Litton Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 793 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ERIE MARINE, INC. 793
Erie Marine, Inc., Division of Litton Industries and
Louis E.,Yoezle
Erie Marine,, Inc., Division of Litton Industries and
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Local 151, AFL-CIO , - -
Erie Marine, Inc., Division •of Litton Industries and
Local Union No. 642-of the International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, : AFL-CIO. Cases 6-CA-4907,
6-CA-5034, and 6-CA 5050
August 19, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On February $19, 1971, , Trial Examiner Alba B.
Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
alleged, in the complaint and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as, set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial, Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as ` amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers-in ,connection with this proceeding 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, the briefs, rand
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,I conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial- Examiner only to, the extent consistent
herewith.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
violated Section, 8(a)(1) , of the Act by Supervisor
Shasteen's statement to employee Yoezle that he
"might stand -a chance of -getting fired" for writing
"Did you sign the card?" in large letters on ^ the side
of a vessel then under construction in Respondent's
shipyard because Respondent through the writing
referred to a union card. We disagree.
In finding that this warning constituted a threat
against Yoezle's job because of suspected union
activity, the Trial Examiner apparently overlooked
the fact that Respondent had in effect at that-time a
no-solicitation rule forbidding:
Soliciting for personal gain or soliciting for any
other purposes within ' the plant, during working
time.
The General Counsel has not alleged that this rule, is
unlawful. We find that Shasteen's remark to Yoezle
was a lawful description of one possible-consequence
of Yoezle's violating the valid no-solicitation rule
then in force. Accordingly, we shall dismiss this
Iallegation of the complaint.
2. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating
and maintaining on and after March 12, 1970, a no-
distribution rule barring:
distributing written ^ or printed literature , during
working time or in such a manner as to litter- the
plant. [Emphasis supplied.]'
We disagree.
The Trial Examiner construed the emphasized
portion of the above-quoted rule, as "impliedly
preclud[ing] distributions during non-working time
in non-working areas of the plant ...." We find
that interpretation of the rule unwarranted. The plain
meaning of the portion of the - rule at, issue is, ,that
only those 'distributions which, cause, litter in the
plant are prohibited. Clearly, in working areas of,
Respondent's shipbuilding plant, , where -welding
torches and similar equipment ,are used, ;a rule
against littering is a reasonable restraint , on i the
employees' right to distribute literature. Likewise, in
nonworking areas of the plant, a rule which: merely
limits the distribution of, written or printed matter in
a manner causing litter is reasonable.z In the absence
of evidence that Respondent has applied the above,
rule so as to unlawfully preclude the distribution of
literature in nonworking areas of the. plant during
nonworking time, we find, that Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating
and maintaining the foregoing -no-distribution rule.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
3. We agree with the Trial- Examiner's, finding
that the Communications Session Committee' is a
labor, organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act and that within the 10(b) period
3 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the 544, 1 enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We find no such basis for disturbing
Trial Examiner . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in-these cases.
Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear 2 See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, 630 (dissenting
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces 'us that the opinion). -
resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB `
192 NLRB No. 119
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
beginning January 22, 1970, Respondent dominated
its administration in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act. ' Respondent contends that, the General
CounseLhas, not shown by .a preponderance of the
evidence that Respondent dominated the Committee
after January 22. We find no merit in this exception.
When called by the General Counsel as an 'adverse
witness, Industrial, Relations -Manager George testi-
fied,that since January 1,010, the Committee had, met
"probably four, maybe five" times, including approx-
imately within a month of, the hearing held from
September 22-30, 1970. While George did not think
that Respondent had a,practice of holding monthly,
meetings, the :record. reveals that meetings were
convened on that basis 'at least during the
July-October 1969 period., We find from the above,
in, agreement with the, Trial Examiner, that the
evidence ;adduced by the General Counsel supports
the reasonable inference that within the 10(b) period
commencing January 22, 1970, Respondent has held
meetings with the Committee and thus violated
Section 8(a)(2)'of the Act;
4. - The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
discharged employee Yoezle because of his concerted,
and suspected union activities in violation of ' Section
8(a)(3). Viand (1) ` of the - Act. ' We.. disagree.
'Yoezle was hired by Respondent'in July 1969'after
an interview earlier-that month in Pittsburgh' with
George, who was then Respondent's assistant indus-
trial relations manager. There George inquired
whether Yoezle was a union member since he 'had'
listed "ir°ooworke'r" is an occupation on his exnpl"oy-
rnentapplication. After'an-affirmativeresponse from
Yoezle; George asked' if he would mind working'in a,
nonunion shop `and `Yoezle indicated no objection.
'About a" `month later; Yoezle and coworker Calf o,
who had-been hired with Yoezle, met with' Res'pon-
dent's then Industrial Relations Manager Bouchard
and' George to discuss the two employees' promised
wage- raises. When Bouchard left the meeting to,
inquire -about ^ the status, of their job evaluations,
George remarked 'to"Yoezle and Calfo that he- was
not too sure .about then: since he thought that they
had come to Erie to' 'organize the union. The
Boilermakers was 4eafletting the plant at the time.
There is - nothing: in the record to indicate that the
employees' raises were withheld.
In November 1969, Yoezle was selected by .Re-
spondent to -be . a member of the Communications
Session Committee., At or about the same time, he
was' transferred. to the second shift and appointed
that 'shift's safety man, a post requiring him to
inspect the plant and equipment during the shift and
make sure that work activities were carried on safely.
,3
As noted above, while Yoezle's'conduct ostensibly violated Respon-
dent's valid no-solicitation rule, no disciplinary action was taken against
Yoezle received 30 cents-more per hour as compensa-
tion for his added duties and responsibilities,as safety
man.
-Yoezle took his duties seriously as amember' of the
Committee. For example, he processed,, several
employees' grievances directly to George .rather than
through their immediate supervisor, , Kotyuk. This
prompted Kotyuk, in November 1969, to remind the
second shift employees whom=he supervised that they'
were to,,bringtheir'complaints,'-to'him. Kotyuk-also
informed Yoezle'thathe should goless frequently to
the industrial relations office,-and that when he{"did
go there, Yoezle should tell Kotyuk.'when he-was
leaving the shop floor. In early December 1969,
George had occasion, at a meeting of employees, to
inform them that Yoezle was not the official
interpreter of the (employee handbook.. This state-
ment by George was made after Yoezle interpreted a
portion of that document -in 'answering a` fellow
worker's question at the meeting. -
About December 10, 1969, Yoezle was asked by
employee Morgan to request-_ another "employee,
Nedzelski, to sign ' the card which the'-second' shift
employees were' sending with ,the= secondu'shift's
Christmas gift- to the plant nurse. When Yoezle saw
Nedzelski oh' the plant floor below where Yoezle' was
working and shouted to him, Nedzelskisignalled that
he could' not hear Yoezle. Yoezle = then wrote on the,'
side of the-Vessel-on which he was working,-"Did you
sign the card?" This incident' came to George's
attention. He asked Supervisor Shasteen who wrote it
and if it referred to signing a union card, After telling
George,that he'disagreedwith -George's assessment
that Yoezle was a union organizer, Shasteen sought
out the truth by meeting with ,Yoezle: 'Yoezle= told
Shasteen that + the sign referred to a Christmas card,
not union organizing, and Shasteen -presumably
reported this thereafter to George .3
On New Year's Eve, December 31, 1,969, several of
Respondent's employees met after work, at the' CYS
Club in Erie, Pennsylvania.,,>While`Tthere ex=Superin-.
tendent Lange, who' had'.-that day ' left' his` position'
with 'Respondent; warned,-, Yoezle and employee
Dissell that George was out to get them because he
believed that they^were union. organizers . Lange also
stated that Respondent believed that they were^paid
union organizers. Shortly thereafter, Dissell met with
Eldred, Respondent's manufacturing manager; Gab-
bard, :Dissell's 'supervi'sor; and George.' Dissell: }had
requested the ; meeting,ain (,,view of La' nge's 'story.'
Respondent assured,) Dissell'that Lange's warning
had no basis in fact.. Yoezle did not seek a meeting ,
with George.
On January 7,-1970, Yoezle received a written first
him when George learned thetruth , surroundingthe incident.
ERIE MARINE, INC. 795
warning fora safety infraction involving his failure
to remove, unused arc_ air rods from a , possible
walking areagin:the plant. The General Counsel has
not alleged that this, disciplinary action against
Yoezle was unlawfully motivated.
Yoezle was discharged on January 23, 1970,
because he threw on a switch, to a 20-ton crane which
had been tagged as being nonoperative. At the time
Yoezle was terminated, Respondent did -not have in
effect, a plant rule requiring that a red safety. tag be
placed on- all. electrical switches when they were shut
off.4 However, ,all employees were expected to use
ordinary commonsense and check the area to see if
anyone was working near exposed conductors, etc.,
before turning on, the electricity.,, Moreover, the tag
on one side stated:
DANGER
I)o Not Throw Switch
Men At Work On Circuit
and on the other:
Do Not Remove This Tag.
To Do So Without Authority_
Will Mean Immediate Discharge.
It, Is Here For A Purpose.
See Other Side.
An incident involving Supervisor Buehl, which
pointed up the necessity for a red tag, occurred about
January 21, 1970. Then employee Helsley and others
were working near the 20-ton crane's conductor rail.
The conductor rail is similar to that used to supply
power to railroad and subway cars and carries a fatal
440 volts. Helsley"had placed a,homemade sign on
the switch which stated in effect that men were'
working on the,`rail and" not to, throw the switch. A
while later, _ Helsley -noticed that the 'crane was,
operative "and he hollered for someone to turn the
switch off. Supervisor Kuehl was foindoperating,the
crane ; Helsley's homemade sign had apparently
fallen 'to the.floor'from the switch. No disciplinary
action was taken against Buehl.
Helsley was' thereafter told by his supervisor,
Rohan, to get a -red tag for the switch from chief
electrician Bostaph and-he, did so. Helsley'signed the
tag' after being 'told, by, Bostaph that only the man
4_ The Trial Examiner found that the personnel notification form handed
to Yoezle when he was dismissed contained a statement that this "is clearly
defined on the tag and in the rule book and the employee is dismissed." 'He
found- that;since George had apparently crossed out the phrase "the tag and
in," George was confused as An' where the alleged rule appeared . However,
who signed it- could remove the-, tag. In addition, to
tagging the switch, Helsley and certain supervisors
thereafter padlocked the switch in order ton takema
doubly sure , that the electricity was not turned-,on
while men were working in the vicinity of the crane
rail.
On the day of the incident leading to Yoezle's
discharge, Helsley and his first shift coworkers were
working overtime near the 20-ton crane rail when
Yoezle's second shift crew was assigned to work with
them. When .Helsley's crew: eventually left work.that
afternoon, Helsley told Yoezle that, he (Helsley)
would have to remove the tag , because he had ,siigned
it and only he could- remove,, it. Helsley told Yoezle
that the latter should get another, red.-tag put on the
switch and that it was available in the electrical
department. Yoezle Aid not get, a-, red, tag; and
apparently assumed that Helsley would not turn the
power on.
Afterwards, Yoezle and his crew were working in
the area of the crane when Yoezle noticed that the
crane was running.- Yoezle asked Supervisor Kotyuk
who had turned the crane on, but Kotyuk did not
know. Since neither Kotyuk nor Yoezle knew the
location of the switch, second shift-electrician Carroll
was called and he turned th"ower off and tagged
the switch. Carroll then informed Yoezle:that the tag
would "keep somebody from turning the switch: on"
while the men were working on the rail. He also told
Yoezle where the crane switch was.
Later that evening, employee Morris-told Yoezle
that his- crew needed to use _ the,' erane. After
attempting to find Kotyuk to secure his approval for
turning on the switch activating the crane; Yoezle
and Morris agreed in Kotyuk's absence that'Yoezle's
crew would take a late lunch during` which time
Morris' -men could, use the '-crane. When Yoezle's'
crew went to lunch, he checked that the -danger area
was clear around the crane-and' threw the power on
without removing the red tag. After lunch, Yoezle's
crew resumed working near the crane. About an hour
later,'both 'Kotyuk and Carroll-noticed that the
power to the crane was,-on . Morris'-told Kotyuk, at
this time that Yoezle had 'turned"the power ' on. -He
also commented that he -did not believe' Yoezle had
turned it off; Morris neglected to tell Kotyuk that
Yoezle' had thrown the switch at' - his request.
Kotyuk asked °Yoezle if, he had turned the power'
on that night and the latter said that he had. Kotyuk
asked him if he believed that he had a right to turn
the switch on and ' Yoezle replied affirmatively.
the record clearly reveals, through ,Supervisor Kotyuk's testimony, that the
line through the phrase cited by_the Trial Examiner exists because Ko
had underlined the phrase "without authority" in the sentence aboved
not because George , had, crossed out: the words "the tag , and in."'
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kotyuk,then` informed Yoezle that he- was, going to
give him a warning . Thereafter
.
he, and Carroll
prepared the personnel -notification form to that
effect. It stated that Yoezle ` was being disciplined for
throwing ` on' the 20-ton'crane switch without-
authori-ty while it was tagged out. I ,
The next, morning George found the notification
form on ' his desk because ' he had to approve
Kotyuk' ss action before giving ' Yoezle the warning
slip. George checked with Manufacturing Manager
Eldred who stated that the' offense warranted
discharge . When Yoezle was given the slip the next
day the box marked "warning" was checked off but
under "Remarks" was the statement that Eldred had
assumed responsibility for Yoezle's discharge . Yoezle
protested that it was only a warning but Kotyuk
insisted = that ' it -was a discharge, and Yoezle -left his
work-station to see George.
In George's office, George told Yoezle that the
offense, committed by Yoezle was throwing a switch
that had been tagged ., George called chief electrician
Bostaph into the meeting but, since Bostaph knew
nothing of the - incident, George called Carroll at
home and : the latter stated that he thought, the
offense was `' serious. . This meeting occurred on
Friday, January 23 ; on the following Monday Yoezle
met with 'Eldred and- George . His discharge was
upheld., Yoezle told Eldred that he would throw the
switch again while it was tagged because, as the head
safety man on the shift, he had the right to determine
whether it was,safeto start the crane.
The Trial. Examiner found that George thought or
suspected that Yoezle was a union organizer and,that
Respondent, in. , January 1970, was - seeking an
opportunity to =rid itself of, Yoezle because of his
concerted , and suspected union activities . The oppor-
tunity, occurred , according to, the Trial Examiner,
when Yoezle admitted throwing, the switch.
Yoezle testified that while employed by Respon-
dent he .had not engaged in activity on behalf of the
Iron Workers or ... any other union., He denied
distributing or receiving authorization cards for any
union during this period,, although at all relevant
times, , unions , were, handbilhng Respondent's em-
ployees -,at the shipyard. Thus , despite the active
organizing effort of various unions at , the plant
during this period ,, Respondent had no overt indica-
tions that Yoezzle , was involved in- any of these
campaigns, nor could it have since Yoezle denied
having participated in them.
Respondent knew , that Yoezle was a member of the
Boilermakers since he had told George this prior to
being hired. However, about a month later, Ge'orge'
in effect admitted to Yoezle and Calfo that his initial-
belief that they were- union organizers, had proven
erroneous . And, in November 1969, Respondent
assigned Yoezle to two important positions-second-
shift safety -man (with a ' 30-cent-per-hour pay
increase) and Communications Session Committee
member, which is hardly indicative of hostility to
him. Yoezle 's zealousness as"a committeeman appar-
ently upset his immediate supervisor, Kotyuk. Ko-
tyuk, however, was clearly within ' his rights as a
supervisor when he ; asked his subordinates to bring
their complaints to him. Also the request that Yoezle
tell Kotyuk when Yoezle "left` work to meet with
George was reasonable . George's comment that
Yoezle was not the official ' interpreter of the
employee handbook was similarly reasonable under
the circumstances . We find, therefore, contrary to the
Trial Examiner, that, although there was evidence of
some irritation with Yoezle 's activities, ` the prepon-
derance . of the testimony does not establish that
Respondent in December, 1969 , or thereafter, sought
to rid itself of Yoezle' because of his concerted
activities.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's
theretofore expressed suspicion that Yoezle was a
union organizer, was bolstered by the Christmas card
incident. However, even assuming , arguendo, that
George then still harbored a lingering belief that
Yoezle was a union organizer despite having been
employed by Respondent for 5 months without
engaging in any overt organizational activity, the fact
is that Shasteen - told George that the sign on the
vessel referred to a Christmas card , not an authoriza-
tion card, and thereafter no disciplinary action was
taken against Yoezle even though his conduct
violated Respondent's , valid no-solicitation rule.
Moreover , Lange's New Year's Eve comments ,to
Dissell and Yoezle do not support the Trial Examin-
er's theory that Respondent sought .to disiiiiss-Yoezle
because he was suspected of being a union organizer.
Significantly, while Dissell_ was,fearful of his job and
thereafter was told by Respondent that, Lange's tale
was, unfounded, ' Yoezle, who admittedly was not a
union organizer, did not even bother ` to check with
Respondent as to the truth of Lan$e's.,assertions. The
inference that we draw from , this is that Yoezle,
having recently been given two positions of responsi-
bility by Respondent, did, not believe Lange's
statement that George was out to get him, especially
since Yoezle knew then that he had one nothing to
warrant Respondent's believing that he was a union
organizer. We find, therefore, . ' from„ the above,
contrary , to the Trial, Examiner , that on January, 22,
1970, Respondent` was not seeking an opportunity. to
discharge Yoezle because it . believed or _ suspected
that he was a union organizer or otherwise'engaged
in.union ' activities.
The Trial Examiner concluded that .- Respondent
relied upon` the switch incident as a pretext to
ERIE MARINE, INC
effectuate Yoezle's discharge for concerted and
union activities. In particular; the Trial Examiner
noted that a similar incident involving Supervisor
Buehl a few days ' before Yoezle's termination went
unpunished.
It is clear that Buehl did not commit the same
offense ascribed to Yoezle. Respondent did not have
a rule requiring that red tags be placed, on all
switches when power was off, and in Buehl's, case he
apparently followed the - then plant practice of
ascertaining that the danger area was clear before
turning on the power to the crane. However, as a
result of Buehi's conduct, Helsley was instructed to
obtain and use a red tag when shutting off the power
for the crane. When. Helsley's crew,left:work on the
day that Yoezle committed the act leading to his
dismissal, Helsley.specifically told Yoezle that he was
removing the tag and that Yoezle should obtain a tag
from, the electrical` department. Yoezle did not do so.
We find no merit in the General Counsel' s assertion
that Yoezle did . not have to follow Helsley's
suggestion since the, latter , was not a supervisor.
Yoezle was the second shift safety man and 'should
have been aware -of the-,safety factors involved in
tagging out a line carrying 440 volts.' -
In any event, Yoezle''s failure to `tag the line was
not-the basis for, his discharge. Later that evening,
Yoezle discovered that.the power was on while men
were working in, the vicinity .The record does not
permit the conclusion -that Helsley turned the power
on when he left and, -in , fact, none of the witnesses
testifying to the , incident knew, . how the power
happened to be on. However, when Yoezle discussed
the situation with Kotyuk they summoned electrician
'Carroll who tagged the switch and told Yoezle that it
should protect his crew.
Whether Yoezle simply failed to turn-the switch off
after allowing Morris' crew to use the crane while
Yoezle: and his men ate lunch, or someone else threw
the switch despite the existence of the tag cannot be
determined from the record. However,, after being
told by Morris ;that Yoezle-had-turned the power on
for him and probably-forgot to turn it off, Kotyuk,
who too had seen that the crane was running, spoke
with .Yoezle, who admitted having turned, on the
tagged switch-that night. 'Kotyuk -and Carroll then
prepared the ' warning,-slip -which Eldred converted
into a discharge-the next day.
The Trial- Examiner, noted that - ;at the hearing
Respondent stated that , the sole reason for Yoezle's
discharge was that, without authority, he had thrown
a switch which bad been tagged out, avwritten on the
personnel notification slip. This is, in fact, what
Yoezle did. The Trial Examiner concluded that no
such `rule _ existed. However, - the tag, which we
presume-Yoezle saw, clearly stated that while it was
797
affixed to the switch , no one was to throw on, the
circuit's power. The Trial Examiner also bolstered-his
conclusion that Respondent -in essence fabricated the
rule by noting that George crossed out certain parts
of the personnel notification , form,, but as found in
footnote 4 above, this had -- not happened.
The Trial Examiner's finding that -Respondent did
not investigate the incident , is- also not. supported `by
the record. Rather, on two occasions Yoezle had an
opportunity to discuss what happened with company
officials . However, instead of then explaining what
he had done, Yoezle merely reiterated that since- he
was the head safety man on the shift he had the right
to determine whether it, was safe to start the crane
even though it was tagged out. Obviously, it was this
kind of personal decision with ; its potential-: for a
fatality that, the red tag's use was ,designed to. avoid.
With a tag affixed, no one but the, electrician: orythe
employee who attached they tag could remove it and
then turn on, the power. Yoezle apparently-failed to
grasp this distinction -and his discharge was upheld
by Eldred on Monday, January 26, 1970.
Finally, as noted above, the Trial Examiner
concluded that Respondent engaged in disparate
disciplinary, treatment-of employees by, discharging
Yoezle but failing to punish Buehl.. However,- it is
clear that the two employees, committed different
acts involving the 20-ton crane switch. Yoezle threw
on a switch which had a safety tag clearly stating
"Do Not ,Throw Switch," whereas Buehl ;apparently
followed then existing plant practice when he .threw
the untagged switch. We find,.therefore, contrary-to
the Trial Examiner, that Respondent did not ,engage
in disparate treatment when it, disciplined Yoezle but
not Buehl. Moreover, unlike the Trial Examiner, We
do not find that the harsh -penalty of - discharging
Yoezle was inconsistent with Respondent's actions in
disciplining employees who failed to close gas,torch
lines during lunchtime or, at the- end of their shift. In
the absence of proof that the failure to close a gas
torch line is as serious a safety .infraction as turning
on a 440-volt electrical line which is supposed to be
off, we, do not find, support for the Trial Examiner's
finding that Respondent engaged in,disparate treat-
ment when it discharged Yoezle.but, less severely
punished those employees who failed to clossethe gas
lines. In sum, we, find that the General Counsel has
not established by a preponderance of the. evidence
that Respondent used the switch-throwing , incident
as. an unlawful pretext to discharge, employee Yoezle.
Accordingly, we , shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint. '
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
Delete Conclusion 3 .of the Trial Examiner's
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.Conclusions, of Law and- substitute therefor the
.following
3.. By threatening. an --employee that - he, was
jeopardizing his job by, getting involved with a union
and by-, threatening that if,, a union got into the plant
existing- employee wages and benefits would be, taken
away ;and ,=new ones, negotiated with the union,
Respondent , has violated and is violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Delete> Conclusion 5 of the Trial Examiner's
Conclusions ,of Law and-renumber the remaining
conclusion accordingly.
ORDER
Pursuant to -Section 10(c) of the National 'Labor
Relations' "Act, "as; "amended, the National _, Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Erie Marine, Inc,; -Division of Litton Industries, Erie,
Pennsylvania, its 'officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall,take the following action: '
1. ° Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating the administration of the Commu-
nications Session Committee and otherwise interfer-
ing with the representation of its-employees, through
a 'labor organization Of their own choosing
(b), Threatening' employees that they will - be
jeopardizing their jobs if, they get involved' with a
union.
(c) ,Threatening employees that if a union gets into
the plant existing wages ' and benefits will be taken
away- and new ones negotiated' with the union.
(d) In, any ,like or related manner interfering with,
restraining,- or coercing" its employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor 'organization, or to engage in other
concerted a activities 'for the purpose of collective
bargaining or', other mutual aid or protection, or ^ to
refrain from any, and -all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action; which
the Board finds is necessary to effectuate'the policies
of the Act: j' '
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Communica-
tions Session Committee and ' completely disestablish
it, or any successor thereto, as a bargaining repre-
sentative of, any of its employees.
(b) Post'at its plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, copies of
the attached notice,marked "Appendix:"e Copies of
said notice, on :forms provided by the Regional
Director for, Region 6, after, being duly signed 'by
Respondent's representative,' shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days I thereaf-
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be
tier, in conspicuous' including, all places where
notices =to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall betaken by, Respondent _ to insure
that said, notices are, not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director; for Region. 6,, in
writing, within=2q days from the date of this Order,
what -,steps the, Respondent has taken to comply
herewith. `- I - I'll- I
IT =IS FURTHER.oRDERED that the complaint be,, and
it;hereby is, dismissed insofar as it .alleges violations
of the Act not' specifically found herein,
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting. in part:
I agree with the Trial Examiner'-s finding that
Shasteen's, .remarks to Yoezle 2 that the Respondent
thought the. writing on the side,of the vessel referred
to a union :card and that he might get, discharged
over it constituted a.threat against Yoezle's job and
was clearly violative of, Section' 8(a)(1). I, view this
remark, as did the'TrialrExaminer, in..the context, of
Respondent's 'other unfair labor, practices, including
its warning to Kaiser that he wasjeopardizing his job
by getting involved, with the Union. Respondent's
unfair'labor practices reveal complete hostility to all
outside unions, and.it was this hostility which lead pto
Shasteen's,remark, not. Respondent's concern.over a
possible violation of its no-solicitation rule. Indeed,
the, credited' record, evidence' plainly, - shows, that
Respondent was concerned>