Logan Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1586 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Tele-
phone 534-3161.
Logan Manufacturing Company and United Packinghouse, Food
& Allied Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA.-3861, 3881-1, and -2.
February 10, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 12, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
unlawfully promulgated and enforced a rule against union solicita-
tion in the plant in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. However,
the Board has held in interpreting similarly worded no-solicitation
rules that they are presumptively valid and that an employer may
lawfully prevent his employees from soliciting for a union during
i The Respondent excepts to certain statements in the Trial Examiner 's Decision on
the ground that they are not supported by the record We find merit in the Respondent's
exceptions and hereby correct the statements ; however, these corrections in no way affect
our agreement with the Trial Examiner's ultimate findings herein: (1) the Trial Examiner
stated (footnote 2 of Trial Examiner 's Decision ) that Josephine Brown denied making a
comment to employee Hardison in the presence of Floorlady Humford, whereas the record
reveals that Floorlady Humford was present when Gertie Meador , not Josephine Brown,
made a comment to employee Hardison ; ( 2) the Trial Examiner stated ( fourth paragraph
of section -III, A, 6 ), that on January 11, 1966 , Roy White had said to employee Welch,
"we've been told that you are working for the union ," whereas the record reveals that
White made that statement to employee Hardison; ( 3) the Trial Examiner stated ( fourth
paragraph of section III, A, 7), that Lee opened the door of the motel room and saw
Saylor outside the door , whereas the record reveals that Hardison , not Lee, opened the
door.
162 NLRB No. 148.
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1587
working hours provided the rule is not promulgated or enforced for
a discriminatory purpose.2 For this reason, we do not adopt the Trial
Examiner's comment that the rule here was presumptively illegal and
invalid. Instead, in reaching the conclusion that Respondent's no-
solicitation rule violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, we rely solely
on the ground that the record evidence establishes that the rule was
promulgated and enforced for a discriminatory purpose.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Paragraph 1 is amended by deleting paragraph 1(b) and add-
ing the following as paragraphs 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and 1(e) :
[" (b) Threatening its employees with loss of employment or clos-
ing of the plant because of their choice of a collective-bargaining
representative.
[" (c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership
and activities or the union activities and membership of other
employees.
[" (d) Discriminatorily promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing a
rule prohibiting employees from soliciting on behalf of the union.
[" (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Packinghouse,
Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such a right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959."
[2. Delete the paragraph following paragraph 2(d) and substitute
the following :
["IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint as
to Bobbie Mullin be, and they hereby are, dismissed."
[3. Delete the fifth full paragraph of Appendix A attached to the
Trial Examiner's report and substitute the following :
[WE WILL NOT discriminatorily promulgate, maintain, or
enforce any rule prohibiting our employees from soliciting on
behalf of a union.
2 Pepsi Cola Bottlers of Miami, Inc , 155 NLRB 527; Wm. H. Block Company, 150
NLRB 341.
1588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The sixth indented paragraph of Appendix A is amended to read :
[WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United
Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent such a right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of , employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on March 8 and 29, 1966 , respectively, by United Pack-
inghouse , Food , & Allied Workers , AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union
or Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter called the General Counsel ' and the Board , respectively, by the
Regional Director for Region 9, Cincinnati , Ohio, issued its complaint dated
May 4 , 1966 , against Logan Manufacturing Company , hereinafter called the
Respondent.
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as
amended , herein called the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing thereon was held in Bowling Green , Kentucky, on
June 21 , 22, and 23 , 1966 , before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson . All parties
appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel or representatives, and
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine, and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence and material pertinent to the issues . At the con-
clusion of the hearing, oral argument was waived . Briefs were received from
Respondent and General Counsel on August 8, 1966.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged , the answer admitted, and I find that Logan Manufactur-
ing Company is a Kentucky corporation engaged in the manufacture of men's
trousers with its office and plant located in Russellville , Kentucky. During the past
12 months, which is a representative period , Respondent had a direct outflow of
goods in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000, which it sold and shipped
from its Russellville , Kentucky, plant to points directly outside the State of
Kentucky.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent at all times material herein was engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION INVOLVED ---
United Packinghouse , Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
'This term specifically includes the attorneys appearing for the General Counsel at
the hearing.
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1589
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. In general -
The Union's organizing effort among Respondent's employees got underway with
a meeting in early November 1965, at employee Geraldine Offutt's home. This
meeting was attended by Union Organizer Robert McCuiston, Local Union Presi-
dent Rainwater of the Swift plant , and Respondent 's employees Offutt , Ruth Epley,
and Geraldine Hadden, all of whom signed union authorization cards that evening
and constituted themselves into an employee Organizing Committee.
During November and December 1965, this group held two mass meetings for
Respondent's employees at the nearby Coon Range Gun Club which were attended
by as many as 150 employees from Respondent's plant. At the first of these meet-
ings it was announced that an employees' Organizing Committee had been estab-
lished. At the request of Respondent's maintenance man, Grahm, the existing Com-
mittee of Offutt, Epley, and Hadden was publicly announced, introduced, and
stood up. When further volunteers for this Committee were requested, some 50
employees volunteered. Among those who volunteered and subsequently actively
worked on the Organizing Committee were employees Anna Jean Lee, Dorothy
Hardison, and Gertrude Welch. All of these persons executed union authorization
cards and were active in soliciting such signed cards from employees through house
calls, meetings, and at other nonworking times.
This organizing campaign was soon known to Respondent . In fact early in Novem-
ber and at least 2 weeks before he became Respondent's president and plant man-
ager on November 19, James Ford, who was at that time instituting a training
program at Respondent's plant, was told about it by the then Plant Manager
Spears.
As early as December 1 just prior to one of these mass meetings, Assistant Plant
Manager Roy White, who did not testify at the hearing although available, had
two conversations with employee Lester McPherson. On that morning White
approached McPherson, stated that he was going to "stick his neck out" and ask
how McPherson felt about the Union. McPherson, despite having joined the
employees' Organizing Committee, answered that he would have nothing to do
with it. Subsequently during that afternoon White approached McPherson again
and asked McPherson to attend the union mass meeting that evening and let
Respondent know what went on there. When McPherson refused, White com-
mented, "I don't blame you."
On or about December 9, 1965, Ford and his superior, Respondent's Vice Presi-
dent Hayes, met with the assembled employees. During his speech to them Hayes
announced that it was "against the law" to solicit union memberships on company
time and that anyone caught "soliciting for the Union on company time would
be automatically discharged." Ford and Hayes further informed the assembled
employees that Respondent had never had a union, was opposed to a union, would
never have a union, and would oppose the Union by every "legal" means possible.
During the early months of 1966 a rumor persisted throughout the plant that
the Respondent would close or move the plant if the Union got in. This rumor was
so persistent as to upset Respondent 's supervisory personnel so that Vice President
Hayes took cognizance of it on one of his trips to the plant by telling the super-
visory and office personnel-and according to Ford; on one occasion even the
assembled employees-that , although Respondent did not want a union, it was
doing everything possible to keep the plant operating. This statement Hayes inter-
spersed with stories of various plants which had closed their doors with the advent
of a union. Despite Hayes' assurances various floorladies such as Humford, Jose-
phine Brown, and Gertie Meador undeniably continued to notify employees that
Respondent was going to close the plant because of the "damn" Union.2
On or about January 11 Assistant Plant Manager White approached employee
Dorothy Hardison at her machine telling her that he "had been sent to talk to
her" because "we've been told that you are working for the Union " White then
2Although Josephine Brown did deny having made such comment to employee Hardison
in the presence of Floorlady Humford, it is significant that Humford was not called to
corroborate Brown's denial and that Gertie Meador likewise was not called to deny hav-
ing made a.similar remark Under these circumstances f can put little , if any, credence
in Brown's denial. -
1590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proceeded to argue strenuously against the Union. Although Hardison was not
convinced, she did tell White that she "never would work on company time."
Thus it was soon obvious that Respondent did, in fact, intend to fight the Union
by every means possible, legal or otherwise.
2. The discharge of Mary Hudnall
On January 28, 1966, Plant Manager Ford hired the totally unexperienced Mary
Hudnall because she passed a dexterity examination well and he thought she would
make a good employee. During her prehire interview Ford told Hudnall that "this
is a nonunion plant and we want it to stay that way." Hudnall answered that she
had never worked for a union but that her father had been a member of the
Miners' Union. Ford replied, "We sure don't want one here." Ford hired Hudnall
and told her further that Respondent gave new girls 150 hours of training and
then raised their pay to $1.15 per hour and, after another training period of 150
hours, again raised them to $1.25 per hour.
Hudnall went to work on January 29 and proved to be a slow learner while
working under trainers Katherine Woodal and Nellie Johnson. She improved but
she improved slowly.
About the middle of February Hudnall signed a union authorization card.
On March 3 Nellie Johnson took Hudnall into the office where Roy White and
Floorlady Brown were present. After a few minutes of conversation regarding her
work, White changed the subject by saying, "We heard you signed a card for the
Union." When Hudnall admitted the fact, White inquired where she got the card.
But, despite White's insistence , Hudnall refused to divulge the name of the person
who gave her the authorization card. White then told Hudnall that Respondent
did not want a union in the plant and that "They had to get rid of anyone for the
Union." Hudnall stated that she was sorry she had signed the card but White gave
her strict instructions not to try to get her signed card back for fear that that would
be traced to Respondent. He then permitted Hudnall to return to work.
The following day about 2 p.m. Assistant Floorlady Josephine Brown came to
examine some work Hudnall had just completed. After finding a couple of errors,
Brown told Hudnall, "I've been asked to talk to you and see how you stand . . . .
Will you give us the name of who gave you the card?" Hudnall again refused on
the ground that she had promised not to do so. After remarking that "we want to
know who's for us and who's against us," Johnson pleaded that Respondent's plant
was a good place to work, that she had worked there 18 years but that, if the
Union got in , Respondent was going to close the plant down and she did not know
how she would make her living. After Hudnall persisted in her refusal, Brown
stated that "They had to find out who was for and who was against them" because
"they were going to have to get rid of the ones for the Union." When Hudnall
stated that she would probably vote against the Union in an election, Brown said,
"We can't let it come to a vote. We've got to get rid of the ones for the Union
before it ever comes to a vote."
About 40 minutes after Josephine Brown had departed after this conversation,
Floorlady Bee Renfro informed Hudnall that she "was sorry" but that Respondent
was going to have to let Hudnall go because "You're not making production . . .
White says for me to tell you that we just can 't use you any longer."
Respondent attempted to explain these interrogations of Hudnall on the ground
that there was "confusion" in the unit in which Hudnall was working. The follow-
ing testimony of Josephine Brown reveals quite explicitly just what that "confusion"
really was:
A. (JOSEPHINE BROWN.) Well, we just , I was talking trying to show her
(Hudnall) the points , the advantages of her job, you know. How to, try to
show her how to make it a little easier for her, and what she was doing wrong.
And, they had told me to try to find out what was, try to find out what was
causing the confusion in that unit. And, I asked her some questions.
Q. What did you ask her?
A. Well, she, I asked her, I told her that there was a lot of confusion and
we wanted to get to the bottom of it, find out who was causing it. And, I, and
it came to our attention that somebody was soliciting for the Union in there.
And, if she knew anything about it. And, she said yes, she, somebody had
talked to her about it and she had signed a card. And, I asked her would she
give the girl 's name and she said no . Then, I told her that, well, we weren't
trying to force her to make her tell something she didn't want to, but we
would like to know who it was so we could stop the confusion ... .
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1591
In the light of this testimony I have no hesitation to find that "confusion" as it
was termed by Respondent was merely a synonym for an employee soliciting for
the Union.
3. Willie Blackford
At the time in question here Willie Blackford had been an employee of the
Respondent for about 10 years.
About the time the Charging Party's organizing campaign began, Blackford
received an authorization card for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union
through the mail. She signed that card and returned it. She knew nothing about the
Charging Party at this time.
During November 1965, Blackford handed out four Amalgamated cards to
fellow employees. Two of these fellow employees were her niece, Christine Allen,
and Effie Kinser. When Kinser had received her card from Blackford, Kinser went
into the restroom at the plant and signed it.
On December 9 Hayes made his speech during which he said that anyone caught
soliciting for the Union on company time would be automatically discharged.
About 2 or 3 weeks after the Hayes' speech Kinser, apparently concerned for
her job because of the Hayes' speech, reported the Amalgamated card episode to
her floorlady, Laura Humford, who immediately asked who had given her the
card. However by the time Hayes' speech on December 9, both the Amalgamated
effort and Blackford's had ended except for the fact that, when she learned of the
Charging Party's organizing effort, Blackford signed a union authorization card
for that union. That ended her activity on behalf of the Union.
Shortly after noon on March 2, Ford had a conversation with employees Hardi-
son and Offutt, which will be found in detail hereinafter, in the course of which
Ford said, ". . there was only one (employee) he could prove had been con-
nected with the Union. I intend to do something about it, he said . .
Just before the overtime hour from 3:30 to 4:30 pm., which Blackford had
been requested to work, came to an end, Supervisor Margie Wright took Blackford
to Ford's office where Ford, Roy White, and Daisy Brown were assembled. Ford
opened the meeting by saying, "We have been healing something about you we
don't like . . . . He had been hearing that I (Blackford) was passing union cards
out on company time." Blackford denied the accusation. Ford said that he "had
proof" and was going to discharge her. Blackford asked, "Who is your proof?"
Ford answered, "We aren't calling any names now. But . . . it came straight."
Blackford argued that it was then her word against her accusers but Ford merely
stated, ". . . Unfortunately we're going to believe them." When Blackford asked
why he should pick on her, Ford answered, "Nothing personal. He said you're
only the first. He said there will be others that will be discharged besides you."
Ford added, "I thought we made ourselves clear (referring to the Hayes' Decem-
ber 9 speech)." Blackford agreed that Respondent had made itself clear at that
time and "that's the reason I haven't been working for the Union." Ford then
pointed out that Respondent "was loyal to you keeping you on the payroll and you
repaid them this way." When Blackford pleaded for another chance because she
needed her job, Ford answered, "I need my job. And, he said, I'm going to keep
mine."
With that Blackford's employment ended.
On March 9 during a conversation , which will be found in detail hereinafter,
with Ford, employee Gertrude Welch asked if he had fired a girl about the Union
to which Ford answered, "Yes, he had fired one. And, that was Willie Blackford.
He said she was passing out union cards on the job .. ... Welch told Ford that
she did not believe this because Blackford was not on the union committee and
did not have any union cards. But Ford stated that he "could prove" it.
At the hearing Respondent produced two witnesses, Christine Allen and an
8-month employee Effie Kisner, who both testified that in November 1965, Black-
ford gave each of them an Amalgamated authorization card. This occurred, of
course, prior to Hayes' speech about automatic discharge for solicitation for the
Union. On direct examination Allen testified that on Saturday, February 26, 1966,
Blackford asked her while at work if she were going to sign a union authorization
card. When Allen answered that she.was not because it "was not the right thing
to do," Blackford added that Allen would lose her job one way or another. On
cross-examination Allen added to her story by testifying that on February 26 Black-
ford had offered her a union authorization card . She further testified that she
"didn't tell no one" about the episode but that at the end of,the workday prior to
her appearance as a witness , Respondent had asked her to come to the hearing to
testify. Allen did not make an impressive witness.
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In rebuttal Blackford denied even having had a Packinghouse union card; much
less giving one to Allen on February 26 as well as making any threat.
But one thing is obvious. That is that Ford discharged Blackford because he
said he had proof "connecting" her with the Union.
4. Ruth Evelyn Epley
At the time of her discharge on March 13, 1966, Ruth Epley had been employed
by Respondent for approximately 10 years.
As noted heretofore, Epley was one of the three who attended the original
meeting with the union organizer at the Offutt home and also attended all subse-
quent meetings, was publicly identified as a member of the employees Organizing
Committee at the first mass meeting, and was extremely active throughout the
organizing campaign on behalf of the Union.
Despite this Ford originally claimed that he "never had any knowledge" that
Epley was a union adherent or associated with the Union. Ford subsequently had
to admit that through the "grapevine" in the plant, he had been told that "at one
time or another" Epley "had been seen or had been participating in union
activities."
In addition, because there were "rumors" in the plant that she was the secretary
of the Union and as she figured that Ford would have heard these rumors, some-
time in February 1966, Linda Goodwin White, recently married to Roy White's
brother Larry, went to see Ford in order to dispel this rumor which her supervisor,
Gertie Meador, had been investigating. Linda confessed to Ford that she originally
had been on the Union's Organizing Committee but no longer had anything to do
with the Union. Ford told her that he was going to do everything "lawful" that he
knew how to do to keep the Union from coming in. He specifically mentioned the
names of Gertie Welch, Geraldine Offutt, and Ruth Evelyn Epley. In reference to
Epley, Ford told White that "he knew who was messing with the Union and all of
the ones that was working with the Union. And, he said people like Ruth Evelyn
didn't have no business messin ' with no union because she had a lot of bill chasers
and all after her." 3
On March 1 Epley complained to her floorlady, Gertie Meador, that she needed
a mechanic to fix her machine which was breaking threads. To this the floorlady
said, "Well, you won't have to be worried about that much longer. They are going
to move the plant."
The next day, March 2, Epley was ill and stayed at home. She failed to notify
the plant of her illness . It was customary at the plant at this time that an employee
who had failed to report absent from work would, upon returning to the plant,
sign the day book and note the reason thereon for the absence.
On March 3, Epley, who was still ill, had a doctor's appointment and so did not
report for work again. However, her daughter who worked in the plant cafeteria
did report Epley's illness to the office secretary. Upon receiving this report the
secretary informed the daughter that Epley "had been replaced."
On March 4 Epley reported at the plant, saw Ford and asked him why she had
been replaced. His answer was "because I didn't call in the first day" and that "he
took it that she had quit." Epley accused Ford of starting a new rule about report-
ing in with her and offered to go. into the plant and show him "people on top of
people who stayed away a week at a time and didn't call in." Ford's answer to that
was "Not anymore they don't." He further offered that "some people didn't value
their jobs."
Respondent had no posted rules. Until the discharge of Epley it had been cus-
tomary for an employee who has been absent without notifying the plant to sign
the day book with a reason for the absence upon her return to work no matter
how much later. The evidence proved that Epley's was the first discharge for fail-
8 Ford did not deny this conversation It thus appears that Ford in fact put more store
in the plant's "grapevine" and that said "grapevine" was more accurate than Ford's testi-
mony at the hearing would have us believe In addition to the "grapevine," the facts show
that Respondent's supervisory staff from Assistant Plant Manager White to the assistant
floorladies were actively engaged throughout this period in ferreting out information
regarding the union activities of Respondent's employees The facts further prove that
Ford "chose to believe" the information secured through the "grapevine" over the denials
of those accused despite his testimonial reluctance to accept such "scuttlebutt" or "gossip"
as he chose to describe it at the hearing.
LOGAN ' MFG. CO. 1593
ing to report one's absence for.sickness. Respondent introduced a compilation of
discharges from the plant which confirmed this proof.
On Epley's second day of absence, either before or after her daughter's report
had been relayed to him, Ford replaced,Epley with a brand new employee who
quit a few months thereafter.
Although Ford admitted to Epley during her exit interview on March 4 that her
low production had nothing to do with her discharge, at the hearing Ford changed
his position by testifying that, for some reason he did not make clear during his
testimony, he had taken occasion to look at Epley's file on March 2 which indi-
cated that in 1948 Epley had quit her employment with Respondent because she
was not making production so that he "assumed" in 1966 that she had quit again
because her production was low. He then added that because her production was
low, "I thought it would be inevitable that that she did or would have to 'be taken
off that job because she wasn't doing any good."
Ford's explanation of his precipitous action in replacing Epley on her very first
day of absence without having reported in and for his "assumption" that Epley
had quit again-as in 1948-was most unconvincing.
5. Geraldine Hadden
Hadden had first been employed by Respondent in 1949 and had worked full
time for about 9 years before quitting. She was a widow on social security. She
returned to work part time for Respondent in 1960 when the then Manager Spears
permitted her to work until she had earned the amount of money [$1,000 then,
$1,500 now] permitted under the social security law. When Ford took over as
plant manager on November 19, 1965, Hadden spoke to him about this part-time
arrangement. Ford at that time saw no reason to change the arrangement.
As previously noted, Hadden was one of the three employees at the original
meeting at Offutt's home, was identified as one of the three members of the original
employees' Organizing Committee, and played an active part therein throughout
this period. In fact Ford mentioned her name to Linda White in February as being
active in the union movement.
Sometime in late February 1966, Ford requested Hadden to work full time until
she had earned the,allowable sum of money under the law.4 Despite a known bad
back, Hadden agreed.
Hadden worked 441/2 hours the following week. The following Monday her back
was so painful that she had to see her doctor. On Tuesday, March 3, she requested
and received from Ford a medical leave of absence to consult a Nashville medical
specialist whom she saw on March 10. Her next appointment with the doctor was
on March 22 when the doctor found her greatly improved and gave her a signed
release authorizing her return to work.
On March 23 Hadden reported to Ford for work and gave him the doctor's
release. Ford stated that he "could not put Hadden back to work." When asked
why he could not, Ford stated that he had looked up Hadden's record for the past
year and discovered that she had been absent 77 days during that year. Hadden
pointed out that that was the, arrangement she had had with Spears and Ford. All
Ford would say thereafter was that he "could not put her back to work."
In this case Ford did not fall back on the excuse, of poor production. Admit-
tedly Hadden was a very good operator who "made production." His explanation
in this case was that because of Hadden's bad back he was afraid of a workmen's
compensation claim against Respondent despite the ' doctor's release.
Hadden has never been' reinstated. ,
6. Gertrude Welch .
Beginning in 1952 Welch worked for Respondent for about 21/2 years.
She returned to work again in 1960 and, with the exception of a 6-week
maternity leave, worked steadily until discharged on March 23, 1966.
Welch learned of the Union through employees Offutt, Epley, and Hadden.
Like them she became a very active member of the Organizing Committee solicit-
ing memberships through house calls and other off-plant activities.
* Ford made a similar request of the other part-time employee, Phylis Williams. During
the alleged period of "confusion," referred to supra, in one of the production units which
Respondent thought was caused by someone soliciting on behalf of the Union, Respondent
suspected that Williams was the solicitor causing that confusion."
1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Welch was well known for being actively working for the Union. Ford specifi-
cally named her in his conversation with Linda White. As noted, on January 11
Roy White had informed Welch that "we've been told that you are working for
the Union." Welch admitted the fact.
She was also an excellent worker, not only making production.but being at all
times a "gold star" operator, i.e., the highest award in the plant for production.
Her wages averaged $1.55 per hour.
On March 9 Welch was sent to Ford's office during working hours where Ford
opened the conversation by telling her that he wanted to talk to her "sensibly."
The Union promptly proved to be the subject matter of the conversation. Ford
stated that he had not called Welch in to "scare her" but Respondent did not
want a union , in fact Respondent would not have a union, it had never had a
union , and "they never intended to have one," and they could not make Respond-
ent sign a contract. Ford continued by saying that he knew Welch was working
for the Union's Organizing Committee because he had been so informed by some
unnamed person whom he believed. Welch inquired if Ford was going to fire her.
Ford denied any such intention because he "had no reason" to discharge her.
Welch acknowledged that she was on the Organizing Committee and was working
hard for it but only after working hours and not in the plant. Ford answered
that she had been "well briefed" and that he thought she was "too smart" to get
caught doing anything in the plant . Welch asked if he had already fired one girl
about the Union. Ford admitted that he had discharged Blackford for passing
out cards on the job. Welch informed Ford that she could not believe this because
Blackford was not a member of the Organizing Committee and did not have any
union cards. When Ford answered that he "could prove" it Welch told him that
he might have to do that. After some unfavorable comments as to the Union,
Ford said that he hoped that Welch did not "get caught doing anything and permit-
ted her to return to work.
On March 23 Welch was again asked to go to the office where she found Ford,
White, and Daisy Mae Brown. As Welch came through the door, Ford said that
he "thought we had an understanding" about the Union. Welch answered that
she already knew that Ford intended to discharge her through gossip she had
heard. Ford replied that he was going to have to let her go because she had been
soliciting and her work had fallen down,5 and that he could prove it. Welch denied
the accusation but recalled that that afternoon two employees had come individu-
ally to her machine and chatted with her until Daisy Mae Brown had ordered them
away. Ford's answer to this was that he "didn't care of us talking, it was what we
were talking about." When the meeting ended, Welch was still discharged.
Although Welch subsequently applied for reinstatement to both Ford and
Hayes, she has never been reinstated.
At the hearing as proof of the charge of solicitation Respondent produced
Carolyn Edwards who was first employed by Respondent in October 1965.
Edwards testified that at some indefinite date an employee called "Punchy" had
asked Edwards to make a list of the employees in the unit in which Edwards
worked for the Union. Her testimony is somewhat indefinite as to whether she
agreed to Punchy's request or not. Edwards did admit that she had signed a union
authorization card and at the beginning of the campaign was "all for it." Edwards
testified that either on the day before or the day of Welch's discharge on March 23,
Welch met her in the restroom where Welch inquired if Edwards had or was
going to make up the requested list of employees. When Edwards said that she
was not going to" make the list, according to Edwards' testimony, Welch used
some words which were "very unfriendly. Vulgar." These "vulgar, unfriendly"
words turned out to be that Welch had called her "two faced" based upon the
fact that at the beginning of the campaign Edwards had been "really all for it
[the Union],", as Edwards acknowledged she had been..
After Welch .had left the restroom, Edwards got into conversation with the
colored attendant who informed .Edwards that "Mr. Ford thought I [Edwards]
was working for the Union." Edwards then testified, "that got me pretty upset
8 Ford acknowledged that Welch, was a, gold star operator and. always had been but
claimed, without corroboration, that Welch's "quality" had recently fallen off. He admitted
that this alleged falling off had nothing to do with the discharge. It would be a bit dif-
ficult to believe that an operator averaging $1.55 per hour in Respondent's plant could
have slipped very far in production and still be making that average
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1595
because I didn't-know what to do . So I went and told him [Ford ] everything I
knew." 6
As Edwards had already signed a union authorization card at the time of her
conversations with Welch and Hardison and had been previously as she admitted,
"all for it ," it seem clear that neither Welch nor Hardison would be soliciting
Edwards' membership at the time. Welch and Hardison were , if Edwards' testi-
mony can be accepted at face value-and Edwards definitely was not a witness
whose demeanor or definiteness tended to impress me with the honesty of her
testimony-talking about a list of employees without any showing as to when,
how, or where such list was to be prepared . Certainly the law would not have
prevented Edwards from preparing such a list from memory and at home on her
own time . Even if Respondent 's no-solicitation rule were a valid one , a question
to be discussed , infra, it would not have covered a situation such as Edwards
testified to. Thus, this discharge becomes an instance where Ford discharged
Welch not for talking in the restroom , which admittedly was not against any rule
Respondent had, but because of the fact that the Union was the subject matter
of the conversation.
7. Anna Jean Lee
Anna Lee commenced working for Respondent in May 1963 . She worked for
1 year before taking a maternity leave and returned to work in August 1965. She
worked continuously until her discharge on March 23, 1966.
Like the others mentioned here, except Blackford and Hudnall, Lee became
a member of the Union Organizing Committee and active in making house calls
and securing signatures on union card on behalf of that effort.
On March 17 Ford was going through the plant talking to each of the operators
about the Union. He came to Lee's machine and chatted with Lee for a short
period before Lee suddenly said, "Let's get it over." After Ford inquired "What?",
Lee answered, "the Union talk." Ford agreed to do so if Lee wanted him to.
After giving Lee his usual discourse on violence caused by union organizing Ford
wound up the conversation by saying, "If the Union doesn't go in, there is nothing
says we have to be nice to you all . . . . Don't you know we will always be look-
ing for something." 7
On March 22 Duell Saylor, then temporarily assigned to the Respondent from
an affiliated company to supervise the trainers in Respondent 's training program,
inquired of Lee why the Organizing Committee which had held a meeting the
previous evening at the motel where Saylor was temporarily in residence, had
not invited her to attend. It so happened that Lee had opened the door of the
room in the motel where the Committee was meeting and had seen Saylor just
outside the door in the hallway. During this conversation at the machine Saylor
asked Lee to tell her the problems which the Union had been discussing because
she thought that she could do as much for the employees as the Union could
when she returned to her regular job. So Lee proceeded to tell her the problems.8
On March 23 Lee's machine broke down. Lee then started off from her machine
to find a mechanic to repair it. Upon her return from her unsuccessful trip to find
a mechanic, Floorlady Daisy Brown appeared and accused Lee of having spent
all that time in the restroom. Lee denied the accusation telling Brown of the
mission that she had been on.
6 On the question of Edwards' credibility Edwards also testified that during the rest-
room episode Welch "called me a two faced name and she said, you know, that she could
put my name on the union card " Edwards further testified that about the same time
Dorothy Hardison had approached her to get her "to sign a union card." As Edwards
finally admitted that she had previously signed a union card, it is difficult to believe that
committee members Welch and Hardison made either of the statements which Edwards
attributed to them. In fact Edwards was not an impressive witness.
7 Ford denied having made this statement and denied further having any knowledge
that Lee was active in the Union until after her dismissal. In the light of the fact that
the "grapevine" was in full operation and that Respondent's supervisory force was
actively interrogating employees about union activities and memberships, these denials are
hardly believable
8 Saylor 's temporary assignment as the trainer of the trainers for, Respondent 's training
program removes Saylor from the position of an "employee" and makes her a part of the
managerial staff , -
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly thereafter Lee came across a garment in need of repair which she took
to her floorlady, Gertie Meador,9 who ordered her to take it to floor inspector,
Sarah Hawkins, for repairs. But Hawkins, not having the time to do so, ordered
Lee to take the garment back to the operator responsible to have the repairs
made. When Lee returned to her machine with the repairs made, Daisy Mae Brown
promptly at or about 10 or 10:30 a.m. appeared at the machine and so severely
criticized Lee over her absence from the machine as to cause Lee, in Brown's
words to "pucker up" and say tearfully, "I have a good mind to quit" or "I have
a good mind to go home." Brown rejoined, "Suit yourself" as she departed.10
Despite her comment to Brown, Lee remained at work until 11 :30, the lunch
break She ate lunch-in the plant but clocked out of the plant at 11:57 a m.
accompanied by Dorothy Hardison who* returned later alone as Lee did in fact
go home. "
Floorlady- Humford immediately reported to Daisy Brown that Lee and Hardi-
son had .left the plant together but that Hardison had returned alone. Brown
promptly relayed this information to Ford.
The following morning, March 24, Lee telephoned to Ford and notified him
that she would be absent because of a doctor's appointment she had that day
but would report for work on March 25. Ford answered that "there would be no
need for that, that he had made arrangements to replace her" because he
"assumed" that she had quit."
Lee has not since been reinstated.
At the time of her precipitous discharge Lee was not quite making production
although previously she had been ,a gold star operator.
When Lee applied for unemployment compensation after her discharge, Ford
reported to the_ commission that Lee had "voluntarily quit." However Respondent
did not appear at the hearing on appeal to testify.,
8. Offutt and Hardison
Offutt's original employment with Respondent began in 1952 and, except for a
period of about 2 years, her employment. with Respondent has been continuous
since 1956. She was discharged on March 25, 1966.
Hardison started working in September 1963 and worked continuously there-
after until her discharge March 24, 1966.
Both Offutt and Hardison were members of the Organizing Committee and were
both very active thereon. In fact the original meeting with McCuiston had been
held at the Offutt home.
As early as January 11, 1966, Roy White went to Hardison's machine in the
plant and told Hardison that he "had been sent to talk" to her because "we've been
told you are working for the Union." After some conversation as to the demerits
of unionism and Respondent's disapproval thereof, Hardison remarked that while
she was working for the Union, she would never do so on company time.
On the evening of March 1, Hardison, her husband, Offutt and Organizer
McCuiston were at Johnson's restaurant in Lewisburg, a town not too far from
Russellville where the Respondent plant is located.
On March 2 Josephine Brown, assistant floorlady, spoke to Hardison in the
restroom and stated that, "They are going to close this place in spite of hell-
because of that damn union" with some details about Vice President Hayes having
trucks ready to move in if the Union were voted in.
On the morning of March 2 Ford sought out Katherine Woodal, Hardison's
older sister, in order to ask Woodal what her sister would be doing with a union
representative in Lewisburg. He told Woodal that he had gotten word "pretty
straight" that Dorothy and Offutt had been seen with a union representative at
Johnson's restaurant in Lewisburg the night before. He added that "Dottie [Hardi-
6 The transcript on page 80 indicates that the floorlady referred to was "Gertle Welch."
However Welch was not a floorlady Gertle Meador was a floorlady I assume that the
reference on this page was to Gertie Meador , and, therefore , correct the transcript accord-
ingly 8u¢ 8ponte.
1° Brown also denied knowledge of any union activity or membership on the part of Lee
until , at some unspecified time, she saw Lee "passing out something in the parking lot."
This observation caused Brown to have the idea that Lee was a union adherent.
11 On cross -examination Ford admitted that he had made no such arrangements and
that Lee had not been replaced at that time.
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1597
son] was going to get herself in trouble and would not be able to get a job any-
where if she kept trying to get a union or work with a union." Ford added that he
"could not fire (Dottie) but something had to be done." He ended the conversation
by stating that he "just thought Woodal ought to know." 12
Despite the fact.that Ford had not specifically requested Woodal to speak to
Hardison, Woodal took occasion to tell Hardison of Ford's report and gave Hardi-
son the impression that both Hardison and Offutt were about to be discharged, not
an unnatural reaction based on Ford's action.
Right after the lunch break on March 2 Hardison and Offutt .marched into
Ford's office with the statement that they had heard that he knew, that they had
been in Lewisburg. Ford admitted that he had heard that Hardison and Offutt had
been seen with a union representative at Johnson's restaurant and wanted to know
if it were so. They both admitted having been in the restaurant but stressed the
fact that Hardison's husband had been with them-apparently omitting mention
of the presence of McCuiston. They also informed Ford that they had heard he
"was going to get rid of us." This Ford denied on the grounds that he "had no
reason" to discharge either of them. During this part of the discussion Ford did
state that there was only one person he could prove to be connected with the
Union and that he "intended to do something about it." 13 Ford then launched into
his familiar recital about union violence after which Offutt told Ford that her
machine needed repairs which Ford promised to attend to immediately and then
the meeting broke up.14
Subsequently that same day Assistant Floorlady Gertie Meador in Floorlady
Humford's presence complained to Hardison that "they are going to move us out
I feel sorry for these old people. They can't get a job anywhere." 15
On March 9 Hardison went to Ford and complained to him that Floorlady
Daisy Mae Brown had been "bawling her out" for spending too much time in the
restroom. After telling Hardison that Brown was "only doing her job," Ford
inquired as to how Hardison stood about the Union. After Hardison admitted that
she was working for the Union, Ford commented about all the "Russian" names
among labor organizers to which Hardison retorted that the name of the president
of the Union was the same as that of the Respondent vice president, Hayes. After
a few more comments by Ford regarding the Union's "$60 initiation fee" the costly
cars and expensive homes the union people had, the meeting ended.
On the evening of March 21, while the Organizing Committee was holding a
meeting at the motel, Hardison and Duell Saylor saw each other in the motel
hallway.
Soon after work began on the morning of March 24, Hardison was sent to the
office where she found Ford, Roy White, and Daisy Mae Brown. Ford opened the
conversation by saying that "we had a little talk a few weeks back and that he
thought I was going to keep my nose clean _. '.. over the Union . But now
he had to let [Hardison] go." When asked why, Ford answered "for soliciting
union membership and interfering with other people's work." Hardison answered
that somebody was a "dirty liar" about the soliciting charge to which Ford rejoined
that he "too had been lied to." Hardison answered that by saying, "Well if you
don't believe what I told you why don't you call Johnson's [restaurant] again.
You called twice." Ford denied having called the restaurant. Hardison agreed but
said that Roy White had. At this point Roy White nodded affirmatively. 16
The result was to be anticipated. Ford thereupon discharged Hardison with the
statement that "maybe the Union would-pay" her wages. Rather prophetically
Hardison suggested that Respondent "might be paying it." Ford acknowledged that
possibility.
"Both Ford and Woodal testified that Ford had not requested' Woodal to speak to
Hardison. Ford's attempts at explaining just why he reported this matter to Woodal
were vague and confusing.
13 Subsequently that afternoon Ford discharged Blackford.
15Actually the machine was not repaired until March 14, after which Offutt very
nearly made production. Ford testified, however, that mechanic Grahm told Ford that he
had looked at the machine that same evening and nothing was wrong with it. But Offutt
testified that Grahm had told her, on the other hand, that he had not been told to look
at the machine Respondent did not see fit to call Grahm.
1s Neither Meador nor Humford were called as witnesses by Respondent.
1e Although available Respondent did not call Roy White as a witness.
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day, March 24, about 2 p.m. Floorlady Humford sent Offutt to Ford's
office after telling Offutt that Ford had been checking her production and had
found it low so he was going to let her go that afternoon . Humford added that
she would "rather cut off her right arm than to tell you."
In Ford's office after Ford had told Offutt that he had to let her go because of
her low production, Offutt accused Ford of lying 2 weeks before (March 9) when
he had said to Offutt and Hardison that he had "no reason" to discharge Offutt.
Ford rejoined that they had not told them the whole truth about the Lewisburg
trip. This Offutt denied citing the fact that Roy White had telephoned the Johnson's
restaurant checking upon the presence of the union representative. Ford stated
that he knew nothing about that. Offutt reminded Ford that Dorothy Hardison had
told Ford about it the day before and she asked Ford to tell White that she, Offutt,
did not appreciate being checked on in a restaurant at Lewisburg at 8 p.m. which
she insisted was not "company time."
As had happened to Hardison , Ford 's decision to discharge Offutt remained
firm. Neither Hardison nor Offutt has ever since been reinstated.
To justify the charge of solicitation against Hardison, Respondent called Carolyn
Edward, who also testified about Welch. On direct examination Edward testified
as follows:
Q. Were you approached by Mrs. Dorothy Hardison at any time during
this period?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For what purpose?
A. To sign a union card.
However when Edward elaborated upon this incident, she described seeing
Hardison in the restroom crying after her "bawling out" by Daisy Mae Brown.
Upon inquiry about the reason for the tears, Hardison, according to Edward,
answered that she knew Respondent was going to "let her go" and , in these circum-
stances according to Edward, then asked if Edward was going to or had prepared
a list of the employees in her unit-even as Welch allegedly had done. Under the
existing circumstances such an inquiry would appear unlikely . Except for the
above-quoted testimony, there was no mention of a union card during Edward's
description of the alleged episode. As Edward admittedly had already signed a
card, there was no sense in any further solicitation by either Welch or Hardison.
As noted previously, Edward did not impress me favorably as a witness.
Unlike the Hardison' s case, Respondent adduced no testimony of any alleged
solicitation or union conversation attributable to Offutt in the plant but chose
instead to rely exclusively on the fact that she had not made production as the
excuse for her discharge.
B. Conclusions
Those are the facts.
Read either as individual cases or in conjunction one with the others, they
prove powerful prima facie cases of discriminatory discharges in each of the sepa-
rate instances . They also prove that suddenly, and contrary to past history of few,
if any, discharges, this admittedly antiunion employer began at the very critical
point in the union organizational drive, at or about the time when the Union on
March 8, 1966 , filed its petition for certification , to discharge some eight employees
known to or at least suspected by it to be the most ardent and active union
adherents among its employees, with each of such discharge coming precipitously
upon the Employer's discovery of some type of information confirming Respond-
ent's knowledge or suspicion of the individuals' adherence to the union cause. The
conclusion that these discharges were in fact discriminatory and in violation of
the Act appears almost conclusive.
But, on the other hand, Respondent sought to counter the strong prima facie
cases by evidence adduced in large measures through Plant Manager Ford that
each of the individuals so discharged was in fact discharged for cause: (1) for
violation of Respondent 's rule against solicitation for the Union on company time in
the instances of Blackford, Welch, and Hardison; (2) for poor production for
instances of Hudnall, Offutt, and , perhaps, Epley and Welch ; ( 3) in order to pre-
vent a possible Workman's Compensation claim in the instance of Hadden; or (4)
because Respondent "assumed" that Lee and Epley had "voluntarily quit" their
employment.
A critical apprisal of each of, these "causes" so advanced by Respondent con-
vinces me that the so-called "cause" for the discharge either did not constitute
legal justification for the discharge as in the case of the alleged no-solicitation
LOGAN MFG. CO. 1599
rule; was not true as in the instances of the alleged quitting and claims of poor
production; or were mere pretexts used by Respondent in its attempt to disguise
the discriminatory motive behind the discharge.
As Respondent maintains that at least three employees were discharged for cause
by reason of violating Respondent's "no-solicitation rule," it is necessary to deter-
mine the legality of that so-called rule promulgated by Respondent on or about
December 9, 1965, when Respondent first determined that the organizational drive
was serious. It is now well-established law that an employer legally may promul-
gate and enforce a general rule against solicitation of any sort or variety in the
plant during working time. It is equally well established that an employer may
neither legally promulgate nor enforce a rule directed specifically and exclusively
against union solicitation, as contrasted to generalized solicitations. A rule applica-
ble to union solicitations exclusively is presumptively illegal and invalid in the
absence of proof of special circumstances justifying the same. No such proof was
adduced here.
The facts here prove beyond a peradventure of a doubt that Hayes and Ford
promulgated the rule now relied upon by Respondent for a discriminatory pur-
pose. The rule was first announced when Respondent came to the realization that
the union organizational drive was serious. It was promulgated and enforced for
the purpose of stopping any and all activity by its employees on behalf of the
Union. Apparently from the Welch and Offutt experience at Johnson's restaurant
in Lewisburg at 8 p .m., the rule was deemed applicable both on or after working
hours as well as on or off company property. Of course, the rule as announced
orally by Hayes, according to the testimony of Ford, was that the employees "were
not to solicit for the Union during working hours" with the addition supplied by
Hardison and other General Counsel's witnesses, and undenied by Ford, that "any-
one caught 'soliciting for the Union during working hours would be automatically
discharged." The rule as thus stated and enforced was almost fatally indefinite
both as to locale and time. That the rule as promulgated had exclusive application
to solicitations "for the Union" was made crystal clear by Ford's answer to the
following questions:
Q. . Does this no-solicitation rule of yours, as expressed by Mr. Hayes,
require that anything more than that a person who solicits for, and I stress
the word for, for the Union be discharged? In other words, if a person was
soliciting girls not to join the Union would you fire her under the rule?
A. Sir, I never had thought about it that way.
Q. Did you fire anyone for soliciting against the Union?
A. No, I did• not. [Emphasis supplied.]
The facts further show that this rule was both promulgated and enforced by
Respondent as part and parcel of its own antiunion campaign and as a weapon
for use by Respondent to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees into
abandoning their rights to form, join, or assist labor organizations as guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act. The rule was thus illegal as a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.17
In addition, as indicated , supra, the evidence on which Respondent relied to
show a violation of this rule proved no violation even of this illegal no-solicitation
rule. Neither Welch nor Hardison was soliciting membership from Edwards, even
accepting the Edwards testimony at face value, as her testimony involved only a
list of employees which could have been prepared from memory away from the
plant on nonworking hours. Thus Welch and Hardison were fired for talking about
union matters when admittedly Respondent had no rule against talking. Edwards'
testimony concerning an authorization card was obviously both an afterthought
and untrue because both Welch and Hardison knew that Edwards had already
executed such a card prior to their conversation with her. In the case of Black-
ford the evidence was quite conclusive that Blackford had no union card in Febru-
ary 1966, so that there could' have been no ' solicitation 'there. Blackford's admitted
solicitation for the Amalgamated Union in November 1965, occurred prior to
the time the illegal rule was even promulgated. Hence Respondent chose to dis-
charge her for a retroactive application of an illegal rule.
Ford's alleged "assumption" that Lee and Epley had "voluntarily quit" their
employment because one upset employee, Lee, tearfully said that she had a
"good mind" to quit or go home and the other, Epley, failed to report in sick on
17 Pepsi-Cola Bottlers of Miami, Inc., 155 NLRB 527. - '
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
one day is so ridiculous as to require little,, if any, -comment-other than- to point
out that Ford had made no arrangements to replace Lee when he informed Lee
to the contrary and that the evidence showed that there was no plant rule requir-
ing an employee to report in sick as of the time Ford applied this alleged rule to
Epley for the first time in the plant's history.
Ford's "'assumption" reached absolute absurdity when he testified that, because
Epley had once quit Respondent's employ in the year 1946, he "assumed" that
she had quit again 20 years later in the year 1966 Both these employees were
well known to Ford and Respondent to be ardent union advocates as of the time
that Ford made the above "assumptions." Although Ford denied such knowledge
as to Lee, a denial I could not credit, the fact that Lee was reported to Ford to
have left the plant in company with Dorothy Hardison whose association with a
union organizer outside working hours and, outside the town of Russellville had so
disturbed Ford was alone sufficient for him to have "assumed" that Lee was an
ardent union supporter like Hardison. -
Respondent's defense of poor production and "not making production" is of no
moment here when it is, recalled that even under Ford's optimistic estimate only
60 percent of the employees were in fact- making production. If Ford actually
considered this a valid reason for discharge, then he had a lot of other employees,
who should have been discharged at the same time. It is also clear from the dis-
charges of Hardison and Lee that Respondent actually was disinterested in the
production motive for discharges because these employees- were averaging $1.55
and $1.40, per hour, respectively, far above "making production." Due to manu-
facturing changes Offutt at the time of her discharge had not been -making pro-
duction but prior thereto she had been a gold star operator. Obviously, "poor
production" was a mere pretext.
The case of Mary Hudnall is slightly different. Admittedly she was a new
employee, slow to learn, and not making production although improving. If
Hudnall was as poor as her first trainer indicated, then poor production might
actually have been the reason for her discharge. But Respondent's failure to call
Hudnall's last trainer, Nellie Johnson, to deny Hudnall's testimony of improve-
ment in her last weeks of employment leads to the conclusion that Hudnall was
in fact improving much more rapidly than Respondent would have us believe.
At least only a day or so before her precipitous discharge on March 4, Ford,
according to his own testimony, had decided to retain Hudnall despite her admit-
ted shortcomings for a longer period. As a matter of fact Hudnall had at the
time of her discharge only undergone approximately one-half of the usual train-
ing period, 160 hours out of 300. But Ford promptly changed his mind about
Hudnall's tenure within 24 hours of learning that Hudnall had executed a union
authorization card and, more importantly, steadfastly refused to divulge the name
of the union member who had solicited her signature. Twenty-four hours of such
obstinacy was sufficient for Ford and he ordered Hudnall discharged. It is thus all
too clear that, despite her faults, Hudnall's tenure would have lasted except for
her obstinate refusal to inform upon some union supporter. Of course Respondent's
demand that Hudnall divulge the name of the union supporter was a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and Hudnall's discharge for having signed the
union authorization card and for obstinately refusing to give the union supporter's
name was a violation of Section 8(a)(3). I so find. The poor production was in
this case again a mere pretext.
This report now comes to Geraldine Hadden whose employment Ford refused
to continue allegedly because he feared, despite a specialist doctor's medical
release, might become a workmen's compensation case, or so he said. Hadden's
bad luck and part-time employment due to the social security law had long been
known to Respondent and to Ford. However when Ford set off on this unprece-
dented discharge spree in March 1966 coincidently with the filing of the Union's
representation petition, he obviously fell back upon this part-time work and bad
back as the pretext by which he could eliminate one of the instigators of the
union movement. So he allegedly began worrying about workmen's compensation.
It had never bothered him before. Neither had Hadden's part-time work and bad
back. Ford's alleged fear was just another pretext by which he attained his aim
of eliminating another union supporter.
The facts convince me that coincidently with, and because of the filing of the
Union's representation petition as well as the seriousness of the Union's organizing
efforts, Respondent and Ford intentionally and deliberately decided- upon a. plan
to discourage union memberships and activities in the plant by in effect purging
LOGAN MFG'. CO. 1601
from employment all the top, employee union advocates and members by discharg-
ing Willie L. Blackford , Ruth E . Epley, Mary Hudnall , Geraldine Hadden.
Gertrude Welch , Anna Jean Lee, Dorothy M. Hardison , and Geraldine Offutt
because of their known union membership and/or activities on behalf of the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act. I so find:
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 of the Respondent 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 burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It also has been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the following named individuals on the following desig-
nated dates:
1966 1966
Willie L. Blackford------ Mar. 2 Gertrude Welch__ _______ Mar. 23
Ruth E. Epley__________ Mar. 3 Anna Jean Lee__________ Mar. 24
Mary Hudnall ---------- Mar. 4 Dorothy M. Hardison ____ Mar. 24
Geraldine Hadden____=__ Mar. 23 Geraldine Offutt________ Mar. 25
I will accordingly recommend that Respondent offer each of them immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against
her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have
earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of her reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during such period , in accordance with the formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at
6 percent per annum.
Because of the varying types of unfair labor practices engaged in by Respond-
ent, I see opposition by the Respondent to the policies of the Act in general, and
hence I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and,
in any other manner , infringing upon the rights guaranteed its employees in
Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
aforementioned employees by discharging each of them on the date noted above,
thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment and dis-
couraging union membership and activities among its employees and preventing
its employees from exercising in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that Logan Manufacturing Com-
pany, Bowling Green, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging union membership and activities among its employees by
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of any of its employees, or by
264-047-67-vol . 162-102
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminating in any other manner in regard to any term or condition of their
employment in order to discourage union membership or activities therein.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in any manner in
order to discourage union membership or activities among its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer to each of the individuals named below immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges and make each whole in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
1966 1966
Willie L. Blackford---------- Mar. 2 Gertrude Welch_____________ Mar. 23
Ruth E. Epley______________ Mar. 3 Anna Jean Lee______________ Mar. 24
Mary Hudnall______________ Mar. 4 Dorothy M. Hardison-------- Mar. 24
Geraldine Hadden___________ Mar. 23 Geraldine Offutt____________ Mar. 25
(b) Post at its plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 9, upon being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other materials.
(c) 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 under the terms of this Decision.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.19
I shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint as to Bobbie Mullin
be dismissed without prejudice.
I further recommend that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Decision, the Respondent has notified the said Regional Director that it
will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Board issue an Order requiring
Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
18 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order Is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision'and Order."
29 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 NOT discourage union membership or activities of our employees
on behalf of any labor organization by discriminating in regard to the hire
and, tenure of employment of any of our employees or in regard to any
other term or condition of employment of our employees because of such
affiliation or activity.
WE WILL offer the following named employees immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and will make each of
them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
APPLETON COATED PAPER COMPANY 1603
discrimination practiced against her together with interest thereon at 6
percent per annum:
1966 1966
Willie L. Blackford __ Mar. 2 Gertrude Welch_____________ Mar. 23
Ruth E . Epley------- Mar. 3 Anna Jean Lee______________ Mar. 24
Mary Hudnall------ Mar. 4 Dorothy M. Hardison-------- Mar. 24
Geraldine Hadden___ Mar. 23 Geraldine Offutt_____________ Mar. 25
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in regard to the union member-
ship or activities of the employee or of other employees.
WE hereby rescind our "no-solicitation" rule.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere , restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist any labor organizations , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities.
LOGAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, 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,
Room 2407 , Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati , Ohio 45202,
Telephone 684-3686.
Appleton Coated Paper Company and General Drivers & Dairy
Employees Union Local No. 563, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 30-RC-457. February 10,
1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a Hearing
Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 ('b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
162 NLRB No. 150.