Hydraflo Valve & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 730 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters Local Union No 505,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization by discriminating
against employees with regard to their hire or tenure of a mployment or any
term or condition of employment
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, resti am, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self organization, to form, join, or
assist Teamsters Local Union No 505, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by the
provisos to Section 8(a) (3) of the Act
WE WILL offer Cyrus Deskins immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, and make him, Earl Rose, and Vernon Pel-
frey whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of Teamsters Local Union No 505, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization
LOGAN-MINGo GAS & OIL COMPANY, INC,
Employer
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE -We will notify any of the above named employees currently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full ieinstatement 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
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
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No
684-3627
Hydraflo Valve & Manufacturing Co and Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO Case No 23-
CA-2069 May 9, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24, 1966, Trial Examiner Robert E Mullin 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 Deci-
sion Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
158 NLRB No 75
HYDRAFLO VALVE & MANUFACTURING CO 731
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this
case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed 1 The
rulings are heieby afflimed The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case,,
and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of
the Ti ial Examinei, with the modifications set forth below 3
[The Boaid adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Ordei
with the follow ing modifications
[1 Delete paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order and relettei
1(b) and 1(c) as 1(a) and 1(b), respectively,
[2 Delete the first paragraph of the Notice to All Employees ]
i The Trial Examiner's findings are amply supported by the evidence in the record and
we find no merit in the Respondent Company's contention that the Tiial Examiner had
preconceived notions of how the case should be decided
2 The Respondent apparently excepts to the Trial Examiner 's crediting employee Green's
testimony in relevant part, on the ground that it was prevented , allegedly because of an
improperly executed subpena, from adducing certain evidence bearing on Green s credi
bility The evidence sought was an alleged record of arrests in the possession of the
Beaumont police The Respondent therefore requested the Board to issue a proper sub-
pena, incorporate the particular evidence in the record , and presumably to reevaluate the
Trial Examiners credibility findings on the basis of the new evidence We consider the
Respondent's request to be without merit and accordingly deny it The record shows that
during the hearing the Trial Examiner issued a subpena to Respondent for the indicated
purpose and , when the Beaumont police refused to accept the subpena, Respondent re-
turned the subpena to the Trial Examiner , while the hearing was in progress without
requesting that the Trial Examiner issue a proper subpena or asking for a continuance
of the case so as to permit it to obtain the desired evidence Apart from the fact that
the evidence now sought by the Respondent is of questionable admissibility ( see Martel
Mills Corporation, 118 NLRB 618), we find nothing in the circumstances of this case which
would justify reopening the record herein
$The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(3), (4) and (1)
of the Act by discharging employee J L Green because the employee stated that he would
file unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent We agree with the Trial
Examiner that the discharge for the asserted reason violated Section 81 a ) ( 1) and (4) of
the Act In view of our affirmance of the Trial Examiner's 8(a) (1 ) and (4 ) finding we
find it unnecessary to pass on his 8 (a)(3) finding particularly inasmuch as such a find
ing would not alter the scope of our Order and remedy herein
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the Union , the General Counsel
for the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director for Region 23
(Houston, Texas ), issued his complaint and notice of hearing , dated July 30, 1965,
against Hydraflo Valve & Manufacturing Co (herein called the Respondent or
Employer), alleging that the latter had engaged and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act The complaint, the charges,' and
notice of hearing were duly served on the parties In its answer as amended at
the hearing , the Respondent conceded certain facts as to its business operations, but
it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices
1 The original charge was filed on June 4 1965 an amended charge was filed on
July 2G 1965
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 13 and 14, 1965, at Beau-
mont, Texas, before Trial Examiner Robert E Mullin All parties appeared at the
hearing The General Counsel was represented by an attorney, the Charging Party
by one of its International representatives, and the Respondent by its president and
a management official All parties were given full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant and competent evidence
Subsequent to the close of the hearing, briefs on behalf of the Respondent and the
General Counsel were submitted to me A motion to dismiss, upon which ruling
was reserved at the conclusion of the hearing, is disposed of in accordance with the
findings and conclusions that follow z
Upon the entire record in the case, the briefs of the parties, and from my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Texas corporation, with its principal office and facilities located
in Beaumont, Texas, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal products
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, the Respondent purchased products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
sources outside the State of Texas, and sold and shipped products valued in excess
of $50,000 to customers located outside that State Upon the foregoing facts, the
Respondent concedes, and I find, that Hydraflo Valve & Manufacturing Company is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called
Union or Oil Workers), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction
During the fall of 1964, the Union organized the employees of the Respondent's
plant located at 3350 Hollywood Street in Beaumont 3 On December 18, at a Board
election conducted among those employees, 72 voted for the Union and 3 voted
against it On December 29, as the result of this election, the Union was certified
as the bargaining representative for a unit composed of the production and mainte-
nance employees at the plant on Hollywood Street In February 1965 the parties
began a series of meetings for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement Thereafter, and until about May 19, representatives of the Company
and Union met in bargaining conferences These sessions were held at intervals of
a week or more and many subjects were covered, including various grievances which
the Union presented from time to time No contract, however, l esulted from these
conferences The principal representative of the Employer at these sessions was
Charles F Corgey, president of the Respondent The bargaining learn for the Union
consisted of Ivan B Haven, an International representative of thi Oil Workers, and
a committee of three employees, the chairman of which was an employee named
J L Green On May 27, 1965, Green was suspended and on May 31, he was
discharged
B The allegations with respect to Section 8(a) (4),(3), and (1), contentions
of the parties, findings and conclusions with respect thereto
The General Counsel contends that the suspension and discharge of Green were
due to his aggressive representation of the employees in the bargaining conferences
Q Subsequent to the close of the hearing Official Reporter James F Davis stated in a
letter to the parties a copy of which he forwarded to me, that an examination of his
notes disclosed that the word "not" should not appear in line 16 on page 187 of the
transcript The record is hereby corrected in this particular to accord with the steno
graphic notes of the official reporter
s The Respondent has another plant in Beaumont located at a point approximately
mile from the facilities on Hollywood Street Only the plant at the latter location
is involved in the present proceeding
HYDRAFLO VALVE & MANUFACTURING CO. 733
and his announcement that he planned to file an unfair labor practice charge against
the Company . The' Respondent denies these allegations in their entirety and asserts
that Green was discharged for cause.
Green was first employed by a corporate predecessor of the Respondent in August
1961 .4 From that time until his discharge , Green 's tenure was unbroken except for
a short period in 1963.5 For the first 2 years of his employment he worked as a
maintenance man. Thereafter , however, he became a coremaker in the foundry and
held this job until his termination . Initially he was hired at the rate of $1.10 per
hour. During his employment he received a succession of raises and at the time of
his dismissal Green was being paid $1 .60 per hour , a rate that put him in the highest
paid group of employees at the Respondent 's plant .6 He was originally hired by Bob
Mabry, a principal stockholder in Iron Castings who remained a prominent manage-
ment official when that firm was merged with the present Respondent. Although
Green worked under various foremen and a plant superintendent , his duties brought
him in frequent contact with Mabry. Green testified that there had never been any
complaints about his work. This testimony was corroborated by the concessions
made by the Respondent 's officials . Thus, at the hearing Mabry stated that up to
the time of his discharge Green had been a trusted employee, and President Corgey
conceded that until May 27 , 1965 , he had never heard any disparaging criticism of
Green's work.
From the outset of the Union 's efforts to organize the employees at the Respond-
ent's plant , Green actively endeavored to secure signed authorization cards from his
fellow workers . At the representation election held in December 1964 he was one
of two observers for the Union. Thereafter he was elected vice president of the
Union 's local at the plant and when collective -bargaining conferences were initiated
he was elected employee chairman of the negotiating committee . Haven , Interna-
tional representative for the Oil Workers and principal union spokesman at these
conferences , testified that Green actively participated in all the bargaining sessions
and that Green was the only employee on the committee who endeavored to be an
aggressive spokesman for his coworkers in the bargaining unit.
Green testified that on two occasions when the union campaign was in progress
Mabry interrogated him about his organizational activities and at one time warned
him that he should discontinue his efforts. According to Green, in mid-August 1964,
Mabry called him to an office at the foundry and asked him whether he was support-
ing the Union. Green testified that he refused to commit himself and told Mabry
only that he was for "the winning side." According to Green , another incident
occurred the following month, when Mabry accosted him while at work and ques-
tioned him as to whether Green's car was parked in front of the union hall. Green
testified that he told Mabry that the car in question was not his but that of another
employee, whom he named. According to Green, Mabry then told him that if he
caught him in a lie he would kick him. Green further testified that during the same
conversation Mabry told him "that if I didn't stop that union business he was going
to get his gun and stand in some dark alley and shoot me in the back ...." Mabry
did not deny having mentioned the Union to Green and other employees during this
period, but he specifically denied having threatened Green with a gun or any other
weapon. Green was a generally credible witness but his account of the second con-
versation with Mabry was rambling and unpersuasive. For this reason, it is my
conclusion that although Mabry questioned Green about his union activities on these
particular occasions he did not, in either case, engage in any of the threats of vio-
lence or mayhem attributed to him by Green.7
About May 27, 1965, Mabry discovered that a substantial amount of brass fittings
had been stolen from the Respondent's warehouse. With the help of the police
department for the city of Beaumont, Mabry found the missing items in the scrap-
yard of a dealer in salvage material. Further investigation disclosed that the indi-
viduals who delivered the stolen brass for sale as salvage had signed receipts for the
money paid them and that these signatures appeared to resemble the signatures of
4 This was Iron Castings, Inc.
6 Green was never laid off. In 1963 he voluntarily quit to seek other employment, but
returned to the Respondent 's employ soon thereafter.
6 Of approximately 76 employees on the payroll in May 1965, Green was among the top
15 employees as to hourly rate.
7 The initial charge in this case not having been filed until June 4, 1965 , both of these
incidents occurred many months beyond the 6-month limitation established by Sec-
tion 10(b) of the Act. In any event the General Counsel did not allege that either
constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1).
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some of the . employees then working for the Respondent . Mabry and one Austin,
the city detective assigned to work on the case, armed with the, receipts bearing the
signatures in question , then endeavored to secure more concrete evidence as to who
was responsible for the theft . After an examination of the signatures of those
employees at work in the plant ; Austin summoned a number of them to Mabry's
office for questioning . , Among those so interrogated was Green . According to
President Corgey, as a result of this investigation , another employee , one Roberts,
confessed and was convicted of the theft . No charges were ever lodged against
Green. • . However, the sequence of events which culminated in his dismissal on
May 31' began at the time of this investigation.
It was undisputed that when Green appeared for questioning at Mabry's office,
on May 27 , a piece of one of the missing brass . components was setting on Mabry's
desk. Thereafter. Mabry asked Green what he knew about the theft. The employee
disclaimed any knowledge of it and protested his innocence,of any wrongdoing. At
some point during the interrogation, most of which was conducted by Detective
Austin, Green was asked whether he had a criminal record. When he gave a nega-
tive response, Austin telephoned police headquarters to request a check of their files.
"This resulted in the disclosure that Green had been convicted of a felony and had
served a sentence in the State penitentiary.8
According to Green, when Austin recounted this information, Mabry announced
-that he could not use a man like Green and that he would have to let him go. Green
testified that at that moment Austin resumed the interrogation and threatened that
if he caught Green in a lie he (Austin) would use his gun on him. According to
Green, he told Austin that he believed that the investigation was connected with his
union activity and that he was not going to put up with any threats. Green testified
that at this point Mabry arose, seized him by the arm and pushed him out the door.
According to Green, as Mabry was forcing him out of the room, he told him that
be was going to file charges against the Company for this treatment.
Green returned to work after-leaving Mabry's office. About the end of the shift
that afternoon, however, he punched his timecard and left the plant. Outside the
foundry, he met Haven, the union representative, whom he apprised of his version
of the conference in Mabry's office that morning. Haven advised him to ask for a
meeting with President Corgey, since during their bargaining conference Corgey had
told the union representatives that only he had the authority to dismiss any of the
personnel.
Corgey testified that later that afternoon Green appeared at his office to complain
that, earlier in the day, Mabry accused him of stealing brass, told him that he was
discharged, and then pushed him out of the foundry office. According to the plant
president, Green also told him that-he had five witnesses who would substantiate the
charge that Mabry had pushed him out of his office. Green testified, and his testi-
mony in this connection was not contradicted, that in this conversation with Corgey
he told him that because of the treatment to which he had been subjected he was
going to file charges with the Board. Corgey concluded the discussion by telling
Green that whereas he knew nothing about the matter at the moment, he would go
to the foundry immediately and conduct an investigation.
Shortly thereafter, Corgey called a meeting to review what had happened in
Mabry's office. Present, in addition to Corgey, Mabry, and Detective Austin, were
Green, Haven, the union representative, and two employees who were members of
the union bargaining committee. Corgey questioned Mabry, Austin, and Green
about the events of the morning and then called in several of the employees whom
Green had said were eyewitnesses to his ejection from Mabry's office. At the outset
of the conference, Haven protested that the method of Corgey's investigation was
designed only to intimidate the employees. Later, during the course of the meeting,
Corgey indicated that Green would be discharged. It was undenied that, at this
point, Haven announced that he would call a strike immediately. This declaration
led to a verbal exchange between Corgey and Haven which resulted in Corgey stating
that Green was not discharged but only suspended for the time being and that
another meeting on the question would be held the next morning. Haven then
announced that the Union would not call a strike but would file charges with the
Board instead. The meeting thereupon adjourned.
The following morning, Friday, May 28, the parties met again. With the excep-
tion of Detective Austin , most of those who had attended the conference the after-
8 Green was released from the penitentiary in 1950 . He later served on active duty
with the U . S. Army for 3 years and received an honorable discharge in 1954.
HYDRAFLO VALVE & MANUFACTURING CO. 735
noon before were present . Corgey announced at the outset that the proceedings
would -be recorded and then asked Green to reiterate what he had said earlier.
Green declined , on the ground that he would not talk,while the recorder was on.
Thereafter, the employees who had been questioned the day before - were called in
again and asked whether they had seen Green pushed or shoved out of Mabry's
office. Edmond Young , an employee who had been unavailable the preceding after-
noon , was also questioned . According to Corgey , when Young was asked whether
he had seen Mabry push Green out the door of the office,.Young stated that he had
seen Mabry at the office door with his hand on Green 's shoulder . Corgey testified
that when he asked Young his opinion as to whether Mabry pushed Green out of
his office , Young told him "If those two men were mad at each other , I would call
it a push , because I don 't want no man laying his hands on me when I am mad."
Frank Robichaux , one of the supervisors, and Jose Gonzales , an employee in the
sales department, gave somewhat contradictory accounts of what occurred. Accord-
ing to Gonzales, Green himself opened Mabry's office door and walked out, whereas,
according to Robichaux it was Mabry who opened the door. Haven pointed out this
discrepancy to Corgey and demanded that if Green was to be discharged, then, in
view of their conflicting stories, both Robichaux and Gonzales should be dismissed
as well. Corgey answered that Green had not been discharged, that he was still
under suspension and that the Company would have to consider his case further.
The meeting disbanded after Haven again stated that if Green was discharged he
would file charges with the Board and the Union would go on strike.
On May 31, the following Monday, Haven telephoned Corgey to inquire as to
what decision had been made in Green 's case. Haven placed the call from the union
headquarters . An associate , George W. Cowart, also an International representative
for the Oil Workers, was a party to the conversation on a 'second telephone in the
office. Haven testified that Corgey told him that Green was being discharged "For
making threats." According to Haven, he then asked Corgey as to the kind of
threats he meant and the plant president replied "For threatening to file charges
with the National Labor Relations Board." Cowart's testimony as to this conver-
sation was substantially the same as that of Haven. According to Cowart, after he
had spoken to Corgey to apprise him of the fact that he was a party to the discussion,
Corgey answered Haven's question with the statement that Green was being dis-
charged because "he had threatened to file charges with the National Labor Relations
Board against the Company." At the hearing, Corgey's testimony as to this conver-
sation differed somewhat from that of the union participants , but he did not contra-
dict in any substantial manner the testimony of either Haven or Cowart. According
to Corgey, he told the union representatives that Green was lying and that he was
being discharged "For making false charges against management."
Later that week, Green received his final paycheck and an accompanying note
stating that he had been terminated for making false statements against the Company.
At the hearing, Mabry testified that at the time that Green was interrogated in his
office, by Detective Austin, he (Mabry) did not accuse the employee of stealing brass,
did not tell him that the Company could not use him because of his prison record,
and did not thereafter push Green out the door of his office. Mabry was a frank
witness in most respects and much of his testimony was completely credible. At the
same time, however, some of it obviously incorporated his own opinion as to what
he meant or intended at the time in question. As a result, it is my conclusion that
some of Green's testimony presents a more accurate picture as to what occurred at
his interrogation. For this reason, it is my conclusion that when Green appeared
for questioning he was given the impression that he was being accused of the brass
theft and that after the revelation of his criminal record, Mabry stated that the Com-
pany would have to terminate him. Green was plainly a very aggressive personality,
a conclusion borne out by his appearance while on the stand and by the fact that
he was the most active union proponent in the plant and the principal employee
spokesman throughout several months of bargaining . It is my conclusion, based
in part on the witness' demeanor at the time he testified, that Green did tell Mabry
and Austin before leaving the office that he was convinced that the whole matter
arose out of his union activities and that he proposed to file charges against the
Company. On the other hand, Green's testimony that he was shoved or pushed by
Mabry as he left the office was not too convincing . It was evident from the manner
in which both of the principals testified that by this point in the meeting the two
men had obviously become engaged in a heated exchange so that neither Mabry nor
Green was fully persuasive in his testimony as to the manner in which Green made
his exit from the Company's office.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Throughout the following 2 days when Corgey conducted his extended investiga-
tion, purportedly to ascertain the truth or falsity of Green's complaint as to his treat-
ment by Mabry, Haven, the union representative, stated on numerous occasions that
if Green was terminated the Union would file charges with the Board. Earlier,
Green had made a similar declaration while in Mabry's office.
Corgey, of course, could fire Green fora good reason, a bad reason, or no reason,
provided that the true motivation for the dismissal was unrelated to any conduct
protected by the Act. The Respondent, therefore, could have, with impunity, termi-
nated Green for making false accusations against Mabry. On the other hand, an
employee convinced that his aggressive unionism was the real reason for the manner
in which he was grilled in connection with. a plant theft and then subjected to an
elaborate investigation as to his complaint about a superior's conduct, was free to
file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board if he chose to do so. Green first
declared that this was his intention while still in Mabry's office on May 27. There-
after, Corgey stated that Green was suspended and at the meeting when the plant
president made this announcement, Haven declared that the Union would proceed
to bring the matter to the Board. After their meeting on the following day, Haven
again told Corgey that he proposed to file unfair labor practice charges against the
Respondent. Finally, when 2 days later the plant president told Haven and Cowart
that he had dismissed Green he stated that he had taken this action because the
employee had made false charges against the management and had threatened "to
file charges with the National Labor Relations Board."
It is well settled that, notwithstanding any conviction which the Respondent may
have had that Green's allegations were baseless, the employee was entitled to pursue
his legal remedy under the Act, without the risk of dismissal or any other form of
discrimination .9 Consequently, on this record and on the findings set forth above,
it is my conclusion that Corgey's suspension of Green on May 27 and subsequent
discharge of that employee on May 31 constituted discrimination within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(4) and (3) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Gibbs Corporation, 308 F. 2d
247 (C.A. 5); 1. C. Sutton, Sr., d/b/a I. C. Sutton Handle Factory, 125 NLRB 1094,
1095; Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 131 NLRB 715, 729-730 (Whitaker), enfd.
310 F. 2d 58, 60-62 (C.A. 5); John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v.
N.L.R.B., 191 F. 2d 483, 485-486 (C.A.D.C.); Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway
Company, 110 NLRB 1963, 1971, 2046, enfd. 235 F. 2d 700 (C.A. 1), cert. denied
352 U.S. 951. This conduct also constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act and I so find. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 123 NLRB 647, 648; Jackson
Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 766, enfd. 272 F. 2d 181 (C.A. 5);
Petroleum Carrier Corporation of Tampa, Inc., 126 NLRB 1031, 1039; Duralite
Co., Inc., 128 NLRB 648, 651.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered too cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action of the type conventionally ordered in such
cases as provided in the Recommended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy
and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily suspended J. L. Green on
May 27, 1965, and thereafter, on May 31, 1965, discriminatorily discharged that
employee, I shall recommend that the said Respondent be ordered to offer Green
immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered
9 "Clearly inherent in the employees' statutory rights is the right to seek their vindica-
tion in Board proceedings " Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 NLRB 1170, 1171, enfd.
243 F. 2d 836 (CA. 5),-cert. denied 353 U.S 864. See also Brigg8 Manufacturing Com-
pany, 75 NLRB 569, 571, where the Board stated that the purpose of Section 8(a) (4)
is "to assure an effective administration of the Act by providing immunity to those who
initiate or assist . . . in proceedings under the Act "
HYDRAFLO• VALVE & MANUFACTURING CO. 737
from the time of his suspension and discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer
of reinstatement . The backpay for the foregoing employee shall be computed in
accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with interest computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the said
Respondent be required to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents,
on request , payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character
striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recom-
mended that the said Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in
any manner on the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle
Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization,
all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of J. L.
Green because he stated that he would file unfair labor practice charges against the
Respondent, the Respondent engaged and is engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (4) and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Hydraflo Valve & Manufacturing Co., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees, by
discriminating in regard to their hire , tenure, or any other terms or conditions of
employment.
(b) Discharging , suspending , or otherwise discriminating against any employee
for filing, or planning to file, charges under the Act.
(c) In any other manner, interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, or assist any labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
or engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Offer J. L. Green immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision
entitled , "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his 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.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or appropriate
to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(d) Post at its plant at 3350 Hollywood Street in Beaumont, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ." 10 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
'()In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words, "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words , " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
221-731-67-vol . 158-48
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 23, shall , after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent , be posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the said Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.11
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in, or activities on
behalf of, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any of our employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge, suspend, or otherwise discriminate against any
employee for filing, or stating that he will file, charges under the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
above-named union , or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer J. L. Green immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges enjoyed and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of discrimination against him.
HYDRAFLO VALVE & MANUFACTURING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. 228-4722.
Photobell Company, Inc. and Local 431, International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No.
2-CA-1060. May 9, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 22, 1965, Trial Examiner David London issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
158 NLRB No. 65.