Lapeer Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1518 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1518 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all 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, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.?
7In the event that. the Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendation of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage employees from asserting their right to reinstate-
ment by disciminating in regard to their hire or tenure or any terms or con-
ditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge reinstated employees upon the basis
of a pretext.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form a labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Jake Christopher, immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Lapeer Metal Products Co. and International Union , United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW) AFL-CIO and Local 614, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Ind., Party to the Contract . Case No.
7--CA.-2955. December 06, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 8, 1961, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
134 NLRB No. 154.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1519
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter
the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, with the following exceptions, addi-
tions, and modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent
independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) by interrogating its employ-
ees as to their own and their fellow employees' union activities, and
by threatening reprisals for engaging in union activity in the instances
enumerated in the Intermediate Report. The General Counsel excepts
to the Trial Examiner's failure to mention and find numerous addi-
tional instances constituting violations of Section 8(a) (1) which
demonstrate Respondent's massive interrogations, threats, and mili-
tant hostility toward its employees' organizational activities on behalf
of the UAW. Although most of such additional incidents of viola-
tions of Sectional 8(a) (1) by Respondent are cumulative with respect
to the type of violation engaged in,2 they do serve to demonstrate, not
only the extensive nature of such conduct, but also the attitude of
Respondent and the atmosphere thereby created.
We also find that Respondent engaged in independent violations
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act on and after August 5, 1960, by the
coercive manner in which it implemented its hiring practice with
respect to each new employee. Sandean readily admitted that a part
of his hiring procedure was to require applicants, while being hired,
to sign applications for membership in, and dues checkoff cards for,
Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., hereinafter referred to
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning,
and Brown].
2 Among the additional instances of interference , restraint , and coercion which we find
demonstrated by the credible testimony in the record are the following: Sandean's Interro-
gation of Kathleen Lukacs as to whether she had signed a UAW card and whether she
had heard anything about people in the shop signing cards ,. and his statement that if
anyone participated in such activity in any way whatsoever they would be fired ; his
interrogation of Oscar Dombrowski as to whether he knew anything about the union
activity in the shop ; his statement to Barbara Jean Rumph and another employee that
"I closed the doors once in one shop , and I will do it again before I let the UAW in
here" ; and his statement to Robert Thurlow that previous experience with the UAW
was the reason Respondent moved from Detroit , and if the employees "kept monkeying
around" they would drive Respondent "out of here"-that it would close the shop.
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as the Teamsters; that he did so in each instance of hire; and that
during this period only one applicant refused to sign such union
papers and walked out. Numerous instances of coercion of new
employees were detailed in the record,' demonstrating that this con-
duct of the Respondent was an invasion of the employees' protected
rights and a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 4
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act in the discharges of Charlene
King, Frances Monroe, and Phyllis White, by the transfer and dis-
charge of Betty Ross, and by the refusal to rehire Olive Beardsley.
Respondent excepts to these findings on the ground that since these
employees were discharged during their probationary period it was
unnecessary for Respondent to give any reason for their dismissal,
and the fact that these employees were active in soliciting UAW
members should not be presumed to be evidence that this activity was
the reason for their dismissal, or evidence of union bias on the part
of the company, as other employees similarly active were not
dismissed.
We find no merit to this exception. As found by the Trial Ex-
aminer, the record amply demonstrates the Respondent's hostility
toward the UAW activities of its employees, and the Respondent's
efforts made to discover which employees were engaging in such
activities. Moreover, while it may not have been necessary, as alleged,
for Respondent, under its contract with the Teamsters, to give any
reason for discharging employees during their probationary period,
this is no license under Federal law to interfere with or discriminate
against such employees for the exercise of their rights to self-
organization or to refrain therefrom. Although in its brief, Respond-
ent does not specifically deny knowledge of the union activities of
these employees, the tenor of its argument suggests that it was neces-
sary for the General Counsel to prove direct knowledge and antiunion
motive for each discharge. Any such argument is similarly without
a Sandean told Beverly Jean Clemens and three other applicants as they were being
hired that it was necessary for them to sign the papers be handed them so they could go
to work. Clemens protested that she wanted to read the forms first before she signed.
Sandean told her, "That's for the union " and "if you don't want the job , there is the door,
get the hell out" ; he told Lucille Lamphere , who hesitated signing the membership and
checkoff for the Teamsters and asked if she had to, that if she did not she would not have
a job; when hiring Barbara Jean Rumph, Sandean instructed her to sign these same
papers for the Teamsters . She asked if she had to join the union and Sandean told her
that she did , that it was a closed shop ; when Patricia May Ruby was hired , Sandean
handed her the union papers to sign, explained that they had the Teamsters union and
that if she wanted to work there she had to sign these papers. In similar circumstances,
Sandean told Shirley Ann Brandt that there were some troublemakers and not to listen
to them, that the Teamsters union was signed for 3 years ; and, when Lawrence Hill, Jr.,
was hired , Sandean told . ,him to sign the papers for the Teamsters union or not bother
about coming in to work.
* This finding in no way detracts from our agreement with the Trial Examiner's find-
ing, based upon Sandean 's admissions , that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 ( a) (1),
(2), and ( 3) of the Act, but is more fully set forth herein for the purpose of indicating
the basis for the remedy hereinafter ordered.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1521
merit. On the contrary, there is well-established Board and court
precedent that knowledge and motive may be inferred from the record
as a whole., Viewed against the background of militant interference;
restraint, and coercion, amply set forth hereinabove and in the Inter-
mediate Report, the nature of Respondent's 8(a) (1) conduct,6 the
small size of the plant; the small number of employees at the time
such illegal conduct began and the continuation of such interference
throughout the expansion period, and the 8(a) (2) conduct engaged
in by Respondent, we find, upon the basis of the entire record, that
the above-named employees were discriminated against in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) because of their known interest in and activities on
behalf of the UAW.
3. We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons
stated by him, that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3)
of the Act in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, we shall adopt the
Trial Examiner's recommendations set forth in that section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" except as hereinafter
indicated.
The General Counsel initially requested, and together with the
Charging Party now excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to grant,
a remedy requiring a general reimbursement of all dues and initiation
fees. We find merit in this exception insofar as it relates to all em-
ployes hired on and after August 5, 1960. As indicated above, there
is ample evidence here, not only that the Teamsters was imposed upon
the employees through the unlawful assistance of Respondent, and
employees were illegally required to become members and pay initia-
tion fees and dues prior to the expiration of the 30-day statutory
period, but also that they were coerced by Respondent into joining
the union and authorizing union checkoffs as the price these employees
paid in order to obtain and retain their jobs. As demonstrated by the
record, some of these employees expressed their unwillingness to do so
5 See Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616, and cases cited therein.
6 That Respondent not only made efforts to , but did, gain extensive information as to
individual employees ' union activities is demonstrated by Sandean ' s testimony that when
employee Harley came in on November 18, he knew that Harley had attended the UAW
meeting held on the evening of November 17 and so stated to Harley, and by his lengthy
conversation with employee Robert Thurlow after the latter had attended another UAW
meeting and raised certain questions concerning seniority , establishing that Sandean not
only knew of Thurlow's attendance at that meeting , but also knew piecisely what questions
Thurlow had raised
630849-62-vol. 13 4-9 7
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and complied only in order to obtain the job. In view of the fact that
this was a new plant in a new location at which Respondent was
admittedly attempting to build a work force from inexperienced em-
ployees, the fact, as demonstrated by the record testimony, that many,
if not all, of the applicants had little or no previous industrial ex-
perience and practically no knowledge of or previous acquaintance
with unionization or their rights in collective bargaining, and the
further fact, as admitted by Sandean, that it was Respondent's practice
to require execution of membership applications for the Teamsters
and checkoff authorizations at the time of hire and before the em-
ployee reported to work, it is clear that all employees hired on
and after execution of the contract with the Teamsters on August 5,
1960, were similarly coerced in this manner in violation of their rights
under the statute.' We therefore conclude that the remedy of reim-
bursement of all such moneys collected is appropriate and necessary
to expunge the illegal effect of the unfair labor practices found herein.
The Trial Examiner cited as authority for the limited reimburse-
ment order fashioned by him, the Board's decision in Duralite Co.,
Inc., 132 NLRB 425, wherein the Board majority found "no evidence
in-the record . . . that Duralite employees were coerced into joining
or paying dues to" the assisted union involved, and thus interpreted
the Supreme Court decision in Local 60, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (Mechanical
Handling Systems) v. N.L.R.B 8 as foreclosing a general reimburse-
ment of dues remedy in that case., However, the Supreme Court's
decision preserved the Board's authority to order such a remedy to
remove the consequences of violations on record evidence that em-
ployees were illegally coerced into joining or remaining members of
the union "with the view of obtaining work," as well as in cases where
the union was unlawfully created.'
The propriety of such an order is indicated by the circumstances
here. For not only did Respondent aid and assist the Teamsters in
violation, of the Act, as found above, it also, after execution of the
contract, took it upon itself to coerce each applicant for employment,
after he had otherwise qualified for hire, to execute applications for
union membership and union checkoff authorizations as a condition
to his,reporting to work. We find such coercion akin to that involved
in Virginia Electric and Power Company,1° and a general reimburse=
7 As the record evidence does not establish that any individual employed before the
contract was executed was coerced into joining or paying dues to the assisted union, other
than by reason of the failure of the contract to accord them the 30 - day statutory period,
we adopt the Trial Examiner ' s limited reimbursement order with respect to them. See
Cadillac Wire Corp., 128 NLRB 1002.
8 365 U.S. 651.
9 See Virginia Electric and Power Company v . N L R.B ., 319 U S 533
10 Footnote 9, supra.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1523
ment order necessary in order to vindicate public rights.ii Accord-
ingly, in order to expunge the coercive effect of such illegal exaction,
we adopt the remedy which requires the Respondent to reimburse all
present and former employees of Respondent, whose employment be-
gan on or after August 5, 1960, for all dues checked off in favor of or
paid to the Teamsters pursuant to such unlawful conduct and agree'
ment, extending it to include all moneys unlawfully exacted as the
price for their employment.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Lapeer Metal
Products Co., Lapeer , Michigan , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the UAW, or any other labor
organization of its employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees , or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition
of their employment, except to the extent permitted by Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Assisting or contributing support to the Teamsters, or any
other labor organization.
(c) Recognizing the Teamsters as the exclusive representative of
the Company 's employees at its Lapeer, Michigan , plant for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, unless and until said labor organiza-
tion shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit.
(d) Giving effect to.its agreement with the Teamsters , entered into
on August 5, 1960, or to any extension , renewal ,, modification, or
supplement thereof, or any superseding agreement , unless and until
the Teamsters shall have been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and only then if the agreement otherwise conforms to the
provision of the National Labor Relations Act; but nothing herein
shall be construed as requiring the Company to vary or abandon
the wages, hours, seniority , or other substantive features of any such
agreement.
"See Revere Metal Arta Co., Inc, et at, 280 F. 2d 96, 101 (C.A. 2), enfg 123 NLRB
114, cited by the Supreme 'Court in the Carpenters decision. Also see N.L R B. v. Local
294, International Brotherhood of Team8ter8, et at. (Grand Union Co.), 279 F. 2d 83
(CA 2), enfg. 122 NLRB 589 ; Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 129 NLRB 1166 ; Lenscraft Optical
Corpoi'ation, et at., 128 NLRB 807
Member Leedom in accord with his position in Duralite Co., Inc., 132 NLRB 425, would
order reimbursement of dues and fees exacted during the applicable 10(b) period from
employees hired before as well as after execution of the unlawful contract
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations, heretofore executed
by its employees, authorizing deduction of periodic dues, fines, fees,
or assessments from wages for remittance to the Teamsters, prior
to the date of compliance with this order.
(f) Encouraging membership in the Teamsters, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by conditioning the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment upon member-
ship in, affiliation with, or dues or other payments to, that labor
organization, or any other labor organization, except where such con-
ditions have been lawfully established by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(g) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by interrogat-
ing its employees concerning their own or their fellow employees'
union activities, and threatening its employees with reprisals for
engaging in union activities.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the Bright to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the UAW, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action :
(a) Offer to the employees referred to in that section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy," immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
each of them whole in the manner set forth in the same section.
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition of the Teamsters as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees at its Lapeer,
Michigan, plant, unless and until said labor organization shall have
been certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
(c) Reimburse all present and former employees the sums such
employees have been unlawfully required to pay to the Teamsters as
dues and/or fees in the manner and to the extent set forth in the
remedy as herein amended.
(d)' 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,
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1525
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts due under the
terms of this order.
(e) Post at its plant in Lapeer, Michigan, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all 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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Com-
pany has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a),(1) and (3) of the Act in
other respects than as found herein, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment, except to the extent per-
mitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Local 614, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the agreement entered into with the
Teamsters on August 5, 1960, or to any extension, renewal, modi-
fication, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement,
unless and until the Teamsters shall have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board, and then only if the agreement
otherwise conforms to the provisions of the National Labor Re-
lations .Act.
1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
• WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff cards, heretofore exe-
cuted by our employees, authorizing deductions, from their wages
-for remittance to the Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT endourage membership in the Teamsters, or any
-other* labor organization of our employees, by conditioning the
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment upon membership in, affiliation with, or dues payments
to, that organization, or • any other labor organization, except
where such conditions shall have been lawfully established by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT question our employees as to their own or their
fellow employees' union activities or threaten our employees with
reprisals for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our* employees* in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
UAW, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
WE 'WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make each whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.
Charlene King Phyllis White
Frances Monroe Betty Ross
Olive Beardsley
WE WILL refund to all our present and former employees who
were in our employ before August 5, 1960 (when we contracted
with the Teamsters), and who were required to join and sign
checkoff cards for the Teamsters as a condition of employment,
all dues deducted for the first 30 days of the contract; and we will
refund all such employees their fees if they worked less than 30
days after said date. We will also refund to all present and
former employees hired on or after August 5, 1960, all initiation
fees, dues, and other moneys paid to the Teamsters since that date,
either directly or through deductions from their wages, by reason
of our conduct in maintaining and enforcing our collective-
' bargaining contract with the Teamsters, on or after August 5,
1960.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS Co. , 1527
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all "recognition from the
Teamsters as collective-bargaining representative of any of our
employees unless and until such labor organization shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the ex-
clusive representative of such employees.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members of any labor organization, except to the extent that
this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
0 (Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding against Lapeer Metal Products Co., herein also called the
Respondent or the Company, involves Section 8 ( a)(1), (2), and ( 3) allegations,
names as party to the contract Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein also called the
Teamsters , and was initiated by International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, herein also
called the UAW. A hearing was conducted on various days between April 11 and
26, 1961 . The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and his observation of the witnesses , the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of
business at Lapeer, Michigan , is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution
of metal automobile parts and related products . During the 6-month period ending
December 31, 1960 , the Respondent at its Lapeer plant manufactured and sold
finished products valued in excess of $350,000 , of which products valued in excess
of $100 ,000 were shipped directly to States of the United States other than the State
of Michigan . During the same period , the Respondent purchased and caused to be
delivered to its Lapeer plant , steel and other goods and materials valued in
excess of $250 ,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $70,000 were
transported to said plant directly from States of the United States other than the
State of Michigan . It is found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, and Local 614, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The issues presented are whether the Company engaged in specified acts and
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1), gave the Teamsters certain aid, assistance,
1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and support in violation of Section 8(a) (2), and discriminatorily discharged certain
10 employees and engaged in discrimination by entering into and enforcing a contract
of August 5, 1960, with the Teamsters in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
B. The events
Construction of the Company's plant at Lapeer was started in April 1960. The
plant provides, as originally planned, 48,000 square feet of production space.
Employee facilities such as a place to hang clothes were provided for about 100
employees, part of which was installed in about August and the remainder in
September.
In about May or June an advertisement for employees appeared in a local news-
paper and Carl Sandean, personnel director, thereafter interviewed applicants. On
July 25, while some construction work was still being done at the plant and some
equipment was being erected, the Company hired seven factory employees. These
employees were at that time assigned to cleaning and painting production machinery.
Two days after the seven factory employees were hired, July 27, the Company
and the Teamsters entered into a State of Michigan Consent Election Agreement.
The seven employees voted on August 4, for the Teamsters.' The next day, August 5,
the Company and the Teamsters executed a bargaining agreement. This agr%ement
which grants the Teamsters exclusive recognition provides for checkoff,2 and a
union-security clause, which the General Counsel contends offends Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. The text of this clause will be set forth in the section entitled, ";The
conclusions."
,By the end of August, the Company had 21 factory or production and maintenance
employees. At the end of September and October, the Company had in its employ
76 and 117 persons, respectively.
After the contract with the Teamsters was executed, Sandean admittedly filled
out Teamster applications for membership and checkoff authorization forms cover-
ing fees, fines, and assessments for prospective employees at the time of their hiring.
Sandean testified further that although he did not "force" anyone to sign these docu-
ments it was "naturally" necessary that the forms be signed as it was a "closed shop." 3
Activities oi: behalf of the UAW began about the end of September. A petition
was circulated, cards were signed, and meetings were held at employees' homes.
Olive Beardsley, an alleged discriminatee, took a petition around on the night shift
and obtained signatures from all the employees on that shift. Beardsley stated to
these employees that the petition was for the UAW, that if the UAW got in they
would get higher wages, rest periods, and all the working conditions which prevailed
in UAW shops. About the end of September, Sandean appeared at Beardsley's
machine while she was working. Sandean asked Beardsley if she knew anything
about a UAW petition that had been circulated and if she would give him some of
the names on the petition. Beardsley replied that she did not know anything about
it. Sandean stated that he was nobody's fool and told Beardsley to stop working
and look at him. Sandean looked at Beardsley a moment and then walked away.
In October, Sandean inquired of Frances Monroe, an alleged discriminatee,
whether anyone had been out to her house about signing union cards; requested
Phyllis White to report to him who had been around with a petition for another
union, and declared in White's presence that there was another union trying to get
into the plant and that he was going to get to the bottom of it; and declared to Olive
Beardsley that he knew about the UAW cards and petition and that most of those
'On August 12, 1960, the State board certified the Teamsters as the collective-
bargaining representative On March 8, 1961, the State board set aside its certification;
and on March 28, 1961, the Teamsters filed an appeal before the Michigan Supreme Court
2 Deductions for the benefit of the Teamsters were first made from the wages of the
employees listed below for the pay period ending during the week shown:
Shirley
Name
Medbery=_________
Date Hired
October 24_______________
Pay Period Ending
November 20
Patricia Burch___________ August 24________________ September 18
Olive Beardsley___________ September 19_____________ October 23
It appears that the pay periods end on Sundays and that the employees received their
paychecks on Thursdays or Fridays.
In view of Sandean's admissions, it is unnecessary to detail by way of example the
credible evidence adduced by the General Counsel through the testimony of several in-
dividuals as to their respective hirings to the effect that Sandean had made it clear to
them that it was necessary to sign the Teamster forms in order to work for the Company.
See N.L.R.B. v. Revere Metal Art Co., et - at, 280 F. 2d 96, 101.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1529
who had signed were gone and there were a few more to go. In October, Foreman
Ray Le Blanc inquired of Charlene King as to whether she had signed any of the
petitions or had anything to do with the petitions which had been circulated.
In November, Sandean interrogated Shirley Medbery as to whether she had
heard anything about the other union; inquired of Robert Thurlow why he had
joined the UAW and declared that he, Sandean, had ways of finding out these
things; and declared to Barbara Rumph that there was only one union at the plant
and if she wanted to keep her job she had better remember that. And in December,
Sandean stated to Michael Smith that the Company was keeping its end of the deal
with the Teamsters and that they would close the plant before they let the UAW
in.4
Between October 5 and November 21, 10 employees were terminated who are
the subject oft he discrimination allegation.
C. The conclusions
1. The discrimination
The General Counsel contends that the individuals named below were discharged
by the Company in an attempt to rid itself of the UAW adherents. The Company
urges that the dismissals were not discriminatory and states that with one exception
(Ronald Harley) the dismissals occurred within the employees' 60-day probationary
periods under a provision of its contract with the Teamsters, that it engaged in an
effort to build a competent work force in a new factory with largely inexperienced
help, and that during the period in 1960 in which the dismissals under examination
occurred it terminated more than 50 probationary employees.
Shirley White was hired on September 15 and terminated on October 5. During
her employment White circulated a United Mine Workers petition at the plant.
She thereafter signed a UAW card at the request of Charlene King, who is also
alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged. White did not take an active
part in obtaining UAW cards among the employees. Sandean informed her that
she was laid off until further notice as work was slacking down and that a lot of
people would be laid off. When White appeared for her check she found that the
Company was taking applications for employment and that it was hiring. Accord-
ing to Sandean the decision to terminate White was made by Foreman Paul Smith.
Smith did not appear as a witness. Although the reason given White for her
discharge is not true, in the Trial Examiner's view there is insufficient evidence of
White's UAW activities to establish the General Counsel's allegation.
Charlene King was hired on September 15 and was terminated on October 10.
King signed a UAW card at the request of Patricia Burch, another alleged dis-
criminatee. King while at the plant solicited fellow employees to join the UAW.
In the first few days of October, she attended a UAW meeting at Burch's home.
Sandean notified King of her discharge and when she asked for a reason for her
discharge, he replied that there was no reason. King pointed out that she had
worked hard at the job and Sandean asked King why she thought she was terminated.
A few days later King appeared at the plant and spoke to Foreman Ray Le Blanc.
Le Blanc, as noted earlier, did not appear as a witness. King told Le Blanc that
she had been terminated and asked for the reason. Le Blanc declared that he did
not know about her dismissal. Le Blanc suggested that she return the next day as
he would talk to Sandean. Le Blanc, as found above, also asked King if she had
anything to do with the petition that had been circulated. King told him that she
had nothing to do with the petitions. Le Blanc declared that King was lying a
little and assured her that he would not tell Sandean. King admitted to Le Blanc
that she had signed a card. Le Blanc stated that he had to know these things in
order to try to get her back to work. The following day King returned to see
Sandean and explain to him that she needed the work because of certain hospital
bills. Sandean suggested that she telephone him in a few days. King telephoned
Sandean thereafter and he stated to King that she could not come back to work and
that she would never work at that plant again. Sandean testified that he terminated
King without consulting anyone and that he merely told King at the time that she
was a probationary employee.
4 The findings above relating to Sandean ' s activities in opposition to the UAW are
based upon the credible testimony of the individuals named. As Sandean did not impress
the Trial Examiner favorably as a witness his denials are not credited . His denials will
hereafter not be set forth.
Le Blanc did not appear as a witness
1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent:stated at the hearing that King was discharged for, among other
reasons, her failure to comply with safety rules. There is nothing in the record
to show that King failed to comply with any safety rules or that King was an unde-
sirable employee.
Frances Monroe was hired on September 23 and was discharged on October 13.
At the time Monroe (was hired, Sandean told Monroe and another new employee
who was present that he did not care how much production they got out so long as
they worked safely at the machine. About a week after her hire Monroe signed a
UAW petition at the plant at the request of Olive Beardsley, another alleged dis-
criminatee. About a week or two later Burch came to her home and Monroe
signed a UAW card. About a week or so after Monroe was discharged, she saw
Sandean and got her paycheck. In the course of this incident, Sandean, as already
reported, inquired whether there had been anyone out to her house about signing
the union cards. Monroe denied to Sandean that this had occurred. Monroe's
separation notice states, "Laid off not up to standard." Sandean testified that
Monroe's dismissal was initiated by Foreman George Knockheart. Knockheart was
not called as a witness. During the course of her employment, Monroe had not
received any warnings or reprimands concerning her work. Except for the assertion
on the separation notice there is nothing in the record to show what the Company's
standards were or that Monroe's work was not up to those standards.
Olive Beardsley was hired on September 19, and her employment ended on October
21, Beardsley circulated a UAW petition among the employees at the plant. About
the end of September, as found above, Sandean appeared at Beardsley's machine
while she was working and asked Beardsley if she knew anything about a UAW
petition that had been circulated and if she would give him some of the names on
the petition. Beardsley replied that she did not know anything about it. Sandean
stated that he was nobody's fool and told Beardsley to stop working and to look
at him. Sandean looked at Beardsley a moment and then walked away. The
following day Foreman Paul Smith, who did not appear as a witness, reported to
Beardsley that Sandean had asked Smith about Beardsley's work and that he had
told Sandean that her work was good. About October 17, Foreman Le Blanc,
while at Beardsley's work location, asked Beardsley to see what she had in her
purse as Beardsley was reaching in for some chewing gum. Beardsley opened her
purse for Le Blanc. Beardsley had some blank UAW cards in it at the time.
Le Blanc stated that he would not say anything.
On Friday, October 21, Le Blanc, who had been, in Beardsley's words, "smarting
off" at her in the plant, reported that he had heard that he had been accused of
following Beardsley home at night after the close of the second shift. Le Blanc
sought to find out who had so informed Beardsley and Beardsley refused to make
the disclosure. Le Blanc thereupon directed her to get her things and go to the
office. Le Blanc had her sign a separation notice and he thereupon entered the
word "quit" on the form. Beardsley protested that entry on the form but Le Blanc
insisted that she had quit. Le Blanc directed her to leave the plant by way of the
office and not the employees' entrance.
The next day, Saturday, October 22, Beardsley telephoned the plant and spoke
to Leonard Mooi, president of the Company, as Sandean was not in that day.
Beardsley discussed with Mooi the conversation she had had with Le Blanc regarding
his following her home and also asked to go back to work.5
On the next working day, Monday, October 24, Beardsley telephoned Sandean.
Beardsley told Sandean of her conversation with Le Blanc and asked to return to
work. Sandean stated that he would not have Beardsley back, not because of her
work as he could not find a better worker, but because they knew about Beardsley
circulating the petition and about the UAW cards. Sandean also stated that if
Beardsley had not quit she would have been discharged.
The following day Beardsley saw Sandean, asked for her check and also asked
whether she could return to work. Sandean stated that she would never return to
the Company or any other shop in the area. Sandean stated further, as already
reported, that most of the employees who had signed UAW cards or the petition
were gone and there were a few more to go.
Patricia Burch's case is in part dependent upon her own testimony. As Burch
did not impress the Trial Examiner as a reliable witness, her case will not be
discussed further. -
s Moot testified that Beardsley stated that Le Blanc had followed her home and that
she had no alternative but to quit Based upon the Trial Examiner's appraisal of
Beardsley and Moot as witnesses and as Beardsley's testimony of the prior events involv-
ing Le Blanc is undisputed, the Trial Examiner does not credit Moot's testimony in this
respect.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1531
Ronald Dombrowski and Ismael Rosas were hired on September 6, and October
17, respectively, and discharged on October 25 and 26, respectively. Dombrowski,
who had signed a UAW card, was told at the beginning of his shift on October 25
that he was to be laid off at the close of that shift. During a break period that day
Dombrowski asked Rosas if he wanted to sign a card for another union and Rosas
agreed to do so after work. At the close of the shift they met on the parking lot
and Rosas signed a UAW card for Dombrowski. Dombrowski could not recall
having signed up anyone else. Dombrowski testified that no official of the Company
had talked to him about UAW activities.
Rosas was laid off the day after he signed the UAW card as described above.
It does not appear that Rosas engaged in any other activities on behalf of the UAW.
Under the circumstances there appears to be little point in discussing the Company's
explanations for the discharge of these two individuals.
Phyllis White was hired on September 19 and discharged on October 26. White
signed a UAW card at the request of King and Burch. As found above, Sandean
requested White to report to him who had been around with a.petition for another
union, and also declared in White's presence there was another union trying to get
into the plant and that he was going to get to the bottom of it.
On the day White was informed of her termination she stated to Sandean that
she had worked 4 days longer than she had expected. Sandean asked what she
meant and White replied that she had heard that after $15 was deducted employees
were laid off. Sandean stated that was not true. White asked if she was laid off
because of her work and Sandean stated that that also was not true. The next day
White appeared with Michael Daugherty, the Teamsters steward, and in his pres-
ence and in the presence of Ronald Otto, secretary-treasurer of the Company, White
again asked Sandean why she was laid off. Sandean stated, "I hate to tell you this,
but the UAW-CIO put us in bankruptcy in Detroit, and that's why we came out here.
You girls knew there was a union here, and you knew what the wages were when
you came here, but you weren't satisfied." Daugherty, addressing Sandean, stated
that there were a lot of people getting hurt by this and that he was getting fed up.6
White requested the return of her union dues and thereafter they were returned to her.
According to Sandean, he told White that she was laid off as a probationary em-
ployee, and that the Company had a right to sort out its employees as it pleased.
Sandean testified further that the decision to lay off White was made by Foreman
Paul Smith and Fritz Carla. Smith, as noted above, did not appear as a witness.
Carla did testify but was not questioned on this subject.
Betty Ross was hired on October 3 and laid off on November 11. \ After Ross
took her physical examination and was hired, Sandean told Ross that he did not
want her to work on the presses. The form which relates to Ross' hiring shows
after the word classification "assembly," and also that the word "press" had been
stricken.
Ross had signed a UAW card and UAW meetings were held at her home. Dur-
ing about the last week of her employment, Ross sought to interest the janitor in
joining the UAW. Until this time Ross had been doing paint work. On the day
after Ross sought to interest the janitor in the UAW she was transferred to press
work. The record does not show any business reason, such as lack of work, for
this transfer. Ross did not receive any warnings or reprimands concerning her work
or her work habits.
At the time of her transfer Ross, who had observed other employees who were
on assembly work all the time, told her foreman that she was not supposed to work
on the presses. The matter was then discussed with the foremen. In the presence
of one of the foremen Ross took this matter up with Sandean. Sandean then denied
to Ross that he had told her that she was not to work on the presses. Ross there-
upon produced the form referred to above which showed after the designation
classification the word "assembly" and the word "press" stricken.
Ross worked for about a week on the press when her foreman told her that she
was laid off. Ross thereupon saw Sandean and asked for the reason for her layoff.
Sandean stated that they had checked with her prior employers, that someone had
told him to terminate her, and that he was not at liberty to disclose who that was.
According to Sandean, Ross was brought into the office in a very nervous condition
a few days after she was assigned to work on the presses, that he had checked with
her prior employer and understood from him that she had quit there under doctor's
orders due to nervousness, and that the reason he laid her off was that she could get
hurt by the machinery due to her nervousness. The Trial Examiner is of the view
8 Daugherty did not appear as a witness. Otto did appear as a witness but was not
questioned on the subject.
1532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and finds that Ross was transferred from paint work to press work in order to bring
about her discharge.
Ronald Harley was hired on September 15 and laid off on November 21. As the
discrimination issue presented in this case is dependent upon Harley's testimony and
the Trial Examiner was not favorably impressed with Harley as a witness, no fur-
ther consideration will be given to this matter.
Accordingly, particularly in view of the Company's hostility toward the UAW
activities, the Company's efforts to discover which employees were engaging in such
activities, the UAW activities of these employees, and the absence of convincing
-reasons for the Company's conduct, it is found that the following employees were
discriminated against in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act on the date
.following each name: Charlene King, October 10; Frances Monroe, October 13;
Olive Beardsley, October 24; 7 Phyllis White, October 26; and Betty Ross, Novem-
ber 11, 1960. It is found that the Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act regarding Shirley White, Patricia Burch, Ronald Dombrowski, Ismael Rosas,
and Ronald Harley.
2. Interference , restraint, and coercion
It is found that the Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by the conduct of Personnel
Director Carl Sandean in interrogating employees as to their own and their fellow
employees' union activities in the instances of Olive Beardsley, Frances Monroe,
Phyllis White, Shirley Medbery, and Robert Thurlow; and Sandean's threatening
reprisals for engaging in union activities in the instances of Olive Beardsley and
Barbara Rumph; and by the conduct of Foreman Ray Le Blanc in interrogating
Charlene King as to her union activities.
3. Aid, assistance , and support
As found above, the Company recognized and entered into a contract with the
-Teamsters on August 5, 1960. At that time the Company had in its employ only
7 of an anticipated complement of about 100 employees.8 The contract of August 5
recognized the Teamsters as the exclusive representative of its employees, made
membership a condition of employment, provided for checkoff, and failed to grant
the then employees 30 days during which they were not required to be members of
a labor organization .9 After the execution of this contract, Personnel Director
Sandean urged and required applicants to execute application for membership and
checkoff authorization forms in order to obtain employment. For the reasons
explicated in The Englander Company, Inc.,10 it is found that by granting the
Teamsters exclusive recognition before the Company had a representative comple-
ment in an appropriate unit in its employ, by providing in its contract for member-
ship in the Teamsters as a condition of employment, and by urging and requiring
applicants for employment to become members of and authorize the deduction of
fees, fines, and assessments for the benefit of the Teamsters, the Company violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.li It is further found that by failing to
grant a 30-day statutory grace period during which employees hired prior to the
execution of the contract would be free from compulsory membership, and by
making deductions under the checkoff authorizations prior to expiration of the 30-day
statutory period, the Company violated Section 8 (a)( 1), (2), and (3) of the Act.12
The General Counsel urges that the Company violated the Act on the basis of a
Midwest Piping theory.13 As the record does not support a finding that the Com-
v The Beardsley case is viewed as a refusal to reinstate by Sandean.
s See General Extrusion Company, Inc, at al., 121 NLRB 1165.
The contract provision follows:
The Employer agrees as a condition of continued employment, all present and future
employees covered by this Agreement shall become and remain members in good stand-
ing in Local Union No. 614, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Gas Station Attendants, and Helpers of America, no later
than the 31st day following the beginning of their employment. Said employees,
although members of the Union, shall be classified as probationary up to sixty (60)
days of date of employment.
10 114 NLRB 1034.
11 See also, Sterling Precision Corp, Instrument Division, 131 NLRB 1229; and Cadillac
Wire Corp, 128 NLRB 1002.
12 See Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536; Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 97
NLRB 642; and Cadillac Wire Corp., above.
is Midwest Piping d Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
LAPEER METAL PRODUCTS CO . 1533
party is a successor of a Garland Manufacturing Company of Detroit with whom
the UAW had had contractual relations prior to the advent of the Company, a
question concerning representation could not have arisen as a result of such claims
as the UAW may have made to Garland. No further consideration will be given
to this contention.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will,
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As it has been found that the Respondent discriminated against Charlene King
on October 10; Frances Monroe on October 13; Olive Beardsley on October 24;
Phyllis White on October 26; and Betty Ross on November 11, 1960, the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it offer each of these employees immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position 14 without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, by payment to each of a
sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned from the date of the
discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement less net earnings to be com-
puted on a quarterly basis in a manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289; earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect
upon the backpay liability of any other period.
As it has been found that the Respondent unlawfully assisted and contributed
support to the Teamsters, the effect of this interference, and the Respondent's con-
tinued recognition of that organization as the bargaining representative of its em-
ployees, consitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their
right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing. The Trial Examiner will therefore recommend that the Re-
spondent withdraw and withhold recognition of the Teamsters and refrain from
dealing with it at the Lapeer plant unless and until it shall have been certified by
the Board as the bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees. Having
found that the agreement entered into between the Respondent and the Teamsters
has been a means whereby the Respondent has utilized an employer-assisted labor
organization to frustrate self-organization and to defeat genuine collective bargain-
ing by its employees, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease
giving effect to that agreement between it and the Teamsters or any modification or
extension thereof. Nothing in this recommendation should be taken, however, to
require the Respondent to vary those wages, hours, or other substantive features of
its relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the Respondent has estab-
lished in performance of this agreement.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent, upon reasonable request, make
available to the Board and its agents all payroll and all other records pertinent
to an analysis of the sums due its employees pursuant to the terms of this recom-
mended order.
Having found that the Respondent, by various acts, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act, and
particularly because of the discriminatory discharges of the individuals named
above, and the unlawful assistance given the Teamsters, the Trial Examiner is'
persuaded that the unfair labor practices committed are related to the other unfair
labor practices proscribed and that the danger of their commission in the future is to
be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. Accordingly, in order
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent
cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees
guaranteed by the Act. May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company
v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376, 386-392.
i.In Ross' case the former or substantially equivalent position contemplated relates to
the position she held prior to her transfer to presswork.
1534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel seeks a general reimbursement of dues remedy. In view
of the Board's recent decision in Duralite, Inc., 132 NLRB 425, this remedy does not
appear to be justified. In that proceeding, as in this proceeding, although the
labor organization was not dominated, its existence as the exclusive representative
of the employees arose out of the employer's unlawful recognition and assistance.
In that case the employer announced to its employees by permitting a notice to be
posted to the effect that employment-was dependent upon membership in the labor
organization involved; in the instant case while the complement of employees was
filled the Company through its personnel director informed applicants for employ-
ment to the same effect and also obtained membership cards. In that case a method
for systematic periodic payment of dues by all the employees was accomplished by
permitting union officials to collect dues on company time and property by having
the employees on certain paydays.form a line to pay union dues as they came off
the payroll line; here the same end was accomplished by having the employees
execute,checkoff authorizations-when they were hired.16
However, as under the union-security clause all persons in the Respondent's
employ at the time of the execution of the contract with the Teamsters on August
5, 1960, were required to become and remain members as a condition of employment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day statutory period, it will be recommended that,
within the limitations period of Section 10(b), the Respondent reimburse, these
employees for the dues deducted during their first 30 days of employment and, in
the instances of persons who worked for less than 30 days, that initiation fees deducted
under the checkoff authorizations also be refunded. Further, as deductions were
made from the pay of persons hired after the execution of the contract and during
the 30-day statutory period, it will be recommended that, within the limitations
period, dues be refunded which were deducted during the statutory period and, in
the instances of persons who worked for less than 30 days, that fees deducted under
the checkoff authorizations also be refunded.16
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, of fact and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, and Local 614, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of the employees named
above in the section entitled "The Remedy," the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By recognizing and dealing with the Teamsters as the exclusive representative
of its employees while that organization was not a representative of a majority of its
employees, providing in its contract with the Teamsters for membership in that
organization as a condition of employment, urging and requiring the applicants
for employment to become members of and to authorize the deduction of dues for
the benefit of the Teamsters, and failing to provide in its contract with the Team-
sters for a 30-day statutory grace period for persons in its employ at the time of
the execution of the contract with that organization, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(2),and (3) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct in the section entitled "The conclusions"-inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion-the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
• . 6. The Respondent has not discriminated with- regard to the employment of
Shirley White, Patricia Burch, Ronald Dombrowski, Ismael Rosas, and Ronald
Harley as alleged.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
16 See Harold Hibbard, -et al , d/b/a Hibbard Dowel Co., 113 NLRB 28, as to the state
of the law on this point prior to the Brown-Olds doctrine (115 NLRB-596), which doctrine
was affected by the Supreme Court decision in Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters,
and Joiners, of America, et al. v. N L R B., 365 U S. 651. .
ie See Cadillac Wire Corp, above. It is not contemplated that additional refunds be
.made in those instances where proper refunds have already been made.