Horizon Mobile Homes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 687 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

HORIZON MOBILE HOMES , INC. 687
Horizon Mobile Homes, Inc. and International Union
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America
and International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America , UAW. Cases 25-CA-3356 and
25-CA-3367
March 13, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On December 1, 1969, Trial Examiner George
Turitz issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
Workers of America (District 50 ), and International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW (the UAW), on
March 11 and 25, 1969 „ respectively , and served upon
Horizon Mobile Homes, Inc. (Respondent and, at times,
the Company ), on March 11 and 26, 1969, respectively,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board ), through the Regional Director for
Region 25, on May 1, 1969, issued and served an Order
Consolidating Cases and Complaint and Notice of
Hearing against Respondent Respondent filed its answer
in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held at Portland , Indiana, on June 10 and
11, 1969, before the Trial Examiner named above On
September 4, 1969, Respondent moved that the hearing be
reopened so that the testimony of Grant Owings and Scott
McCord might be taken concerning certain conversations
on August 8 and 15, 1969, which had been initiated by
Scott McCord The motion was granted over opposition
by the General Counsel and the reopened hearing was held
on October 9 at Cincinnati , Ohio. Respondent moved that
it be postponed for 2 weeks because of the unavailability
of out-of-State witnesses who would establish that Scott
McCord lied on his employment application , thereby
concealing from Respondent his involvement in criminal
acts . At the reopened hearing Respondent renewed its
motion for postponement and moved for a continuance,
claiming that it needed time to follow up leads found in
investigations it had made following the Owings-Scott
McCord conversations . The motions were denied and the
reopened hearing was closed . The General Counsel and
Respondent were represented by their respective counsel at
both hearings; the charging parties were represented by
their respective international representatives at the original
hearing only. Respondent and General Counsel have filed
briefs and supplemental briefs with the Trial Examiner
covering the original and the reopened hearings,
respectively.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the
witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Horizon Mobile
Homes, Inc., Portland, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record, exceptions , and briefs, adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties. In the absence of a showing that Kenneth Wayne
Fisher's affidavit of November 6, 1969, was newly discovered evidence or
that his testimony was not available during the hearings held in June and
October 1969, we deny the Respondent 's motion to offer the affidavit in
question as part of the record
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner Upon charges filed
by International Union of District 50, United Mine
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Horizon Mobile Homes, Inc , is an
Indiana corporation maintaining its principal office and
plant at Portland, Indiana, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of mobile homes and
related products. In the course and conduct of its business
operations Respondent annually purchases and causes to
be transported to its Portland plant directly from points
outside the State of Indiana goods and materials valued at
in excess of $50,000, and annually manufactures, sells and
causes to be shipped and transported from said plant
directly to customers located in States other than the
State of Indiana, products valued at in excess of $50,000.
It is found that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the
Act).
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, are each a labor
181 NLRB No 101
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The principal issues litigated at the hearing were
whether Orville and Scott McCord were discharged
discriminatorily, whether Respondent maintained illegal
restrictions against solicitation and literature distribution
for unions, whether Respondent interrogated employees
and threatened reprisals because of union activities or if
the employees chose a union, and whether Respondent
engaged in various other coercive acts.
A. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
Respondent started operations in 1965 In early 1967
operational management was taken over by Fred Lindsay,
first as vice president and general manager and later as
president For some time the business ran at a loss but
prior to the incidents which are the subject of this
proceeding the Company showed a profit and its
employment rolls grew from 46 in early 1967 to over 100
at the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding On
September 5, 1968, Respondent issued a printed handbook
which included the following:'
These are the rules - the acts and practices listed
below are subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissal.
- Soliciting or collecting contributions, posting or
removing notices on company property without
authorization.
* * * * *
In about early March 1969 the UAW and District 50
commenced separate organizational campaigns among
Respondent ' s employees Lindsay was informed that
dissension was building up among the employees over the
issue of unionization . The UAW scheduled a meeting of
the employees for the evening of Wednesday , March 6
During the morning that day two Amish employees asked
Lindsay how he felt about a union and they told him that
if a union came in they would quit Approximately
one-third of Respondent ' s workforce were Amish, and
Lindsay understood that they were not permitted to join
unions He testified that they were good workers and that
the plant would have been seriously hurt if they left.
Immediately after the 2 o'clock rest period that day
Lindsay assembled the employees and addressed them.
Melodi Haley, a secretary , was instructed to take
verbatim notes in shorthand . Lindsay told the employees
that he had assembled them because during the past few
days he had heard that efforts at unionization were being
made, and he said, "Now, I hear through scuttlebutt
throughout the plant that there is supposed to be some
kind of a meeting downtown tonight about getting a union
into Horizon Mobile Homes. I think all of you should
attend and get all the facts on this . Compare and see if
you really will be better off with a union to work under I
have been in on union contracts before and believe me I
know all about them If the majority wants a union to
represent them the way they feel they need it then I say
'G Ex 22, p 16
get one - but before you do look over every avenue of a
union don't jump into something that will hurt the
majority " Lindsay told the employees that a union could
not get them more than Respondent could afford, saying,
"If we don't have it we can't give it to you " He referred
to 31 unsold "extra" mobile homes on the back lot which
he said had been built " . . so that Horizon could keep
going during the winter months when sales are at their
lowest." He added: "All this to keep everyone working If
a union should enter we would have to shut our doors, lay
off, rather than build up such an inventory." Remarking,
"We don't have a ball and chain on you," he offered to
help any dissatisfied employee get a job elsewhere and
then said, "But I will tell you this, and remember it well
I am not going to stand by and see the people that have
been here for 2 years get hurt I would take any steps I
would have to take to keep them from -getting hurt I
mean this from the bottom of my heart . " Lindsay
discussed wages in other mobile-home plants and then
said, " if you do decide to go into a union, I will
accept nothing but a 3 year contract ." He also said
"Remember, under a union, all problems are settled by
them If you do decide for a union don't bring any
problems to us. They will then be out of our reach. Right
now, whenever a problem arises you know all you have to
do is speak up - to me, to your plant superintendent, to
your foreman If a union is behind you there will not be a
thing we can do - don't even ask us. We will not, under
any circumstances, deviate from this rule "
On March 13 Ed Bolich, an employee highly regarded
by Respondent, posted on the bulletin board an
announcement of the UAW's second meeting, to be held
the next evening. Bolich had been instrumental in getting
the UAW to attempt to organize the plant and had been
soliciting members during breaks and lunch periods
Lindsay discovered the announcement after work on the
13th and was informed that it had been posted by Bolich.
On the 14th Lindsay was also informed that a group
leader and an employee, arguing about unionization, had
got to the point where they had agreed to have a fist fight
that evening off company premises.
On March 14 Lindsay again called a meeting of the
employees after the 2 o'clock rest period He said that he
could not discuss or answer any questions about a union,
but he urged the employees not to allow any hard feelings
to arise because of various differences they might have,
saying that that would interfere with their working
together. He called attention to the employees' handbook
and said that "a few people in our team" were violating
company policies and rules. He continued, "We are going
to start, today" - he emphasized the word today -
"enforcing more closely every rule in this book You
know you are not allowed to solicit - no soliciting for
church acti[vitie]s or any other acti[vitie]s.2 If you do you
are violating a rule of Horizon's and you are subject to be
removed if you continue you will be removed Whether
you are for or against anything you are not to solicit on
company breaks, noon hours, parking lot or anywhere on
the premises." He then mentioned a rule not related to
union campaigning and said that in the future any
violation would result in dismissal He displayed a union
pamphlet he had found in the plant and said, "This can't
be done and I won't have it being done." He also
displayed the meeting announcement posted by Bolich and
'In his investigatory affidavit Lindsay quoted himself as saying "church
activities " It is inferred that the word "actions" in the transcript in
evidence was a typographical error for activities
HORIZON MOBILE HOMES, INC 689
said that that made him mad, because the person who had
posted it had not had "enough nerve to ask to put this
sign up " He said that if permission had been requested it
probably would have been granted Finally he said that he
heard that an employee had threatened physical violence
against another employee, and that that would not be
tolerated "in the plant, in the parking lot or anywhere on
the premises " He closed by informing the employees that
a meeting would be held off company premises on the
evening of March 18 at which employees who wished to
come would have an opportunity to express opinions
Lindsay summoned Bolich to the office shortly after the
March 14 meeting and asked if he had posted the notice,
saying that he had heard "through the scuttlebutt" that he
had. When Bolich admitted that he had done, it, but on
the 3 o'clock break, Lindsay said, "You know you could
be subject to discharge for that," and he turned to
Riendeau and said, "Raymond this man gets a discharge
warning slip for violating the company policy." Bolich
said that he had not known that he was subject to
discharge. Lindsay told Bolich that he would not allow
any soliciting on company property and warned him that
any further union activity on company premises by Bolich
would subject him to discharge. Bolich returned to work,
but a short time later he was called to the office of the
plant superintendent where Riendeau handed him a
"discharge warning slip" reading in relevant part as
follows-
The reason being He has been soliciting and posting
notices on Company property without authorization. He
was advised that marked improvement would be
necessary prior to the expiration of 3-14-69 or discharge
would be necessary
Bolich signed the warning slip and returned it Several
days later he requested permission to post an
announcement of a UAW meeting Lindsay posted it for
him However Bolich discontinued all solicitation on
company premises after March 14 Lindsay testified that
in view of Bolich's disclaimer of knowledge of the manual
"rule" he did not have the warning notice placed in
Bolich's folder but that he kept it in his own desk as a
"follow up "
On the evening of March 18 Respondent held the
off-premises meeting. It was attended by about 25 or 35
employees Lindsay said, "This is the first meeting that we
have had away from the plant Some of you think
perhaps the meeting is due to the activities that have been
going on concerning a union but personally, I think we
should have had this meeting a long time ago." Lindsay
stressed that he and the employees worked as a team. He
said that notwithstanding his corporate office and his
ownership of stock in Respondent's parent company, "In
the last two years I have not worked for the stockholders
- I have worked for the employees - the majority rules
I am merely working for you I am your spokesman
When a problem arises and a majority vote rules I take
your problem to the stockholders - I am your
spokesman. You do not have to hire someone to do this
talking for you I can This is because I know the only
way a company can survive is through its people I believe
that in the past we have had votes on various things .
I believe that a decision was reached on these matters by
a majority vote - this meaning the people themselves
have made the decision through the majority." Referring
to the eventuality of a union coming in, he said: "Would
we still pick our foreman and group leaders from the
ranks - I don't know. It is very slow profitwise to do this
way -- training them as they work to teach others If I
were working for the stockholders I would go out and hire
experienced men - but I am not working for the
stockholders I am working for you " As examples of the
fact that he strove for the benefit not of the stockholders
but of the employees, he pointed out that he had recently
turned away a good, experienced salesman who had
applied from outside, and that during the past winter
Respondent, solely to keep the employees employed had
kept on building its product when sales were slow and
competitors closed down He insisted that he was not
against a union if the majority felt that they could do
better with a bargaining representative, but he urged the
employees to go to the union meetings to find out what
was going on. During the discussion period he said that he
had heard that some employees thought a union could get
them $3 per hour instead of the $2 55 being paid He'
assured the employees that if that was what they wanted,
the company could give it, but it would then " . . . have to
raise the price of our home . . Whether or not the
home will sell for the price we will have to ask is
something else. It may but if•it does not we won't have
the orders and then we won't have a production schedule
and believe me people if we don't have the orders we
won't work as we have done in the past. We will close the
doors...
Employees made suggestions with respect to the bonus
system Lindsay replied to one suggestion that he agreed
with it and it would be decided by majority vote. He
added that as things were, the manual could be ripped up
or changed at any time, but that a union contract would
be for 3 years, "and nowhere inside of that period can it
be changed " As to another suggestion, he said that
perhaps something could be done and he added, " if
this is what you want do you have to have the 3rd party
to represent you? Can't you handle this the way we have
handled other problems."
Lindsay asked whether anyone wished to speak "on
behalf of the union," and several employees, especially
Bolich, discussed various occurrences in
labor-management relations in the plant Lindsay
concluded the meeting by saying:
Let me say one more thing now. If a union comes
into Horizon we will be split up into three groups -
the union, the ones who did not care either way, and
the Amish. Can we work together split up like that?
Can three families live in one house and get along -
the answer is no. If there is another union meeting by
all means go, investigate, ask them your questions and
get some answers Do not let a few do your thinking
for you I am only after the good for the majority.
The above findings with respect to the three meetings
held by Respondent are based upon Respondent's own
minutes of the meetings. The McCords and Bolich
testified that Lindsay's instructions at the March 6
meeting about propagandizing for a union were not
merely, " . . do it on your own time. I don't want the
others disturbed on the job," as set forth in the minutes,
but were to the effect that there was to be no soliciting on
company property. These three witnesses also testified
that at the March 6 meeting Lindsay said that if a union
got in, there would be a contract requiring union
membership and that the Amish employees would then
leave ' The transcripts in evidence prepared by Haley
show on their face signs of editing In addition to varying
degrees of emphasis by capitalization and/or underlining,
'Bohch stated , " I suppose that was pertaining to the Amish "
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some indicated in the original notes and some not, part of
the March 6 speech was set out in tabular form, with five
headings Most important, Respondent failed to produce
the notebook containing Haley's shorthand notes of the
March 6 and 14 meetings, which had been subpoenaed.
Haley testified that she had had "quite a stack" of old
shorthand notebooks in the office and had taken them
home 3 weeks or a month before the hearing, and that she
had destroyed them on June 7 or 8, when her family had
moved. The subpoena calling for the notebooks had been
received by Respondent on May 29 The Trial Examiner
does not credit Lindsay and Haley's testimony that the
transcripts were accurate and complete It is found that at
the March 6 meeting Lindsay forbade all soliciting on
company property and said that if the Union got in there
would be a contract requiring union membership and the
'Amish employees would then leave.'
Michael Cole, who quit Respondent's employ in March
1969, testified that at the March 14 meeting Lindsay said
that the employees "were not supposed to wear our union
badges." He admitted continuing to wear a union badge
thereafter. Lindsay denied ever announcing such a rule;
and the other witnesses for the General Counsel who
testified about the meetings did not corroborate Cole in
the matter. It is found that the General Counsel has failed
to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that Respondent promulgated or announced a rule
prohibiting employees from wearing or distributing
buttons or other indications of their union affiliations.
Scott McCord testified that on the morning of March 7
Gerald Friend, his foreman, asked him if he had attended
the union meeting the previous evening and that when he
said that he had, Friend asked him how he felt, to which
Scott McCord replied that it was up to the individual
Orville McCord testified that on March 10 Friend, whom
he had known in the past, followed him into the restroom
and asked what he thought of "the union" and whether he
favored getting it into the plant; that he answered
evasively and said he was satisfied with how things were;
and that Friend said, "I sure don't want a union in here."
Friend testified, "No, sir," in answer to the question
whether he had interrogated any employees concerning
union activities. Asked whether he had had any
conversation about union activities with Orville McCord
in the restroom, he replied, "not that I remember." As
the McCords were not corroborated, and as no other
evidence was adduced indicating that Respondent's pattern
of conduct included interrogation,s it is found that the
General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence Friend interrogated the McCords.
The two McCords testified that at the March 6 meeting Orville
McCord replied to Lindsay 's statement about the Amish employees leaving
by saying that Amish employees were not required to join a union but
could merely pay dues, and that Lindsay had replied that he was not
familiar with such arrangements This testimony was not specifically
denied However , neither was it corroborated by any other witness
Significantly Bolich , who testified concerning Lindsay's comment about the
Amish employees, did not testify that Orville McCord made the reply in
question in view of this fact , and as the only evidence offered was that of
two interested witnesses , it is found that the General Counsel has failed to
meet the burden of establishing that Orville McCord made the comment
about the Amish employees ' union membership
'At the hearing the Trial Examiner dismissed the allegation that
Respondent engaged in interrogation by foreman Yeager The Trial
Examiner has not failed to consider Lindsay's interrogation of Bolich
about the posting of the meeting notice, which was unauthorized
Concluding Findings as to Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion
Rules against union solicitation and distribution The
written manual rule prohibiting soliciting or the collecting
of contributions without authorization was unrestricted as
to times and applied to all places on Respondent's
premises . Insofar as it applied to soliciting or collecting
contributions for or on behalf of labor organizations, it
constituted an unwarranted restraint on the employees'
exercise of rights under the Act. See G C Murphy
Company, 171 NLRB No. 45; Stoddard-Quirk
Manufacturing Co, 138 NLRB 615; Republic Aviation
Corporation v. N L R B , 324 U S. 793. At the March 6
and 14 meetings Lindsay informed the employees
explicitly that the manual rule applied to all parts of
Respondent's premises and not only to worktime, but to
nonworktime as well . Moreover , at the March 14 meeting,
by displaying the union pamphlet he had found and citing
it as a further example of violation of what he termed
"company policies and rules," he also made plain that the
rules applied to the distribution of union literature
anywhere and any time on the premises . It is found that
those rules unreasonably obstructed and interfered with
the employees' union and organizational activity and had
such purpose, and that Respondent by maintaining and
promulgating the rules violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act
Creating impression of surveillance The allegation that
on March 6 Respondent created the impression of
surveillance among the employees is based upon Lindsay's
announcement to the employees of the union meeting
scheduled for that evening There is no evidence that the
employees promoting either union were especially secretive
in their activities As some employees were known to be
unreceptive , if not hostile , to unions , and as Lindsay was
regularly available to all employees on his rounds through
the plant , which was not a large one, employees would not
deduce from his statement that he had obtained the
information he was imparting by surreptitious means
Moreover , he mentioned to the employees "scuttlebutt
throughout the plant ," thus indicating to them that he
thought the matter was being freely discussed In these
circumstances his statement did not imply an attempt to
make the employees think that his information had been
obtained through surveillance , the statement was rather in
line with his avowed effort to encourage the employees to
attend the meeting The similar allegation with respect to
March 14 is apparently based upon the incident involving
Bolich ' s posting of the notice of a union meeting . There is
no evidence that Bolich had attempted to keep his act
secret and therefore no basis for finding that Lindsay's
statements to the employees and to Bolich were
calculated , or tended , to create the impression that
Respondent was engaging in. surveillance of the employees'
concerted activities.
Threats of layoff and of refusal to promote Lindsay's
assurances to the employees in his speeches that they
could have a union if a majority wanted such represention
were meaningless since they were negated by his
accompanying statements as to the various acts of
retaliation Respondent would visit upon them if they
chose to exercise that right . At both the March 6 and
March 18 meetings he told them that in such event
Respondent 's past practice during slow seasons of helping
the employees by keeping them at work building up
inventory would be discontinued and that the plant would
be shut down At the March 18 meeting he carried his
threats further , warning the employees that if they chose
HORIZON MOBILE HOMES , INC. 691
to have a union they would have considerably less, if any,
chance of being promoted to supervisory or sales jobs.
These were plain threats to shut the doors of the plant and
lay employees off and to refuse promotions to employees
in retaliation for choosing to exercise their right to be
represented by a labor organization in collective
bargaining It is found that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1).
Threats as to grievances, closed-mind bargaining, and
more stringent rule enforcement Lindsay urged the
employees, in lieu of seeking representation with respect
to their problems through a union , to do so through an
employee representation plan, with himself as their
spokesman His emphatic warning that, if the employees
did decide to have a union , Respondent would refuse to
entertain their individual grievances as it had in the past,
was a plain threat to deprive the employees of a privilege
they had enjoyed until then, if not of a right,' in
retaliation for seeking to bargain collectively. Lindsay
then drove home to the employees that if, notwithstanding
his threats, they insisted upon representation in collective
bargaining, they would find their choice and their sacrifice
futile -- he would not bargain for an agreement in good
faith as required by the Act Thus, he indicated that with
respect to the term of any contract, a mandatory subject
of collective bargaining, his mind was already closed and
that he would " accept nothing but a 3-year
contract " At the March 14 meeting, having found that at
least some employees had not succumbed to his threats as
what he would do if the employees chose a union, he
announced measures of immediate retaliation because
employees joined and assisted a union and sought to
bargain collectively "We are going to start TODAY
enforcing more closely every rule in this book," and he
proceeded to indicate that he meant all rules, both those
affecting unionization and those not so related. It is found
that by each of the threats described in this paragraph
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
The Complaint alleges that Lindsay told the employees
that if they chose to bargain through a union, Respondent
would insist upon a contract requiring the payment of
dues as a condition of employment. Only Bolich testified
explicitly that Lindsay said that he, rather than a union,
would insist upon such a clause. Bolich did impress the
Trial Examiner as a credible witness, but in this instance
it appears that he misunderstood Lindsay. It is found that
Respondent did not tell the employees that it would agree
only to a contract requiring union membership or the
payment of'dues as a condition of employment.
The warning to Bolich In the absence of any custom
permitting employees to use its bulletin boards,
Respondent would have been well within its right in
warning Bolich not to post notices of union meetings
without permission. However, Lindsay did not reprimand
him merely for the unauthorized posting, but used the
occasion to warn him against soliciting and against any or
all union activity on company premises, thereby impliedly
reprimanding Bolich for statutorily protected activities of
that nature which he had carried on. Indeed, the written
warning to Bolich specified "soliciting" as part of his
alleged misconduct. Lindsay testified that Bolich's written
warning was not placed in his personnel folder, but this
would be immaterial for several reasons: The warning was
'See Graber Manufacturing Company , Inc. 158 NLRB 244, 249, enfd
382 F 2d 990 (C A 7), but see Black -Clawson Company, Inc, Paper
Machine Division v International Association of Machinists Lodge 355.
District 137, et al . 313 F 2d 179 (C A 2)
not canceled - Lindsay admitted that he kept it for
possible future use as a "follow up" - and in any event,
Bolich was never informed that the warning was in any
way made inoperative Nor is it material that Lindsay
modified the prohibition to the extent of posting a
company-approved notice of a union meeting at Bolich's
request. It is found that by warning Bolich not to engage
in solicitation or any other union activity on company
premises and by issuing a warning notice to him,
Respondent restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
B. The Discharge of the McCords
Lindsay hired Orville McCord and Scott McCord,
Orville's nephew, on February 27, 1969. Both had contact
with District 50 shortly before applying and Scott
McCord specifically admitted that he took the job with
the intention of trying to organize the plant for that
union Orville McCord started work on February 28;
Scott on March 3.
On March 4 the two McCords started inquiring among
the employees as to their interest in unionization. That
evening they met with two District 50 representatives,
signed membership application cards, and were given a
supply of blank cards During the following days they
spoke to various employees about District 50 and
distributed membership application cards They succeed:,d
in obtaining only two signed cards. Their activity,
including the handing out of cards, was observed by
foremen Kenneth Yeager and Gerald Friend, both
supervisors. Friend, who testified that he saw Scott
McCord showing a card on only 1 day, namely March 5
or 6, reported to the plant superintendent, Raymond
Riendeau, that Scott McCord was spending much time
during working hours walking round the department
speaking to fellow employees and displaying a card. On
March 6 or 7' Riendeau told Scott McCord that it had
been reported that he had been "talking union" and
passing out cards on company time Scott denied the
report. Riendeau said that he did not know whether the
reports were accurate, but that if they were, Scott should
stop since it was against company policy' Riendeau
reported these facts to Lindsay on the morning of March
11.'
Respondent paid its employees on Fridays for the week
ending the previous Saturday. On Friday, March 7, when
Orville McCord received a check for his first day's work
on February 28, he discovered that he had been overpaid
$1.66. On Monday morning, March 10, he told Riendeau
'This date is found on the basis of Riendeau 's testimony that the
incident occurred round the 6th or 7th, considered in the light of the
statement in his investigatory affidavit that it happened when Scott
McCord had been working in the plant "about a week."
'These findings are based on Scott McCord's testimony Riendeau
testified substantially to the same effect except that he denied mentioning a
union , or even knowing that the cards were union cards . He admitted
however, that he knew of union activity at the time and may have
suspected that they were union cards As Riendeau 's single warning was
limited to worktime , and as he was careful to make clear that he did not
know the facts and was making no accusation , it was not violative of
Section 8(a)(I)
'This date is found on the basis of Lindsay's investigatory affidavit
Lindsay testified that Riendeau made such a report to him on March 6 or
7 but this testimony has not been credited In the affidavit Lindsay made
no mention of such a report having been made at that time, he there stated
that it was on March I I that Riendeau told him of complaints about Scott
McCord "standing around visiting and talking" during working hours
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the overpayment and asked what kind of outfit they
were running. Riendeau undertook to find out what had
happened. Lindsay testified that he was present at the
"tail end" of the conversation. He told McCord that there
was no sense arguing about the matter, since any payroll
mistake in either direction would be adjusted in the next
paycheck.10 Immediately after the discussion Orville
McCord asked Lindsay how he was doing. Lindsay replied
that since he had heard no complaints about his work, he
was evidently doing all right and had nothing to worry
about. Early on March 11, when Orville McCord again
approached Riendeau about the check, Riendeau tried to
explain the mistake, and he said that the amount of the
overpayment would be deducted from the next check.
McCord protested vigorously that that was not fair, but
Riendeau insisted that that was how it would be
After his encounter with Orville McCord on March 11
Riendeau met with Lindsay for their daily worksheet
conference They discussed the two McCords and decided
to discharge them." Lindsay called the sheriff and had the
McCords brought to his office by their respective
foremen. When all were assembled, he handed the
McCords their paychecks and informed them that they
were being terminated. Asked the reason, he replied that
he did not have to give one since they were on probation,
but that he felt they were not satisfactory employees for
the Company. The two men were not permitted back in
the plant but their personal belongings were brought to
them in the office. At Orville McCord's request Lachman
brought in company records to explain the $1.66 mistake
in his first check. The two men then left, accompanied or
followed by the sheriff
Jan Crouch, Respondent's purchasing agent,' Z testified
as follows- He lived with his grandparents about 2 1/2
miles "east of the McCords" and "the reputation of the
McCord family in the community is not one of
upstanding." Approximately a year before the hearing he
had read a newspaper article to the effect that "some of
the McCords" - he thought it was Scott, but was not
sure - had been arrested for being involved in bar fights
In addition, his grandfather had told him the following
about "the McCords": that windows in a church near the
residence of Elmer McCord, who was Orville's father and
Scott's grandfather, had been broken and obscenities
inscribed on the church steps; that Orville McCord had
dumped a dog or dogs in the church basement; that when
his grandfather had asked "the McCords" whether they
had something to do with the obscenities, Orville McCord
had threatened "to beat up on him." All these additional
incidents had happened about 15 years before the hearing.
He first recognized Scott McCord working in the plant on
March 6 or 7 but said nothing at that time to anyone On
the morning of March 10 he, for the first time, recognized
Orville McCord working in the plant Late that afternoon
he went to Lindsay and told him that, while he had
nothing personal against the McCords, he felt they were
"Lindsay testified that Riendeau told him later that morning that Orville
McCord had been so persistent that , dust before Lindsay had come in, he
had ordered McCord out of the office In Lindsay's investigatory affidavit
he claimed to have witnessed considerably more than the "tail end" of the
conversation , including Riendeau 's request to McCord for his check stub
The Trial Examiner found Lindsay's testimony about a conversation with
Riendeau later on March 10 unconvincing , and it has not been credited
"The final tenor of Riendeau 's testimony, which has been credited, was
that the decision to discharge the two employees was reached at that time
The testimony of Lindsay and Lachman to the effect that on March 10
Lindsay directed Lachman to have their paychecks drawn has not been
credited The evidence with respect to this issue is discussed below
not the kind of people the Company should have in its
employ. He proceeded to impart to Lindsay the above
information about "the 'McCords," except that he did not
say when the incidents had taken place
Lindsay corroborated Crouch's testimony about the
report to him concerning the McCord family. He
admitted that he checked with no one about what Crouch
had told him, and that he asked Crouch no questions,
stating that he had no reason to doubt Crouch's honesty.
He testified that after hearing Crouch he reviewed "what
had taken place out in the plant," that he was concerned
that in the short time the two McCords had been with the
Company, . they already had created a lot of
dissension," and that he felt that they were "the wrong
employees" for Respondent He testified, further, that he
then told Lachman, "Bud, I have a strong feeling that
these people should be dismissed," and that he instructed
Lachman to make out their paychecks.
Both McCords denied having done any of the three
things recounted by Crouch with respect to the church.
Scott McCord, who was 6 years of age at the time of
those alleged incidents had never lived in the area referred
to by Crouch except for 2 or 3 weeks in March 1969.
During 3 1/2 years prior to that he had lived in
Cincinnati, Ohio, New Albany, Indiana, and Muncie,
Indiana, where he had held jobs which were noted on his
employment application filed with Respondent Orville
McCord admitted that a warrant had been issued for his
arrest, apparently in connection with an alleged bar fight,
but he testified that the matter had been dropped when it
had been ascertained that he was in Navy boot camp "at
the time ""
Concluding findings as to the discharge of Orville and
Scott McCord
While Respondent raises question as to their success, it
is not seriously disputed that the McCords engaged in
some union solicitation and that Respondent's supervisors
were aware of this fact The record establishes, also, that
union activity was unwelcome to a substantial part of the
employees, especially those who were Amish, and that the
possibility that unionization might cause many to leave
was a matter of considerable concern to Respondent.
Lindsay actively opposed the efforts at unionization, even
to the extent of engaging in the acts of coercion already
found. The discharge of the McCords took place not in
the regular course, but in the middle of a pay period and
not on a pay day, and they were given no reason why they
were not considered satisfactory employees. The foregoing
facts consitute a prima facie case that the discharges were
discriminatory.
In his testimony Lindsay attempted to establish that he
discharged Orville and Scott McCord essentially because
of Crouch's report-about their family. As this report for
the most part concerned incidents which turned out to
have occurred 15 years before, when Crouch was l l years
of age and Scott McCord was only 6 and was living far
from the locale of the incidents, Crouch and Lindsay's
testimony should be examined with some care. The Act
does not, of course, require employers to check reports
such as Crouch's Nevertheless, most employers in
Lindsay's position would at least have tried to ascertain
"Crouch was a managerial employee; he had full authority to purchase
and sign for over $300,000 worth of materials a month
"The record is not clear as to whether "at the time" referred to the time
of the incident or the time the warrant was issued
HORIZON MOBILE HOMES, INC. 693
the time of the incidents alleged and the actual
involvement of the employees. Lindsay, however, testified
that he asked Crouch no questions. Moreover the record
contains no explanation of why, if Crouch felt that "the
McCords"' reputation called so loudly for Scott and
Orville McCord's separation from the payroll, he did not
report Scott McCord's presence on the payroll the
previous week, when he saw him at work, especially in
view of his claim that while unsure, he thought it had been
Scott who had been involved in the bar fight which was
the only recent event he reported to Lindsay
As already noted, the Trial Examiner has discredited
the testimony of Lachman and Lindsay to the effect that
on March 10 Lindsay told Lachman to make out the two
employees' paychecks and has found that the decision to
discharge the McCords was made at Riendeau's
conference with Lindsay on March II Riendeau's
credited testimony to this effect was corroborated by
Lindsay's investigatory affidavit, which described
Riendeau's report to him on March 11 about Orville
McCord's behavior in connection with his paycheck and
the complaints about Scott McCord's "standing around
visiting and talking" during working hours, and then
continued:
At that time, I said to Ray that one of our employees
had mentioned that the McCords had a very poor
character reputation and that my vote was to dismiss
them. Ray agreed. I called the Jay County sheriff and
asked him to come over because I had reason to believe
that the McCords might create some fights or havoc in
the office.
At a later point the affidavit states, "I had had the checks
made up that morning, around 9:00, or just shortly after
my meeting with Ray Riendeau." This passage was left in
the affidavit but at the time the affidavit was taken, and
before he signed it, Lindsay deleted the following passage.
I didn't discuss this with anyone else that I can
remember until the next morning, March 11, 1969, at
around 8:30 a.m.'
and substituted:
I discussed this with Mr. F.X Lachman the evening of
March 10, 1969. At that time I decided to remove both
Orville McCord and Scott McCord and asked Mr.
Lachman to make out their checks.
Lindsay made no claim that he had not made the deleted
statement, or any other statement in the affidavit, to the
investigator; on the contrary, he testified, "That was my
first statement, and then, before the Board examiner left,
we dug into the records and changed the record." As to
when he became aware of the error, Lindsay first testified
He said, "Now, before you sign it check it over " I
showed him this was wrong after checking our records
and he said to correct it, and we did so.
At another point, however, he stated:
I believe when the examiner was there, after he had
made the statement, I said "That's wrong " He said,
"You'll get a chance to go through it" I said I would'
like to check the records We went on and finished it
up, and then we checked out some of the records. In
fact, I even called in some of the people to verify that it
was right.
Lindsay's apparent claim that the Board investigator
induced him not to correct the deleted passage
immediately is inconsistent with the subsequent passage in
the affidavit , quoted above, the reasonable meaning of
which is that the decision was reached at the conference
with Riendeau It is also inconsistent with the subsequent
statement that he had the checks drawn on March I 1
Lachman supported Lindsay's testimony to the extent
that he stated that Lindsay instructed him on March 10 to
have the checks drawn up However , whereas Lachman
testified that on Monday evening he had himself handed
the checks to Lindsay to sign , Lindsay testified to the
effect that he had no actual knowledge as to when the
checks were made out , stating.
I told Mr Lachman to make out the checks on the
10th. Now, I cannot sit here and testify the checks were
made out that evening or the next morning.
That Lindsay deleted one contradictory statement from
his affidavit does not, standing alone, remove the
affidavit 's impeaching tendency . The deletion cannot alter
the fact that he did make the contradictory statement
orally. It is important to note that the deleted statement
was part of Lindsay 's own long narrative , which was not
interrupted by questions from the investigator which might
have distracted or confused him." Moreover , as already
indicated , Lindsay did not delete all the contradictions
While it may be assumed that his failure to correct the
reference to the drawing up of the checks on March II
was an oversight , Lindsay made no attempt to correct
other passages which indicated that the decision was made
at the meeting with Riendeau As stated in III Wigmore
on Evidence , 3d ed ., Sec 1040:
As a general principle, it is to be understood that this
inconsistency is to be determined , not by individual
words or phrases alone , but by the whole impression or
effect of what has been said or done . On a comparison
of the two utterances , are they in effect inconsistent? Do
the two expressions appear to have been produced by
inconsistent beliefs?
See, also, Jencks v. United States, 353 U S 657, 667,
where the Court commented:
Flat contradiction between the witness' testimony and
the version of the events given in his reports is not the
only test of inconsistency The omission from the
reports of facts related at the trial, or a contrast in
emphasis upon the same facts, even a different order of
treatment, are also relevant to the cross-examining
process of testing the credibility of a witness' trial
testimony
The whole impression to be derived from Lindsay's story
in the affidavit is that his decision to discharge the men
was reached at the March 11 conference, as testified by
Riendeau.
The significance of the difference in dates lies in the
fact that it has been found that Lindsay was first informed
at the March 11 conference that Scott McCord had been
engaged in union solicitation Lindsay testified that the
union activity had caused dissension among the
employees; and he also testified that one of the factors
that led to his determination to discharge the two men
was that in the short period they had been employed," . . .
they already had created a lot of dissension . .' The
fact that Lindsay decided to discharge the two employees
"The affidavit went on to indicate that Lindsay was referring to his daily
worksheet meeting with Riendeau "Respondent had counsel present
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at a time which was not in the regular course, so far as
business operations were concerned, but which followed
immediately upon his learning that one of them had
participated in union solicitation is persuasive that a
purpose to discourage and prevent such activity played at
least a part in his decision to remove them from his
payroll.
Assuming that some of Scott McCord's organizing was
on worktime, as reported by Riendeau, it is plain that that
was not a factor in his discharge. In its brief Respondent
states, " . they were not discharged because of their
activities on behalf of District 50, UMWA as charged in
paragraph 6(a) and (b) of the consolidated complaint "
Respondent's rules against solicitation applied to nonwork
as well as worktime; and Respondent's warning to Bolich
and Lindsay's speeches make plain that Respondent's
concern was the union solicitation, not any interference
with production or maintenance of plant discipline
Compare Greentree Electronics Corporation, 176 NLRB
No. 126
It is noted that Bolich, who may have been more active
and agressive than the McCords in promoting
unionization, was not discharged but was only given a
warning The fact that Respondent chose not to discharge
forthwith one of its older employees, for whom it had high
regard as a worker, does not give it license to discharge
employees because they had the temerity to promote a
union when newly hired. Cf. Rickel Bros, Inc, 128
NLRB 448, 456; nor does it necessarily establish the
absence of a discriminatory motive. See Texas Industries,
Inc., 174 NLRB No 83
At the original hearing Respondent attempted, but
failed, to establish that the McCords applied for
employment with Respondent for the specific purpose of
getting themselves discharged so that they could file
charges and collect backpay At the reopened hearing
Respondent sought, but was denied, a continuance for the
following purposes: (1) to prove that Scott McCord had
been discharged from a prior employment with Hill
Brothers because of stealing, (2) to prove that Scott
McCord had misrepresented the reasons for the
termination of his employment with Hill Brothers and
with another employer, (3) to prove that subsequent to his
discharge by Respondent Scott McCord had embezzled
$3,400 from an employer, (4) to make further
investigation as to Scott McCord's employment history,
(5) to prove through a recent survey of residents of the
area where the McCords' relatives lived that their
reputation was as described by Crouch; and (6) to have an
opportunity to search Board files for evidence to support
its claim that the two McCords sought employment with
Respondent pursuant to a conspiracy to get themselves
discharged so that they could collect backpay improperly
The record shows that no such considerations motivated,
or in any way entered into, Respondent's decision to
discharge the two employees These matters are further
discussed below in the Remedy section of this Decision.
It is found that, in discharging Orville and Scott
McCord, Respondent was motivated by their activity on
behalf of District 50 and that Respondent thereby
discouraged membership in a labor organization in
violation of Section 8(a)(3), and coerced and restrained its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth
above in section III, occurring in connection with its
operations described in section I, have a close, intimate
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
now of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the
Board issue the recommended order set forth below
requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair
labor practices and to take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Some of the matters referred to above which
Respondent wished to investigate and/or prove at a
continued hearing might be relevant to the question of
whether the usual remedies of reinstatement and backpay
would effectuate the policies of the Act so far as Scott
McCord is concerned Thus, Respondent claimed that
Scott had concealed from Respondent his discharge from
his prior employment with Hill Brothers because of
stealing; and he admitted that he felt he "had done
wrong" on a job he had after he left Respondent and
therefore wanted to repay $3,400 to the subsequent
employer. In addition Respondent claimed that both
discriminatees had sought employment with Respondent
for the specific purpose of getting themselves discharged
so that they could collect backpay ' 6 In support of this last
claim Respondent adduced testimony by Owings, its house
counsel and vice president, that Scott McCord told him
that he would change his testimony so that Respondent
would win this case if Respondent would pay him some
money, that he had taken the job with Respondent for the
sole purpose of stirring up trouble through union activity
in the expectation of being discharged and collecting
backpay; that what he did at the plant was directed
towards getting fired; and that he had given up hope of
being discharged and was about to quit when he was
discharged.' Owings testified that he categorically rejected
the proposal but told Scott that Respondent was always
ready to discuss settlement and suggested that he speak to
Orville McCord and then call back. The Trial Examiner is
not convinced that Scott McCord approached Owings
with an offer to change his testimony for a price and that
it was Owings, not Scott McCord, who broached the idea
of settling the case by compromise. Scott McCord's
version of the conversation - that he offered to give up
his right to reinstatement and take only backpay - found
a degree of corroboration in the testimony of King,
Spiegel's law partner, that before seeing Owings, Scott
McCord came to him and suggested being paid "the
wages that was owed to him." His statement to King that
he was ready to "sell out" is inconsistent with the idea
"Nothing said in this Decision shall be deemed to pass upon the
question of whether the claim or facts above referred to, or any other
matters which Respondent proved or sought to prove at the reopened
hearing, are of the character or moment calling for the withholding of the
usual remedies for a discriminatory discharge
"The alleged remarks embraced Orville McCord but, in the absence of
competent evidence establishing that Orville McCord entered into a point
venture or conspiracy with his nephew, the testimony was excluded insofar
as it might affect Orville McCord
HORIZON MOBILE HOMES, INC. 695
that he would surrender the possibility of resuming his
organizational activities on behalf of District 50 after
being reinstated. On the other hand the Trial Examiner
found unconvincing Scott McCord's explanation of why
he had decided, before his discharge, to quit Aside from
general allegations that unnamed supervisors were
"jumping me around to jobs," his principal complaint
appeared to be Riendeau's warning not to organize on
company time. As Riendeau, according to Scott
McCord's own testimony, expressly stated that he did not
know the facts and cautioned him only not to organize on
company time, and as the warning was not repeated, the
Trial Examiner sees no reasonable basis for any feeling by
Scott McCord that Respondent's supervisors were "on his
back."18 The Trial Examiner has concluded that
Respondent should have the opportunity to litigate the
issue of Scott McCord's reinstatement and backpay
As the alleged facts, with the possible exception of the
incident involving the $3,400, could have been uncovered
with reasonable diligence before the original hearing -
the Hill Brothers job was listed on Scott McCord's
employment application, and Respondent made an
attempt at the original hearing to prove the
discriminatees' allegedly improper motive in seeking
employment with Respondent - the issue would probably
be closed if only private rights were involved However,
the remedies which the Board has devised for unfair labor
practices, including reinstatement and backpay, have as
their purpose the effectuation of public policies embodied
in the Act The Board cannot allow these remedial
processes to be abused for purposes of private gain in
addition, the Board has held that in appropriate cases it
will withhold the remedy of reinstatement and backpay
from discriminatees who have insinuated themselves into
an employer's employment by the device of false
representations concealing serious delinquencies of such
character that the employer would not have hired them if
given truthful information. See Southern Airways
Company, 124 NLRB 749, 752. The issue of
reinstatement is normally litigated at the unfair labor
practice hearing. In this case, however, that would result
in unduly and unnecessary delaying the disposition of the
other issues in the case, particularly the remedying of
Respondent's other coercive conduct, most of which has
been established on the basis of its own documents In
these special circumstances the policies of the Act would
be best effectuated by disposing now of the unfair labor
practices in their entirety, at the same time making
provision for ensuring the appropriateness of the remedy
It is recommended that Respondent reinstate Orville
McCord and Scott McCord to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that they
be made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason
of discrimination against them The amount of backpay
shall be a sum of money equal to what they would have
earned from March 11, 1969, the date of discrimination
against them, to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period,
computed in accordance with the formula set forth in
F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to be
computed in the manner described in Isis Plumbing &
"Scott McCord testified at the original hearing that Lindsay told him
during his hiring interview that he would be transferred "to different
departments , learning every department"
Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. It is not intended by such
Order to require the reinstatement of Scott McCord or
the payment to him of backpay if Respondent establishes
that he is not entitled thereto under Board policies.
Because of the special circumstances present in this case
Respondent shall not be precluded from litigating these
issues in the compliance stage of this proceeding in the
event of disagreement as to his right of reinstatement and
backpay. See American Creosoting Corporation, 130
NLRB 150, see also Western Wirebound Box Co , 145
NLRB 1539, 1540.
Lindsay's threats to the employees of drastic retaliatory
action if they chose to be represented by a union, his swift
illegal response to the information that Scott McCord was
engaged in union solicitation, and Respondent's other
unfair labor practices indicate a disposition on
Respondent's part not to abide by the requirements of the
Act It is therefore recommended that Respondent be
required to cease and desist from infringing in any manner
on the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Horizon Mobile Homes, Inc., is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3 International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, are each a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
4. By discriminatorily terminating the employment of
Orville McCord and Scott McCord, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
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(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, Respondent, Horizon Mobile
Homes, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any
other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment
(b) Threatening to discontinue stockpiling of products
or to shut down operations, or to lay employees off
because employees choose to bargain collectively
(c) Threatening to discontinue or curtail its
promotions-from-within policy because employees choose
to bargain collectively.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Threatening to discontinue its practice of
entertaining individual grievances because employees
choose to bargain collectively.
(e) Threatening not to bargain in good faith with
respect to terms and conditions of employment if the
employees choose to bargain collectively.
(f) Enforcing or threatening to enforce its plant rules
more stringently than normally because the employees
engage in union activities or because they seek to bargain
collectively
(g) Prohibiting employees from distributing union
literature during their nonworking time in nonworking
areas, or promulgating or maintaining any rule or
regulation containing such prohibition
(h) In any manner prohibiting employees from soliciting
their fellow employees on behalf of Internationl Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or
any other labor organization during their nonworking
time, or maintaining any rule or regulation containing
such prohibition
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Orville McCord and Scott McCord
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make Orville McCord and Scott McCord whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them in the manner described
in section V of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request make available to the Board and its
agents for examination and reproduction all payroll
records and other data necessary to analyze and compute
the backpay and reinstatement rights required by this
Order.
(d) Notify Orville McCord and Scott McCord if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
(e) Expunge from the personnel record of Edward
Bolich and from all other company records the warning
issued to Edward Bolich on or about March 14, 1969.
(f) Post at its office and place of business located in
Portland, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly
signed by its representative, shall be posted 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 to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
"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,
automatically become the findings , conclusions , Decision and Order of the
Board , 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
(g) Notify said Regional Director' for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith 30
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the
Complaint that Respondent interrogated employees,
created among its employees the impression of
surveillance, threatened to agree only to a contract,
requiring payment of union dues as a condition of,
employment, and prohibited the wearing of union badges-,
are dismissed
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "posted
pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"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 25 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of The National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, a decision has been issued finding
that we violated the law and ordering us to post this
notice and actually do what we say in this notice.
WE WILL expunge from the personnel record of
Edward Bolich, and from all other company records,
the warning issued to him on or about March 14, 1969.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from soliciting employees
to join District 50, or the UAW, or any other labor
organization, during nonworking time
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from distributing union
literature during your nonworking time in nonwork
areas
WE WILL NOT threaten to lay you off or to shut
down operations or to discontinue building mobile
homes in slow seasons because you choose to bargain
collectively
WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue our
promotions-from-within policy because you choose to
bargain collectively.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue our practice of
entertaining your individual grievances because you
choose to bargain collectively.
WE WILL NOT threaten that if you choose to bargain
collectively we will not bargain in good faith.
WE WILL NOT enforce our plant rules more strictly
because employees engage in union activities or seek to
bargain collectively, nor will we threaten to do so.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because they engage in union
activity.
WE WILL reinstate Orville McCord and Scott
McCord to their former jobs without loss of seniority
or other rights and privileges and will pay them for any
loss of wages they suffered as a result of the
discrimination which it has been found we practiced
against them If either McCord is now in the Armed
Services, WE WILL notify him of his right to his former
job after discharge from the Armed Services.
WE WILL respect your rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization, and to
HORIZON MOBILE HOMES, INC.
bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of
employment through the UAW or District 50, or any
other representative of your own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, and WE
WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the
exercise of these rights, except insofar as these rights
might be affected by a contract with a labor
organization , 'if validly made in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Act, whereby membership in
a labor organization is a condition of employment after
the 30th day following the date of such contract or the
beginning of such employment, whichever is later.
Dated By
697
HORIZON MOBILE
HOMES, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis,
,Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.