Junction City Daily Union, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Junction City Daily Union , Inc. and American
Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial
Organizations. Case 17-CA-3753
August 25, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING , BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On April 22, 1969, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision 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
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 they
are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent with
the decision herein.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging
Shirley Parrick, a teletype setting operator in its
composing room. We do not agree.
The record establishes that Parrick was
discharged following a complaint made by Elaine
Dye, a fellow employee, to Lee Rich, Respondent's
general manager, that she had "had it" with
Parrick, who was not doing her fair share of the
work. Rich asked Dye what he should do, indicating
that he could either discharge her or take less
drastic disciplinary action. Dye responded that it
would be best to place Parrick on probation and
Rich said that he would talk to her. However, Rich
told Parrick that there was constant discord in the
teletype setting room, that he believed she was
responsible, and then discharged her.
Rich testified that he fired Parrick because he
feared that the alternative was losing other
employees if he retained her. The Trial Examiner
found this explanation "weak" since Dye did not
demand Parrick's discharge and testified that Rich
agreed to placing Parrick on probation. Having
discredited Rich's stated reason for the discharge,
the Trial Examiner concluded that Parrick's union
sympathies were a factor leading to her discharge
and that the discharge was, therefore,
discriminatory. We do not agree.
There is ample evidence that Parrick was not a
satisfactory worker, had a poor attendance record,
and did not get along well with the other employees
in the composing department. Although she was a
union adherent, she did not play a leading role in
the organizing campaign and did not solicit
signatures for union authorization cards. There is no
direct evidence that the Respondent was aware of
her union sympathies, and we cannot find that such
knowledge was otherwise established. No
independent evidence of union animus was adduced
at the hearing, and no other violations of the Act
were alleged.
Based upon the entire record, in particular the
lack of evidence of union animus, the fact that
Parrick's union activities were minimal, and the
affirmative evidence that she was an unsatisfactory
employee, we find that a preponderance of the
evidence does not establish that her union
sympathies were a contributing factor in her
discharge. Consequently, we shall dismiss the
complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its
entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on December 9, 1968, by American Federation of
Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, a complaint
issued on January 31, 1969, alleging that on or about
November 29, 1968, Respondent discriminatorily
discharged employee Shirley Parrick and that on or about
December 4, 1968, Respondent's composing room
employees struck because of the discharge of Parrick. The
complaint alleges that the discharge violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and that the strike was caused
by Respondent's unfair labor practices. In its answer
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair practices.
A hearing was held before me on March 4, 1969, in
Junction City, Kansas. At the close of the hearing oral
argument was waived and the parties were given leave to
file briefs, which were received from the General Counsel
and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Kansas corporation, is engaged in the
publication of a daily newspaper at Junction City, Kansas.
Respondent ' s annual gross volume of business is in excess
of $200,000. Respondent holds membership in and
subscribes to interstate news services , publishes nationally
178 NLRB No. 36
JUNCTION CITY DAILY UNION 217
syndicated features, and advertises nationally sold
products. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
assertion of jurisdiction herein is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial
Organizations and Salina Typographical Union 638,
affiliated with the International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Sometime around the beginning of August 1968, Salina
Typographical Union 638, affiliated with the International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to
as the Union, began an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees. On November 15, 1968, a
representation election was held among the employees in a
unit of production and maintenance employees including
mail machine operators. Of approximately 22 eligible
voters, 8 voted for the Union, I 1 voted against the Union,
and 3 cast challenged ballots.'
On November 25, 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 17 issued his certification of results of election
certifying that no collective-bargaining representative had
been selected. On November 29, 1968, Shirley Parrick was
discharged by Respondent under the circumstances set
forth below. Several days later, on December 3, 1968,
eight of Respondent's employees signed and presented to
Respondent a letter in which they asked for recognition of
the Union as representative of the composing room
employees only and for reinstatement of Shirley Parrick,
asserting their belief that she had been discharged for
union activities. On that day the eight employees discussed
the petition with Lee Rich, Respondent's general manager.
Rich denied both requests, and the eight employees
concertedly left their jobs. They had not sought to return
to work at the time of the hearing herein.
B. The Nature of Shirley Parrick 's Duties
Shirley Parrick worked as a teletype setting or TTS
operator in Respondent ' s composing department . Using a
typewriter keyboard she transposed news stories into
perforated tape for use in an automated typesetting
operation . The transposing is commonly referred to by the
operators as typing . Respondent had two TTS machines
which were located in a separate TTS room adjacent to
Respondent ' s composing room . As they needed work, the
operators went to the composing room to get news stories
from a hook. Normally a TTS operator was expected to
take the top story off the hook although if the top item
was short , the operator usually looked through the pile for
other short items to combine with it on one perforated
tape. Some special work was brought directly to the
operators usually by Vernon Manion , the head of the
Two of the three challenged ballots were cast by Vernon Manion and
Donald Kay, who were challenged by Respondent as a supervisor and a
managerial employee, respectively. As the challenged ballots were not
sufficient to be determinative of the election , no investigation was made of
the challenges Although some evidence was presented before me as to the
status of Manion and Kay, I find it unnecessary in this proceeding to
determine their status.
composing department, who assigned it directly to a
specific TTS operator.
Shirley Parrick started to work for Respondent on
February 10, 1968. At that time there was one other TTS
operator, Susan Vega, and a proofreader employed in the
TTS room. Vega quit her job around August 1, 1968.
Shortly before Vega left in mid-July, Elaine Dye started
to work as a TTS operator, and some time after Vega
left, Betty Taggert was hired as a third TTS operator. In
April 1968, Marvel Sheasley replaced a former
proofreader and worked as the proofreader thereafter.
After Betty Taggert was hired, one of the TTS
operators assisted Marvel Sheasley with the proofreading
as there were only two TTS machines and three operators.
At some point after Taggert's hire both Parrick and Dye
complained to Vernon Manion about disparities in the
distribution of work among the operators. They expressed
the view that it was unfair that one operator should get
more proofreading than the others and asked that the
operators get equal time as proofreaders. Manion then
worked out a system of rotation so that each operator
spent two-thirds of the, day operating a TTS machine and
one-third of the day assisting Sheasley with the
proofreading. However, when one of the TTS operators
was absent, the remaining two operators worked steadily
at the TTS machines, assisting Sheasley only when they
lacked work, when Sheasley fell behind in the
proofreading, or when Sheasley needed a second person to
proofread legal notices and more important items with
her.
At the time of Parrick's discharge she was paid $1.65
an hour. Dye was paid $2 an hour. The record does not
indicate the wages paid the other employees in the TTS
room.
C. The Union Activities of Parrick and Other
Employees
Shirley Parrick signed a union authorization card at her
home on August 16, 1968. Parrick did not directly solicit
signatures from other employees on authorization cards,
but spoke in favor of the Union with other employees
while at work. Most of her conversations were with the
employees in the composing room where the strength of
the union support appeared to be located. In her early
conversations with other employees she principally sought
information about the Union. However, after she learned
more about it, she began to express her own opinions and
to support it.
Insofar as the record indicates, Parrick spoke to
Sheasley and Dye about the Union each on a single
occasion .2 Her conversation with Dye was imitated by Dye
who confronted Parrick after hearing a report that Parrick
was telling others that Dye was an informer for Rich,
Respondent's manager.' Their conversation at that time
became heated, and shortly thereafter Manion told the
employees in the TTS room that they were not to discuss
the Union while at work because it interfered with their
production.
Parrick was not aware that Rich had ever observed her
in her union activities or had any direct knowledge based
on his own observation that she was supporting the
Union. Rich denied any personal knowledge of Patrick's
'Sheasley and Dye each so testified Parrick testified that she was not
certain whether she spoke to either of them more than once
'Dye so testified , and Parrick indicated uncertainty as to how the
conversation started
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union activity.
Others in the composing room also spoke in favor of
the Union in the shop. Among them, Vernon Manion, the
head of the composing room , was known in the shop as in
favor of the Union and at one time or another spoke to
almost every other employee about it.
About a week before the election , Dye, who had told
several of the employees in the composing room and the
TTS room that she was opposed to the union , was asked
to work part of 2 days in the front office typing letters for
Respondent which were sent out to the employees as part
of its campaign against the union. She had volunteered
previously to Rich that she was opposed to the Union.
Rich had asked her about union meetings and if she had
attended them, but she told him that she did not know
anything about the Union because the employees knew
that she was against it and told her nothing.'
D. Parrick's Work Record
Throughout Parrick's employment for a variety of
reasons, she missed work from time to time. It was
Respondent's policy not to dock employees for absences,
and she was paid for the days she missed.
Parrick conceded that she missed some work and that
perhaps she had been absent as much as once or twice a
week before Rich spoke to her about it in June 1968, as
set forth below. Although she denied that she was absent
as much as once a week thereafter, she conceded that she
could have missed as much as 6 days during the month
before her discharge as her father was in the hospital at
that time. In addition, she was hospitalized in mid-August
for 3 days and she missed another half-day of work at
that time because of personal problems. Rich, who
ordinarily did not keep records of employee attendance,
began to keep track of Parrick's absences on his desk
calendar about 30 days before her discharge. He recorded
that she missed 6 out of the last 30 days of her
employment.
Susan Vega, Marvel Sheasley, and Elaine Dye worked
in the TTS room with Parrick during portions of Parrick's
employment. According to them, Parrick could not sit at
her job for any length of time without getting up to
wander about the plant, make telephone' calls from the
front office, or make trips to the restroom. They also
testified that Parrick's typing and proofreading were
poorer in quality than that of the others in the TTS room.
According to them, Parrick also talked a great deal on the
job about her personal problems. In their view, Parrick
sought to avoid work, putting more of a burden on the
others in the TTS room, and this was a common topic of
conversation among the others in the TTS room during
breaktimes. Sheasley testified that Parrick often
disappeared for a period of time when she observed
additional work being placed on the hook in the
composing room for the TTS operators.' According to
Dye, she frequently observed Parrick bypassing the item
on top of the hook in order to avoid typing copy which
was considered more difficult.`
'I have credited Dye's testimony as to her conversations with Rich about
the Union. Rich testified that he did not recall whether Dye told him she
was opposed to the Union or whether he questioned Dye about attendance
at union meetings.
'Although the TTS room was separated from the composing room by a
wall, there was a window through which the hook could be seen from the
proofreading desk , and Parrick could see from her machine when
employees brought additional work to the hook.
'The testimony of Vega, Sheasley , and Dye as to Parrick's work
In June 1968, Parrick came to the plant on a Saturday
morning to tell Manion that she had been advised by her
doctor not to work that day. Manion told her to speak to
Rich. When she told Rich she was unavailable for work,
he replied that if she was going to be out of work so
much, he would have to get someone else to work in her
place.'
Vega, who quit work around August 1 to take a
vacation and return to college, testified that she
accelerated the date of her departure because of Parrick
and that at the time she gave her notice in mid-July, she
complained to Rich about Parrick's work habits.
According to Vega, she told him that she thought it unfair
to others in the TTS room that Parrick did not do
adequate work. Vega had not previously spoken to Rich
about Parrick. Although she testified that Rich told her he
had heard similar things from others and would look into
it, there is no evidence that Rich took any action
following Vega's complaint.
On one occasion after the union campaign began,
Sheasley timed Parrick while proofreading and determined
that it took Parrick 2 to 3 times longer to proofread a
galley than what Sheasley considered normal. Sheasley
reported her findings to Manion. Manion replied that he
was aware that Parrick was not putting out her share of
the work and added that if the Union came in, Parrick
would have to work.'
On another occasion, Dye and Sheasley spoke to Betty
Taggert, who took her breaks with Parrick, about
Parrick's work. They asked Taggert if she could tell
Parrick in a nice way that they were tired of the way that
Parrick did her work, Taggert spoke to Parrick about it.'
Insofar as appears from the record, Dye, Sheasley, and
Manion did not talk to Parrick directly about her work
until the day of Parrick's discharge, although Dye testified
that on one occasion she reported to Parrick, Manion's
statement that anyone who did not do a day's work would
be in trouble after the Union came in, intending it as an
indirect suggestion that Parrick work harder. Parrick
conceded that there was conflict among the girls in the
TTS room which had existed even before the union
activities at the plant began, although she testified that it
intensified thereafter.
practices before the day of her discharge was largely not contradicted.
'Parrick so testified. According to her, Rich said nothing to her at the
time about the quality of her work . Rich testified that he called Parrick in
at that time and told her that she was not producing up to her ability and
that she would have to improve or he would replace her . However, Rich's
testimony indicates that even as to more recent events his memory was
poor, and his testimony appears to be inaccurate in other respects. I have
credited Parrick as to this conversation . Vega testified that she believed
that Rich had talked to Parrick about the poor quality of her work on one
occasion before June . However, the basis for her belief was not shown, and
neither Parrick nor Rich testified to any earlier conversation between them
concerning the quality of Parrick ' s work . I base no findings on Vega's
testimony in this regard.
'Sheasley so testified. Manion conceded that employees had complained
to him about Parrick's work . Although he initially testified that he told
them only that he would see what could be done about it, he conceded that
he might have told them that those who did not put out a full day's work
would be in trouble after the Union came in . I have credited Sheasley in
this regard.
'Dye and Sheasley testified concerning their request to Taggert, and
Parrick conceded that Taggert had spoken to her about her work, telling
her that it was at the request of the other girls . According to Parrick she
replied to Taggert that she felt she was doing as much as anyone else.
According to Dye, Taggert reported back that Parrick had said she was
sorry and would try to do better . Taggert did not testify.
JUNCTION CITY DAILY UNION 219
E. Parrick's Discharge.
On November 29, Parrick and Dye were the only two
TTS operators at work. Manion, as well as Taggert, was
absent. Dye came to work about 25 minutes late, and as
she entered the TTS room, passing Parrick, she
commented that it was nice to know the right people so
that you did not have to come to work until you wanted
to.10 Around 11 a.m. while Dye was at the proofreading
desk helping with the proofreading, Parrick went to the
composing room to get more work from the hook. She
took a number of small items from the hook to be
combined on a single tape, leaving behind a Fort Riley
release, considered more difficult to type, which had been
on the top of the pile on the hook." As Parrick returned
to her machine Dye called her over to the proofreading
desk and told her that she did not want Parrick picking
out just the articles that she wanted to type. Dye stated
that they were supposed to take the work off the hook in
the order in which it appeared. Parrick denied that she
had taken work from the bottom of the pile. Dye told
Parrick that she knew what Parrick had done because Dye
had observed what was on the hook. Parrick replied that
there were a lot of short items on the hook and that
whenever there were a lot of them they sorted them out
and combined them on a single tape.
During the afternoon, within an hour of the deadline
for completion of the typing for that day's paper, Dye and
Parrick had a further encounter. Parrick went to the
proofreading desk to help with the proofreading. While
she was so engaged, Dye went to the composing room.
She returned with copy to type and put some of it on
Parrick's desk, keeping the remainder which she started to
type herself. Parrick finished proofreading the galley that
she was working on and went to the composing room to
ask one of the composing room employees if he wanted
her to type or proofread. She was told that Sheasley was
behind in the proofreading and that she should help
Sheasley. Parrick went back to the TTS room, picked up
the copy that Dye had laid on her desk, and took it back
out to the composing room where she replaced it on the
hook. Parrick returned to the TTS room and started to
proofread again . Dye asked Parrick if she was going to
get the copy and type it or what she was going to do.
Parrick replied that she had been told to proofread. Dye
became angry and told Parrick that she was tired of
Parrick's sneaking underhanded ways and that she was
going to talk to Rich to see if something could be done
about it.'2
Dye finished the remaining typing and went to Rich's
office to speak to him. She indicated to Rich that she had
"had it," that Parrick was not working as usual , that she
could not take it anymore, and that something had to be
done." Dye told Rich it had been going on for quite a
while and that she had complained to other people without
"Parnck so testified without contradiction Dye conceded that she was
chronically tardy, and had apologized to Rich for it, but worked through
her lunch periods or after quitting time to make up for it. Rich's
explanation that he was unaware of Dye's starting time is not credited
"Dye so testified , and Parrick in explaining why she took a number of
smaller items did not deny that the Fort Riley item had been on top of the
hook
"I have based these findings on Parrick ' s initial testimony which does
not differ in any material detail from Dye's testimony as to this incident.
On cross-examination , Parrick varied the sequence of events , testifying that
she was told to proofread before Dye placed copy on her desk and at a
time when there was none to be typed. I do not credit Parrick ' s latter
testimony to the extent that it varies from her initial testimony
result. She told Rich that she and Sheasley talked about it
frequently, that Sheasley was well aware of the problem,
and that Sheasley also felt that Parrick was not working.
Rich asked Dye what she thought ought to be done,
indicating as alternatives that he could discharge Parrick
immediately, lay her off for a month and then discharge
her, or put her on probation. Dye expressed the opinion
that with Christmas coming up it would probably be best
for all concerned if Rich talked to Parrick and let her
know that she was on probation. Rich said that he would
talk to Parrick that day, and Dye left.1°
After Dye returned to the TTS room from Rich's
office, Parrick went to Rich's office and asked if she could
talk to him.15 She told Rich what had happened that day
and how she and Dye had been at each other. She asked
Rich if he thought there was something that she could do
to get along better with the other girls in the TTS room.
Rich replied he did not know of any way for her to do
that. He stated that there was constant conflict and hard
feeling in the TTS room and that he thought she was the
cause of all the trouble. Rich told her to put her coat on
and leave.
F. The Strike
At some point before the representation election a
number of the employees who supported the Union had
informally agreed together that' if any employee was
discharged because of his union activities the rest of them
would leave their jobs together.16
Over the weekend following Parrick's discharge, several
of the employees discussed what they might do about it.
William Weaver drew up a draft of a petition for
presentation to John Montgomery, Respondent's
publisher. On the morning of December 3, Weaver
brought the petition with him to the plant, and after
minor corrections the petition was typed and signed by
eight of the employees in the composing room. They
decided that Manion should call Montgomery and talk to
him about it. Manion called the Montgomery's home and
was told by Mrs. Montgomery that he was out of town.
She suggested that the employees speak to Rich. Manion
reported his telephone conversation to the other
employees, and they decided to talk to Rich. As a
consequence, after Rich arrived at the plant, the petition
signers met with him in Montgomery's office.
Weaver read the petition aloud to Rich. Its contents
were:"
This is a 2-part petition
Part I On November 23, 1968 you addressed the
employees of the Daily Union. At this time you
suggested that we should get together and bring our
grievances forth. Since the recent election showed that
"Dye testified that she could not recall the exact words which she used.
Rich testified that he could not recall exactly what Dye said but he gained
the impression that something had to be done or Dye and Sheasley would
quit
"Dye so testified Although Rich testified that he did not go into any
great detail about what he was going to do, he conceded that they might
have discussed probation I have credited Dye
"Parrtck testified that she went to Rich's office on her own motion
Rich testified that he called Parrick in. As there was no particular reason
for Parrick to have invented this detail, and as Rich ' s testimony was
unreliable in a number of respects , I have credited Parrick as to her final
interview with Rich.
"Manion, Weaver, and Kay all testified to the existence of this
agreement
"The petition has been reproduced as it appeared without alteration
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there were some not in agreement with the Daily Union
policies. When the ITU first began organizing us, there
were only a few involved. The Management then see fit
to bring in as many as possible to keep the ITU out.
During the campaign you stressed much concern for our
family's and how union meeting would keep us away
from them and cause us to neglect them, but what
about all the time we must spend working over time not
because we want a bigger slice of the pie but because we
have to, to make a living wage. The letter stated that
our wage was comparable to that of 17 other papers of
comparable size, but what about the amount of hours
put in by the employees. Were these comparable too?
There are many grievances that could be listed but we
wish only one thing and that is what we asked for in the
beginning. Recognition of the Salina Typographical
Union to represent the composing room employees
only. This does not mean the press room photographers,
AP editors or janitors. But the composing room only.
We hope at this time you will give this recognition.
Part II On November 29, 1968 Shirley Parrick, a TTS
operator was dismissed from her duties at the Daily
Union. It is well known fact that she was a backer of
the ITU movement in the recent election. In one of the
campaign talks it was stated there would be no malice
after the election regardless of the outcome. We the
undersigned can not help but feel that once again
management has failed to live up to there word. We
understand that this employee was baited into being
provoked by another employee, whom, we might also
add was well known to be against the ITU movement.
The result was Shirley was dismissed and the other
employee remained. We cannot look at this any way
other than Shirley was made an example. To keep the
other employees in line. We do not know if Shirley
would ever return to the Daily Union and we would not
blame her if she didn't but we feel that she should be
given this opportunity by the management. If this
request is not adhered to, the undersigned employees
feel they will be unable to be at work on December 4,
1968.
We feel that if the employee can be dismissed then the
rest of our jobs are in just as much jeopardy. No man
can go on every day of his life wondering if he will be
dismissed from his duties because he had an opinion
and expressed it publicly. We feel that the only way we
can have this security is through a union contract.
The Typographical Union is in no way involved in this
request but is an action of us as individuals.
After Weaver finished reading the petition Rich
responded. The testimony is in conflict as to the exact
nature of his initial reply but I find in accord with the
testimony of Donald Kay that Rich initially stated that he
felt that the firing of Shirley was a secondary matter and
that he did not think that was why the men were there at
all. As Kay understood it, Rich indicated that he thought
they were there because they wanted union recognition."
The meeting between Rich and the employees continued
for at least an hour. During that time, Rich explained to
the employees why he had discharged Parrick and told
them that he would not reinstate her. He told the
employees that she had been hired on a probationary
basis, she had been absent quite a bit, her production was
below average, and he had fired her for incompetence.
Rich also discussed the first part of the petition, telling
the employees that he would not recognize the Union
because the election was over and mentioning
Respondent's plans for future benefits for the employees.
At one point during the meeting after Rich had
indicated that he rejected the demand for Parrick's
reinstatment, the employees got up to leave. Rich asked
them to remain and continue talking. They did, but no
resolution was reached. Rich suggested that the employees
meet privately among themselves to decide what they were
going to do. He left the room, and after a few minutes of
discussion among the employees they decided that they
would leave their jobs. Manion went to inform Rich of
this decision, and he and the other employees left the
plant together "
G Concluding Findings
1. Respondent's knowledge of Parrick's union
activities
There is no direct evidence that Rich knew of Parrick's
activities on behalf of the Union. However, as the number
of votes cast in the election indicates, Respondent's plant
was small. Employees, including Parrick, had discussed
the Union in the plant. Parrick and Dye had argued in the
plant over a report that Dye was a company spy which
Dye attributed to Parrick. As Rich indicated in testifying
as to the reasons for Parrick's discharge, he was aware
that she spent time in the composing room talking with
other employees when she should have been working. It is
clear otherwise from the record that at least some of that
conversation during the period before the election related
to the Union. Rich also testified that he estimated that he
passed through the working area at least 50 times a day.
As Dye testified, Rich had questioned her about union
meetings.
Rich's denial of knowledge of Parrick' s union activities
appears in the following terms.
Q. Now, of your own knowledge, did you, yourself,
personally, know of any activity on the part of Shirley
Parrick either for or against the union?
A. Personally?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. In fact, up until that time you did not know her
feelings about the Union, did you?
'.Kay so testified Manion and Weaver testified that Rich stated that the
Union was secondary in Shirley ' s discharge Weaver testified that he
recalled Rich ' s use of the word secondary but that Rich could have used
the word unimportant, and he understood Rich to mean that her union
activities were unimportant in his decision to discharge Parrick. Rich
testified that he could not remember the exact words which he used but
that he generally indicated that the petition was unacceptable , that he had
discharged Parrick because her services were unsatisfactory, and that he
told the employees that as far as recognition was concerned the election
was held and was over . While I conclude that the word "secondary" was
used by Rich, I am satisfied that the testimony of Manion , Weaver and
Kay relates to a single use of that word Kay impressed me as a forthright
and accurate witness with no motive to shade his testimony in favor of
Respondent . I credit Kay's version of Rich's remarks.
"The exact content of the discussion during the meeting with Rich is not
entirely clear Manion estimated that most of the time was spent talking
about Parrick ' s discharge . Weaver in his testimony , however, indicated
that Rich tried to steer the conversation towards company benefits for the
employees and away from discussion of Parrick's discharge , although
Parrick 's discharge was discussed Kay's testimony also indicates that Rich
tried to focus the discussion on the company benefits . Rich testified that he
believed the discussion was equally divided between the two parts of the
employees' petition
JUNCTION CITY DAILY UNION 221
A. I couldn't have sworn to them, no.
Taking this testimony in conjunction with Rich's
additional testimony that he had refrained from
discharging Parrick after his June talk with her because of
the pending union activities, as well as his reluctance to
concede that he was aware of Dye's opposition to the
Union and had questioned her about the Union, I
conclude that Rich's denials were carefully limited and
less than forthright. I conclude on the basis of all the
evidence summarized above that Rich was in fact aware of
Parrick's prounion sympathies.
2. Parrick's discharge
There was a history of conflict between Parrick and
others in the TTS room. Although no previous complaint
had been made to Rich other than that of Vega at the
time she gave notice, Sheasley had talked to Manion
about it, and Dye and Sheasley had asked Taggert to
speak to Parrick about it. A source of the conflict was the
belief of Dye and Sheasley that Parrick did not carry her
fair share of the workload and sought to avoid more
difficult work. On November 29 two incidents occurred
which Dye interpreted as attempted evasions of work and
she so informed Parrick. After the second incident Dye
told Parrick she was going to see Rich about it and left to
do so.
There is reason to suspect that there was some
exaggeration in the descriptions of Parrick's faults," and
there is more than a suggestion that the hostility between
Dye and Parrick was intensified by the encounter between
them before the election when Dye accused Parrick of
spreading false tales about Dye. Nonetheless, there is little
reason to doubt that whatever the degree of justification,
Dye and Sheasley found Parrick a source of irritation
because of her work practices.
The incidents described by Dye and Parrick on
November 29 were unrelated to the Union. In the context
of the history of conflict between Dye and Parrick these
incidents could understandably have been viewed by Dye
as adding further fuel to the conflict between them. In
these circumstances, I conclude that Dye's complaint to
Rich was based on the incidents of that day which she
construed as further evidence of Parrick's shortcomings as
a fellow worker.
Rich's decision to discharge Parrick, however, is not so
easily disposed of. After Dye recited her grievances to
Rich, he asked for a suggestion as to the action he should
take. Dye expressed the view that with Christmas coming
up it would be best for all concerned if Rich put Parrick
on probation and talked to Parrick to let her know that
she was on probation. Rich told her that he would talk to
Parrick, and Dye left. Indeed, Dye testified that when
Parrick left the plant after Parrick talked to Rich, Dye
was surprised because she was under the impression that
Rich was going to talk to Parrick "and it was just going
to be a talk." Certainly, the conclusion to be drawn from
the testimony of Dye, who was not hostile to Respondent
and is credited, was that she had not sought Parrick's
discharge but indicated satisfaction with efforts to seek
Parrick's improvement.
"Even after Vega complained to Rich in mid -July and although Rich
testified that he had observed Parrick 's shortcomings directly, Rich said
nothing to Parrick about them . Although Dye and Sheasley testified that
on one occasion they decided to speak to Rich about Parrick, when they
found that Rich had left the plant for the day they did not pursue it. Dye
testified in explanation, "Things have a way of diminishing in importance
overnight and I had forgotten my minor irritations."
Nonetheless, Rich discharged Parrick almost
immediately after Dye registered her complaint. Rich
explained that action as the effectuation of a decision
made a long time previous to the event. According to
Rich, he had taken no action for several weeks after his
talk with Parrick in June. He testified that by that time
the Union organizers were in town, and he felt that if he
took any action at that time, it would be a black mark
against him and possibly a violation of NLRB regulations.
However, according to Rich, he had made up his mind
that when he could gracefully, legally, and properly
dismiss Parrick because of her absences and poor work,
he would do so as soon as he could. He testified that
Dye's complaint to him was the straw that broke the
camel's back. He stated that he acted at that time because
it was the end of the pay period, he had recorded Parrick
as absent six times since October 31, he had observed
Parrick's shortcomings personally, and he believed that he
was going to lose Dye and Sheasely if he did not fire
Parrick.
I have noted above that I have not credited Rich in
other respects. Among other things despite Dye's
testimony that she had explained her frequent tardiness to
Rich and had apologized to him for it, Rich testified that
he was not aware that she was late to work and thought
that he might have mistakenly told her to start work at
8:30 rather that at 8 when the other TTS operators started
work. Despite Dye's testimony that she had informed
Rich of her opposition to the Union and that he had
questioned her about union meetings, Rich testified that
he could not recall that Dye ever told him that she was
against the Union or that he questioned her about union
meetings . There is no reason to believe that Dye invented
her testimony, but there is substantial reason to believe
that Rich sought in a rather transparent fashion to
conceal his favoritism of Dye and his efforts through her
to gain information about employee union activity.
Turning to Rich's explanation for his decision to
discharge Parrick, there is again considerable basis for
skepticism. Thus, there is strong reason to doubt that
Rich had decided to discharge Parrick before the union
organizing campaign began. Among other things, if Rich
had made that decision, it is unlikely that he would have
asked Dye what action she recommended and then have
indicated to her his apparent acquiescense in that action.
Moreover, Rich testified that he normally considered new
employees to be on probation for 6 months, but that he
would make the period shorter if they showed particularly
bad habits. Despite the fact that Parrick's 6 months were
up in August and that Rich claimed that he was aware of
her shortcomings before then, he testified that he took no
action by the time the union organizers appeared on the
scene , explaining that it was not a serious thing or a
matter of life and death. Not only did Rich fail to take
action , but he also did not talk to Parrick again about
either her attendance or her work performance until the
day of her discharge . The conclusion is difficult to escape
that far from regarding Parrick's derelictions as sufficient
to cause her discharge, until November 29, Rich did not
regard them as sufficiently serious to warrant his
intercession.
Rich's explanation that he finally discharged Parrick
upon Dye's complaint for fear of losing Dye and Sheasley
is at odds with Dye's version of her conversation with
Rich. Dye did not present Rich with an ultimatum that he
had to choose between Dye and Parrick, but suggested
that the best thing to do for all concerned was for Rich to
talk to Parrick and place her on probation. Any fear of
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
losing Dye and Sheasley , at least until Parrick 's probation
had been tried , would appear to have been dissipated by
Dye's recommendation , and according to Dye, who had
no reason to misrepresent this conversation, Rich
indicated acquiescence . Thus this stated reason for Rich's
action appears weak indeed . In these circumstances, I find
it impossible to credit Rich 's explanation of his decision
and action to discharge Dye.
The conclusion that Rich ' s explanation for Parrick's
discharge was an after -the-fact rationalization rather than
a valid explanation of his actions gives rise to an inference
that a candid explanation would entail admission that
Parrick ' s union activities were a factor in Rich's
determination to terminate Parrick then rather than place
her on probation as Dye had recommended . To be sure
Rich was not bound to accept Dye's recommendation, but
as Rich had indicated his intention to do so and had
dissipated for the time being the threat of loss of Dye and
Sheasley, his failure to follow that recommendation
requires explanation if the inference of discrimination is to
be rejected . Although it appears from Parrick ' s credited
testimony that her visit to Rich's office occurred at her
initiative rather than Rich ' s, nothing which Parrick said to
Rich at that time explains Rich ' s decision to terminate
Parrick . Rather Parrick ' s inquiry as to whether Rich
knew of anything that she could do to get along better
with the other girls offered Rich the opportunity to point
out to Parrick the deficiencies in her work , which he had
never done previously , and to inform Parrick of her
probation as he had indicated he would in his conversation
with Dye.
The inference to be drawn from Rich ' s testimony does
not stand alone, but finds support in Respondent's
opposition to the Union during the preelection period, as
well as Rich ' s failure to take any steps to secure
correction of the inadequacies in Parrick ' s work before
she was terminated , even though Vega had complained to
him in mid -July and he was assertedly aware of her
shortcomings . It is true that Respondent was free to
discharge Parrick for her shortcomings or for any reason
at all as long as her union activities were not a factor
contributing to her discharge . However , I am persuaded
from this evidence that Parrick ' s union activities were the
factor which caused Rich to discharge Parrick following
Dye's complaint rather than to place her on probation.
Accordingly , I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Shirley Parrick.
3. The strike
The complaint alleges that the work stoppage which
began on December 3 was caused by Respondent's unfair
labor practices and was an unfair labor practice strike.
The evidence supports this allegation. Three employees
who signed the petition and participated in the meeting
with Rich immediately before the walkout testified that
their action was taken as a consequence of an agreement
among the union supporters in the plant that they would
all leave their jobs if any of them were fired because of
their union activities. The petition which they read to Rich
contained two parts. In the second part, which set forth
their request that Parrick be offered reinstatement, the
first paragraph concluded with the sentence: "If this
request is not adhered to, the undersigned employees feel
that they will be unable to be at work on December 4,
1968." Thus, consistent with the employees' testimony, the
petition stated their intention to walk out if the request
for Parrick's reinstatement were not granted. Although it
appears that in their discussion with Rich the employees
did not state that they would not walk out if Parrick were
offered reinstatement but recognition were withheld, the
petition itself which was both read and handed to Rich led
to that conclusion. In any event, even if denial of both
requests contributed to the decision to walk out, the
discharge of Parrick and Rich's refusal to offer Parrick
reinstatement would remain a substantial cause of the
walk out. In either case, it follows that the walk out was
an unfair labor practice strike.Z'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
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 commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Shirley Parrick, I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and to make her whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she normally would have
earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, to which
shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum,
in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
I have also found that on December 3, 1968, a number
of Respondent's employees left their jobs to engage in an
unfair labor practice strike. Although there is no evidence
that at the time of the hearing any of the unfair labor
practice strikers had requested reinstatement, they were
entitled to reinstatement upon application, whether or not
their positions had been filled by the hire of replacements.
Accordingly, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered, upon
application, to offer to all employees who went on strike
on December 3, 1968, or thereafter, reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges,
dismissing if necessary, any persons hired on or after that
date. It is also recommended that Respondent make whole
those employees for any loss of pay they may have
suffered or may suffer by reason of Respondent's refusal,
if any, to reinstate them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages during the period from 5 days after
the date on which he applies for reinstatement, to the date
of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, to be computed in
"See Louisville Chair Company, Inc, 161 NLRB 358, 378, enfd 385
F.2d 922 (C A 6)
JUNCTION CITY DAILY UNION 223
accordance with the formula set forth in the paragraph
above.::
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Junction City Daily Union, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Labor-Congress of
"Louisville Chair Company , supra , 161 NLRB at 376, 378.
Industrial Organizations and Salina Typographical Union
638 affiliated with the International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Shirley Parrick because of her union
activities Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The strike by Respondent's employees which began
on December 3, 1968, was caused by the discharge of
Shirley Parrick and was an unfair labor practice strike.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]