Hudson Wire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 1263 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

HUDSON WIRE COMPANY
Hudson Wire Company and Paul M. Adkins and
Lodge No. 679, International Brotherhood of Boil-
ermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
& Helpers. Cases 10-CA-12419 and 10-CA-12501
June 30, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
On January 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hud-
son Wire Company, Trenton, Georgia, its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(c):
(c) "In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
-In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro lorma, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent did not violate Sec 8(a I)
of the Act as set forth in sec. II,(A) and (C) of his Decision. Despite such
adoption, however, we regard the Administrative Las Judge's criteria for
evaluating the unlawfulness of interrogations as so Aide of the mark that the
matter should be noted for guidance of the Administrative Law Judge
' In his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge failed to in-
clude a provision to the effect that Respondent would not In an) other
manner interfere with the employees' Sec. 7 rights. This omission was obvi-
ouslv inadvertent, inasmuch as the provision is warranted, and we shall
modify the recommended Order accordingly We shall also issue a new
notice which conforms more closely with the Admiiistra!ive I aw Judge's
recommended Order
APPENDIX
Noci( F To EMPLOYEFS
POSI ED B) ORDER OF THE
NAIONAL LABOR RFI.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties participated and
had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we committed cer-
tain unfair labor practices and has ordered us to post
this notice. We intend to abide by the following:
The Act gives all our employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through representa-
tives they choose
To act together for collective bargaininl or(
other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WF. ILL. NO1 discourage membership in any
labor organization by discriminatorily discharg-
ing any of its employees or discriminating in any
other manner with respect to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILl NOI unlawfully promise any benefits
to our employees or create the impression
among our employees that their union meetings
are kept under surveillance in order to discour-
age their union or other protected activities.
WE WIi.L. NOT in an)' other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights protected by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE wILl offer Ruby Carroll immediate and
full reinstatement to her former position. or, if
such position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, and make her whole for any
loss of pav she may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination practiced against her, with in-
terest.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of a
labor organization.
HUDStO:N VIRE ( OMPANY
DE( ISION
S I a rMFNT OF T HE CASE
K.AR H BL St H\xAN'. Adiministrativ e Law Judge: this
case was heard befoie ine i., fretori Georgia, on Ma? 16
236 NLRB No. 151
1263
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and 17, 1977. Paul M. Adkins, an individual, filed charges
in Case 10-CA 12419 on November 22 and amended
them on December 6, 1976. A complaint was issued on
January 12 and amended on January 27, 1977. Charges
were filed in Case 10-CA-12501, on January 3, 1977. by
Lodge No. 679, International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers. A
complaint and notice consolidating the cases was issued on
March 29, 1977. Settlement discussions were held prior to
the hearing and pursuant to a partial settlement of the
complaint, it was amended to conform with the results of
the settlement. The remaining allegations at issue at the
hearing were that Ruby Carroll was discriminatorily dis-
charged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully
interrogating employees, promising benefits, threatening
discharge, and creating an impression of surveillance. Both
the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FAC I
I. JURISDICTION
Hudson Wire Company, herein called Respondent, is a
New York corporation, with an office and place of busi-
ness at Trenton, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of wire products. During the past calendar year. a
representative period, Respondent sold and shipped fin-
ished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to cus-
tomers located outside the State of Georgia. Admittedly,
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. Lodge No. 679, International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, herein called the Union, is, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACI1CES
Respondent and the Union had a collective-bargaining
agreement, effective July 1, 1973 through June 30, 1976,
covering the employees at the Trenton, Georgia, plant.
Upon the expiration of the agreement, the employees com-
menced an economic strike, which continued until Septem-
ber 3, 1976, when the employees made an unconditional
offer to return to work. The alleged unfair labor practices
generally related to the strike.
A. Allkegation. of Unlawful Interrogation
The complaint contains numerous allegations of unlaw-
ful interrogation in separate instances beginning before the
strike and continuing after the termination of the strike.
The record shows that approximately 3 weeks before the
strike began, James Reed, an employee, went into the of-
fice of Clyde Clark, manufacturing supers isor, to get a roll
of tape. Only Clark and Reed were present. During their
conversation, Clark asked Reed what the employees want-
ed, to settle the controversy. Clark also told him that Hud-
son Wire was a good company and that the employees did
not need a union. Reed replied that the employees wanted
more money and better working conditions.
Approximately I week before the strike began, Willie
Tillman, an employee, and Joseph Cannon, plant general
foreman, were in the wire drying room. Although it was so
loud in the drying room that one could hardly hear a per-
son speaking, Tillman understood Cannon to ask him how
he would vote concerning the strike, to which he replied
that he did not know. Cannon admitted talking to Tillman,
but only recalled asking whether Tillman would be all right
if the employees struck. Cannon was concerned because of
Tillman's financial problems following a cancer operation.
On June 30, 1976, the day the strike began, Larry Coop-
er, an employee, was working near the inspector's table
which is close to the office of Supervisor Clark. Clark
asked him whether the employees had struck and what per-
centage had voted to strike. He also wanted to know
whether the strike would begin that night or the next morn-
ing. Cooper answered that 99 percent of the employees had
voted in favor of the strike but did not respond as to when
the strike would commence.
Shortly after the strike began, Paul Adkins, an employ-
ee, went to the office of Carl Klinefelter, the plant manag-
er, to pick up the paychecks of striking employees. On that
occasion, Klinefelter asked Adkins what the strike vote was
and what the employees wanted to settle the strike. Adkins
responded, stating that the strike vote was unanimous and
proposing certain improvements in working conditions.
Adkins, as chairman of the Union's bargaining committee
and a member of the negotiating committee, had partici-
pated in the negotiations.
Several acts of unlawful interrogation are alleged to have
occurred on the picket line. In these instances, the compa-
ny representatives involved either happened to arrive for
work or leave work through the gate of the plant in the
general vicinity where the picket line was stationed. For
example, employee Reed was approached by Tom Riddle,
second shift supervisor, while on the picket line during the
middle of the strike. Riddle asked Reed what it would take
to settle the strike and said that the employees did not need
a union. Reed described this conversation as typical. In
another instance, Burle Castleberry, the maintenance sup-
ervisor. asked employee Larry Gilbreath when the employ-
ees were coming back and said that the company had of-
fered all that it was going to offer. Castleberry and
Gilbreath then continued the conversation about CB ra-
dios. Also, Nolan Daniel, third shift supervisor, asked em-
ployee Ellis Mitchell, while he was picketing, what the
strike vote was and when was he coming back to work.
Several employees recalled instances of alleged interro-
gation of picketers by Klinefelter. Jimmy Marr. an employ-
ee, testified that while he was on the picket line in August
1976, Klinefelter said to him "come and cross the picket
line and I will give you a job." Employee Tillman testified
that Klinefelter asked him when he was returning to work,
while he was walking the picket line some time during the
middle of the strike. Ruby C'arroll, an employee, testified
1264
HUDSON WIRE COMPANY
that while she was picketing in August, Klinefelter asked
whether she was ready to come back to work.
Some time after November 20, 1976, Wanda Nelson, an
employee, had a conversation with Supervisor Nolan Dan-
iel at the inspector's table. Daniel asked Nelson if she had
seen the authorization cards, which had been passed
around. She answered in the affirmative and told him she
had signed one.
The General Counsel argues that Respondent's conduct
in each of the above-described instances amounted to an
8(a)(l) violation. However, it is settled that interrogation is
not unlawfulper se. Interrogation which falls short of inter-
ference or coercion may not be unlawful. The "test is wheth-
er, under all the circumstances, the interrogation reason-
ably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act." Blue Flash Ex-
press, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 593 (1954). Given the surround-
ing circumstances in each of these conversations, I have to
conclude that the interrogations were not coercive. While
the record does not provide extensive background informa-
tion in each of the numerous instances of alleged interroga-
tion, the record is clear that no employee testified to an
atmosphere of employer hostility, coercion, or interference.
To the contrary, the dialogues were casual and occurred in
and around the plant duri:g chance encounters. In some
cases, the employee initiated the conversation or volun-
teered information. Most conversations were between em-
ployees and minor supervisors on a generally friendly and
casual level. No employee testified as to a feeling of being
compelled to answer, and there is no evidence that any
employee formulated his answer to conform to the wishes
of the employer. In sum, the record contains no evidence
that the employees feared reprisals as a result of the inter-
rogations, nor does it reflect a situation in which employees
were restrained in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Accordingly, I find that none of the allegations of unlawful
interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)( I) have been sus-
tained.
B. Allegation of Promise of Benefit
The complaint alleges that Respondent unlawfully
promised benefits to an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(1). In this regard, the record shows that a month be-
fore the contract expired on June 30, 1976, employee Paul
Adkins, who was a member of Local 679's grievance com-
mittee and on the negotiating committee, was in the main-
tenance shop with maintenance supervisor Burle Castleber-
ry. Castleberry told Adkins that he was "taking too much
time on union business," that he was neglecting his work
too much, and that he "would be better off out of the
union." Castleberry further stated that he could tell Adkins
"more confidential things" and Adkins "would have a bet-
ter chance for advancement."
I have no problem in finding that Respondent, through
the statements of Castleberry, promised benefits to its em-
ployee, in order to induce him to forgo his activities on
behalf of the Union. Such conduct violates Section 8(a)( 1)
of the Act. G. C. Murphy Company, 216 NLRB 785, 788
(1975); Fayetteville Industrial Maintenance, Inc., 218 NLRB
889, 897-898 (1975).
C. Allegation of Threats
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent unlawful-
ly threatened its employees with discharge for engaging in
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The record
shows that in late August Supervisor Tom Riddle ap-
proached employees Devon Higdon and Ellis Mitchell
while they were on the picket line. When leaving the plant
after working, Riddle stopped to talk to the strikers. He
told them that they better return to work, and that the
Company would hire others to replace them, because the
Union would not negotiate. Both employees explained in
their testimony that the exchange was casual and friendly.
The evidence does not suggest that these comments were
made with the intent to threaten the employees, nor do I
find that the employees regarded them as threats. Rather,
these comments were made in the course of idle conversa-
tion while Riddle would "talk to [them] about five or ten
minutes and turn his car off and sit there," telling them of
the possibility that the Company was prepared to hire re-
placements. The record shows that Riddle's remarks were
in the nature of a prediction of future events rather than
statements intended for the purpose of intimidating the
employees. I cannot find that these statements constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)( ).
D. .4 legation of Impression of Surveillance
The complaint alleges that Respondent created the im-
pression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)( ). In
his testimony, Larry Cooper recalled a conversation in De-
cember 1976, when Joseph Cannon, general foreman, said
to him that even though Ruby Carroll had been absent
several times in the past year, he had not wntten her up for
it; nevertheless she had spoken at a union meeting urging
that Cannon be fired. Cannon further stated that he knew
what happened that day because he had people come back
and tell him what was going on.
Cannon's statement to Cooper clearly conveyed the mes-
sage to an employee that the Company "had a direct pipe-
line" to the union meetings and was continuously kept in-
formed about the employees' activities at union gatherings.
The impression that the Company was engaged in surveil-
lance of union meetings tends to restrain employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
E. Allegation of Unlawful Discharge
According to the complaint, Respondent's refusal to re-
instate Ruby Carroll after her unconditional offer to return
to work following the strike constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. Respondent's position is
that its denial of reinstatement was justified by the alleged
misconduct by Carroll during the strike.
Ruby Carroll was employed by Respondent from Au-
gust 14, 1967 until June 30, 1976, when she joined the strike
called by the Union. On September 3, 1976. she, along with
other striking employees, made an unconditional offer to
return to work (G.C. Exh. 3). In response. C arroll received
a letter, dated September 3, 1976, informing her that she had
1265
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to report for a disciplinary hearing on September 8, 1976,
concerning her alleged strike misconduct (G.C. Exh. 4).
The hearing was held in the plant conference room with
William Bolton and Carl Klinefelter for Respondent and
Larry Cooper, Paul Adkins, and Sherman Sweatt for the
Union.
In this interview with Ruby Carroll, Bolton asked Car-
roll if she had made a threatening telephone call to Joe
Rimas, a fellow employee. Rimas, who is Supervisor
Cannon's brother-in-law, had apparently received a call
from someone telling him not to cross the picket line, and
warning him about Cannon's barn having been burned.
Carroll denied any such conversation during the question-
ing by her supervisors, although in her testimony she ad-
mitted to a telephone conversation with Rimas and asking
him not to cross the picket line because she would find it
difficult at her age to find a job. This was the only incident
of alleged misconduct taken up at this hearing.'
Following this hearing, Carroll was notified by letter,
dated September 8, 1976, that she was discharged (G.C.
Exh. 5).
The law is clear, and the parties agree,2 that an employee
who engaged in a strike--a protected concerted activity--
has a right to reinstatement upon his unconditional offer to
return to work, unless the employer can show misconduct
by the employee so serious as to render the employee unfit
for future service. Although serious acts of misconduct
during a strike niaN disqualify a striker from protection
under the Act, not every impropriety committed in the
course of a strike so deprives the striker. Coronet Casuals,
Inc., 207 NI.RB 304 (1973). The Board held in MP Indu.s-
tries, Inc. 227 NLRB 1709, 1710 (1977): "Although an em-
ployee may actually have engaged in misconduct, he or she
may not he denied reinstatement absent a showing that
'the misconduct is so violent or of such serious character as
to render the employee unfit for future service.'" 3
At the hearing, Respondent attempted to meet that bur-
den by showing that Respondent held Carroll responsible
for (I) the threatening telephone call to Rimas concerning
a barn burning and (2) harassing Shirley Hopkins on her
way home from work at Respondent's plant.
With respect to the telephone call, the record contains
the testimony of Joseph Rimas describing the telephone
conversation as follows:
We talked first, you know, friendly like and she asked
me was I still going to work down there and I said yeah.
Asked what happened to my truck there and that made
me just go on. start on anyway, after they painted by
I have resolved the conflicting record esidence on this issue as follows
('arrioll and Adkins unequivocally testified that this was the only
subject mIlatter raised at the hearing. Among Respondent's wsitnesses.
Bolton and Klinefelter, only the latter recalled that another incident,.
referring to the "Hopkins' matter," was also discussed. And
Klinefelter's notes (Resp. Exh. 2) which indicates that both the tele-
phone and Ihe liHopkins' incident were discussed, are not sufficientls
reliable Klirefelter's testimony concerning the time and circumstances
tIf his preparation of these notes was extremely vague and uncertain.
2 See briefs of General Counsel, p. 10, and of Respondent. p. 24.
L R.B. v. Ilhn,, lo[l WiforAs, 153 F.2d 811, 815-816 IC.A. 7, 1946),
The lire tone lirr i Rubbhher ('ompran. 187 NI RB 54. 59 (1970). resersed in
othci respect, 449 iF.2d 511 I(C.A 5, 1971): Terrr ('oach Industries, Inr, 166
NI Ril 560 (1967), enfd 411 F.2d 612 (C A. 9. 1969).
truck. During the conversation, though, she asked me
did I hear that Joe's barn got burned up. And I said no.
And then we talked some more, you know, on the phone.
And she said sorry about me going down there, she
wished I wouldn't go down there, it would be dangerous
for me to go to work down there.
Rimas further stated that he had known Ruby Carroll
for a long time, since he "was in first grade, second grade
and over at the school." Carroll admitted to a conversa-
tion with Rimas, but denied any reference to a barn burn-
ing. I find Rimas' recollection of this conversation credible.
But Rimas' testimony negates any suggestion that Carroll's
telephone call can be considered a threat or intimidation of
a fellow employee. The conversation began, as Rimas stat-
ed, on a friendly like basis and the content of the conversa-
tion, as recalled by Rimas, suggests that it was made more
out of concern for Rimas' safety than with the intent to
threaten or intimidate. And even if the telephone call could
be considered a threat to a fellow employee, it would not
be the type of incident of such serious nature so as to dis-
qualify her for future employment. Respondent apparently
agrees with this analysis, since its brief contains only a
passing reference to this matter (Resp. br. p. 14).
Turning now to the more siloous incident, namely, the
Hopkins' incident, the record shows that on August 11,
1977, the Company began to hire replacements for the
striking employees. Shirley Hopkins, a hired replacement,
left work at approximately 4 p.m., 2 days later. A station
wagon driven by Ruby Carroll pulled in behind Hopkins
on Highway 11. Carroll's car contained three strikers in
addition to herself, Wanda Nelson, Betty Joyce Morgan,
and Mary Jo Whisenant. The women claim that they fol-
lowed Hopkins' car because she had out-of-state license
plates and they were tok.. that the Company was not al-
lowed to hire persons 'rom across state lines to replace
them. Behind the four strikers, a car containing two super-
visors, Steve Cooper and Rex Blevins, pulled in and also
followed.
The caravan continued on Highway 11 for the approxi-
mately 12 miles, from Trenton to Rising Fawn, Georgia.
Carroll followed Hopkins' car fairly closely. The testimony
varies as to whether Carroll was "right on her rear
bumper" or within a car length or two; however, the gist of
all the testimony is that Carroll followed unreasonably and
annoyingly close, more closely than a driver normally
would. At Mack's Gun Shop, Hopkins made a left turn
onto Route 189, and the two other cars followed. After
roughly a mile and a half, Carroll pulled out, and alongside
of Hopkins' car, and both came to a stop.4 While the two
cars were stopped in this position, side by side, Betty Mor-
gan, who was in Carroll's car, leaned out the window to
tell Hopkins that she was taking her job, and further say-
ing: "If you come back to work tomorrow, I'm going to
beat your ass." Hopkins did not respond. At this point,
Blevins got out of Cooper's car and got into the front seat
of Hopkins' car. The three cars continued on the road for a
4 Respondent urges that Carroll attempted to run Hopkins off the road.
The record does not contain any testimony to establish that as fact. Hopkins
testified in response to the direct question whether Carroll did attempt to
run her off the road: "No, I don't say that I just say she was trying to get
me to stop."
1266
HUDSON WIRE COMPANY
short distance when Hopkins stopped her car again. She
was obviously concerned and did not want the strikers to
find out where she lived. At that point Cooper succeeded in
pulling in behind Hopkins, cutting off Carroll. The cars
then proceeded on until they reached Hopkins' gate.
There, Cooper blocked Carroll's car from gaining entry
into the driveway. Blevins stepped out of Hopkins' car and
approached Carroll's car while Hopkins continued up her
driveway to her home. Observing a load of apples in the
rear of Carroll's car, Blevins asked them for one which one
of the women gave to him with the comment, "to put it in
[his] mouth so [he] would shut up." He then told Ruby
Carroll to go home and behave herself. Both cars departed.
The next morning, August 14, 1976, Cooper came by to
pick Hopkins up for work. He found roofing tacks spread
on Hopkin's driveway. However, the record contains no
proof linking responsibility for this incident to Carroll.
The question whether Carroll's conduct, as summarized
above, is of sufficient seriousness so as to justify her dis-
charge is admittedly not an easy one. General Counsel,
relying on Moore Business Forms, Inc., 224 NLRB 393, 398
(1976), modified in other respects 226 NLRB 688, (1976),
argues that the mere following of replacements is insuffi-
cient to warrant a refusal to reinstate. There, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge evaluated the incident as follows:
There was no claim that the following was anything
more than annoying. Parker's car did not touch Pope's
or attempt to force it from the road. No potentiality
for harm was presented.
And in Ostego Ski Club-Hidden Valley, Inc., 217 NLRB
408 (1975), the conduct of following "fairly close" and
"closer than normal" was held by the Board not to be seri-
ous conduct, with the additional observation that the dis-
chargee did not try to force the other driver off the road
(217 NLRB at 413).
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that Carroll's ac-
tions go far beyond "strikers following non-strikers by car"
and relies on several cases cited in its brief, all of which are
not fully apposite to the instant situation. In Alcan Cable
West, a Division of Alcan Aluminum Corporation, 214
NLRB 236 (1974), the vehicle which followed a car chased
and went into the rear of the followed vehicle sending it
into a 50-foot skid. In Capital Rubber & Specialty Co., Inc.,
201 NLRB 715 (1973), the dischargee impaired another's
driving visibility so as to create an imminent safety hazard.
In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., 449 F.2d 511
(5th Cir. 1971), the dischargee had curbed the vehicle of
the nonstriking employee so that he had to stop to avoid
hitting the dischargee.
While the question of "sufficient seriousness" here is
close, I find that it is not so serious as to preclude Car-
roll from continued employment. In arriving at this conclu-
sion, I am persuaded by the following additional consider-
ations. On the basis of my observation of Ruby Carroll, she
is an elderly lady whose capacity and potentiality for seri-
ous harm against another person is obviously limited. Sig-
nificantly, the effect which Carroll's conduct had on Hop-
kins was minimized by her knowledge that she was not a
lonely victim, but that two supervisors, Blevins and Coop-
er, were behind her to protect her when the occasion de-
manded it. Moreover, Carroll cannot be held responsible
for Morgan's threatening remark, nor the roofing tacks in
Hopkins' driveway; for the Board has stated:
Each striker's eligibility for reinstatement must be
judged solely upon incidents in which the striker in
question is alleged to have participated Unauthorized
acts of violence on the part of individual strikers are
not chargeable to other union members in the absence
of proof that identifies them as participating in such
violence. Coronet Casuals, Inc., 207 NLRB 304, 305
(1973).
There is no proof of Carroll's responsibility for either ac-
tion.
Finally, I am not convinced that this driving incident
weighed that heavily in Respondent's consideration of
whether to reemploy Carroll, because Respondent would
surely have raised this incident at the disciplinary hearing.
Respondent's failure to do so leads me to the inference
that Respondent's decision not to reemploy her was influ-
enced by considerations other than her misconduct. In any
case, on balance, I find that the alleged misconduct of Car-
roll in regard to (1) the telephone call to Joseph Rimas was
baseless, and (2) the following of Shirley Hopkins to her
home of insufficient seriousness to impede her reemploy-
ment rights following the strike, upon her unconditional
offer to return to work.
CON( I I SIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent. Hudson Wire Company, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Lodge No. 679, International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers &
Helpers, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Burle Cast-
leberry, unlawfully promised an employee better promo-
tion possibilities if he were to forgo his union elffots, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Joseph Can-
non, created the impression among certain employees that
their union meetings were under surveillance by the em-
ployer, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent discharged, or refused to reinstate, its
employee, Ruby Carroll, because she engaged in protected,
concerted activities with other employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec-
tion, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid violations are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
7. All other allegations of 8(a)(I) violations have not
been established.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
I recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
1267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desist from its unlawful practices. I further recommend
that Respondent be ordered to post an appropriate notice
and take affirmative action in order to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
In addition, I recommend that Respondent offer Ruby
Carroll full and immediate reinstatement with backpay,
and interest thereon, to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I recommend the issuance of the follow-
ing:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Hudson Wire Company, Trenton,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization
by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or dis-
criminating in any other manner with respect to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Unlawfully promising benefits to its employees and
creating the impression among its employees that their
union meetings were kept under surveillance, in order to
discourage their union activity, or in any other manner
See, generally, Isis. Plumbing & Ilealing Co.. 138 NL RB 716 (11962)
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of Ihe
Rules and Regulations of the National L abor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall he
deemed waived for all purposes.
unlawfully interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ruby Carroll immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or, if such a position no longer ex-
ists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make her
whole for any loss of pay that she may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, in ac-
cordance with the recommendations set forth herein under
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Trenton, Georgia, plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read 'Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
1268