Jim Robbins Seat Belt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 76 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jim Robbins Seat Belt Company and Helen M.
Hammond . Case 7-CA-5744
August 17, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On May 19, 1967, Trial Examiner Frederick U.
Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
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 de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, only the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's decision, and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, Jim Robbins Seat Belt Com-
pany, Ypsilanti, Michigan, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
herein modified:
Delete from paragraph 2(d) that part thereof
which reads "to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FREDERICK U. REEL, Trial Examiner: This case, heard
at Detroit, Michigan, on March 28, 1967, pursuant to a
I Apparently, this was misinformation, for the "temporary" sewers
received a flat rate of $1 50, and only the regular sewers like Hammond
were paid piece rates if they exceeded production
charge filed October 13, 1966, and a complaint issued
January 27, 1967, presents the question whether Respond-
ent, herein called the Company, threatened to discharge
employees if they engaged in concerted activities for mu-
tual aid or protection, and did discharge the Charging
Party for so doing.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief
filed by the Company, and the oral argument of General
Counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Michigan corporation, maintains a
plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan, where it manufactures au-
tomobile seat belts, and from which it ships annually to
points outside the State products valued in excess of
$50,000. The Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Hammond's Discharge
On October 12, 1966, the Company discharged Helen
Hammond, an employee engaged in machine sewing on
manual and automatic machines. The Company had em-
ployed Hammond from December 1962 to October 1965,
when she voluntarily quit, and from May 1966 to her
discharge the following October. From September 8 to
27, 1966, she was laid off for lack of work. The principal
issue in the case is whether her discharge in October 1966
was because she engaged in concerted activity protected
by the Act or because she was insubordinate, refused to
follow work assignments, and used profanity in the plant.
Early in October Hammond and her fellow sewers
were working on the automatic machines. At this time,
her foreman, Herchel Huff, announced to these em-
ployees that they would go back to the manual machines
and that certain employees on the production line would
be brought in as a temporary measure to work on the
General Motors order on the automatic machines. Huff
explained that this move was necessary to prevent a
layoff of these production line workers. During the next
few days Hammond and her fellow sewers discussed
among themselves what they regarded as an injustice,
namely, that according to their information the girls tem-
porarily transferred to the automatic machines were being
paid $1.50 per hour, while the Hammond group was paid
only $1.37, with both groups making additional piece-rate
earnings if they met production standards. I
On Tuesday, October 11, Hammond and her fellow
employees heard that the "temporary" girls were continu-
ing on the automatic machines, and were now working on
Ford seat belts, having finished the General Motors
order. Hammond and several others decided that this was
unfair to them, discussed the possibility of a walkout, and
considered speaking to Plant Manager Hopka about the
167 NLRB No. 9
JIM ROBBINS SEAT BELT CO.
matter. At least one of the sewers, Faye Allen, told Ham-
mond that if Hammond wanted to speak to Hopka, Allen
would be behind her.
Shortly thereafter on the morning of October 11,
Foreman Huff entered the room and asked the employees
"What seems to be the problem? I understand you have
a problem." All the girls chorused "Yes," and then Ham-
mond told Huff that she wanted to know "Why the girls
were left on the automatic machines to do the Ford order
... and why they were making $1.50 an hour...." After
a short discussion Huff agreed to let Hammond and her
group return to the automatic machines, and the girls
"temporarily" on those machines went back to the as-
sembly line.2 Later that day Huff came back to the room
to state that he was not "mad" at anybody.
The following day some of Hammond's group, selected
by seniority, were working on the automatic machines
although she was assigned to a manual machine. About
10 minutes before the end of the workday, Huff took
Hammond to Plant Manager Hopka's office, where
Hopka told her she was fired. Hammond's testimony
describes the interview as follows:
When I went in Mr. Hopka said "sit down." I did,
he said "Helen", he said, "we have had some
problem with you and I am afraid we are going to
have to terminate you." I said, "well, why?", and he
said "for a number of reasons. First of all, we run this
place you don't and that we have heard some talk of
a walkout." And I asked him, I said, "If I was the
only one that was talking of a walkout?" He said,
"well, I don't know but if there are any others they
will be fired too, we will find out who they are and
they will also be terminated."
Hopka did not testify as to the details of his conversation
with Hammond on that occasion. Huff, on the witness
stand, asked to describe the discharge conversation,
quoted Hopka as follows:
That she had been talking to me kinda rough and
he wasn't satisfied with her, the way she was acting
toward her foreman, and she was trying to in a sense
not do the job which she had been asked to do, that
had been presented to her to do; we had no alterna-
tive but to let her go.
Later Huff testified as follows:
A. . . . I heard that she was trying, at one time,
she was trying to get these girls to walk out and not
sew because of the automatics but no one had said
that they were not going to sew if they had to sew
seven-row.
Q. Was this walkout mentioned to Mrs. Ham-
mond at the time that you and she were in Mr. Hop-
ka's office?
A. To the best that I recall it was not, sir.
Q. You are not prepared to say it was positively
was or was not?
A. Not- no, I am not.
When Hammond left the building after being discharged,
she told Allen what had happened. To quote Allen's
testimony:
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) You asked Helen why she
was fired, right?
2The testimony of Hammond and Allen is that the other group returned
to the production area on October 11, and the parties stipulated that
another employee, Marian Smith, would corroborate the testimony of Al-
len According to Huff, he did not remove the "temporary" girls until the
next day, and he put the Hammond group on another set of automatic
77
A. Yes.
Q. What did she tell you?
A. She says "I don 't know he said a number of
reasons."
Q. Did she say anything else to you at that time?
A. I say "why" and she said " I don 't know, they
think I tried to stage a walkout or something."
B. The Company 's Explanation of the Discharge
According to Hopka, he had had several complaints
from Huff about Hammond during the 2 or 3 months
preceding her discharge. In August, according to Hopka,
Huff reported that Hammond refused to sew on certain
colored seat belts. Some time later, but before the Sep-
tember layoff, Huff complained to Hopka about Ham-
mond's "method of accepting job assignments" and also
that she swore at him occasionally. Hopka testified that
he told Huff to overlook the matter as Hammond would
soon be laid off, as indeed she was from September 8 to
27. After Hammond's return, when the production opera-
tors were placed on the automatic sewing machines, Huff
told Hopka "that she was giving him kind of a bad time
about not being able to sew on automatics." Finally on
October 11, Huff told Hopka of "trouble" with Ham-
mond in that "she refused to sew the last hour of sew, and
that she was disrupting other people walking around their
sewing machines, and so forth." The next morning,
shortly after 9:30 a.m., according to Hopka, Huff again
told Hopka that Hammond "was still disrupting the peo-
ple, the other people, and not staying at her station."
Hopka testified that at that time he decided to discharge
her.
Huffs testimony generally corroborated that of Hopka.
Huff supplied such particulars as the fact that Hammond
when having trouble adjusting a machine observed that
"the God damn machines should be repaired" - this was
apparently the profanity which Huff mentioned to Hopka
in August. Huff also testified that Hammond refused to
sew the last hour on October 11 because she was not on
an automatic machine, but this seems to be an error in his
testimony as the record is clear that on that day Ham-
mond and the other regular sewers spent the last several
hours at the automatics. Huff further testified that on Oc-
tober 12 Hammond complained again about sewing on
the manual machines and threatened not to return the
next day unless assigned to an automatic. Huff duly re-
ported this to Hopka. Later that afternoon, according to
Huff, he saw her talking to some employees, and when he
reported this to Hopka, the latter decided to discharge
her. (Note that Hopka places this conversation as having
occurred early that morning.)
On cross-examination Huff testified that on October
11 an employee told him that Hammond was "disturbing
the sewers." The testimony continues:
Q. Did she say in what way she was disturbing
the girls?
A. No, that she was just going from girl to girl
talking. She didn't say what she was saying.
Q. Weren't you interested in what she was
disturbing the girls about?
machines The resolution of this minor conflict does not appear significant
in this case. Although Huff would seem to be in a better position to know
the facts, Allen and Smith are disinterested witnesses, and the Company
stipulated to Smith's testimony I therefore find the facts as recited in the
text above.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
A. No, that' s her business.
Q. Is it your business or her business? You went
and complained to Mr. Hopka, so apparently you
took it as your business , is that right?
A. Yes, her disturbing the girls, what she was say-
ing to them is her business.
Q. You were not interested?
A. No, that she was just disturbing the girls.
Q. You didn' t know what she was disturbing them
about?
TRIAL EXAMINER: Didn't she tell you what she
was talking about? Didn't Miss Eisley tell you what
she was talking about?
WITNESS: No, she just said that Helen was going
from girl to girl
TRIAL EXAMINER : You didn 't ask her what she
said?
WITNESS: No, I did not.
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) Did you - what did you do
after Mrs. Eisley told you she was discussing things
with other girls and disturbing them?
A. What did I do, I walked back into the other
room and just like I had something to do for a few
minutes and then I went back and asked the girls if
they had a problem.
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) You made it your business to
find out what she was complaining about by going
into them and asking them what the problem was?
You made it your business didn't you?
A. If they had a problem, yes.
MR. FISCHER: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) And it is true that you were
interested in what they were complaining about?
A. I should be. I am their boss.
TRIAL EXAMINER: After they told you what their
problem was, did you report all this back to Mr. Hop-
ka?
WITNESS: Yes, that this is what the girls wanted
to know out there. I did not ask anyone what Helen
had said to them at any time. If this was what Helen
was talking about that was it, I did not ask to find out.
She could have been trying to sell some Avon [to
the] girls, this is what some of the girls do there.
Later in cross-examination Huff was asked what com-
plaints he had made to Hopka on October 11 concerning
Hammond. The testimony continues:
That she had been giving me a hard time on this date,
that she wanted to know if these girls, and she
specifically asked me this, if these girls were going to
sew the Ford belts on the 11th. This is when I told
them, I told them that tomorrow morning, this is the
time that I had heard that she was going before
break, then later two different girls talking.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What was your complaint to
Hopka on this?
WITNESS. On this day?
TRIAL EXAMINER- Yes, you said she was giving
you a hard time but all you have said so far is that she
is asking questions about these girls. Is there
anything else?
WITNESS: Yes, she had asked me a question and
she was swearing at me, wanting to know if this was
going to be and why in the hell it should be and why
they couldn't go sew them.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) How did she swear at you,
what did she say?
A. Why in the hell can't we, she means the girls
that were the Ford automatic girls, to sew these God
dam belts instead of sewing on G M.
Q. Were you shocked by the profanity of Helen's
Goddamn?
A. No, sir.
Q. You heard it in the plant before didn't you?
A. I heard it from her many a time.
Q. I asked you if you heard it from others in the
plant before?
MR. BATTISTA: He answered your question.
MR. FISCHER: No, he didn't.
Q. (By Mr. Fischer) Did you ever hear it from
other employees in the plant?
A. Sure, I have heard it from other employees,
mostly men.
C. Concluding Findings
Helen Hammond was engaging in "concerted activities
for ... mutual aid or protection" within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act when she discussed with other
sewers their complaint that they were taken off the auto-
matic machines, and when they considered a "walkout"
to protest their grievance. Whether the complaint was
"justified," whether the "grievance" was real or fancied,
is immaterial in determining whether the activity was
"concerted" and whether its object was "mutual aid or
protection." SeeN.L.R.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph
Co., 304 U.S. 333, 344. The conditions to which Ham-
mond and her coworkers objected were plainly "condi-
tions of employment," and indeed directly affected their
wages, as the testimony establishes that their earnings
were higher when they were assigned to the automatic
machines. The critical question with respect to Ham-
mond's discharge, therefore, is whether Hammond's role
in the discussions was a substantial motivating factor in
the Company's decision to discharge her.
Hammond's own testimony is that at the discharge in-
terview Hopka expressly stated that the principal reason
for her discharge was that the Company had "heard some
talk of a walkout." Hopka impliedly denied making that
statement, for although he did not testify to the details of
the conversation he denied having heard of any contem-
plated walkout. Huff, on the other hand, had heard of the
threatened walkout, but was not prepared to say whether
it was or was not mentioned to Hammond in the final in-
terview, although he thought it was not. Under these cir-
cumstances, I credit Hammond's testimony, and I do not
credit Hopka, for as Huff had admittedly heard about the
matter it passes belief that he had not mentioned it to
Hopka. In any event I was favorably impressed by Ham-
mond's demeanor on the witness stand and regard her as
a credible witness, although I recognize that she, as well
as Hopka and Huff, were not disinterested witnesses.
Also, the record shows that Hammond told Allen (and,
by virtue of the stipulation, Smith as well) immediately
after the discharge interview that the threatened walkout
was mentioned. This testimony establishes only that
Hammond so reported to Allen and Smith, but it tends to
corroborate Hammond's account of her interview with
Hopka. In sum, I credit Hammond, a finding which rests
on her demeanor, on the failure of Hopka to testify as to
the content of the final interview, and on the falsity of his
JIM ROBBINS SEAT BELT CO.
testimony that he was unaware that the employees were
considering a walkout.
The Company contends that Hammond's discharge
came about as the culmination of a series of problems
which Huff had had with her, involving profanity and in-
subordination. I have no doubt that relationships had
been strained prior to Hammond's 3-week layoff in Sep-
tember, and it may well be that this history played some
part in the ultimate decision to discharge her. I find, how-
ever, that Hammond did not refuse to work the last hour
of the day before her discharge, and that she did not
threaten to absent herself the next day if not given the as-
signment she desired. I am also inclined to credit Huff's
testimony that he objected to Hammond's talking to the
other employees and disturbing them , and that he com-
plained of this to Hopka. But I reject Huffs testimony
that he was unaware of the topic of Hammond's conver-
sation with the employees. Eisley had told Huff that
Hammond had been talking to the employees. Soon
thereafter Huff came to the sewers and asked them what
their problem was. Hammond made the responses on be-
half of the sewers, and Huff had heard "at one time" that
Hammond "was trying to get these girls to walk out." All
these events occurred on October 11 and 12, and it is in-
conceivable that Huff did not know on either day the sub-
ject of Hammond's conversation when she was "disturb-
ing" the other girls and that he did not report it to Hopka.
I find, in short, that when the Company discharged
Hammond for "disturbing" the employees, the Company
was aware that she was discussing working conditions
and a possible walkout. The Company contends that
Hammond was violating "an unwritten rule" prohibiting
employees from bothering others at work. But no one
ever mentioned this rule or its violation to Hammond in
the discharge interview; for as noted above Hopka did
not testify to the content of the interview, Hammond
mentioned only the "walkout" accusation, and Huff
testified that Hopka reproved her for her attitude toward
her foreman. I therefore find that it was the content of
Hammond's conversations with the employees, and not
the fact that she "disturbed" them, that led to her
discharge
I conclude, therefore, that the Company violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Hammond for the
protected concerted activity of attempting to cause a
strike to protest working conditions. Hopka's statement
to Hammond that if any other employees talked of a walk-
out, he would "find out who they are and they will also
be terminated" was, of course, a further violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), as a threat of reprisal for engaging in pro-
tected concerted activities.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By discharging Helen Hammond, and by threatening to
discharge other employees, for engaging in concerted ac-
tivities for mutual aid or protection, the Company en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
3 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
79
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Company cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices, that it reinstate Hammond
with backpay (computed under the methods set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716), and that it
post an appropriate notice. For reasons suggested in
B.V.D. Company, 157 NLRB 978, fn. 6, 1 am omitting
the "Armed Forces" provision from the notice I recom-
mend.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Jim Robbins Seat Belt Company, its of-
ficers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall.
1. Cease and desist from discharging, or threatening to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against, any em-
ployee for engaging in concerted activity for mutual aid or
protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Helen M. Hammond to her
former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make her whole in the manner described in the por-
tion of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of
the discrimination against her.
(b) Notify Helen M . Hammond if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing 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,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7, after being duly signed by an authorized represent-
ative , shall be posted by Respondent , immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.4
and Order "
4 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith."
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL offer Helen M. Hammond her former job
and pay her for wages she lost since her discharge
October 12, 1966.
WE WILL NOT take or threaten to take any action
against any employee for engaging in concerted ac-
tivity for mutual aid or protection.
Dated By
JIM ROBBINS SEAT BELT
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 226-3200.