
yet." Barnes yelled back that he would see Boris later. This
quick exchange of question and answer took place almost
adjacent to the vicinity of the tool room department which
is on the opposite side of the aisle and to the right of Boris'
machine. From his elevated platform in front of his
machine, Boris had a clear and unobstructed view of the
tool room department and the desk therein used by its
supervisor, Clarence Walker.4
Boris testified that as he turned to his right to get back to
his machine, after having put his question to Barnes, his
position at the machine brought him in full sight of the tool
room department where he unexpectedly saw Walker, the
toolroom supervisor, standing in a seeming conversational
huddle with Foreman Bill Edwards, Boris' immediate
supervisor, and Foreman Chris Nakoff, all of whom have
been with Respondent for a number of years through prior
union campaigns.
From his quick glance to the right, Boris testified he saw
Walker standing at or near his desk in the toolroom and
Edwards and Nakoff standing close by on the same aisle
Barnes had just traversed to the men's lavatory. Immediate-
ly after he had noticed the three supervisors, Boris turned
back to his work on his machine without saying anything to
the supervisors or they to him.
Assuming for the moment the disputed fact that the three
supervisors were actually present at the adjacent area of the
toolroom at the very moment of Boris' shouted union card
inquiry at Barnes, there is an additional issue as to whether
the three supervisors were actually close enough to Boris at
the time of his shout to Barnes as to have unavoidably
overheard and noted Boris' hollered question.
The three supervisors deny that they were present when
Boris shouted his union card question to Barnes and further
deny that they overheard such question by Boris to Barnes.
Although Tool Room Supervisor Walker denies that he
overheard Boris' shouted inquiry to Barnes , he admits that
he is unable to deny that he was not at his desk when Boris,
according to his testimony, shouted to Barnes about his
union card. Walker was also unable to deny that Foremen
Edwards and Nakoff were not with him at the time of the
alleged incident because both Edwards and Nakoff were in
and out of the tool room department, presumably for
supplies for their departments. Foreman Edwards did not
deny "being near Mr. Walker's desk" at the time here in
bearing the date of September 24, 1975, is in evidence. Bons' attendance at
the September 24 union meeting is corroborated by Bateman, the interna-
tional's representative.
4 The findings in the above paragraph are based on composite testimony
of Boris and Barnes which is unrebutted and wholly credited.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question, but testified that he "did not recall" hearing Boris
hollering to Barnes about the union card . Nakoff flatly
denies being present at the incident and overhearing Boris'
question to Barnes.
As aforenoted the above incident of Boris' shouted
inquiry to Barnes took place on October 1, 1975, at around
9 o'clock in the morning . Somewhat later that same day
Boris was discharged by Edwards, his foreman , with the
approval of upper supervisors , because of a run -in he had
later that same morning with the aforementioned Nakoff,
foreman of another department , over Boris' necessary but
alleged unauthorized use of one of the machines in NakofFs
department in connection with essential work on a part
Boris was machining in his own department , as will be more
fully described in the section below.
Prior to his discharge by Edwards, Boris' credited and
undisputed testimony shows that he "always did get along
with him [Edwards] fairly well."
At the time of his discharge , Boris had a splendid
reputation with the Company as a "100% performer" but
management knew that Boris was disgruntled and unhappy
over his rate of pay because he (Boris) believed that in his
position as a milling machine setup operator he was entitled
to receive $4.09 under the Company's own wage classifica-
tion but was only getting $3.87 per hour. Boris made a half
dozen or more efforts to get management to raise his pay to
$4.09 per hour, but without success . I infer and find that
this dissatisfaction over his hourly wage was a factor in
causing Boris to become a strong union sympathizer and
activist.
On October 2, 1975, the day after Boris' discharge, the
Company sent a letter to every employee in the Hillsboro
plant acknowledging that, "Once again, the question of
union representation has been discussed in our Plant and
efforts are being made to talk you into signing a union
card." The key sentence in the letter reads, "Our hope is
that you will not sign a union card."
Respondent denies that it had any knowledge of Boris'
union sympathies and activities at the time of his discharge.
Discussion and Conclusions
As indicated, Respondent's first line of defense against its
alleged discriminatory discharge of Boris is that it had no
knowledge of his union sympathies and activities at the
time it discharged Boris and that, therefore, his termination
was due solely to an altercation Boris had that same
morning with the aforementioned Nakoff, a foreman of
another department , a description of which will be detailed
in the next section of this Decision.
I credit Boris' testimony that the tiff between himself and
Nakoff took place after and not before the incident of his
(Boris') shouted union card question at Barnes and find no
creditable testimony in support of Respondent 's contention
that the quarrel between Boris and Nakoff took place
before the incident of Boris' shout to Barnes . But even if the
tiff between Boris and Nakoff did take place prior to Boris'
shouted question to Barnes as contended by Respondent,
that would not remove the question of whether Boris'
S I do not credit Personnel Manager Michael Belles ' testimony that the
Company marled its October 2, 1975, letter to its employees because on that
very day of October 2 and not pnor to that day, it had rece ived its first word
discharge was caused primarily because of his quarrel with
Nakoffor because of his union activities.
From the record as a whole I find and conclude that
Respondent had knowledge of Boris' union activities at the
time of his termination . Based primarily on Boris' superior
demeanor during his testimony, I fully credit Boris'
testimony that Superintendent Walker and Foremen Ed-
wards and Nakoff were unexpectedly present in the near
vicinity of Boris' work station when Boris on the spur of the
moment shouted his union card question at Barnes.
I likewise fully credit Boris' testimony, based on his
superior demeanor, that the three supervisors were physi-
cally considerably closer to him (Boris) than he was to
Barnes when he yelled his union card question to Barnes.
Under these circumstances I find and conclude that the
three supervisors because of their close proximity to Boris
when he yelled to Barnes were in a position to easily
overhear and did overhear Boris ' shouted question to
Barnes on whether he had signed a union card. I infer and
fmd that these three supervisors, being fully aware of the
Company's opposition to a union shop, were and are
especially sensitive to the words "union card" or even the
word "card," as uttered by employees because they as
company supervisors had been through one or two prior
company opposed union campaigns to organize the plant.
For this additional reason I find that the three supervisors
especially overheard Boris' yell to Barnes because it
contained the attention arresting words "union card."
I further find that the qualified denials of Supervisors
Walker and Edwards about their presence near Boris' work
station at the time of Boris' yell to Barnes lend further
credence to Boris' testimony that they were present at that
time and did overhear the union card question Boris put to
Barnes . Foreman NakofFs flat denial that he was present
when Boris hollered to Barnes or that he overheard Boris'
yell to Barnes is not credited because the record shows that
Nakoff has hard feelings against Boris because ofa quarrel
between them later that same morning as will be shown in
the next section of this Decision.
As heretofore noted the Company in its October 2, 1975,
letter to its employees, the day after Boris' discharge,
admitted knowledge that "efforts are being made to talk
you into signing a union card ." Due to the proximity of the
date of the Company's October 2 letter to that of Boris'
discharge of the day before, I infer and find that the
Company got this knowledge of card passing at the plant on
October 15 from one or more or all of the three supervisors
who had overheard Boris' shouted union card question to
Barnes. I thus find that the Company's letter of October 2 is
additional albeit indirect evidence of company knowledge
through its supervisors of Boris' union activities at the time
of his discharge.
I further find that Respondent had knowledge of the
Union's effort to organize its Hillsboro plant even before
Boris' discharge on October 1, 1975, because the undis-
puted and credited evidence shows that distribution of the
Union's literature took place as early as September 19,
1975, which I find must have come and did come to the
of union activity at the plant by reports from supervisors whose names Belles
could not even remember.
FJOBART CORPORATION 911
attention of the Company due to the fact that the
distribution took place at the one and only entrance and
exit to the plant and must have been observed by at least
some supervisors. I find, however, that there is no evidence
of company knowledge of Boris' involvement in union
activity prior to the date of his discharge on October 1.
Having found that Respondent had full knowledge of
Boris' union activities at the plant on the day and at the
time of his discharge, the next section will deal with an
altercation that took place a little later that same morning
between Boris and Foreman Nakoff, and whether that
altercation was the real cause for Boris' termination, as
contended by Respondent.
B. Altercation Between Boris and Foreman Nakoff.•
Issues as to Real Cause for Boris ' Discharge and
Threat by Foreman Edwards to Boris Because of his
Union Activity
The record shows that both Boris and Foreman Nakoff,
of another department , are short tempered and quick to
anger . Personnel Manager Belles has had complaints from
employees that Nakoff is quick tempered , but as far as the
record shows Nakoff has not been reprimanded for that
fault. Boris some 2 years before his discharge when he was
still a teenager became resentful of the bossing he was
receiving from a fellow worker, Christine Curl, and told her
to "bug off," or stop molesting him, which so upset her that
upon her complaint, Boris was given a verbal warning for
"Bad language , and other bad gestures and actions around
other employees ." Some 2 weeks before his discharge,
Boris, upon being wrongly accused of making some 50
pieces of scrap on the preceding day shift , by the 23-year
old department's night shift foreman , Steve Cox , angrily
responded , "What do you know about it, you son-of-a-
bitch?" The aforementioned day shift foreman , Edwards,
who was present during the argument, orally warned Boris
that if he heard any more "swearing at a foreman" he would
have to take action against Boris.
The testimony of Personnel Manager Belles shows that
rough and abusive language is common among the employ-
ees at the plant but that prior to Boris' discharge no
employee had been discharged because of abusive lan-
guage.
Boris' "Employee Reprimand" card from the personnel
records of the Company shows that he was discharged on
October 1, 1975, for the following reasons, "Swearing at
Foreman Chris Nakoff. Also has sworn at Steve Cox.
Employee has received written warnings concerning this
subject several times .." s The statement, "Also has sworn at
Steve Cox" in the reprimand has reference to the finding
above where Boris, having been wrongfully accused by
Night Foreman Cox of making scrap , angrily told Cox,
"What do you know about it, you son-of-a-bitch?" The
third reason stated on the reprimand card , to wit : "Employ-
ee has received written warnings concerning this subject
several times" is not corroborated by exhibits showing the
alleged written warnings and is accordingly not credited for
that reason and also because it is not supported by any
credible testimony.
Respondent contends that the immediate cause for Boris'
discharge was the abusive and obscene language he used in
an altercation he had with Foreman Nakoff just prior to
Boris' discharge.
The altercation between Boris, age 21, and Nakoff, age
25, took place under the following circumstances. Boris
worked in the plant's drills and mills department as one of
some eight employees under Foreman Edwards. Nakoff
was foreman of the plant's sheet metal and welding
department where he has supervision of about 12 employ-
ees.
In his work as milling machine setup operator, Boris
frequently found it necessary to use a machine known as a
Hammond Grinder for purposes of deburring metals but as
his department does not have any grinding machines he is
obliged to take any piece of metal that needed deburring to
other departments in the plant that have the Hammond
Grinder. Of the two or three other departments that have
Hammond machines, the most accessible department is
Nakoff's where there are three Hammond Grinders. Three
other setup operators in Boris' department likewise used the
grinders in Nakoffs department. Boris' credited testimony
shows that on the average he used the Hammond machines
in Nakoff's department from 20 to 30 times per week.
In the morning of October 1, shortly after Nakoff had
overheard Boris shout his union card question at Barnes,
Boris took pieces of steel called parallel bars into Nakofl's
department for deburring on one of the Hammond ma-
chines . There he found Barnes on a temporary assignment
from his regular job on the "paint line," at the machine
called the Big Hammond. Boris asked Barnes if he could
use his machine and Barnes agreed that he could have the
machine in a moment or two while he took time off from his
machine to hand file some burrs off of metal that could not
be machine deburred.
Just as Boris took over the machine, Nakoff came by and
angrily demanded what Boris "was doing back there." This
was the first time Nakoff had challenged Boris' use of a
grinder in his department although Nakoff admits that he
had seen Boris use the Hammonds in his department
numerous times as appears from the following exchange at
the hearing:
JuDOE BusH: But the fact is you saw him numerous
times in your department using the grinding machine?
THE WrrNEss: Yes.
JUDGE Bum All right, and this was the first time you
ordered him to stop using it; isn't that correct?
THE WrrNEss: Yes.
Taken aback by Nakoff's hostility, Boris explained that
he was using the Big Hammond to debur parallel bars
because there were no deburring machines in his own
department. Nakoff thereupon heatedly accused Boris of
interfering with the production of Barnes who was not
making the expected production standard or quota that day
and peremptorily ordered Boris "to get the hell out of
6 Nakoff testified that Boris, during this exchange with Nakoff, bumped
into him (Nakoff) and challenged him with the taunt, "Do you want to
fight?" I do not credit this testimony because none of this alleged conduct by
Bons is shown as the reasons or causes for his discharge in the Company's
above-described "Employee Reprimand."
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there." This in turn so angered Boris that he told Nakoff "to
blow it out of his ass." Deeply offended , Nakoff walked
away in a huff. It took Boris a moment or two to finish his
deburring of the still engaged parallel bars . He then
immediately returned to his own department to complete
the setup of the machine he was working on.7
When Boris got back to his department , Foreman
Edwards told him that Nakoff had just been there and had
seemed greatly upset and asked Boris what caused Nakoff
to be so upset . Boris "explained to him what had taken
place and how I felt on the situation ," that is, that Nakoff
had jumped him for using the Big Hammond Grinder in
Nakofl s department and that they had quarreled over what
Boris believed was his right to use the machine as his own
department did not have any grinding machines.
Edwards thereupon sharply reprimanded Boris for not
having asked his permission to leave their department for
the purpose of using a grinder in some other department.
However, the evidence shows and I find that there was a
long-established practice in Foreman Edwards' department
for the setup operators therein to leave the department at
will whenever necessary to use a grinder in another
department without asking Edwards ' permission and that
Edwards, as foreman of his department, which has only
about eight employees , was well aware of this.8 I according-
ly find that Edwards' reprimand of Boris was the first time
he had jumped a setup operator in his department for not
asking his advance permission to leave the department to
use a grinder machine in another department.
The record further shows by the testimony of Plant
Manager Ralph Waldren that there is nothing in the
Company's employees handbook that prohibits an employ-
ee from going from his own department to another to do an
essential part of his assigned job or requires him to seek
permission of the foreman of the other department to come
into his department and do work that is essential.
Edwards, who is 48 years of age, ended his above-
described conversation with young Boris by telling him
"Buddy, you better watch what you're doing with this
union business." 9
The following occurred after Nakoff had ordered Boris
out of his department and after Nakoff in an agitated state
of mind had seen Edwards?° Nakoff then contacted Max
Pierre , manager of manufacturing, in his office, explained
what had happened between himself and Boris, and
complained that Boris had sworn at him and called him a
7 The above findings are based on the composite testimony of Bons,
Nakoff, and Barnes after careful and full consideration thereof. Any
testimony which conflicts with the above findings is not credited.
s I base the above finding on Bons' credited testimony. I discredit
Edwards ' reply, "Not to my knowledge" to the question put to him by
Respondent 's counsel , "Do other operators in your department do that [i.e.,
leave the department to use a grinding machine without Edwards' advance
permission [T' Respondent did not call any of the other operators to
corroborate Edwards ' testimony that it is not common practice for employ-
ees in his department to leave the department without his knowledge to use
grinders in other departments.
9 The above finding is based on Bons' credited testimony . Respondent in
its brief does not cite any rebuttal or denial by Edwards that he made the
above statement to Boris and I have been unable to find any such rebuttal or
denial in the transcript of Edwards ' testimony. But even if denied, I would
not credit the denial because there is an unmistakable ring of truth in the
substance of Bons' several versions under both direct and cross-examina-
tions of the statement made to him by Edwards which Bons honestly stated
name .1' Within minutes Edwards and Plant Manager
Waldren came into Pierre's office and Nakoff repeated his
complaints to them against Boris . Waldren , thereupon,
instructed Edwards to find Personnel Manager Belles, "get
the facts and get it taken care of." Pierre then left his office
accompanied by Nakoff and Edwards. They stopped in
front of the desk of the aforementioned Supervisor Walker
near Boris' station. Edwards then called Boris over to them.
Confronted about the incident he had with Nakoff, Boris
told the group, "If we had grinders of our own, we wouldn't
have to go to other departments to grind stuff." After some
discussion Pierre ordered Boris back to his machine.12
Boris' credited testimony shows that during the course of
his above confrontation by the three supervisors, Pierre
pointed his finger at Boris' face and told him he was "going
to be hunting another job or walking the street."
Edwards then contacted Personnel Manager Belles at his
office where he related to Belles the angry dispute that had
arisen between Nakoff and Boris over Boris' right to use
one of the grinders in Nakofl's department in the necessary
performance of Boris' work for the Company and that
during the course of the dispute Boris used abusive and
obscene words at Nakoff. Nakoff also directly reported the
same incident to Belles who prior to his conferences with
Edwards and Nakoff had had instructions from Plant
Manager Waldren to investigate the facts and take appro-
priate action.
Minutes later Foreman Edwards directed Boris to collect
his tools and follow him to the office of Personnel Manager
Belles . In Boris' experience such an order was virtually
always a prelude to a discharge. When Edwards and Boris
arrived at the personnel office, they found Belles and
Nakoff waiting for them. The decision to fire Boris had
already been made subject to anything Boris had to say in
his own defense . At Belles' direction , Edwards, Boris' own
foreman , told Boris that he was going to be discharged
because in the dispute he had had with Nakoff over his
right to use a grinder machine in Nakofl's office, he had (as
testified to by Belles) "called Nakoff a name" and had
"swore at him." Belles then asked Boris if what Edwards
had just said was true. Boris, depressed by this sudden turn
of affairs against him and knowing that management
already knew his defense that he had the right to use the
grinder machine in Nakofl's department, merely replied, "I
can't understand why I can't get along with people." 13
that he could not remember verbatim . I find that the composite of the several
versions clearly show that Edwards' threat to Bons was connected with his
union activities . Earlier findings above show that Edwards was one of the
three supervisors who only moments earlier that same morning had
overheard Bons shout to fellow worker Barnes about a union card.
10 Nakoff did not tell Edwards what had occurred between himself and
Bons over Bons' use of the grinder in his department but merely asked
Edwards to get Bons out of his department.
11 Nakoff testified that he also complained to Pierre that Bons had
deliberately bumped into him and challenged him to a fight . I again note that
I do not credit this testimony because none of this alleged misconduct by
Bons is shown as reasons or causes for Bons' discharge in the Company's
above-described "Employee Reprimand" card on Boris.
12 The above findings are based primarily upon Nakofis credited
testimony.
13 The findings in the above paragraph are based on the credited
composite testimony of Belles and Bons.
HOBART CORPORATION 913
Belles thereupon accepted Edwards' recommendation for
Boris' discharge. The termination took place at 9:45 a.m.
This was within the hour of the time Supervisors Edwards,
Nakoff, and Walker had overheard Boris' shouted question
at fellow worker Barnes on whether he had signed a union
authorization card.14
At the hearing Personnel Manager Belles described Boris
as a "100% performer." In a house letter to employees
called "Hobart Happenings," dated May 10, 1974, Boris
was congratulated for a cost reduction proposal which led
to a 67-percent increase in his production time. On August
14, 1975, about 6 weeks prior to his discharge, Boris
received a commendation in writing for a further "Cost
Reduction Proposal" from Kenneth Allen, Respondent's
director of manufacturing at the Company's "World
Headquarters" in Troy, in which Allen stated, "Elimination
of unnecessary cost will always be, a most essential
ingredient in `job security' for all of us." Beneath the typed
letter, Allen added in pen and ink, "Thank you for another
nice contribution." [Emphasis supplied.] Boris also received
a medal in connection with the cost proposal for which he
was commended by Allen.
Boris ' reputation with the Company as an innovator of
cost reduction proposals was not discussed at the time the
decision was made to terminate Boris.
Discussion and Conclusions
The above findings show that Respondent discharged
Boris , a conceded 100-percent work performer and recog-
nized innovator of cost savings procedures, within the hour
after it discovered that Boris was passing out union
authorization cards to fellow workers at the plant.
The record further shows that within minutes after
Respondent's discovery of Boris' union activities at the
plant, a quarrel developed between Foreman Nakoff and
Boris when Nakoff challenged Boris' right to make brief use
of a grinding machine in Nakofl's department which was
essential to Boris' work for the Company as a machine
setup operator. Respondent does not claim that Boris was
discharged because of his asserted right to use the machine
but claims only that Boris was terminated because of the
obscene words he directed at Nakoff which the findings
show took place after Nakoff peremptorily ordered Boris
"to get the hell out of there."
From the record as a whole I find that Respondent seized
upon Boris' offensive language to Nakoff as a fortuitous
pretext for Boris' discharge as a coverup for his discharge
because of his aggressive union activities as discovered by
Respondent only about 20 minutes or so prior to the
altercation between Nakoff and Boris.
The complexity of the findings herein compel the above
conclusion. Foreman Nakoff was one of three supervisors
who overheard Boris when he shouted his union card
question at fellow worker Barnes . Prior to that time Nakoff'
had never challenged Boris' right to use as needed the
grinders in his department although he had seen Boris
make use of the grinders on numerous occasions. Minutes
after his discovery of Boris' union activity, Nakoff for the
first time jumped Boris for his use of the Big Hammond
Grinder in his department with his angry and provocative
question, "What are you doing back there?"
When Boris responded that he was necessarily using the
machine because his own department did not have a
grinder, Nakoff brushed Boris off with the claim that Boris
was interfering with the already low production of Barnes
by taking the machine from Barnes although the evidence
shows that Barnes had willingly relinquished the machine
to Boris because he had in any event to take time off from
the machine to do some hand filing of burrs from steel
pieces that the machine would not take.
It was only when the hot tempered Nakoff ordered Boris,
"to get the hell out of there," that the equally quick
tempered Boris told Nakoff, "to blow it out of his ass," but
he nevertheless quit the machine as ordered as quickly as he
could finish getting the still engaged pieces of steel
deburred and then immediately left Nakofi's department.
In this context and since Boris was using the grinder strictly
as part of his expected duties to his employer as a machine
setup operator, Boris' hot response to Nakoff's order, "to
blow it out of his ass," while censorable, is humanly
understandable under the circumstances.
There is no evidence that Respondent discussed Boris'
outburst to Nakoff in the light of their respective conflicting
rights to the use of the machine before Boris was dis-
charged. Considered in that light, Boris' insistence upon his
right to use the machine was an act of loyalty to his
employer and perhaps entitled to greater priority than
Nakoff's because any interference with Boris' job of setting
up machines for production would appear to have a more
adverse affect on plantwide production than merely taking
a man off the grinder for a few minutes in Nakoff's
department in order to give a setup operator like Boris a
chance to more quickly finish up the setup of a machine for
production.
The above circumstances, together with the admitted fact
that Boris was a 100-percent work performer and innovator
of cost savings procedures, show that the true motive for
Boris' termination was not his hot but provoked words at
Nakoff, but the Company's discovery some 30 minutes
earlier that Boris was engaged in soliciting union authoriza-
tion cards from the employees at the plant.
As shown in the findings, Edwards, Boris' foreman, was
also one of the three supervisors who had overheard Boris'
shouted union card question to Barnes which as shown
occurred only moments before the altercation between
Nakoff and Boris took place. When Boris informed
Edwards about the altercation, Edwards warned Boris,
"Buddy you better watch what you're doing with this union
business." This is a further indication that Boris was
terminated because of his union activities and not because
of the abusive reply Nakoff provoked when he ordered
Boris "to get the hell" off the grinding machine where Boris
was engaged in necessary and expected work for the
Company.
The peculiar and unorthodox conduct of Foreman
Edwards towards Boris, his subordinate, is another strong
indication that Boris was terminated because of his union
14 The finding that Edwards recommended Boris' discharge is based on
Belles' credited testimony. Any testimony by Edwards to the contrary is not
credited.
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities, as discovered by Edwards and Foreman Nakoff
only about a half an hour or so before Boris' discharge. The
record shows that there had been a fairly good working
relationship between Foreman Edwards and Boris. The
record further shows that Edwards, of course, knew better
than anyone else that Boris was a 100-percent performer
and that he had received commendations for his cost
savings proposals, including the proposal that led to a 67-
percent increase in Boris' productive time. He also knew
that it was absolutely essential for his machine setup
operators, like Boris, to make use of deburring machines in
other departments in connection with their work because
Edwards' own department did not have any grinding
machines . Under these circumstances most supervisors
would have fought tooth and nail to keep a superior
performer such as Boris from being fired and would have
stood up to and fought Nakoff for blocking Boris from his
necessary use of one of his grinding machines, notwith-
standing the hot words Boris threw at Nakoff when Nakoff
ordered Boris "to get the hell" out of his department.
But instead of Edwards coming forward to the defense of
the beleaguered Boris, the record shows that shortly after
Nakoff had ordered Boris "to get the hell" out of his
department and before Boris was fired, Edwards not only
did not come to the defense of Boris but on the contrary
engaged in the extraordinary conduct of recommending the
discharge of Boris, probably his top performer, because of
Boris' angry language to an equally hot headed supervisor
of another department who was attempting to stop Boris
from his necessary duty of performing essential work on
one of the machines in that other department. I fmd that
Edwards, in not coming to Boris' defense and in recom-
mending his discharge, was carrying out the threat he made
to Boris minutes after the fracas between Nakoff and Boris
when Edwards told Boris, "Buddy, you better watch what
you're doing with this union business."
I infer, find and conclude that within a half hour after
Respondent learned of Boris' union activity at the plant,
Foreman Edwards recommended Boris' termination for the
pretextual reason of his swearing at Nakoff, either to curry
favor with top management or at the direction of top
management, in order to make it appear less evident that
the decision to terminate Boris, seemingly originating from
the recommendation of a mere foreman, was unrelated to
Boris' union activity at the plant.
The discharge of Boris, the innovator of the cost savings
procedures, was clearly contrary to the conviction ex-
pressed by Respondent's overall director of manufacturing,
Kenneth Allen, in his commendation of Boris from the
Company's "World Headquarters" in Troy, Ohio, for Boris'
most recent cost reduction proposal, that the, "Elimination
of unnecessary cost will always be a most essential
ingredient in `job security' for all of us."
In summary, I fmd and conclude that Respondent
through the conduct of its agent, John W. Edwards, in
threatening employee Grant Boris concerning his union
activities, is in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act,
iS As heretofore noted, Respondent contends that the immediate cause
for Bons' discharge was his fracas with Foreman Nakoff. As it is found that
Respondent used that fracas as a pretext for terminating Bons because of his
union activity, Respondent's secondary reason for Bons' discharge that he
called the night shift foreman a "son -of-a-bitch" when he was unjustly
substantially as alleged in the complaint, as orally amended
at the hearing.
I further find and conclude that Respondent discharged
Grant Boris because of his activities in behalf of the Union
and to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of
the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
as alleged in the complaint.15
C. Findings: Issue of Interrogation of an Employee
by Foreman Main
Duane Scott is employed by Respondent at its Hillsboro
plant as stockroom clerk. He works under the direct
supervision of Foreman Bill Main.
On or around October 10, 1975, Foreman Main looked
Scott up in the stockroom and started a conversation on,
"How things were going." Although Scott is not sure that
the asked question included the word "Union," Scott
testified that he was certain that the question put to him
really meant, "How things were going with the Union."
Scott's testimony shows that at the time Main asked him
the first quoted version of the question there was "a lot of
talk going around the plant about signing cards and maybe
getting enough people to bring the thing up to a vote."
The contents of the conversation Foreman Main initiated
with Scott as reflected in Scott's testimony clearly shows
that the conversation started by Main pertained to the
union activity at the plant. This is evident from the
following excerpts from Scott's wholly uncontradicted and
credited testimony, as Main was not called by Respondent
as a witness herein, to wit:
I expressed my opinion to him [Main] that I hadn't
made any decision one way or the other; that I realized
there were two sides to the story-management's side
and the union's side. I told him there had been a couple
of meetings down at the Union Hall. I hadn't been to
any of them, but I said to him that I wouldn't care to go
just to listen to hear that side since I was going to hear
management's side from the meetings that would
possibly come up, and make a decision from that.
n * s s s
We were talking about the whole union deal in general.
He made the comment that he had been in union shops
before and the comment that some people wanted the
union and after it got in, they were sorry they got it
because they weren't satisfied; and that he hoped I
hadn't signed a card because that was one step further
towards having the Union. [Emphasis supplied.]
Discussion and Conclusions
It is again noted that Scott's above-credited testimony is
uncontradicted as Respondent did not call Foreman Main
as a witness to rebut Scott's testimony.
accused of making excessive scrap on the preceding day shift, cannot stand
as a defense for Boris' termination because at the time of the incident about 2
weeks prior to Bons' discharge, Boris was not discharged for that incident
but merely reprimanded by Foreman Edwards.
HOBART CORPORATION 915
Respondent's sole defense is that the conversation
initiated by Main did not relate to union activity and that if
there were any interrogations therein by Main on the
subject of union activity, the interrogations were not
coercive in nature as required by established law.
Both of these contentions are without merit because any
reading of Scott's testimony shows that the only matter
discussed in the conversation initiated by Foreman Main
was the union activity at the plant and that the conversation
must have had and did contain interrogations which were
inherently coercive in nature because Scott found it
necessary to assure Main that he had not made up his mind
about whether he favored the Union or not and also
because Main expressed a hope that Scott "hadn' t signed a
card because that was one step towards having the Union."
From the testimony of record I find and conclude that
Respondent through its agent Foreman Main engaged in
coercive interrogation of employee Scott about the Union's
organizational campaign in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
D. Findings: Issue of Threat To Close Plant if the
Union got in
The management of the Hillsboro plant held a voluntary
employee meeting at the plant on October 15, 1975, on the
subject of the union campaign then going on to organize the
plant. About 35 employees attended the meeting. The
meeting was conducted by Plant Manager Waldren as
assisted by the aforementioned Mr. Pierre, resident manag-
er of manufacturing operations at the Hillsboro plant, and
the aforementioned Mr. Allen, overall director of manufac-
turing from the home office in Troy, Ohio.
Among the employees in attendance at the meeting were
Helen Hertenstein , LeRoy Smith, and the aforementioned
Duane Scott . Smith and Scott testified to an alleged threat
to close the Hillsboro plant by Mr. Allen in answer to a
statement or comment made at the meeting by Helen
Hertenstein who was not called and did not testify herein.
Mr. Allen likewise was not called and did not testify herein.
During the question-and-answer period, Smith testified
that Helen Hertenstein made a statement at the meeting
which he was insistent was a statement and not a question.
Under direct examination, Smith's first version of Herten-
stein's statement was "if we [employees ] should get a union
in ... and if they [employees ] went on strike, the it
[Company ] would close the plant."
When asked by government counsel to repeat the
"lady's question again," Smith tartly replied that, "She
didn't ask a question , she made a statement."
In his second paraphrasing of the lady's statement Smith
paraphrased her statement as follows, "if we should get a
union in and we should go on strike, then they [Company]
could close the plant." Smith testified that his own quick
response to Hertenstein's statement was, "No, they [Com-
pany] can't do this." Smith's credited testimony shows that
manufacturing director from the Company's world head-
quarters at Troy, Ohio, Allen, thereupon stood up and
stated that, "He could close the plant anytime he got
ready." Smith replied, "No, he couldn't." Allen answered
that Smith "was feeling sorry" for himself. The cross-
examination did not shake Smith 's testimony as to the
statement Helen Hertenstein made at the meeting as
paraphrased above or to Allen' s statement that "he could
close the plant any time he got ready."
Employee Scott, who also was in attendance at the
meeting, substantially corroborated Smith 's testimony as to
what was said at the meeting by Mrs. Hertenstein, Smith,
and Allen as set forth above. Like Smith, Scott made it clear
that the statement attributed to Mrs. Hertenstein was not a
question but a "comment" and that she had commented
that, "if the Union were to come in, they're [the Company]
are liable to close up the plant."
It is again noted that Respondent did not call Mr. Allen
who is the overall director of manufacturing of a number of
Respondent's plants to contradict or rebut the above-
described testimony of Smith and Scott which I fully credit.
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent's defense is that General Counsel "failed to
demonstrate with any certainty just what was said" at the
employee meeting and that in Respondent's view all that
Allen said or meant to say was that in the event of a strike
the Company would temporarily close down the Hillsboro
plant in order "to avoid possible violence and to facilitate
negotiations" and that Respondent had a protected legal
right to do so.
The trouble with this defense is that the phrase "to avoid
possible violence and to facilitate negotiations" is based on
the testimony of Robert Bernd, director of industrial
relations for all of Respondent's plants, who was not
present at the Hillsboro plant employee meeting here in
question, and not on anything Mr. Allen stated to the
employees at that meeting as uncontestably described
above. Allen's own words to the employees at the meeting
were that he "could close the plant anytime he got ready."
Although the employee meeting at the Hillsboro plant
was open to questions by the employees and answers from
the company representatives concerning the Union, the
record is clear that Mrs. Hertenstein did not ask Mr. Allen
or any other company representative at the meeting what
would happen to the plant if the Union got in and declared
a strike . Instead she merely stated her own independent
view or fear that if the Union got in and the employees went
on strike, the Company would or could close the plant. I
infer and find from this remark and the responding remarks
of Smith and Allen that she meant, and was understood by
all at the meeting to mean, that she feared that if the plant
became unionized and a strike occurred , the Company
would or could close the plant down permanently and if
this should occur all of the employees at the Hillsboro plant
would lose their jobs and that it would be difficult to find
other jobs in a town as small as Hillsboro.
I also infer and find that Mrs. Hertenstein by her remark
was thus presenting an argument most helpful to the
Company's opposition to the Union. This is apparent from
the fact that when Smith arose to challenge Hertenstein's
comment about the possibility of the plant being aban-
doned in the event of a strike, company executive Allen
jumped to his feet and emphatically stated in support of
Mrs. Hertenstein's comment , that he "could close the plant
any time he got ready."
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find Allen's quick response to the assembled employees
in support of Mrs . Hertenstein's expressed fear of plant
closure was a veiled threat of a possible permanent closing
of the plant in the event the plant became unionized and a
strike occurred which the parties were unable to settle
because of economic differences.
If Allen meant to say that in the event of a strike, it would
be a company policy to close the plant for the duration of
the strike, it would have been a very simple thing for him to
have said so directly . But instead Allen chose to tell the
assembled employees that he "could close the plant any
time he got ready ." The record shows that Allen meant
exactly what he said because when Smith challenged his
statement, Allen shot back at Smith the rejoinder that
Smith "was feeling sorry" for himself which clearly conveys
the thought that now that Smith knew that Allen had the
authority to close the plant at "any time he got ready,"
Smith was feeling sorry for himself at the then realizable
prospect of losing his job altogether if Allen should decide
to permanently close the Hillsboro plant in the event of an
economic strike.
In summary I find and conclude that Respondent
through its agent Kenneth Allen , one of its top executives,
threatened to cease its operation at the Hillsboro plant if
the Union was successful in its organizational campaign, in
violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act, substantially as
alleged in the complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The above-named Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of
the Act.
2. The above-named Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Grant Boris, Re-
spondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purpose of the Act, including the offer of reinstatement of
Grant Boris, with backpay computed in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
16 N.L R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S . 426 (1941); N.L.R.B
v Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941); Consolidated Industries,
Inc, 108 NLRB 60 (1954 ), and cases cited therein.
17 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
with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Because of
the character and scope of the unfair labor practices found,
I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order.16
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this proceeding, I make the following:
ORDER 17
The Respondent, Hobart Corporation, Hillsboro, Ohio,
its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees concerning their union
activities.
(b) Interrogating its employees about the Union's organi-
zational campaign.
(c) Threatening to close its operations at the Hillsboro
plant if the Union is successful in its organizational
(d) Discouraging membership in the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculturallmplement
Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organiza-
tion , by discharging employees or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment.
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Grant Boris immediate and full reinstatement to
his former job or , if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by
reason of his unlawful discharge in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "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 other records
necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under
this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Hillsboro, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9 , after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it 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 ensure said notices
are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
18 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."