Holley Woodworking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 630 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Darrel Craft and John Thiesen , Co-partners doing
business as Holley Woodworking Co. and Lumber
and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2791,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 36-CA- 1890
June 19, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On January 30, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley
Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner 's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions, the
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondents, Darrel Craft and John
Thiesen, Co-partners doing business as Holley
Woodworking Co., their agents, successors , and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT , Trial Examiner : Based upon a
charge filed May 29, 1969 , as amended July 2,
1969, by Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local
Union No. 2791, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Union , the complaint was issued
on July 7, 1969.
The complaint , as amended during the course of
183 NLRB No. 73
the hearing, alleges that Darrel Craft and John
Thiesen, Co-partners doing business as Holley
Woodworking Co.,' hereinafter referred to as the
Respondents, engaged in conduct violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondents by
their answer, as amended during the course of the
hearing, deny that they committed the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint except as to one
allegation indicated hereinbelow.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Albany,
Oregon, September 23, 24, and 25, 1969, before
the duly designated Trial Examiner. Appearances
were entered on behalf of General Counsel and
Respondents, but no appearance was entered on
behalf of the Charging Party. A brief was received
from the Respondents within the time designated
therefor; General Counsel filed no brief but elected
in lieu thereof to present oral argument at the end
of the hearing.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
upon by oberservation of the witnesses as they
testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Darrel Craft and John Thiesen are, and have
been at all times material herein, copartners doing
business under the trade name and style of Holley
Woodworking Co. At all times material herein,
Respondents have maintained their principal office
and place of business in Sweet Home, Oregon, and
are, and have been at all times material herein, en-
gaged at such plant and location in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of wooden moldings and
cleats for boxes. Respondents commenced opera-
tions at said plant and location in January 1969,
and during the second calendar quarter of 1969,
which period is representative of all times material
herein, manufactured, sold, and shipped from said
plant and location wood products valued in excess
of $75,000, of which products valued in excess of
$50,000 were sold to Western Wirebound Box
Company in Oregon, which company annually
produces and ships goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly outside of Oregon.
As is admitted by the Respondents, they are now,
and have been at all times material herein, an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondents, the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
' The name of Dan Butterfield was deleted from the title by amendment
of the complaint withdrawing the allegation that he is a copartner in the
Holley Woodworking Co
HOLLEY WOODWORKING CO. 631
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues to be resolved herein are as follows:
(1) Whether or not Respondents by the conduct of
Dan Butterfield, their plant superintendent, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on May 23, 1969,
by unlawfully interrogating employees2 and by
threatening employees with discharge if they
refused to withdraw from the Union; and (2)
whether the discharges of Delores Bingham, Jer-
rene Hyde, Nellie Strumenski, and Margaret
Guthary on May 24, 1969, were discriminatorily
motivated.
Hyde, one of the employees who was discharged
on May 24, testified, and her testimony is credited,
that on May 21 she obtained union authorization
cards from Dean Davis, a union representative; the
next day, May 22, she distributed the cards to other
employees prior to working hours and during the
lunch period; a number of the employees signed
them and gave them back to her; she, hereself,
signed a card about that time; and in the evening of
May 22 she turned over to Davis the signed cards
she had obtained. The record discloses that the
other three of the above-named employees who
were discharged were also among the employees
who signed cards.
The Interrogation and Threats on May 23
Butterfield testified that he did interrogate most
of the employees as to whether they had signed
union authorization cards and that the interrogation
occurred "the first part of the week" in which the
above-named employees were discharged. (They
were discharged on Saturday, May 24.) The record,
however, clearly demonstrates that the interroga-
tion occurred near the end of the week, Friday,
May 23, just the day before the discharges. Butter-
field, himself, testified that he did not know of the
union activity until sometime after lunch on May
23.
The General Counsel elicited testimony from
four witnesses as to the contents of their conversa-
tions with Butterfield in which the interrogation oc-
curred. These four witnesses were the discharged
employees. Each testified, in essence , that, in the
course of her conversation with him, Butterfield
made a statement to the effect that he would lay off
anybody who refused to withdraw his adherence to
the Union. Butterfield denied that he made such a
statement and testified that he made a "canned"
speech to the employees whom he interrogated.
Respondents elicited testimony from several wit-
nesses who were interrogated by Butterfield osten-
sibly in support of the contention that, since he
made a canned speech and did not threaten them,
he did not threaten the above-mentioned four wit-
nesses produced by General Counsel. This conten-
tion is of little merit, particularly in view of the fact
that the testimony of Respondents' witnesses shows
that he did not follow the same pattern in con-
versing with them. For example, Arlene Curtis
testified that he told her that if the Union came in
the plant would have to close. Curtis further
testified that in his conversation with her and
another employee (who was not called as a witness)
Butterfield held a paper in his hand which he in-
dicated contained a list of those employees who
had signed cards. None of the other witnesses
called by the parties made any reference in their
testimony to such a list . Winona Ogbin, another of
Respondents' witnesses , testified that Butterfield
stated to her that the Company "could not afford to
go Union" and that if "the people forced it, he
would have to be forced to bring in nonunion wor-
kers to run the mill." On the other hand, another of
Respondents' witnesses , Ruth Horn, testified that
Butterfield told her that "if the mill did go union,
that he would have to shut the mill down because
they just were not financially able to meet the
union wages."
Hyde testified that, in the course of her conversa-
tion with him, Butterfield told her that he knew that
she brought the union cards to the mi113 and asked
if she would sign a retraction of her union
authorization card to which she responded that she
would think about it . In his testimony of the con-
versation with Hyde, Butterfield made no mention
of whether or not he stated that he knew she had
brought union cards into the mill. He testified that
when he asked her if she would consider withdraw-
ing her card (after she had informed him that she
had signed a card) she said that "she would."4
Bingham testified that, when Butterfield asked
her if she had signed a card, she told him that she
had, and that when he asked her if she would sign a
retraction she told him that she would not. This
testimony of Bingham was not contradicted by But-
terfield.
Strumenski testified that when Butterfield asked
her if she had signed a union card she denied hav-
ing done so . There is some contradiction in her
testimony, in that she testified that at the beginning
2 Respondents admit that they violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
conduct of Butterfield in inquiring of most of the employees as to whether
they had signed union authorization cards but contend that this conduct
was merely a technical violation of the Act. Although this unlawful conduct
is admitted , the testimony with respect thereto will be reviewed to some ex-
tent since it demonstrates that the violation was not merely " technical", it
is in the same context as the testimony with respect to unlawful threats, and
it is material to a resolution of the issues with respect to the discharges
3 Bingham testified without contradiction , and her testimony is credited,
that in the course of her conversation with him on May 23 Butterfield
asked her if she knew who brought the cards into the plant and that she in-
formed him, after some reluctance, that it was Hyde who had done so It
also appears from Butterfield's testimony that he learned from one of the
employees that cards were being distributed, and it appears reasonable to
assume that at the same time he was also informed that Hyde was the per-
son engaging in such activity
' It is unclear from Butterfield's testimony whether she agreed to con-
sider withdrawing or agreed to withdraw the card Since it is her testimony
that she told him she would think about it, it appears that the first in-
terpretation was intended by his testimony
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the conversation with her he threatened to fire
anyone who had signed a card and she told him that
she had not because she was afraid he would fire
her. However, according to her testimony which
preceded this explanation his threat to fire anyone
who signed a card came after she had been asked if
she had signed a card. However, it appears that
Butterfield also contradicted himself in his
testimony as to when he posed the question to em-
ployees as to whether or not they would withdraw
from the Union. First, he testified that he asked
them if they would withdraw from the Union only
after he had explained to them the financial posi-
tion of the Company (and presumably the dire ef-
fects of having a union), and subsequently he
testified that it was the first thing he asked them
when they came into the office.
Guthary testified that when he asked her if she
had signed a card she told Butterfield that she had
not. She further testified that later in the day he
again asked her if she had signed a card and that
she responded in the negative. Butterfield did not
contradict this testimony.
With respect to their conversation with Butter-
field on May 23, Hyde, Bingham, Strumenski, and
Guthary were more convinving witnesses than was
Butterfield. The major conflict in their testimony as
opposed to that of Butterfield is whether or not he
threatened to discharge anyone who refused to
withdraw his adherence to the Union. The Trial Ex-
aminer is convinced that the testimony of the four
above-named employees should be credited as to
the contents of their conversations with Butterfield.
It appears to be Respondents' position that their
testimony was manufactured by them to bolster the
General Counsel's case . It did not appear that they
were fabricating this testimony.' In their brief
Respondents point out that two employees testified
that they admitted to Butterfield that they had
signed cards and that he did not threaten them.
However, both also testified that they informed him
that they would withdraw their cards. In any event,
the Trial Examiner is not convinced that it is ap-
propriate to infer that because he did not threaten
some employees he did not threaten any of them.
Consequently, it is concluded that the Respon-
dents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlaw-
fully interrogating employees as to whether they
had signed union authorization cards,' and by
threatening employees with discharge if they did
not withdraw their adherence to the Union.
The Discharges on May 24
On Saturday, May 24, the day following the
above-described conduct found violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, Butterfield discharged
' The Trial Examiner has not overlooked consideration of the evidence
that no reference was made to such threats in testimony of three of them in
a state unemployment compensation hearing
Bingham, Hyde, Strumenski, and Guthary. There is
little material conflict in the testimony with respect
to the events of the discharges.
Discharge of Bingham: It appears that at the end
of the previous day Bingham asked Butterfield if
she could leave at noon on May 24. At noon on
May 24, when she told Butterfield that she was
leaving, he called her into his office. Her testimony
with respect to the conversation in his office is as
follows:
A. He said that he didn't need me any more,
that I didn't need to come back Monday. Then
I asked him how come and he just said, "Well,
because your work is not satisfactory." I said,
"How come it was satisfactory yesterday and it
isn't today?" He said, "I have only been here a
couple of months or so and I'm just now
getting around to thinking them out." Then he
asked me who it was that, what appointment it
was that I was going to so I told him my eye
doctor.
Q. What prompted your question of Mr.
Butterfield how come your work was satisfac-
tory yesterday and not today?
A. The reason I did was because the day be-
fore when he asked me about the union I had
asked him about my work and he said it was
fine, so I couldn't figure out why it wasn't the
next day.
Butterfield testified as follows:
A. I had her come in the office and I told
her that I didn't need her any more. Of course,
she asked why, and I told her her job was un-
satisfactory. She said, "How come unsatisfac-
tory all of a sudden after two years?" I don't
know if it was two years or one year, however
long she had been there. I told her it was not
all of a sudden after two years, I said, "It is un-
satisfactory all of a sudden after two months,"
the length of time I had been there. I had had
time to observe her work and make a decision.
I was very, very busy when I first came there
because I had replaced several people.
The only conflict in their testimony is that Butter-
field testified that she asked him how it happened
that her work was unsatisfactory "all of a sudden
after two years," and she testified "How come it
was satisfactory yesterday and it isn't today?" In
her testimony with respect to the contents of her
conversation on the previous day (when he asked
her if she had signed a union card and if she would
sign a retraction), she testified that she asked him if
her work was satisfactory and he told her that it
was. Her testimony as to the contents of her con-
' In light of the circumstances in which the interrogation occurred, it ap-
pears that it was more than a mere technical violation, as contended by
Respondents, but, rather, that it had a coercive effect on the employees
HOLLEY WOODWORKING CO.
versation with him on May 23 has been credited in-
cluding the reference to her job performance.7
Consequently, her version of the conversation on
May 24 is credited.
Butterfield testified that he discharged Bingham
"specifically" because of an incident on the wood-
pile and that "There were other things prior to this
that kind of led up to it." When asked of the date
of the woodpile incident, Butterfield testified that it
was within the same week that he discharged her,
"probably in the middle of the week." However,
another of Respondents' witnesses, Curtis, who was
involved in the woodpile incident, testified that it
occurred on the Friday of the previous week.
Bingham testified that it was "quite a while" before
her discharge. Her estimate was that it might have
been as long as a month prior thereto. While she
was unable to fix the exact date, she categorically
denied that it happened within the same week she
was discharged. Curtis was very confused about
dates as indicated in her cross-examination by
General Counsel as to the date of the woodpile in-
cident. (She testified that it occurred 2 to 3 weeks
after Butterfield interrogated her about signing a
union card.) It appears from an analysis of her
testimony that it was her recollection that the in-
cident did not occur during the week in which
Bingham was discharged but, rather, on the Friday
of the preceding week. It is concluded that the in-
cident must have occurred at least 8 days prior to
Bingham's discharge.
Although considerable testimony was adduced as
to the woodpile incident, it does not appear of suffi-
cient consequence to analyze said testimony. Based
on a study of said testimony, the incident is sum-
marized as follows: Bingham and two other em-
ployees were detailed for part of the day to work on
cleaning up the woodpile; it was an undesirable job
because of exposure to the sun and heat and the
manual labor involved; Bingham objected to the as-
signment because of the undesirable character of
the work and because she believed that other em-
ployees who had less seniority than she had should
have been given the assignment; Curtis, who regu-
larly worked on the woodpile, complained to But-
terfield about the amount and quality of the work
that the three girls did and also that one of them,
Mary, in carelessly tossing some wood, struck her
on the head with it; and a part of the time they
were supposed to be working on the woodpile
Bingham and one of the other girls were in some
other part of the plant. Butterfield testified that on
the day of this incident he decided to discharge
Bingham . He further testified that he did not
discharge either of the other two employees who
were involved with Bingham in the woodpile in-
cident.
Butterfield also testified at quite some length as
' It is noted that Butterfield neither affirmed nor denied her testimony
with respect to their conversation on May 23 concerning the quality of her
work
633
to other reasons for his dissatisfaction with
Bingham 's job performance which he summarized
as the "hog incident, the stacker incident and the
pallet incident." The hog incident related to his
testimony that on a number of occasions she
cleaned out the hog ( a machine which grinds waste
wood into sawdust) contrary to his instructions to
her. The stacker incident referred to his testimony
that she did some work with a forklift truck which
she had been told was not part of her job. The pal-
let incident referred to his testimony that a pallet
broke, spilling the wood pieces stacked on it,
because she had improperly stacked them on the
pallet. Said three incidents occurred prior to the
woodpile incident, according to his testimony.
Although testimony was introduced by General
Counsel contradicting certain aspects of Butter-
field's testimony with respect to the above three in-
cidents, it does not appear to be necessary to
resolve these contradictions. The Trial Examiner is
convinced that Butterfield's testimony cannot be
credited that said incidents were factors in his deci-
sion to discharged Bingham. It is concluded that
said three incidents were merely afterthoughts and
that the testimony concerning them was introduced
to buttress Respondents' contention that Bingham
was discharged for cause.
Butterfield's testimony that he decided to
discharge Bingham at the time of the woodpile in-
cident is not credited. Rather, it is concluded that
Butterfield decided to discharge her because she
admitted she had signed a union card and refused
to accede to his request that she retract it. The
discharge occurred at least 8 days after the wood-
pile incident and on the very day after Butterfield
extracted the information from her that she had
signed a union card and would not retract it. Had
Butterfield arrived at a decision to discharge her at
a time prior to obtaining said information , it is in-
ferred that he would not have taken the time to in-
terrogate her as to whether she had signed a union
card or made the effort to get her to retract it. If
she were going to be discharged for cause, he
would have had no reason to do so. The fact that he
did do so is wholly inconsistent with Respondents'
contention that Butterfield had decided to
discharge Bingham in the previous week.
Consequently, in view of the above findings, the
timing of the discharge, Butterfield's evident
animus toward the Union, and the other three
discharges, considered hereinbelow, it is concluded
that Bingham's discharge was discriminatorily
motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
The discharges of Hyde, Strumenski, and Guthary:
At 3:30 p.m. on May 24, which was the "quitting
time" for Hyde, Strumenski, and Guthary, Butter-
field called them into his office and notified them
that they were discharged. There is no material
conflict in the testimony as to the event. It appears
that Butterfield notified them that their services
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were no longer required and that their job per-
formance was unsatisfactory. It appears that
Guthary called him a liar and used some obscene
language in doing so. It further appears that the
three employees them summarily left or were or-
dered out of the office.
The said three employees worked on the "cleat
line" at which two other employees also worked. In
his testimony, Butterfield described the operation
of the cleat line and the tasks performed by each of
the five employees. His testimony with respect
thereto is as follows:
A. Well, the first position on the cleat line is
the rip saw. Larry Gatliff feeds this rip saw. He
puts the little short boards through and it rips
them for width. It rips into three-quarter inch
wide strips. Then they come out of this saw
and the next person to get them right in front
of the saw is Josephine Rice. She grades them,
throws out the bad ones, throws them in a box
or down the hog. Then, they continue on down
the belt. The next person to receive them is
Jerrene Hyde. She picks them up and places
them on this pusher chain that takes them
through the cleat machine. The cleat machine
cuts the beveled edges on them. When they
come out of the cleat machine, Nellie Stru-
menski was working in this position, and she
would take the cleats and stack them in a bun-
dle, twelve, or ten wide and ten high. Sort of a
little bundle about a foot square. Margaret
Guthary was the next position on the line. She
would tie a string around this bundle and take
the bundle and put them on a pallet.
Q. Did Jerry Hyde, Nellie Strumenski, and
Margaret Guthary change around in their jobs?
A. Yes, they did, occasionally.
Q. How would the lumber be gotten to
Larry who fed the rip saw?
A. It was brought in on a pallet and placed
on the floor right beside him.
Q. Now, could he-reach it from there, or
was it necessary to have it moved over closer
to him?
A. It was necessary to have it moved closer
to him, you know, so it would run steady. We
would have one of the girls from time to time
come from the end of the cleat line, come up
and work beside him and take some of the
limber off of these pallets that were sitting on
the floor and place them on the table beside
Larry. They call it the stacking of the line.
Q. What is the total length of the cleat line?
A. Twenty-five to thirty feet, the whole
cleat line altogether.
Q. How far is it between the spot where
Jerry Hyde would work when she was placing
the cleats into the cleat machine, and where
Nellie Strumenski would be working, when she
was placing the trimmed cleats into bundles?
A. I would say six or seven feet.
Q. And how far was it from the point where
Nellie Strumenski would be working when she
was doing that job to where Margaret Guthary
would be working when she was tying the bun-
dles and placing them on the pallet.
A. Probably two or three feet apart.
When asked why he discharged such employees,
Butterfield testified as follows:
A. Well, their work was unsatisfactory.
They wouldn't do what I told them to do
because they was playing around on the job
and interfering with production.
He further testified that he observed them "playing
around on the job" (which is also refered to in the
testimony as "horseplay " and "swamping") on
three occasions. According to his testimony, the
first occasion in which he observed the horseplay
was about a week after he started on the job which
would place it on or about March 24, 1969.8 His
testimony as to the horseplay he saw on the first oc-
casion (from the doorway leading into his office)
was as follows:
THE WITNESS: Well, I saw Jerry Hyde had a
big stack of cleats on the table rather than
through the saw where they ought to be. And
she was placing them on the machine as fast as
she could go, and Nellie was over at the end,_
and Margaret down at the other end by herself.
And Margaret became swamped, and this thing
[the cleats] exploded up in the air like this (in-
dicating).
TRIAL EXAMINER: YOU stood there and
watched this happen?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Then, this stopped the
production. They had to stop the line to clean
up the mess and start all over again.
He further testified that as a result of this horseplay
the drive shaft was bent. He further testified that he
said nothing to any of the employees about their
horseplay but he added, "I let them know I didn't
like it by my presence."
Butterfield testified that the second occasion he
observed their horseplay was "somewhere in the
middle" of the period between the first occasion,
March 24, and the date the employees were
discharged, May 24, which would place it on or
about April 24. Butterfield further testified that on
that occasion he was coming into the plant through
the same door from which he had observed them
on the first occasion, and that he saw them engaged
in the same conduct as he described on the first oc-
casion with the same results. He also testified that
the drive shaft was bent "more yet." However, he
further testified that it had not been repaired up to
the time of the hearing. According to his testimony,
he did speak to them about their conduct on this
occasion. His testimony with respect thereto was as
follows:
A. I went over there and told them that we
could not have this horseplay. I told them that
" Butterfield testified that he entered the employment of Respondents in
the capacity of plant manager on March 17, 1969
HOLLEY WOODWORKING CO.
we was having enough trouble as it was trying
to stay in business without that sort of thing. I
told them we just couldn 't have it.
Q. What was their response?
A. No answer ; they just nodded their heads
and went to work.
Butterfield testified that the third occasion he ob-
served the three employees engaging in horseplay
was "a week to a week and a half before I fired
them ." It is noted that in a later portion of his
testimony , he was asked when he decided to
discharge the three employees and he testified that
it was on this third occasion of horseplay . When he
was then asked to place the date , he testified as fol-
lows:
THE WITNESS : I would say it was a week be-
fore , or less than that. It was within that week
[the week they were discharged ]. It was the
time of that third blowup.
Q. (By Mr . Scott ) When was the third
blowup?
A. I believe it was in that very week. If it
wasn't within that very week, it was the one be-
fore that, sir.
His testimony with respect to the third occasion
was as follows:
THE WITNESS: This time I was in a different
position . I was out on the back porch.
A. Well , I observed Nellie Strumenski up by
Larry where she would be working if she was
stacking the line . However , I observed the line
had already been stacked abnormally high, so
there was no need for her being there, and
nevertheless she was there standing behind a
pallet of lumber , just watching. Jerry Hyde was
in the process of, she had one of these big piles
of cleats on the table and was in the process of
putting them through the machine as fast as
she could . And Margaret Guthary was on the
end stacking them just as fast as she could, but
she wasn 't fast enough, and they caught up to
her and blew up in the air again , as I told be-
fore.
Q. How long was it from the time you first
observed what was going on till they blew up in
the air?
A. Very short time.
TRIAL EXAMINER : I don't know what you
mean by "very short time."
THE WITNESS : Well, less than a minute.
Q. (By Mr . Scott ) And then what hap-
pened?
A. Well, I stepped in at that point. Well, at
that point they thought it was a big joke, and I
especially remember Margaret and Nellie both
holding their stomachs and bending over in
laughter . The machine had been shut off then
and they were standing there laughing. And I
stepped in through the doorway and told them
that this was just too much . I says that we just
635
couldn 't have that sort of thing at all.
Q. Well, why had the machine been turned
off?
A. Well, because the thing had blew up in
the air you see, and all the cleats fall on the
floor , so when this happens they shut the thing
off, have to clean it up.
Q. What was their response when you made
the comment to them?
A. Well, again the response , there wasn't
much of a response there. They just kind of
shook their heads and there wasn't much of a
response.
Butterfield was questioned as to why , on any of
the three occasions he observed the horseplay, he
made no attempt to stop it . He testified that he did
not have sufficient time to do so. He testified that
on the first occasion he observed them about I
minute and on the other occasions just a few
seconds.
Gatliff who worked on the saw at the head of the
cleat line was called as a witness by the Respon-
dents and testified as to three occasions he saw But-
terfield observing horseplay . However, his
testimony contradicts that of Butterfield in three
important details. First , he testified on all three oc-
casions Butterfield was standing at the end of the
cleat line, instead of in a doorway or on the porch
as Butterfield testified ; second , he estimated that
Butterfield observed the horseplay for about 5
minutes and that the range of time Butterfield ob-
served them was somewhere between 2 to 10
minutes, instead of a minute on the first occasion
and a few seconds on the other two as Butterfield
testified ; and, third , the three occasions were within
the span of 3 weeks before the discharges, instead
of 2 months , as Butterfield testified.
On direct examination , Gatliff testified that the
drive shaft can be seen " if you are just standing
there" and that he has observed that it is bent.
However, on cross-examination , he further testified
that he did not become aware of the fact that it was
bent until after the three above-named employees
were discharged . It cannot be determined from his
testimony how long it was after their discharge that
he did become aware of it.
Hyde, Strumenski , and Guthary denied that they
engaged in horseplay ( described hereinabove in
Butterfield's testimony). All three testified to an oc-
casion when the cleats came too fast for Guthary to
handle and ascribed as the reason therefor that
Guthary was distracted by Butterfield who was talk-
ing to her at the time. All three further testified that
they were never reprimanded on their job per-
formance and Hyde testified that she was compli-
mented on her work a few days before her
discharge and that she received a 5-cent raise 2 or
3 weeks prior to the termination of her employ-
ment . Hyde was questioned on cross-examination
with respect to " playing games " on the line, par-
ticularly that of feeding the cleat machine as fast as
possible so as to "swamp" the girls at the end of the
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
table . Her testimony with respect thereto is as fol-
lows:
Q. Did you ever play any games out there
on the cleat line?
A. We would fill the line as fast as they
would come through. Yes. That's what they
were wanting.
Q. Did you ever play any other kind of
games out there on the line?
A. No.
0. None at all?
A. No.
0. Your testimony here under oath is that
you played no games on the line other than
filling the cleat machine at the same speed that
the machine line was operating, is that right?
A. I would fill the line as it was operating,
yes.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. I would fill-the line, put the cleats on the
line as fast as they would come through and if
they come through fast I put them on the
sideboard and stacked them until I could get
caught up or the.girls down at the end could
get caught up.
Q. Did you ever play any games doing what
you just described now?
A. Well, yes, we used to.
Q. Now you say you did play games?
A. But they could keep up.
Q. Now, explain the games.
A. It wasn't a game.
Q. Well, what did you do?
A. Well, when they were coming too fast I
would stack them on the back boards and then
I would take them off and fill the lines as I
could catch them.
0. (By Mr. Scott) Now, your testimony here
under oath is that you never set any of these
cleats aside for any reason other than because
you couldn 't keep up, is that right?
A. Not because I couldn't keep up with
them . I was afraid the girls down at the other
ends couldn 't keep up with them coming
through . Sometimes they would pull one of the
girls off to stack the cleat line and one of them
was working alone at the end and when they
were coming too fast I would stack them so
that when they got through to the other end
the girl working by herself could handle it.
Q. That's the only reason that you set the
cleats off to the side was to help the girls at the
other end so that they would come slower to
her at the other end, is that right?
A. This is right.
The two other employees who worked on the
cleat line testified as to the practice of Hyde, Stru-
menski, and Guthary engaging in the horseplay
described hereinabove . Rice testified that they
played the game of "swamping " about once or
twice a week , whereas Gatliff testified that they did
so two or three times a day. Another of Respon-
dents' witnesses , Winona Ogbin , testified that she
observed them doing this almost every day.
As stated hereinabove , Butterfield was not a con-
vincing witness . His testimony of the three occa-
sions on which he observed the horseplay is not
credited . In addition to the appraisal of him as a
witness , it is noted , as detailed above , that there
were substantial discrepancies between his
testimony with respect to the three occasions he
observed the horseplay and that of another of
Respondents' witnesses, Gatliff. Other factors con-
tribute to the discrediting of his testimony, such as
the fact that , even though, according to his
testimony, Butterfield believed that the drive shaft
was bent because of the horseplay, apparently a
serious matter , he said nothing about it to the three
employees involved. Furthermore, although both he
and Gatliff testified that he spoke to Gatliff of his
dissatisfaction with the job performance of the
three employees , he made no mention to him of the
bent drive shaft. It appears reasonable to assume
that had Butterfield held them responsible for the
damage to the shaft, he would not have failed to
mention it to Gatliff or to the three employees. Ac-
cording to Gatliff's testimony, he was not even
aware of the fact that the drive shaft had been bent
until sometime after the three employees had been
discharged.
Trial Examiner is of the opinion , however, from
an analysis of the testimony , including that of Hyde
quoted hereinabove , that the three employees did
occasionally engage in playing the game of "swamp-
ing." in view of the fact that it must have added
to their work by requiring them to clean up the
wood thrown on the floor as a result of playing
the game, it does not appear likely that they would
have engaged in such conduct with any degree of
frequency. It is noted that the testimony of Respon-
dents' witnesses as to the frequency varied con-
siderably ( from that of one or two times a week to
that of two or three times a day). Also, the
testimony of Hyde, Strumenski, and Guthary is
credited that they were not reprimanded for their
work, as is that of Hyde that she received a raise
just 2 or 3 weeks prior to her discharge. Con-
sequently , it is inferred that , if their horseplay was
known to Butterfield prior to their discharge, he
considered it of little or no significance.
Collateral issues were raised by Respondents
(through cross-examination of the said three em-
ployees and conflicting testimony of a number of
witnesses called by Respondents ) with respect to
various types of conduct of the three employees ex-
tending over a period well before Butterfield en-
tered into the employ of Respondents. This
testimony was adduced ostensibly for the purpose
of impeaching the credibility of the three em-
HOLLEY WOODWORKING CO.
ployees,s and to indicate their attitude toward their
jobs. The Trial Examiner has considered all of such
testimony, but, nevertheless, is of the opinion that
the General Counsel has proved by a preponde-
rance of the evidence that the discharges of the
three employees were discriminatorily motivated.
Butterfield testified as to additional reasons for
his dissatisfaction with their job performance (in
addition to the horseplay), including such matters
as failing to move pallets in and out of the area and
failing to measure cleats. A study of the testimony
with respect to the various other faults he found
with them leads the Trial Examiner to the conclu-
sion that they were not actually factors in arriving
at his decision to discharge them, but, rather, af-
terthoughts which were introduced into the hearing
for the purpose of bolstering Respondents' defense.
According to Butterfield, his decision to
discharge them was arrived at prior to his learning
of the union activity. It is noted, however, that on
the day before he did discharge them, he inter-
viewed all three for the purpose of interrogating
them as to whether they had signed union cards,
with the evident purpose of attempting to get them
to retract their cards if they had signed them.
Although Hyde indicated to him that she would
consider withdrawing her card, nevertheless, it ap-
pears that Butterfield must have been aware of the
fact that she was the employee who was soliciting
authorization cards for the Union. Although Stru-
menski and Guthary told him that they had not
signed union cards, it is inferred that he entertained
a strong suspicion that they had, in view of their
relationship with Hyde. That he did entertain such
a suspicion is supported by the fact that he was not
satisfied with Guthary's denial that she had signed a
union card (when he first interviewed her) but, ac-
cording to her credited testimony, later in the day
he again asked her if she had signed a union card. If
he had intended to discharge them prior to his
learning of the union activity, it appears reasonable
to assume that he would not have spent the time
and effort to ascertain if they had signed union
cards or to obtain Hyde's retraction of her card.
The fact that he did so is wholly inconsistent with
Respondents' contention that Butterfield had de-
cided to discharge said three employees prior to his
learning of the union activity. It is the opinion of
the Trial Examiner that the horseplay and other
faults ascribed by Respondents as reasons for the
discharges were merely pretextual or afterthoughts.
Consequently, in view of the above findings, the
timing of the discharges, Butterfield's evident
animus toward the Union, and the findings with
respect to the discriminatory discharge of Bingham,
set forth hereinabove, it is concluded that Hyde,
Strumenski, and Guthary were also discriminatorily
e Said collateral issues, even if resolved in favor of Respondents, would
not, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, affect their credibility as to mat-
ters material to the issues herein
637
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondents set
forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with their operations set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondents be
ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the
unfair labor practices found herein and take certain
affirmative action, as provided in the Recom-
mended Order below, designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondents dis-
criminatorily discharged Delores Bingham, Jerrene
Hyde, Nellie Strumenski, and Margaret Guthary, it
will be recommended that Respondents be ordered
to offer said employees immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and reim-
burse .them for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, 291-293, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in the case, I make the follow-
ing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are employers 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. Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating them
as to whether they signed union authorization
cards.
4. Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening discharge of em-
ployees who did not withdraw from their adherence
to the Union.
5. Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by discriminatorily discharging Bingham,
Hyde, Strumenski, and Guthary.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law and the en-
tire record in this proceeding, it is ordered that
Darrel Craft and John Thiesen, Co-partners doing
business as Holley Woodworking Co., their agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating any employee with
respect to his protected concerted activity.
(b) Threatening any employee with economic
reprisal should he continue to adhere to the Union
or any other labor organization.
(c) Discouraging membership of their employees
in Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No.
2791, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America,AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discriminating against them in re-
gard to hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer to Delores Bingham, Jerrene Hyde,
Nellie Strumenski, and Margaret Guthary im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by
them by reason of their discriminatory discharges in
the manner set forth in the section hereinabove en-
titled "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 analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Post at their place of business in Sweet
Home, Oregon, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."10 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
36, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondents im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 36,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith. 11
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 36, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate any em-
ployee with respect to his protected concerted
activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with
economic reprisal for his adherence to Lumber
and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2791,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
aforesaid Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminating against any of our em-
ployees in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition thereof.
WE WILL offer to Delores Bingham, Jerrene
Hyde, Nellie Strumenski, and Margaret
Guthary immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by
reason of their discriminatory discharges.
HOLLEY WOODWORKING
Co.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
HOLLEY WOODWORKING CO. 639
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
tive days from the date of posting and must not be Board's Office, 310 Six Ten Broadway Building,
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. 610 SW. Broadway, Portland, Oregon 97205,
Any questions concerning this notice or com- Telephone 503-266-3361.