IPC, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 1221 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce you in the exercise of
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE 'WIlL pay full backpay to Frederick B.
Gehrer, Bruce Gray, Richard Lucero. and Larry
Rethvisch covering the earnings they lost be-
cause we unlawfully terminated them, with inter-
est.
IPC, IN(.
DECISION
STATEMENI OF TIHE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in this case was filed on August 10. 1977,1 by Fred-
erick B. Gehrer, an individual (hereinafter called the Re-
spondent). On September 29, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31 issued a complaint and notice of hearing on behalf
of the General Counsel alleging that the Respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(hereinafter called the Act). 29 U.S.C. §151, et seq. The
complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent unlawfully
discharged employees Frederick B. Gehrer, Bruce Gray,
Richard Lucero, and Larry Rethvisch for the reason that
they collectively ceased work and engaged in a protected
concerted work stoppage to protest certain terms and con-
ditions of their employment. The Respondent filed an an-
swer denying certain allegations of the complaint and spe-
cifically denying the commision of any' unfair labor
practices.2
A hearing was held in this matter on January 31, 1978, in
Los Angeles. California. All parties were represented by
counsel and afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine the witnesses, and to present material and relevant
evidence on the issues involved. Briefs were submitted by
both counsel and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case' and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying,
I make the following:
IPC, Inc. and Frederick B. Gehrer. Case 31-CA-7299
September 29, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY. AND TRUESDAI.F
On July 25, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Gor-
don J. Myatt issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent. IPC, Inc. Torrance.
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order, except that the attached notice is substituted
for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convices us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dro Wall Products, Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd ISR F 2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF TIlE
NATIONAl. LABOR REI.Al IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had an opportuni-
ty to present evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we committed certain unfair
labor practices in violation of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended. We hereby notify you that:
WE WILl NOT discharge you because you en-
gage in concerted employee activities for present-
ing. protesting, or seeking redress of complaints
or grievances, or for other mutual aid and pro-
tection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent. IPC. Inc., is, and has been at all times
material herein, a California corporation with its office and
principal place of business located in Torrance, California,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of mobile storage
systems. In the conduct of its business operations, the Re-
spondent annually sells and ships goods or supplies services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to the year 1977.
At the hearing the Respondent orally amended its answer to admit cer-
tain allegations of the complaint but did not retreat from the position that it
had not committed any unfair labor practices.
Errors in the transcnpt have been noted and corrected.
238 NLRB No. 171
IPC, INC. 1221
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outside of the State of California. The pleadings admit, and
I find, that the Respondent is. and has been at all time
material herein, an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of
the Act engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THI ALLI!(;ED UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTIC ES
A. Background Facts
The Respondent's operation at the times material here
consisted of a relatively small work force of approximately
18 employees. The employees were not represented by a
union, nor was a union involved in the circumstances of this
case.
The employees around whom the controversy centers in
this matter worked in the Respondent's shop on the day
shift.' The Charging Party, Fred Gehrer, worked in the
electrical department, Richard Lucero was employed in the
carriages department, and Larry Rethvisch worked in the
decking department. The fourth employee concerned here.
Bruce Gray, was the quality controller, and his duties car-
ried him throughout the entire shop.
The management officials and supervisory personnel in
charge of the shop employees were: Don Hall, Respon-
dent's president, who maintained an office on the second
floor of the building away from the shop area; David Fen-
ner, Respondent's vice president: and Milton Smith, shop
superintendent. The testimony indicates that Hall was fre-
quently away from the shop on business and exercised little
direct supervision over the day-to-day work of the shop
employees. Fenner, on the other hand, maintained an office
on the shop floor and was often involved in the shop work,
although he too was absent from the plant on occasions.
The direct supervision of the shop employees was vested in
Smith, who maintained a desk on the shop floor and en-
gaged in actual production work.
B. The Various Enmployee Complaints'
Frederick Gehrer was employed by the Respondent as a
shop worker in early September 1976. In early January of
the following year, Gehrer was promoted to the position of'
shop superintendent and placed on salary. In mid-Febru-
ary, however, he was demoted back to shop worker at his
own request because he did not want the responsibilities of
the superintendent's job. Gehrer testified that when he was
hired in September, Fenner informed him that he would
receive job performance reviews 30 days, 90 days, and 6
months after his date of hire. Thereafter, all job reviews
would be yearly., According to Gehrer's testimony, he felt
that he was entitled to receive a 6-month review on March
4The testimony indicates that the Respondent employed a night crew but
does not indicate whether this crew performed work in all of the departments
in the shop.
I Larry Rethvisch did not appear at the hearing or testify as a witness. The
parties agreed, however, as to the facts concerning Rethvisch's employment
and that he engaged in the same conduct as the other employees
6 Job reviews were generally accompanied by a pay increase, although the
testimony indicates that wage increases were not automatically granted at
the time of the reviews.
3, 1977. He did not get a review. however, until July 25, at
which time he received a 50-cents-an-hour pay increase. 7
Gehrer's pay increase was made retroactive to July 10, and
he testified that he complained to Fenner that it should
have been retroactive to March. According to Gehrer, Fen-
ner stated that he should have been happy with the increase
he received. Gehrer also testified that he spoke with Shop
Superintendent Smith about the failure to make his pay
increase retroactive to March. Gehrer stated that Smith in-
formed him that there was not much that he could do about
it.
Both Fenner and Smith testified regarding Gehrer's pay
increase in July. Fenner did not recall Gehrer voicing any
complaints about the failure to make the increase retroac-
tive to March. Smith, on the other hand, recalls that Gehrer
voiced complaints about his pay raise being delayed on sev-
eral occasions in the shop. Smith testified that he checked
with Fenner and determined that Gehrer's pay raise vwas
not late.
Having observed these witnesses while testifying and on
the basis of Smith's admission that Gehrer had complained
regarding the timeliness of his job performance review, I
find that Gehrer did complain to Smith about what he con-
ceived to be a delay in his job review. I further find that he
complained to Fenner about the failure to make the pay
increase retroactive to March.
On July 27, Gehrer, Ralph and Richard Lucero, and Lar-
ry Rethvisch were called into Hall's office. These employees
were promoted to the position of foreman of their respec-
tive departments and give a 15-cent-an-hour premium pay
increase., The uncontroverted testimony indicates that Hall
detailed their new duties and responsibilities and asked if
the employees had any questions. None of' the employees
asked questions, nor did they complain at that time about
any conditions in the shop.
Bruce Gray testified that he was hired on December 20,
1976, as a shop worker. He was promoted to the position of
quality controller on May 20. 1977. Several days prior to
the promotion becoming effective, Gray and Smith were
called into Hall's office and told of Respondent's plan to
promote him. According to Gray's unrefuted testimony,
Hall promised he would receive a job performance review
in a month. Gray stated that he equated a job review with
receiving a raise. In early July. Gray went to Fenner's office
with Smith and informed him of Hall's promise of a job
review after he had been in the position for a month. Fen-
ner stated he was not aware of Hall's commitment to the
employee, and Smith explained that it had been made. Fen-
ner then told the employee that he should see Hall on the
matter. Gray testified that he did not talk to Hall about the
matter because all reviews were usually made by Fenner.
Smith did not testify at all regarding Gray's conversa-
tions with Hall or Fenner. However, Fenner testified that
' Gehrer recalled that the job review took place on July 20, but Fenner.
testifying from his notes taken during the review, placed the date as July 25
Because the notes were taken contemporaneously with the review. I find that
it is a more reliable indication of the date on which the event occurred.
I Although the employees were designated "foreman," the parties stipu-
lated at the heanng that they were in fact leadmen with no supervisory
responsibilities within the meaning of the Act.
1222
walk out. Lucero further testified that after the employees'
conversation with Smith, he observed Hall. Fenner, and
Smith talking in Fenner's office.
Smith admitted that the employees were grouped to-
gether on August 4, and he recalled that they were discuss-
ing the additional duties placed on the leadmen. According
to Smith, he promised the employees tha he would speak to
Fenner and see what he could do "as far as letting them
discuss." Smith could not recall whether the employees re-
quested a meeting with both Fenner and Hall. Nor could he
recall whether the employees indicated they would walk out
if the meeting did not take place the following dav. Smith
was also unable to recall whether he spoke with Fenner or
Hall later that day about the employees' complaints, al-
though Fenner testified that no mention of employee griev-
ances had been made.
Based on Smith's admissions that the employees were
complaining, at least about the increased leadmen's respon-
sibilities, and that he promised to speak to Fenner '[to let]
them discuss." I find that during the conversation with
Smith the employees expressed their full panoply of com-
plaints about conditions in the shop. I further find that the
employees told Smith theN wanted to meet with Hall and
Fenner and would walk out if the meeting did not take
place the following day. Although Smith was unable to re-
call whether he conveyed the message to Htall and Fenner. I
find the facts here warrant the inference that he reported
the employees' complaints to Fenner and Hall when he met
with them that afternoon.
After the employees left work on August 4. Gray con-
tacted Gehrer at home and informed him of the employees'
request for a meeting with management and the decision to
walk out if the meeting did not take place. Gehrer agreed to
join the employees in this action.
On August 5, the employees reported to work and Lucero
asked Smith if there was going to be a meeting with Hall.
Smith replied that he was not sure. The employees deter-
mined that Hall was not in the plant and had left for the
weekend. Gehrer testified that he observed Fenner turn out
the lights in his office and leave the plant with his personal
belongings. Gehrer questioned Smith and was informed
that Fenner would return in the late afternoon. However.
Gehrer told the other employees that F-enner had left and
no one knew when he would return. The employees
bunched together to discuss their course of action. Smith
then came up and instructed them to return to work. When
thev asked Smith if there was going to be a meeting, he
replied that he was not certain but indicated that he had
spoken to management.
At the morning break, approximately 9:15 a,m., the em-
ployees again gathered together to discuss what action they
would take. After the break was over Smith instructed them
to return to work. One of the employees asked. "[W]hat if
we don't want to work?" Smith then directed them to re-
turn to their work or punch out and leave. Smith left the
employees and returned to a welding job he was performing
in the shop. The testimony indicates that the employees
walked our from the plant at approximately 9:45 a.m. with-
out informing Smith that they were leaving."
he did conduct a job review of Gras's work on July 26. He
stated that he advised Grey his work was not up to the
Respondent's standards and that he would not receive a
pay increase. He told the employee that he would be given
another review in 30 days and if his work came up to stan-
dards, he would receive a pay increase. According to Fen-
ner, Gray was very unhappy but voiced no complaints re-
garding the timeliness of the review or the working
conditions in the shop.
Richard Lucero was hired on April 7 as a shop worker in
the carriages department. As noted above, Lucero was ap-
pointed leadman in that department on July 27. Lucero
testified that he received his first job review in May from
Fenner. He stated at that time he complained to Fenner
about the fact that the employees did not have sufficient
tools and had to share the exising tools with other employ-
ees. He also complained about the lack of a water fountain
in the shop.' According to Lucero. Fenner stated that man-
agement was working on the problems. Lucero further testi-
fied that he voiced the same complaints to Fenner in June
or July.
On August 3 or 4. Lucero was in the shop and overheard
Fenner telling Rethvisch that as a leadman in his depart-
ment he was also responsible for the work of the night crew
in that department. ILucero became very concerned over
this additional responsibility, and he asked Smith if he too
were responsible for the night crew's work in his depart-
ment. According to Lucero, Smith replied that "[he] didn't
know, [he] guessed so."
Fenner testified that he spoke to Rethvisch in the plant
on August 3 or 4 about the work of the night crew in his
department. According to Fenner. Rethvisch was con-
cerned about being held responsible for the work of the
night crew and he (Fenner) explained that Rethvisch was
not responsible for the work but was required to check it
each morning. Fenner stated that Rethvisch was upset and
acted as if he were being mistreated by management.
C. 1The Events of ,4ugust 4, 1977
All of the employees involved herein were at work on
August 4, except Gehrer who had reported in sick. The
testimony of Gray and Richard Lucero indicates that at
approximately 2:30 p.m. Richard and Ralph Lucero,'5
Gray, and Rethvisch gathered at Smith's desk in the shop
and began discussing the additional responsibilities of the
leadmen, the failure of the Respondent to have a water
fountain in the shop, and the need for additional tools.
While the employees were engaged in this discussion, Smith
came up and directed them to go back to work. According
to the testimony of Gray and Lucero, the employees asked
Smith to arrange a meeting with Hall so they could discuss
their complaints. They testified that Smith indicated that he
would speak to Hall and see if he could set up a meeting.
Richard Lucero testified that he told Smith if a meeting was
not held the following morning, he might be "sick" and
Because there was no water fountain in the shop, the employees had to
go to the restroom in order to gel drinking water.
:0 Ralph L.ucero had been promoted leadman in the metal department at
the same time that the others were promoted to similar positions in their
departments on Jul 5 27
41 Although Ralph L ucero was in the group while they were discussing
management's failure to have the meeting in the shop. he remained at work
IPC. IN(. 1223
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIATIONS BOARD
The testimony indicates that Gehrer went to his home
and Lucero, Gray, and Rethvisch went to the beach. Upon
leaving the beach, the three employees decided to go trap-
shooting. They picked up their shotguns, which were in
cases, and went to the shooting range. The employees testi-
fied that at approximately 4 p.m.-just about the end of the
day shift-the three returned to the Respondent's plant in
Gray's automobile. They returned so that Richard Lucero
could meet his brother and get a ride home. Lucero went
into the plant where he was confronted by Smith. Smith
asked him to leave the premises, and he did.
While Lucero was in the plant, and employee, Joseph
Walsh, observed Gray's automobile and walked over to
speak to Gray and Rethvisch. He told the employees that
Smith had informed him they had been terminated for
walking out. According to the testimony of Walsh. who was
a close friend of Hall and had worked for Hall since he was
14, he observed two exposed shotguns in the rear of the car
and empty beer cans on the floor. He further testified that
after he told the employees they had been terminated,
Rethvisch became upset and threatened to shoot Fenner.
He stated that the employees told him they would return to
work Monday morning.
Gray admitted that shotguns were in the back of the car
in gun cases, as the employees had been trapshooting. He
denied, however, that Walsh came over to the automobile
and spoke to him and Rethvisch. He also denied that Reth-
visch made any threats against Fenner. Lucero testified that
he went directly into the plant and did not see Walsh at the
car. In a written statement regarding the conversation with
the employees at the automobile, purportedly given to Fen-
ner later that afternoon, Walsh claimed that he saw two
gun cases rather than exposed shotguns as indicated by his
direct testimony. In light of his obvious bias in favor of Hall
and his apparent willingness to color his testimony at the
hearing, I do not place much reliance on Walsh's tesimony.
I do find, however, contrary to Gray's denial, that he did
approach the car and talk with Gray and Rethvisch. I do
not find it necessary to determine whether Rethvisch threat-
ened to shoot Fenner. If this threat were voiced, it was
expressed outside of the plant to an employee rather than
directly to Fenner. In these circumstances, the threat, if
made, is not relevant to the issues to be decided here.
On August 8, Gray, Gehrer, and Rethvisch reported to
the Respondent's plant at their normal starting time of 7:30
a.m.'2 As the employees approached the timeclock, Smith
met them and told them they had been terminated for leav-
ing the plant without notifying him the previous Friday.
The employees asked to see Fenner, and Smith accompa-
nied them to Fenner's office. According to the testimony of
Smith and the two employees, Fenner stated that the em-
ployees "had terminated themselves." They then asked for
their paychecks and were told by Fenner that they would
receive them on the regular payday. 3
Fenner on the other hand testified that he asked the em-
ployees if they had anything to say. He stated that they
1 Lucero did not report to work because Smith told him he had been
terminated, and his brother, Ralph, confirmed it that evening when he came
home from work.
i' Fenner was subsequently overruled by Hall on this decision. and the
employees' paychecks were mailed to them that day.
offered no explanation and merely asked for their pay-
checks. He told the employees that they had terminated
themselves by their actions and that they would receive
their pay on the regular payday.l4 All witnesses were agreed
that during this conversation none of the employees ex-
pressed any complaints about the grievances they had
against the working conditions at the plant.
Gehrer testified that after his terminaion, he contacted
the Respondent's office about reemployment but was not
hired. The record indicates that on January 9, the Respon-
dent sent a mailgram to all tbur of the employees offering
reinstatement. Richard Lucero was the only employee who
accepted the Respondent's ofler. and he returned to work
on January 23. None of the employees were offered or given
backpay for the period fbllowing their termination until the
offer of reinstatement.
Concluding Findings
The evidence and testimony in this case fully support a
finding that the discharged employees were engaged in con-
certed activity protected by Section 7 of the Act when they
sought a meeting with Respondent's higher officials regard-
ing their complaints. It has been long established that em-
ployees have a legitimate interest in acting concertedly to
make known their views to management, even though no
union activity is involved or collective bargaining contem-
plated. N.L. R.B. v. Phoenix Mutuail Lifc Insurance Cornm-
patny, 167 F.2d 983, 988 (C.A. 7. 1948), cert. denied 335
U.S. 845.
The Respondent here appears to argue that the employ-
ees were pursuing individual complaints and not acting in
concert when they sought the meeting with management on
August 5. The facts found in this case, however, establish
otherwise. Indeed, the Respondent's brief admits the four
employees "were concerned with added [leadmen's] respon-
sibilities and retroactive pay due to their recent promo-
tions." Thus the Respondent's attempt to categorize these
matters as individual complaints, not for the mutual aid
and protection of all employees, is misdirected. ('learly the
issue of timeliness of job reviews and pay increases was a
matter of mutual concern for all employees. Likewise, the
delineation of the responsibilities of the leadmen was a mat-
ter of concern for the current leadmen as well as those em-
ployees who might be promoted to such positions.
Moreover, the complaints of the four employees included
the lack of a water fountain in the shop and the Respon-
dent's failure to supply an adequate amount of tools for the
employees. Hence, the Respondent's reliance on N.L.R.B.
v. C & I Air Conditioning, Inc., 486 F.2d 977 (C.A. 9, 1973)
(employee's refusal to carry stoves up an unsafe stairway
found to be an individual complaint), is misplaced, and that
case in inapposite.
Respondent also contends that the four employees
walked out of the shop on August 5 without making known
their grievances to management, and thus removed them-
selves from the protection of the Act. But the facts as found
here do not support the Respondent's contention. The Su-
14 The Respondent had a written shop rule against unauthorized absences.
(Resp. Exh. 2.) Under this policy. the failure to report an absence to a
superior was the subject lir dismissal
1224
Section 7 of the Act is neither countenanced nor permissi-
ble. If it were otherwise, it would condition employee exer-
cise of a protected right upon the permission of the em-
plo)er, N. L. R. B. v. Washington Aluminum Co.. supra at 16-
17. Therefore, the Respondent's argument in this regard is
without merit.
Nor does the subsequent conduct by Gray, Lucero, and
Rethvisch. when they returned to the plant that afternoon.
vitiate this finding in any way. As noted, employee Walsh
testified that Rethvisch threatened to shoot Fenner when
told by Walsh that the employees had been discharged for
walking out. This threat, if made, does not cause the pro-
testing employees to lose the protection of the Act.'6 The
statement attributed to Rethvisch was not made to Fenner
directly, but rather to a fellow worker outside of the plant.
It did not in any way influence the Respondent's decision to
discharge the employees, as that decision had been made
earlier that afternoon. In these circumstances, such a state-
ment. if indeed it was made, is not relevant to a determina-
tion of the issues in this case.
In sum, I find that the four employees here were engaged
in protected concerted activity when they walked out over
failure of management to meet concerning their legitimate
complaints. It follows that their discharges for engaging in
this protected activity were in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act.
CONC l.l SIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent. IPC, Inc., is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2, By discharging employees Fredenck B. Gehrer, Bruce
Gray, Richard Lucero, and Larry Rethvisch for engaging in
protected concerted activity, the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair la-
bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. the Respondent shall be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the Respondent
made an unconditional offer of reinstatement to the dis-
charged employees on January 9. 1978, and Richard Luce-
ro was the only employee to accept this offer, it shall be
recommended that the Respondent pay back wages to each
of the discharged employees from the date of the unlawful
termination of their employment to the date of the offer of
reinstatement. The fact that Richard Lucero did not at-
tempt to report to work with the other discharged employ-
ees on August 8 does not destroy his entitlement to back-
pay. When Lucero returned to the plant on the afternoon of
August 5. he was told by Smith to leave the premises be-
cause he had been terminated. Therefore it would have
"6 As previously indicated, I do not consider Walsh to be a reliable or
unbiased witness
preme Court has held that "employees Ido not] necessarily
lose their right to engage in concerted activities under §7
merely because they do not present a specific demand upon
their employer to remedy a condition they find objection-
able," and "[t]he language of §7 is broad enough to protect
concerted activities whether they take place before, after, or
at the same time such a demand is made." N.L.R.B. v.
Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9. 14 (1962). Thus, it
was not necessary for the employees to express their com-
plaints to management at the time they engaged in the con-
certed walkout. Cf. Union Boiler (omipanv, 213 NLRB 818
(1974).
Nevertheless, the facts here disclose that Respondent's
management was made aware on August 4 of the employ-
ees' desire for a meeting to discuss their complaints. The
evidence indicates that on that date, Lucero, CGray, and
Rethvisch informed Smith that they wanted to meet with
Hall and Fenner and that the' voiced dissatisfaction over
at least the matter of leadmen's responsibilities as well as
the retroactivitv of their pay increases." The credited testi-
mony also indicates that Smith met with Hall and Fenner,
in the latter's office, following his conversation with the em-
ployees. Accordingly I find that Respondent's management
was not only aware that the employees wanted to meet to
air their complaints, but also that management was aware
that the employees contemplated walking out if the meeting
was not forthcoming.
The issue then becomes whether the employees forfeited
the protection of the Act by their subsequent conduct in
pressing their demands. I find that they did not. When the
employees determined on August 5 that Hall and Fenner
were not available to meet with them. they walked out 0of
the shop in protest. The fact that Smith may have informed
them prior to the walkout that Fenner was expected to re-
turn that afternoon does not in any way make their conduct
less legitimate. It mereli suggests that the employees might
have been wiser to remain to determine if a meeting would
be held later that day. The reasonableness, or lack therof. of
the method of protest to enforce legitimate demands does
not determine the legality of the action taken by the em-
ployees. N..R.B. v. Washington .4Aluminum Co., supra,
American Truck Stop, Inc., 218 NLRB 1038 (1975): Magna
Visual, 213 NLRB 162 (1974) Plastilite Corp., 153 NLRB
180 (1965), affd. in pertinent part 375 F.2d 343, 349-350
(C.A. 8. 1967).
Thus. the walkout of the employees in protest of manage-
ment's failure to meet with them concerning their com-
plaints was clearly concerted activity fully protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Their discharges by the Respondent
for ascerting this protected right violated Section 8(aX 1) of
the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Washington A.luinum Co., supra.
American Truck Stop, Inc., supra, South Central Timber De-
velopment, Inc. 230 NLRB 468 (1977).
The Respondent also contends that the failure of the em-
ployees to notify Smith they were leaving was in direct vio-
lation of an established shop rule and justified the dis-
charges. But the interdiction of such a rule to penalize
employees for engaging in concerted activity protected by
" I find that during the discussion between Smith and the employees on
August 4. the matter of the water fountain and the tools was also brought up
b) the employees.
IPC. INC. 1225
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been a futile act on his part to have attempted to report to
work the following Monday. In light of this. I find that
Richard Lucero is entitled to back wages along with the
other discharged employees.
Backpay shall be computed with interest thereon. in the
manner prescribed by F W. Woolworth Companqv, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).' In addition, the Respondent's unlawful
conduct strikes at one of the fundamental concepts under-
girding the Act. i.e., the right to employees to engage in
protected concerted activities. and a broad cease-and-desist
order is required to remedy this violation. Enlwistle Mfg.
Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941): P. R. Mallory and
Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 400 F.2d 956, 959-960 (C.A. 7, 1968),
cert. denied 394 U.S. 918 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. The Bama
Co., 353 F.2d 320, 323 324 (C.A. 5, 1965).
Upon the foregoing findings of' fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, IPC, Inc., Torrance. California, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
by discharging them because they engaged in concerted ac-
tivities for presenting, protesting, or seeking to redress com-
plaints or grievances. or for other mutual aid or protection.
'o See. generally, Isis Plumbing & Heaning Co., 138 NL.RB 716 (1962).
is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Frederick B. Gehrer. Bruce Gray., Rich-
ard Lucero, and Larry Rethvisch in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entiled "The Remedv" for an',
loss of earnings incurred by each of them as a result of' the
unlawful termination of their employment on August 5,
1977.
(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 and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due under this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Torrance, California, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix. "' Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31, after being duly signed by the Respondent's autho-
rized representative, shall be conspicuously posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
19 In the event that this Order is enforced bN a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Iablor Relations Board."
1226