Liberty Coach Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1433 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

LIBERTY COACH COMPANY. INC.
Liberty Coach Company , Inc. and International
Union of Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-2921
August 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On February 12, 1968, Trial Examiner Melvin
Pollack issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. The Trial Examiner also recommended
dismissal of certain other allegations of unfair labor
practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs; the Charging Party
filed exceptions;' and the Respondent filed a reply
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent con-
sistent herewith.
The 8(a)(3) Violation
Employee Willis Newby worked on a roof crew
for the* Respondent from February 1966_ to Sep-
tember 5, 1967. He was an active member of the
Union's organizing committee, and the Union so
advised the Respondent by a letter in September
1966 which named the members of the committee.
' The Charging Party also filed a request for oral argument before the
Board Since the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the
contentions of the parties , the Charging Party's request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
2 According to Respondent 's testimony , the card of Amos Yoder was
also pulled Although Yoder had several days prior thereto told another
employee that he was quitting , Respondent contends that it had no
knowledge of Yoder's decision , and argues that its action in also pulling
172 NLRB No. 154
1433
The Union won an election on October 28, 1966,
and was certified by the Board on August 15, 1967.
A week after the certification, Newby passed out
union handbills to employees as they left the plant.
The handbill named Newby as a member of the
Union's "Administrative Committee." Newby had
also distributed handbills some seven or eight times
prior to the election. On August 25, Respondent
sent a letter to its employees stating that it would
not bargain with the Union.
On August 30, a fire at the Respondent's plant
forced a shutdown of the plant. President Hussey
informed the employees (about 200) on August 30
that he wanted to resume production "by Friday"
but they "would probably have to shoot for
Tuesday" (September 5). The plant reopened on
September 5. Newby did not report for work that
morning . No word having been received from
Newby by 10:30 a.m., Respondent's President Hus-
sey ordered that Newby's timecard be pulled.'
About 2 p.m., Newby called the plant and asked
Superintendent Warren, "Are you working?" War-
ren answered "yes," and then informed Newby that
he had been discharged. The next morning, at the
plant, Newby explained to Warren that his phone
had been out of order and he could not call in until
2 p.m., and that he would have reported for work if
he had known they were going to work. Vice Pre-
sident Weaver told him that he had been
discharged because "everybody had been to work"
the previous day.
The Trial Examiner found that the fire at the
plant occurred during the Respondent's busy
season, and that it was urgent for the Respondent
to get back into production as soon as possible. In
these circumstances, the Trial Examiner believed
that the Respondent's decision to discharge Newby
for "lack of interest"in failing to report for work or
to call in his absence when production resumed on
September 5 was not so patently unreasonable as to
warrant an inference of discriminatory motivation.
The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel
had failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Respondent discharged Newby to
discourage support of the Union, and that, there-
fore, Newby was not discharged by the Respondent
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's failure to find that Newby's discharge was
Yoder's card demonstrates that it was even -handedly discharging any em-
ployee who failed to report in on September 5 Two employees testified
that Yoder's card was not in fact in the rack at any time on September 5,
which would indicate that Respondent had been made aware of Yoder's
voluntary termination . We find significant in this regard the admission of
Superintendent Warren that, in need of a roofing man on September 5, he
allegedly attempted to call Newby but did not try to contact Yoder.
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 19
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in violation of Section 8(a)(3). He asserts that cer-
tain alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) by
Respondent which occurred after the Board's cer-
tification of the Union demonstrates that Respon-
dent was still resisting the Union's certification,
and, after a long election campaign , the Respon-
dent immediately reacted by manifesting a new dis-
play of union hostility. According to the General
Counsel, Respondent seized upon its first opportu-
nity to take reprisals against the Union 's success by
discriminatorily discharging Willis Newby, thereby
demonstrating to all its employees the fate of
dedicated union leaders . The General Counsel as-
serts that the Respondent's claim that Newby's
discharge was predicated on his failure to report his
absence on September 5 was pretextual.
We believe that the General Counsel has proved
his case of discriminatory discharge. It is un-
disputed that prior to the date of his discharge
Newby had never had an unreported absence dur-
ing his 18 months' employment by the Respondent.
Moreover, the record clearly shows that both be-
fore and after Newby's discharge no other em-
ployee received discipline as severe as discharge for
a single unreported absence. Employee Rapp was
absent and failed to notify the Respondent in April
1967, and was neither criticized nor discharged.
Employee Campbell missed a day's work in 1967
and did not call in; he received no reprimand and
was still working at the time of the hearing.
Respondent asserts that it became disturbed by the
excessive number of unreported absences among its
employees and in July or August 1967 admonished
the employees to call in if they would be unable to
report for work. But the record shows that, on Au-
gust 29, a week before Newby was fired, employee
Ben Yoder received only a written "final warning"
for the offenses of "failure to report in when ab-
sent ," "excessive absenteeism ," and "excessive
tardiness," and only after receipt of such a warning
was he discharged on September 16 for "absentee-
ism-failure to report in when absent." On
November 21, employee Baker , whose record
showed "excessive absenteeism," was simply given
a "first written warning" and apparently continued
in Respondent's employ. And the evidence further
shows that in a case almost identical to Newby's
employee Pinkerton was absent on October 30 and
did not call in until the afternoon to explain his
absence. Unlike Newby, Pinkerton was not peremp-
torily discharged. Pinkerton's punishment was
limited to a "first written warning."
This evidence of the disparate treatment ac-
corded Newby, an active union partisan, is most
damaging to Respondent 's defense and is not in our
view satisfactorily reconciled by Respondent's as-
sertion that the first day of work after the fire was
of particular significance. While we have no doubt
that Respondent was quite anxious to resume
production as quickly and fully as possible, it must
have known that its stated intention on the preced-
ing Wednesday to try to reopen on the following
Tuesday could have been regarded as only a tenta-
tive projection by some of its employees. Further-
more, the unreported absence of 1 man from a
work force of 200 employees could hardly have
represented a truly detrimental setback to Respond-
ent. Lastly, the abrupt decision to terminate
Newby finally for "lack of interest" at 10:30 a.m. of
the first morning of work after the fire, when
Respondent was, as it says, truly concerned about
catching up on production, rings hollow when
viewed in the light of Respondent's need for ex-
perienced workers and Newby's previously un-
blemished attendance record. Newby's first mo-
mentary showing of a "lack of interest" provoked a
penalty apparently reserved, both before and after
his discharge, for extreme cases of rule violations.
On this evidence, and considering as well the
postcertification hostility directed by Respondent
against the Union, which will be discussed below,
we find that the reason given for Willis Newby's
discharge on September 5, 1967, was a pretext, and
that the Respondent was in fact motivated to
discharge him in reprisal for his activities on behalf
of the Union. We therefore conclude that his
discharge was in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
The 8(a)(1) Violations
The Trial Examiner concluded that three in-
cidents, alleged in the amended complaint as viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1), did not offend that provi-
sion of the Act. The record establishes that about
mid-September 1967 Vice President Weaver asked
employee Giengerich "who the guys in the Union
were." Giengerich named three employees who
were "on the board of the committee." The Trial
Examiner found that the question was essentially
noncoercive, since the Union had previously
furnished the Respondent with the names of em-
ployees active on the Union's behalf and there was
evidence that employees had openly and freely en-
gaged in union activity at the plant. We differ with
the Trial Examiner's evaluation. The question was a
broad inquiry into the union sentiments of the em-
ployees, indicating that the Respondent's
knowledge of its employees' union affiliation was
less complete than it desired or the Trial Examiner
found it to be. Giengerich's cautious answer implies
a trepidation on his part to supply the Respondent
with any more information than it already likely
possessed. In the circumstances related, we believe
LIBERTY COACH COMPANY, INC.
that the request for information as to the identity of
union members , made without justification or ap-
parent legitimate purpose , was an unlawful coercive
intrusion into employee affairs.
The record also shows that Superintendent War-
ren asked employee Schrock about September 30,
1967, how he felt about the Union . When Schrock
said he thought it would be a good thing , Warren
expressed disagreement , saying that he thought Pre-
sident Hussey had been in the mobile home busi-
ness too long and would do something to "dis-
courage" the union committee and the employees.
On November 30, Warren asked Schrock if he
was going to a meeting of the union commit-
tee. Upon Schrock 's affirmative reply, Warren said
if Schrock did so , he would be the "craziest fool
that works at Liberty Coach." The Trial Examiner
found that these remarks were not "implied threats
of economic reprisal ." In our view, such comments
clearly would have tended to have an intimidatory
effect upon Schrock , especially when that em-
ployee considered the remarks together . One obvi-
ously significant way in which an employer could
"discourage . . . the employees" was by way of
economic reprisal , and if Schrock 's attendance at a
union committee meeting would make him the
"craziest fool that works at Liberty Coach," the
implication was clear that such activity by Schrock
was a perilous undertaking.
We find the three conversations discussed above
to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and we shall
amend the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order
accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We adopt the Trial Examiner 's Conclusions of
Law as stated in his Decision and add the following:
"7. By coercively interrogating and threatening
its employees concerning their protected activities
and those of other employees , Respondent has in-
terfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act."
"8. By discharging Willis Newby because of his
union membership and activities, Respondent has
engaged in discrimination to discourage member-
ship in the Union, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and
(1) of the Act."
THE REMEDY
In addition to the remedy recommended by the
Trial Examiner , we shall order that Respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and
1435
take certain affirmative action, specified below,
which we find necessary to remedy and to remove
the effects of the unfair labor practices.
We shall order that Respondent offer Willis
Newby immediate and full reinstatement to the
position which he held at the time of the dis-
crimination against him or to a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges . We shall
further order that Respondent make him whole for
any loss of earnings suffered because of its dis-
crimination against him by paying him a sum of
money equal to that which he would have been
paid by Respondent from the date of the dis-
crimination against him to the date on which
Respondent offers reinstatement as aforesaid, less
his net earnings , if any , during the said period. The
loss of earnings under the order recommended shall
be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respon-
dent , Liberty Coach Company , Inc., Syracuse, Indi-
ana, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with International Union
of Electrical , Radio , and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed at the Respondent 's Syracuse, Indi-
ana, establishment, excluding all office clerical
employees , all mobile home haulaway
truckdrivers , guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in International
Union of Electrical , Radio , and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO , or in any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging employees , or dis-
criminating in any other manner in respect to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
(c) Interrogating its employees regarding their
or other employees ' union activities , sympathies, or
membership in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals for
participating in union activities protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer to Willis Newby immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, and make whim whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Notify Willis Newby if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right
to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(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,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due and the right of reinstate-
ment under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Syracuse , Indiana, place of busi-
ness copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix. "3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 25, after being
duly signed by the Respondent 's representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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 Region 25,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
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 "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing 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 National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL N OT refuse to bargain collectively
with International Union of Electrical , Radio,
and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In-
ternational Union of Electrical , Radio, and
Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, or any labor or-
ganization by discriminatorily discharging em-
ployees, or discriminating in any other manner
in respect to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment , or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their or other employees' union ac-
tivities, sympathies , or membership or threaten
our employees with reprisal for their union ac-
tivities, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint , or coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Willis Newby immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against him.
WE WILL notify Willis Newby if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union as the exclusive represen-
tative of all our employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of
pay, wages , hours , and other terms and condi-
tions of employment , and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at the Respondent's
Syracuse, Indiana, establishment , exclud-
ing all office clerical employees , all mobile
LIBERTY COACH COMPANY, INC. 1437
home haulaway truckdrivers, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
LIBERTY COACH
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
ana. During the 12-month period preceding the is-
suance of the complaint, Respondent manufac-
tured, sold, and distributed from its Syracuse plant
finished products valued at more than $50,000 to
points outside Indiana. I find, as Respondent ad-
mits, that Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone
317-633-8921.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard at Goshen, Indiana, on December 14 and 15,
1967, pursuant to a complaint issued on October
24, 1967, upon a charge filed by the International
Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. The complaint,
as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union despite a Board
certification in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended;
discharged Willis Newby in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act; and interrogated and
threatened employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel and the
Respondent have filed briefs which I have carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record,' including my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Indiana corporation, manufac-
tures mobile homes at its plant in Syracuse, Indi-
' The transcript of testimony is hereby corrected pursuant to motions
filed by General Counsel and the Respondent , except for the correction to
p 145, 1 1 proposed by the General Counsel and opposed by the Respon-
dent The General Counsel and the Respondent have proposed somewhat
dissimilar corrections to p 43, II 24-25, p 113,11 11-13, and p 137,11
16-18 1 consider the differences unimportant and adopt the Respondent's
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio, and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Refusal To Bargain
Pursuant to representation proceedings under
Section 9 of the Act, the Board on August 15,
1967, certified the Union as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the production and main-
tenance employees at Respondent's Syracuse, Indi-
ana, plant. Respondent challenged the validity of
the certification and on August 17, 1967, refused to
bargain with the Union. Respondent claims no
newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence, or other special circumstances warranting
my reexamination of the Board's determinations in
the representation proceedings. I find that Respon-
dent has refused to bargain with the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
B. The Discharge of Willis Newby
Willis Newby worked on the roof crew at the
Syracuse plant from February 1966 until his
discharge on September 5, 1967. Newby signed a
union card on August 26, 1966, and became a
member of the Union's organizing committee. The
Union on September 26, 1966, sent a letter to Ed-
ward Hussey, Respondent's president, advising him
that the Union was conducting an organizational
campaign at the plant and that 13 named em-
ployees, including Newby, had been authorized to
organize in behalf of the Union. Pursuant to a peti-
tion filed by the Union, the Board conducted an
election at the plant on October 28, 1966. Before
the election, Newby passed out union cards to about
12 employees during break- and lunch-time, and
also distributed union handbills about seven or
eight times at a plant gate after work. Along with
other employees, he wore a union button 2 or 3
inches in diameter. A week after the Board certifi-
cation of the Union on August 15, 1967, Newby
proposed corrections I also consider unimportant certain inaccuracies and
omissions pointed out by Respondent In my opinion, the transcript as cor-
rected accurately reports the material testimony at the hearing I therefore
reject the Respondent 's request that I find the transcript so "patently and
completely unreliable " as to impeach its validity
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distributed a union handbill to employees as they
left the plant. He offered a handbill to his foreman,
Karl Hoover, who refused to take it. The handbill,
which was issued by the Union's "Administrative
Committee" and named the nine employees who
composed it, including Newby, evoked a reply from
President Hussey a few days later.
A fire in Respondent's cabinet department on
Wednesday, August 30, 1967, forced a layoff of
production department employees until September
5. President Hussey told the production employees
on August 30 that he wanted to resume production
"by Friday" but they "would probably have to
shoot for Tuesday" and work a 9-hour day through
Saturday.
Hussey testified that he and others worked "day
and night" and had the plant ready for operation by
Tuesday morning, September 5. A check about
10:30 a.m. that day showed that, except for Newby
and Amos Yoder,2 Respondent's 200 employees
had reported in or had informed Respondent why
they were unable to work. Hussey instructed Plant
Superintendent Charles Warren to "pull" the cards
of Newby and Yoder.
About 2 p.m., in a telephone conversation,
Newby asked Superintendent Warren, "Are you
working?" Warren said "yes" and informed Newby
that his card had been pulled and that he had been
replaced. The next morning at the plant, Newby
told Warren that his telephone had been out of
order Tuesday morning and that he would have re-
ported for work if he had known "they was going to
work." He also said that he had "a little upset
stomach" but that he would have been in anyhow if
he knew the plant was in operation. Later that
morning, Newby spoke to Vice President Harold
Weaver who told him that he had been discharged
because "everybody had been to work" the previ-
ous day.
The record shows that Newby had a good work
record free from unreported absences before his
discharge on September 5, 1967, that Respondent
neither before nor after September 5 discharged
any employee for a single, unreported absence, that
Newby was active in behalf of the Union, and that
Respondent knew of his union activity. The record
also shows, however, that the fire in Respondent's
cabinet shop on August 30, 1967, occurred during
Respondent's busy season, and that it was urgent
for Respondent to get back into production as soon
as possible. In these circumstances , President Hus-
sey's decision to discharge Newby for "lack of in-
terest" in failing to report for work or to call in his
absence when production resumed on September 5,
was not so patently unreasonable, to say the least,
as to warrant an inference of discriminatory
motivation. Newby's explanation, that he did not
know the plant would operate on Tuesday, un-
derstandably did not satisfy Respondent as it ap-
pears that no other of Respondent's 200 employees
had any doubt about Hussey's remarks on August
30 to the effect that the plant would reopen on
Tuesday and that the employees would work a 9-
hour day through Saturday I note further that
Newby was but one of quite a few active union sup-
porters and that his discharge occurred in a setting
free of unfair labor practices other than Respon-
dent's "technical" violation of Section 8(a)(5).
I find that the General Counsel has failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent discharged Newby to discourage sup-
port of the Union.
C. Interrogation and Threats
Employee Larry Giengerich testified that about 2
weeks after the August 30 fire, he told Vice Pre-
sident Harold Weaver, in response to Weaver's
inquiry about the Union, that employees Graff,
Rapp, and Campbell were "on the board on the
committee."
Amos Schrock testified that about September 30,
1967, Superintendent Warren asked him how he
felt about the Union and he replied that he thought
it would be a good thing. Warren disagreed, saying
that he thought President Hussey would do
something to discourage the union committee and
the employees.
Schrock further testified that Warren asked him
on November 30, 1967, if he was going to a meet-
ing of the union committee and, when Schrock in-
dicated that he was, told him that if he did so, he
would be "the craziest fool that works at Liberty
Coach." Warren also asked Schrock if the Union
was sending out more literature.
The record shows that the Union furnished
Respondent with the names of the employees active
in its behalf, that the names of these employees ap-
peared on leaflets distributed by the Union, and
that employees openly engaged in union activity at
the plant free from unlawful interference by the
Respondent. In this noncoercive setting, I find that
S Amos Yoder, a roof crew man, requested an employee the day after the
fire to tell Foreman Karl Hoover that he had quit Respondent 's employ
Another roof crew man , Ray Cupp , also quit Respondent 's employ be-
fore work resumed on September 5 About 7 15 am on September 5
Respondent sent two newly hired men , Elden Kemp and Lloyd Yoder to
work on roofs Roof crew men Clyde Campbell and Floyd Rapp testified
that Amos Yoder's timecard , unlike Newby's, was not in the timeclock
"out" rack at any time on September 5 The General Counsel argues that
this evidence shows that Respondent knew that Amos Yoder had quit be-
fore September 5, and that its purported discharge of Yoder that day was
an attempt to hide the discriminatory motivation for discharging Newby
Assuming that the absence from the timerack on September 5 of Yoder's
card indicates that someone in Respondent 's employ knew Yoder had
quit , it does not follow that President Hussey or Superintendent Warren,
who were concerned with more urgent matters, were necessarily so in-
formed. Nor does it follow from the sending of two newly hired men on
the morning of September 5 to supplement the roof crew that Hussey or
Warren knew that Amos Yoder as well as Chupp had quit before Sep-
tember 5 As only three of a normal six-man roof crew reported for work
on Tuesday morning , it was entirely reasonable for Respondent to assign
two of at least three employees hired that morning to supplement the
roof crew
LIBERTY COACH COMPANY. INC. 1439
Weaver's interrogation of Giengerich in mid-Sep-
tember, and Warren's interrogation of Schrock on
September 30 and November 30, would not tend to
restrain employees in their support of the Union. I
similarly find that Warren's remarks to Schrock
that Hussey would do something to discourage em-
ployee support of the Union, and that he thought
Schrock would be "the craziest fool" if he attended
a union committee meeting, were not implied
threats of economic reprisal.
I conclude that Respondent did not unlawfully in-
terrogate or threaten employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Liberty Coach Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio, and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees
employed at the Respondent's Syracuse, Indiana,
plant, excluding all office clerical employees, all
mobile home haulaway truckdrivers, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since August 15, 1967, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about August 17, 1967, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the employees
of the Respondent in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby en-
gaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
[Recommended Order omitted from publica-
tion. ]