LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

SYS-T-MATION, INC. 863
Sys-T-Mation , Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of
LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc . and Forest L. Beebe.
Case 7-CA-8846
August 11, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On March 1, 1972, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings at the hearing but, for the reasons set forth
below, has decided to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's
discharge of employee Forest Beebe violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We find merit in
Respondent's exception to this finding.
The Respondent hired Beebe, as a machinist, on
February 2, 1970. Almost immediately, Beebe began
complaining about the quality of blueprints he was
given to work with. One of the Respondent's foremen
reported this to Lamb, the Respondent's vice
president, and suggested that Beebe, who was then in
probationary status, be discharged, but Lamb de-
clined to take any action. In September and October
!970, Beebe complained to Lamb about delay in
reimbursement for medical expenses from the Res-
pondent's health insurance carrier. After investiga-
tion, Lamb discovered the delay was caused by the
fact that Beebe, holding dual coverage, had simulta-
neously filed a claim with another insurance carrier.
Lamb apprised Beebe of the results of his investiga-
tion, but there is no evidence that Beebe was
criticized either for complaining about the reim-
bursement delay or filing a dual claim.
In December 1970, Beebe approached a business
agent for Local 614, International Brotherhood of
i The circumstances under which Beebe left the office are somewhat in
dispute According to Beebe, he told Lamb that he had a "hot" job on his
machine that needed his immediate attention According to Lamb, Beebe
slammed the chair under the table with his grease-laden hands and stalked
out The Trial Examiner credited Beebe when the two witnesses' version
conflicted
Teamsters, to suggest that the Union organize the
Respondent's plant. The organizational campaign
began in early January 1971; an election was
scheduled for March 16, 1971. Throughout the
campaign, Beebe was the chief union adherent in the
plant. He organized some of the meetings at which
union officials talked to the employees, and he
himself gave speeches on occasion. He also served as
the union's observer at the polls. The election
resulted in a vote of 16 to 10 against union
representation.
With a view toward revamping its entire personnel
policy program, the Respondent, in the ensuing
several weeks, conducted confidential interviews
with each employee, including Beebe, in which
employee criticisms and suggestions concerning the
Respondent's personnel programs were solicited. The
Respondent then drew up a comprehensive new
personnel program, including new policies on wage
increases and plant rules, which was explained at an
employee meeting in early June 1971. That meeting
was followed by more individual meetings between
the Respondent and each employee, including Beebe,
so that each employee would be informed of how the
new wage scale would affect him and how large a
raise he would receive.
On the first payday after the raises went into effect,
Beebe complained to his immediate supervisor, Russ
Morgan, that his raise was less than what he had
been led to believe he would get. The complaint was
investigated. On July 19, 1971, Lamb invited Beebe
to come to his office to talk about his problem. There
Beebe reiterated his grievance concerning his pay-
check. Lamb answered that Beebe had misunder-
stood the extent of his raise and explained why the
amount Beebe actually received in his paycheck was
correct. In the midst of this explanation, Beebe
abruptly arose, pushed his chair under the table, and
left.' The next day, Lamb told Administrative
Assistant Betke to terminate Beebe because of the
attitude shown in the previous day's encounter. After
Betke notified Beebe of his discharge, Beebe request-
ed an audience with Lamb, which was granted. Upon
asking the reasons for his termination, Beebe was
told that Lamb had decided to discharge him
because he could not tolerate his attitude toward the
Company,2 because Beebe could not accept the wage
rate that was given him, and because Beebe could
not extend the courtesy of listening to their explana-
tion of the wage rate. Beebe then filled out his
severance forms and left the plant.
2 At the hearing, Lamb testified that there were attitude-related factors,
not directly communicated to Beebe, which entered into his decision to
discharge Beebe, namely, Beebe's vocally critical attitude when he was first
employed, with respect to the quality of blueprints, and his conduct with
respect to his medical compensation claim
198 NLRB No. 119
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner found this discharge violative
of Section 8(a)(3). His decision was based chiefly on
the relative notoriety of Beebe as the prime union
organizer employed at the plant and the seemingly
insubstantial grounds given by Lamb for Beebe's
discharge. The Trial Examiner noted that the prior
expressions of discontent by Beebe were never the
grounds for admonition or other disciplinary meas-
ures, and that the discourteous refusal to listen to
Lamb's explanation of his wage level would appear
to have called for a lesser penalty than discharge
under the established and published general plant
rules. From all these circumstances, the Trial
Examiner inferred that the reasons given for the
discharge were pretexual and that the real cause of
the discharge was his union activities.
We disagree. We find the record evidence insuffi-
cient to establish a causal relationship between
Beebe's union activity and his discharge. The timing
of the discharge gives us no firm basis for establish-
ing this causal connecter. The discharge occurred
over 6 months after the union activity began, and
over 4 months after the election was over. This is not,
then, a case in which an unexplained discharge
occurs so soon after an employee's embarking on
union activity as to clearly give rise to a reasonable
inference of causal connection. Nor does the record
contain any affirmative evidence of antiunion ani-
mus on the part of Respondent. During the election
campaign, there was no history of preelection
interrogation, promise of benefits, threats of repris-
als, or other indicia of unlawful hostility to the
employees' organizational efforts. And after the
election, the Respondent, after reviewing its person-
nel policies, offered certain benefits of its new
personnel program to all employees, with no dispa-
rate treatment of union advocates. These increased
benefits were, of course, made applicable to Beebe
himself.
Thus the burden of establishing that Beebe's
discharge was discriminatorily motivated has not
been met , and cannot be provided solely by drawing
an inference from what seemed to the Trial Examin-
er, and may seem to us, to have been a rather harsh
penalty for Beebe's offense. Unless there is some
evidence such as close coincidence in time between
union activity and discharge, disparate discipline as
between union and nonunion employees, statements
or acts evidencing animus, or other evidence to link
the discharge with the union activity, we cannot
supply such linkage.
Accordingly, we shall order that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a
charge filed on July 22, 1971, by Forest L. Beebe, a
complaint issued on September 29, 1971, and was thereaf-
ter amended. The amended complaint alleges that on
various dates between February and May 1971, Respon-
dent coercively interrogated employees concerning their
union activities , created the impression of surveillance of
their union activities , and threatened reprisals if they
engaged in union activities or overtly expressed sympathy
for the union. The complaint also alleged that on July 21,
1971, Respondent discharged Forest L. Beebe because of
his union activities . In its answer , Respondent denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me in Detroit , Michigan, on
January I 1 and 12, 1971. At the conclusion of the hearing,
oral argument by counsel for the General Counsel was
heard, and the parties were given leave to file briefs which
have been received from the Respondent.'
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , Sys-T-Mation, Inc., is a wholly owned
subsidiary of La Salle Machine Tool, Inc ., and maintained
its principal office and place of business at Holly,
Michigan , the only location involved in this proceeding. At
the Holly plant , Respondent is engaged in the manufac-
ture , sale, and distribution of machine tools and related
products . During the calendar year 1970, a representative
period , Respondent purchased goods and materials valued
in excess of $50 ,000 which were shipped directly to its plant
from points outside the State of Michigan , and Respondent
sold products valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped from its plant directly to points outside the State of
Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
At the hearing , at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case,
Respondent's motion to dismiss was granted wi th respect to the allegation
of the complaint that Respondent through its supervisor Hank Georges
threatened employees with reprisals if they engaged in union activity or
overtly expressed sympathies for the Union That allegation will not be
considered further herein
SYS-T-MATION, INC.
hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The union activity at the plant and the
election
In late 1971, Forest Beebe, an employee of Respondent,
contacted the Union to suggest that the Union conduct an
organizing campaign among Respondent's employees. In
early January, the Union commenced its campaign. Union
organizers distributed leaflets and authorization cards at
the plant gates. From January to March, employees signed
cards and attended several meetings for Respondent's
employees. Forest Beebe and Paul Weaver were the most
active employees in the plant in support of the Union.
Most of the meetings for employees were arranged by
Beebe with Union Business Agent John Walker, and Beebe
took an active role at the meetings. Among the employees,
Beebe was considered the leader of the union movement.
Beebe's foreman, Russell Morgan, was aware that Beebe
was reputed to be the leader.
In due course, a representation petition was filed and an
election was held on March 16, 1971.2 Beebe served as the
union observer at the election, and particpated in a
preelection conference and the count of the ballots.
Beebe's capacity as union observer was known to Respon-
dent's officials. The election resulted in a vote of 10 for the
Union and 16 against.
Following the election, Respondent posted notices
thanking employees for their vote of confidence in
management and urging that past differences in opinion be
forgotten and that all join together to make Respondent
productive and the best possible place to work.
2. The alleged interrogation and creation of
impression of surveillance
Shortly after the election, James Chapman, vice presi-
dent of Respondent's parent corporation in charge of
personnel policy, came to the plant on several days in
March, April, and May to speak individually with
employees in the plant conference room to learn their
views as to their working conditions and Respondent's
policies and to develop possible matters for inclusion in a
contemplated employee handbook setting forth Respon-
dent's personnel practices and policies. Chapman had
conducted similar interviews at other plants of the parent
corporation in the past.
According to former employee Gerald McKay, during
his interview Chapman asked him what his views were with
respect to the Union, if he knew who had initially
contacted the Union, if he knew an employee named
Virgil, and what Virgil's views were towards the Union.
According to McKay, he told Chapman that he knew who
contacted the Union, that everyone in the place knew, that
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates referred to herein occurred in
1971
3 Initially Beebe testified that when he asked Chapman what made him
865
as far as he knew Virgil was against the Union, and that he
preferred the Union, but he could work with it or without
it.
According to Paul Weaver, during his interview with
Chapman, he mentioned to Chapman that he and Beebe
were two of the employees who were pushing the Union
and Chapman replied, "We know that."
According to Beebe, at the start of his interview
Chapman asked him why he went to the union hall, and he
replied by asking what made Chapman think that he was
the one who went there. Beebe testified that Chapman
replied that Beebe knew he was the one, and Beebe then
said he would take credit for it. Beebe testified that in
response to Chapman' s initial question he voiced a number
of complaints that he had about compensation and
working conditions.3
Chapman testified that to his knowledge he did not ask
any employee about his sympathies for the Union and that
he was certain that he did not ask any employee to name
any other employee who had engaged in union activity.
With respect to his interview with Beebe , Chapman
testified that it was possible that some conversation
developed as a result of the fact that he had seen Beebe as
an observer of the election, but that he did not recall any
direct conversation. He testified that they talked about
situations that affected Beebe and what Beebe felt was
wrong and could be done to improve the company. He
testified that he did not recall asking Beebe why he wanted
the Union or telling Beebe that he knew that he was the
one who went to the Union or Beebe's response to that
remark. He testified that he did not recall any conversation
about the Union with Weaver or telling Weaver that he
knew who was pushing for the Union, because he did not
know who it was.
I have credited Weaver and Beebe in their versions of
their interviews with Chapman. While Chapman was
certain that he did not ask the questions attributed to him
by McKay, his denials of the testimony of Weaver and
Beebe were less assured. Moreover, I am inclined to doubt
his asserted reason for his denial that he told Weaver they
knew he and Beebe were pushing the Union in view of
Foreman Morgan's testimony that he was aware that
Beebe was the reputed leader of the union activity and
Morgan's statements to Weaver described below. However,
I do not credit McKay that Chapman went beyond what
Beebe and Weaver attributed to him and asked McKay if
he knew who contacted the Union or the views of Virgil
towards the Union. Although all employees were inter-
viewed, McKay was the only one to testify to such
questions, and there is reason to believe that Chapman
already knew who the union leaders were. In sum, I credit
Weaver and Beebe, but not McKay, as to what was said
about the Union during Chapman's interviews with
employees following the election.
Following the election on two occasions, Weaver asked
Foreman Morgan what was going to happen and suggested
that he might have to look for a job. Morgan replied that
he would not need to look for ajob and that to the best of
think that Beebe was the one who went to the Union, Chapman replied,
We know you are" He testified later that his affidavit showed that
Chapman stated, "You know you are "
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his knowledge Respondent would take no reprisals against
the employees. In one of their conversations, Morgan also
said that Respondent knew who was behind the union
organizing attempt. Morgan mentioned no names?
3. The wage increases and Beebe's complaint
about his wage increase
In early June, Respondent held a meeting of all its
employees at which the employees were given a new
employee handbook and its contents were described. At
the same time, employees were told that Respondent was
establishing a new classification and rate system, which
was described to them in general terms. The employees
were also told that individual conferences would be held
shortly at which each employee's skills would be evaluated
relative to his classification and he would be told his
individual rate.
Following the general meeting, Chapman and Donald
Lamb, who was then a vice president and general manager
of Respondent, held individual meetings with employees at
which they were told their classifications and new wage
rates. Beebe was told that he was classified as a machinist
and would receive an increase consisting of three parts.
Eight cents an hour, which was to be retroactive to
February, was a cost of living increase. The remainder, to
become effective July 5, consisted of a 15-cent-an-hour
general increase and an additional 13-cent-an-hour merit
increase. Chapman and Lamb also told Beebe that he
would receive merit increases in addition. Beebe was not
told that there was a ceiling on what was to be paid in his
classification as of July 5, that he was being paid the
ceiling, or that his pay would thereafter be the same as the
other machinists. Beebe apparently understood Chapman
and Lamb to tell him that he was to receive a 15-cent
hourly merit increase at that time and left the meeting with
that impression.
Beebe was one of three machinists employed by
Respondent and was the first of them hired after
Respondent commenced operations. Prior to July 5,
Griffin was paid $4.47 an hour, and the other two
machinists, Griffin and Neely, were paid respectively 2
cents and 9 cents an hour less than Beebe. At the time of
the evaluation, Griffin and Neely were given larger merit
increases than Beebe so as to put all of them at the same
$4.83 rate
Following the evaluation meetings, Beebe told Griffin
that he was getting a 15-cent-an-hour increase and Griffin
said that he was getting the same.
On July 15, when Beebe received his first paycheck
reflecting the raise, he discovered that his rate was $4.83 an
hour rather than $4.85 an hour as he had expected. Beebe
commented to Griffin that he had been "screwed" out of 2
cents an hour by Respondent and that he was going to get
the 2 cents back. He went to his Foreman Morgan, told
Morgan that he expected to receive 15 cents an hour rather
than 13 cents as a merit increase, and showed Morgan his
paystub. Morgan took the paystub and said he would
inquire about it. The next day, Betke , assistant plant
manager, came to his machine and told Beebe that he had
checked the records and confirmed that he had been paid
at the proper rate . Beebe told Betke that he did not feel it
was right , that he had been cut 2 cents an hour , and that he
had understood on the date that he was evaluated that he
would receive a 15-cent raise . Betke said he would check
into it further . Later Betke told Beebe that Lamb would
speak to him about it the following Monday.
On Monday, July 19, Lamb went to Beebe 's machine
and said he understood that Beebe wanted to talk to him.
Beebe told Lamb he felt he was being shortchanged 2 cents
an hour and showed Lamb his paystubs . Lamb said he
would check his records and left . He returned , told Beebe
that his records showed Beebe was being properly paid,
and invited Beebe into his office to talk about it.
In his office , Lamb told Beebe that he had misunder-
stood and that he had been given only 13 cents an hour as
a merit increase. Beebe said he did not think he had
misunderstood and explained why he believed he had
correctly understood Lamb and Chapman at the evalua-
tion meeting . Lamb sought to explain further why Beebe
was wrong . Beebe , who was then working on what he
described as a "hot" job, told Lamb he had a hot job on his
machine and was going back to work . He rose , pushed his
chair under the table , and left.5
4. Beebe's discharge
On the next day, July 20, Beebe reported for work as
usual. During the morning, Morgan came to his machine
and told him he was wanted in Betke's office. Morgan
accompanied him and, before entering Betke's office,
Morgan told Beebe that he wanted Beebe to know that he
had nothing to do with it and that it was not his idea. In
Betke's office, Betke told Beebe that he was discharged as
of 10:30 that morning for insubordination. Beebe asked
Morgan if he had ever refused to do anything that he was
asked. Morgan said no, and Beebe said he was being
discriminated against. Beebe asked who had decided to fire
him, and Betke replied that it was Lamb. Beebe then asked
if he could talk to Lamb; Betke checked and said that
Lamb would see him.
Beebe and Morgan went to Lamb's office. Lamb told
Beebe that he had decided to fire him because he could not
tolerate his attitude towards the Company, because Beebe
could not accept the wage rate that was given him, and
because Beebe could not extend the courtesy of listening to
their explanation. Lamb told Beebe that if he could not be
satisfied they would terminate him. Beebe asked if it were
not a person's right to voice his opinion, and Lamb said
that it was. Beebe left Lamb's office, filled out a severance
form, and left the plant.
B. Concluding Findings
The complaint alleges that the statements of Chapman
and Morgan to employees after the election constituted
4 Weaver's testimony as to these conversations in uncontradicted and is job" he was working on before he left, but Lamb testified that he did not
credited recall whether Beebe said anything when he got up and left because he was
5 Both Beebe and Lamb testified to this conversation and their testimony somewhat upset at Beebe's reaction to the wage increase and what he was
is no essential dispute Only Beebe mentioned that he referred to the "hot told I have credited Beebe
SYS-T-MATION, INC. 867
unlawful interrogation and creation of impression of
surveillance. I have found that both Chapman and Morgan
indicated to Weaver that Respondent was aware of the
identity of the leaders in the union campaign. Morgan at
the same time assured Weaver that he did not need to look
for a job and that there would be no reprisals and indeed,
in each instance involving Weaver, it appears that it was
Weaver who first raised the subject of the Union, after
which Chapman and Morgan made their remarks. As the
work force was small, the identity of the leaders was
common knowledge in the plant, and the election was over
when these remarks were made, I find that the remarks of
Chapman and Morgan to Weaver did not create the
impression of unlawful surveillance of his union activities.
I have also found that Chapman took the initiative of
raising the matter of the Union in his interview of Beebe
and sought to ascertain why Beebe had contacted the
Union. When Beebe asked what made Chapman think he
was the one, Chapman simply asserted that Beebe knew
that he was, conveying that Chapman entertained no
doubt. Chapman was an official of Respondent's parent
corporation, and the interview was not a routine occur-
rence in the plant. Had the interview occurred before the
election, the conclusion would follow that Chapman's
questioning of Beebe was coercive. But as the election was
over, as Beebe had served as the Union's observer, as his
union activities were widely known, and as no threats of
reprisal were made at any time during the interview, I find
that Chapman's questioning of Beebe was not unlawful
interrogation and did not create the impression of unlawful
surveillance. At the same time, it is also apparent that in
interviewing Beebe and other employees to acquire
material for use in developing future personnel policies,
Chapman sought to learn what had been the causes of the
union activity in the plant so as to develop policies which
would take past causes of employee dissatisfaction into
account.
The remaining issue is whether Beebe's discharge in July,
4 months after the election, was caused by his union
activities. The reason stated by Lamb to Beebe for his
discharge was his attitude, and Lamb testified that it was
Beebe's attitude toward the wage increase and reflections
of his attitude in earlier incidents which caused him to
decide to terminate Beebe. With respect to the wage
increase, Lamb testified that it was Beebe's reluctance to
accept company policy and to listen with reason to their
explanation of the raise which was objectionable. With
respect to the earlier indications of Beebe's attitude, Lamb
testified that throughout Beebe's employment he was
dissatisfied with his tools, with the drawings he was given,
and with the manner in which the work he was assigned
was processed. As a further indication of Beebe's attitude,
Lamb mentioned a complaint by Beebe about the
processing of a medical insurance claim before the
election.
I am persuaded that a significant aspect of Beebe's
attitude which caused Lamb to discharge Beebe was
Beebe's role in the union activity. There is little question
that after the election, Respondent made a concentrated
effort by adopting a system of job classifications , granting
wage increases , and compiling a manual of personnel
policies to eliminate past sources of dissatisfaction and to
improve working conditions for the employees. As stated
in its March 18 and 19 notices to employees , Respondent
sought to have past differences over the merits of
representation forgotten , and it aimed to work even closer
together with the employees in the future . Beebe's
complaint over his increase was a discordant note in the
attempt to eliminate differences in the plant.
Taken by itself , Beebe 's complaint over his wage increase
would seem almost too trivial , even if unreasonable, to
warrant serious retribution . Indeed Lamb himself seems to
have recognized this, for he testified that he relied not only
on the complaint about the wage increase , but on Beebe's
past complaints about working conditions and about the
processing of his insurance claim as well . While Lamb
asserted that these past complaints entered into his
assessment of Beebe's attitude , he denied that Beebe's
more recent union activities entered into his determination.
Yet Lamb testified that he viewed Beebe's complaint over
the increase as a refusal to accept company policy, and
there is no more certain indication of a refusal to accept
company policy than an attempt to bring in a union to
represent the employees in bargaining over company
policy. I cannot believe that in reviewing Beebe's attitudi-
nal history, Lamb ignored the single clearest indication in
Beebe 's recent past that he was not disposed to accept
Respondent 's policies as handed down by management but
reached back to rely on claimed earlier manifestations of
that attitude. Rather the inference is strong that Lamb
regarded Beebe's complaint about the wage increase as
signaling that Respondent 's recent changes in wages and
working conditions had not succeeded in changing the
attitude Beebe manifested in leading the attempt to
organize the plant.
To be sure , Lamb denied that he knew of Beebe 's union
activity other than that he served as union observer at the
election . Serving as an observer in itself is usually an
indication of strong union support, but, in any event, I do
not credit Lamb's denial in the light of Morgan's
testimony , Morgan's statement to Weaver , and my findings
above as to Chapman's interviews with Beebe and Weaver.
I find that Lamb was aware of Beebe's leadership role in
the organizing effort.
There is little in Beebe's work-related complaints or his
complaint about his insurance claim to support Lamb's
claimed reliance upon them. According to Lamb, shortly
after Beebe started work, his then supervisor, Hank
Georges, told Lamb of Beebe's work-related dissatisfac-
tions and recommended that Beebe not be permitted to
complete his probationary period. Lamb believed that
Georges spoke to Beebe about his dissatisfaction with
Beebe at that time. Georges did not testify, and Beebe
denied that he had ever been warned about his work or
how he got along with other employees or management. In
any event , although Lamb testified that Beebe's work-
related complaints continued throughout Beebe's employ-
ment, there is no evidence that Lamb or Georges ever
spoke to Beebe about them after the end of Beebe's
probationary period, and indeed, Morgan, who became
Beebe 's supervisor after Georges , testified that he got along
all right with Beebe, that Beebe was a good worker, and
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had no problems with Beebe after the time that
Beebe complained about the processing of his insurance
claim.6 It follows that if Beebe's conduct continued
unchanged after his probationary period, Respondent
considered it unexceptional and no basis for discipline
until the date of his discharge.
It is significant in this regard that Lamb did not consult
Morgan, Beebe's immediate foreman, before deciding to
terminate Beebe. Although Lamb testified that he called
both Betke and Morgan in on the morning of July 20, after
Beebe's visit to his office, told them of his intention to
discharge Beebe, and asked for their comments, Morgan
denied that he was consulted. A memorandum to Chap-
man produced by Lamb which purportedly confirmed the
consultation failed to do so. The memorandum, dated July
19 in two places, reported the incident with Beebe to
Chapman. Although it stated that the incident had been
reviewed with Morgan and Betke, it did not state that there
had been any discussion of Beebe's planned discharge with
them. In fact it said nothing whatsoever about plans to
discharge Beebe and indicated that the report was
submitted to Chapman for his information only. I credit
Morgan that he was not consulted as to the decision to
discharge Beebe. In the light of Lamb's failure to consult
Morgan about Beebe's discharge, Morgan's testimony that
he had no problems with Beebe in the last several months
of his employment, and the absence of any evidence that
anyone spoke to Beebe about his complaints after the early
days of his employment, there is substantial reason to
conclude that Beebe's alleged continuing work-related
complaints were makeweights added by Lamb tojustify his
decision and not substantial reasons for it.
Turning to Beebe's complaint about his insurance claim,
Lamb's testimony clearly exaggerated the gravity of that
incident as an indication of Beebe's attitude. Beebe's
complaint stemmed from delay by Respondent's insurance
carrier in satisfying a claim Beebe had filed. Beebe, who
had dual coverage, had filed claims with two insurance
companies. Lamb discovered that the reason for the delay
was that Beebe had filed two claims and the companies
involved were checking on liability. Lamb testified that he
objected not only to the fact that Beebe was voicing the
opinion that Respondent was "screwing" him out of his
insurance claim, but that he was concerned because of the
possibility that it might have been dishonest for Beebe to
have made two claims and that he thought it was improper.
Yet nothing in Respondent's insurance plan prohibited
such claims. The claim form provided by Respondent's
carrier had a blank for disclosing dual coverage, and Beebe
disclosed his dual coverage on the claim. The only basis for
concern of Respondent in this incident would appear to be
that then, as in July, Beebe was outspoken in criticizing
Respondent's administration of employee benefits. While
Lamb testified that he spoke to Beebe at the time of
6 There is in fact no evidence that Morgan had problems with Beebe at
any time
7 In addition to the procedure set forth for discipline in its work rules,
Respondent's employee handbook states "The involuntary termination of
an employee is the most drastic action a Company can take In view of the
seriousness of involuntary terminations, the Company will exercise the
utmost care and will consider all available facts should such action be
required " The handbook and rules together set forth a clear policy against
Beebe's complaint over the insurance claim , his testimony
indicates that he sought only to explain the situation to
Beebe and did not criticize Beebe's conduct. At that time
before the election, even in the light of his knowledge of
Beebe's work-related complaints, Lamb did not deem
Beebe's conduct as even the occasion for oral reprimand.
Yet, after the election, despite the recent adoption of
plant rules which set forth a procedure for progressive
disciplinary actions,7 Lamb concededly did not follow that
procedure and immediately discharged Beebe for com-
plaining about the wage increase . Lamb sought to explain
his departure from the rules as a conscious decision based
upon his belief that the rules applied only to conduct and
not to attitude. However, attitude is reflected only by
conduct and, when Betke originally informed Beebe of his
discharge, he told Beebe he was discharged for insubordi-
nation, as offense covered by the rules and one which
usually reflects the kind of offensive attitude described by
Lamb. Although Lamb referred to two other discharges in
which the procedure set forth in the rules was not followed,
one discharge was of McKay, a probationary employee,
and the other was of Strauser, an engineer in a managerial
capacity a Neither situation was comparable to that of
Beebe. Lamb's explanation for his departure from the
procedure set forth in the rules has more the sound of
rationalization than of rationale. Beebe's work was good.
There was no reason why Beebe's complaint about his
wages could not have been dealt with through usual
disciplinary procedures unless there were overriding
reasons why in July the demonstration of an attitude of
refusal to accept company policy made undesirable any
efforts to correct and retain an otherwise satisfactory
employee after claimed demonstrations of that attitude in
the past had been ignored. I find that overriding reason in
Beebe's role in the organizing campaign which intervened
between Beebe's earlier and latest manifestations of
attitude.
In sum, I do not credit Lamb's explanation of Beebe's
discharge and find that the manifestation of Beebe's
attitude in his complaint about his pay would not have
resulted in Beebe's discharge but for the fact that he had
previously reflected an attitude of refusing to accept
company policy by instigating and leading the union
activities in the plant .9 Accordingly, I find that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Beebe.
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 the operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
discharge except as a last resort and in favor of lesser forms of discipline in
the attempt to correct employee faults
R Although the exact nature of Strauser's duties was not developed, he
was not in the unit in which the election was held and, after he was
discharged, his job was filled by Georges. who had been a foreman, in what
was described as a lateral transfer
9 See Shattuck-Denn Mining Corp, v. N L R B 362 F 2d, 466 (C A 9),
Virginia Meialcrafiers, Inc, 158 NLRB 958, enfd 387 F 2d 379 (C A 4)
SYS-T-MATION, INC. 869
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
ment , 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 discriminatonly
discharged Forest L. Beebe on July 20, 1971, 1 shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists , to a substantially' equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges , and to make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by payment to him of the
amount he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date of an offer of reinstate-
1. Sys-T-Mation, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By discharging Forest L. Beebe on July 20, 1971,
because of his union activities , Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.)