Michigan Precision Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan Precision Industries , Inc. and Henry Dett-
man. Case 7-CA-11919
April 13, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND WALTHER
On September 29, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel, hereinafter called the General Counsel,
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a brief in support of the Decision and
in response to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
' The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing her credibility findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Detroit, Michigan , July 23 and 24,
1975. The charge was filed April 11 and served on the Re-
spondent April 14, 1975. The complaint was issued May
19, 1975.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by threatening employees that they would never
be returned to work unless they withdrew unfair labor
practice charges which they had filed in a prior case and
conditioning their return to work on the withdrawal of said
unfair labor practice charges, and by informing them that
adverse changes in their hours of work were occasioned by
bitterness which management felt toward them because of
their involvement in the prior case; and whether or not the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by dis-
charging Henry Dettman.
For the reasons given below, I recommend that the com-
plaint be dismissed.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the brief filed by the Respondent,' I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, maintains two
places of business in Michigan, including the plant here
involved located in Detroit, where it is engaged in the man-
ufacture and sale of fineblanked precision metal stamp-
ings . During the year ending December 31, 1974, the Re-
spondent purchased and caused to be delivered at its plant
here involved goods and materials valued in excess of $1
million of which materials valued in excess of $500,000
were delivered directly from points located outside Michi-
gan. During that period the Respondent manufactured and
sold products valued in excess of $2 million of which prod-
ucts valued in excess of $1 million were shipped from its
Detroit plant directly to points located outside Michigan.
The Respondent admits, and I conclude, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Local 985, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
A. Background
The Respondent admits, and I find, that during material
times the following persons were supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and its agents: Karl
Pfister, president; Charles Furrer, manufacturing manager;
Werner Disch, tool-and-die foreman; Jerry Frifeldt, main-
tenance foreman.
The production-and-maintenance employees of this
plant have been represented by Local 985 for 7 or 8 years
' No brief has been received from the General Counsel.
2 In resolving credibility issues, I have in certain instances credited some
and discredited other testimony of the same witnesses . See N.L.R.B. v. Uni-
versal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2, 1950); Southeastern
Motor Truck Lines, 113 NLRB 1122 (1955). Demeanor, personality, and
character as revealed on the stand, and probability in light of the whole
record have been heavily relied on in making credibility determinations.
223 NLRB No. 130
MICHIGAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC. 893
in a unit which excludes technical, tool-and-die, and office-
clerical employees. Rolland Carey is vice president of Lo-
cal 985, and Chasalcaphone Harrison is chief steward at
the plant.
B. Allegations Concerning Hoermann and Penkala
The General Counsel alleges that on various dates be-
tween February 7 and 17, 1975, President Pfister and Man-
ufacturing Manager Furrer threatened employees Robert
Hoermann and Gerald Penkala that they would never be
returned to work unless they withdrew unfair labor prac-
tice charges filed in Case 7-CA-11762 and specifically con-
ditioned their return to work on the withdrawal of said
unfair labor practice charges.3
Beginning in September 1974 discussions began between
Chief Steward Harrison, the employee committee, and Lo-
cal 985 Vice President Rolland Carey on the one hand and
President Pfister and Manufacturing Manager Furrer on
the other as to whether or not Hoermann's and Penkala's
positions should be brought within the coverage of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement. Several meetings on this
matter were held throughout the fall of 1974 and early
1975. On January 30, 1975, Hoermann and Penkala were
discharged. On February 3, 1975, Penkala filed an unfair
labor practice charge in Case 7-CA-11762 alleging that the
discharges were caused by Hoermann's and Penkala's ac-
tivities on behalf of Local 985. These two employees were
subsequently reinstated, and on February 25, 1975, the Re-
gional Director for Region 7 approved the withdrawal of
the unfair labor practice charge, without prejudice. This
allegation of the complaint has to do with remarks made to
Hoermann and Penkala and other conduct by manage-
ment during the period that that charge was pending be-
fore the Regional Office.
After Penkala and Hoermann were discharged, it be-
came a part of the discussions between Union and man-
agement whether they would be put back to work as part
of the unit.
Penkala testified that, while the discussions were going
on, both President Pfister and Manufacturing Manager
Furrer telephoned him at home several times. Each time
they called, they told Penkala "that I would have to drop
the charges in order to have my job back," or "to drop
them or else they wouldn't sign for me to come back to
work."
Manager Furrer admitted that he told Penkala in these
telephone conversations that he "couldn't talk about these
matters, the classifications, the reinstatement, until [Penka-
la] dropped those charges."
On February 14 or 15, Penkala received a message to
return to work February 17. On the latter date, the Union
and management reached agreement returning Hoermann
and Penkala to work, setting up new classifications and
rates of pay for their jobs, and including their jobs under
the contract. Union Vice President Carey credibly testified
3 Most of the evidence relevant to this allegation is undisputed or mutual-
ly corroborative, but Local 985 Vice President Rolland Carey appeared to
have the most precise recall and to be the most truthful . Neither President
Pfister nor employee Hoermann testified with regard to this allegation.
that, after the agreement was reached, President Pfister
"asked about the unfair labor practice charges," and that
Carey told him, "we had no jurisdiction over the charges,
they were individual charges and, therefore, we have to
deal with the individuals."'
Pfister then called Penkala and Hoermann into his office
and in Carey's presence, according to Penkala, "asked me
to drop the charges and have a settlement with him." Al-
though Penkala wanted full backpay, Pfister "wouldn't
agree to it," and offered 1 week's wages at straight time
pay. Penkala testified that Pfister "wanted a settlement,
and this is the settlement that he came up with." Although
Penkala told Pfister he "didn't think it was fair," Hoer-
mann and Penkala agreed, and signed a document to the
following effect:
February 17, 1975
Memo to Michigan Precision Industries, Inc.
Re case #7-CAI 1762 dated February 3, 1975, the un-
dersigned will drop the above case against Michigan
Precision Industries, Inc. for the following settlement:
(1) one week pay of forty hours at straight time, paya-
ble on February 21, 1975.
As stated above, the Regional Director approved the with-
drawal of the charge February 25, 1975.
The relevant evidence set forth above does not support
the General Counsel's contention that the reinstatement of
Hoermann and Penkala was in fact conditioned upon
Penkala's withdrawal of his unfair labor practice charge.
The credible evidence shows, and I have found, that the
Respondent agreed to return them to work as part of its
agreement with the Union to include their jobs in the unit
covered by the contract. When the Respondent thereafter
raised the question of the charges it was told that it must
take that matter up with the individuals involved. President
Pfister's subsequent meeting with the individuals, which
took place after the Respondent had agreed to reinstate
them, is not alleged nor contended by the General Counsel
to be a violation of the Act. In any event, that meeting
appears, in its context of following immediately upon the
successful settlement reached by the Union and the Re-
spondent and of being held in the presence of the union
vice president, to have been in the nature of a compromise
negotiation in which an offer and acceptance resulted in
completing an entire settlement eventually approved by the
Regional Director.'
As for the statements made by Pfister and Furrer to Pen-
kala over the telephone, I find, contrary to the
Respondent's contention, that these conversations were not
"compromise negotiations" within the scope of Rule 408 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence approved January 1, 1975,
and that the statements made to Penkala were not offers of
compromise. They were threats to refuse to rehire Penkala
unless he dropped the charges he had filed against the Re-
spondent regarding his discharge, and a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In my opinion, however, this was a technical violation
only, which it would not, in all the circumstances, be in the
See Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 216 NLRB 256 (1975).
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
public interest to remedy .' If a complaint had been issued
on the charge filed by Penkala in the prior case , these tele-
phone remarks would appropriately have provided the ba-
sis for an 8(a)(1) allegation if the Regional Director had
known about them . When the parties settled among them-
selves all matters in dispute relating to the status of Hoer-
mann and Penkala , the Regional Director elected not to
issue any complaint , but to approve Penkala's request to
withdraw the charge . At the time he made that election, the
Regional Director either had not been told by Penkala
about the threats made to him or he had been told but
believed that approval of the withdrawal request was justi-
fied in any event . Moreover , Penkala and Hoermann are
back at work , they received some recompense for the time
they were off, and all matters which were in dispute regard-
ing their unit status have been resolved . I find that the
telephone remarks were encompassed within the overall
settlement reached by the parties among themselves on the
basis of which the Regional Director found that it would
effectuate the policies of the Act to approve Penkala's re-
quest to withdraw the charges . Providing a remedy for this
violation would , in these circumstances , be contrary to the
Board's policy of encouraging settlements of labor dis-
putes , "and so far as possible to extinguish all the elements
giving rise to them."
C. Allegation of Adverse Change in Hours
The General Counsel alleges that on or about May 5,
1975, Maintenance Foreman Jerry Frifeldt informed Pen-
kala of adverse changes in his hours of work and indicated
that such changes were occasioned by the bitterness which
Manufacturing Manager Furrer and President Pfister felt
toward him due to his involvement in Case 7 -CA-11762.
Penkala testified , in support of this allegation , that some
time after his reinstatement Frifeldt told him that employ
ees' hours were being changed because business was pick-
ing up again , and that Penkala 's working hours were
changed from 7:30 a .m.-4 p.m . to 3-11:30 p .m. Penkala
protested that the new hours were not convenient for him
because he was starting school . Frifeldt said he would see
what he could do but Pfister and Furrer "might have a
bitter taste in their mouths" for Penkala and Hoermann
"about filing through the Labor Board ." Thereafter, Fri-
feldt informed Penkala that he could return to his old
hours for 2 days a week in order to attend school . Penkala
testified that he also reported the change in his working
hours to Chief Steward Harrison but he did not remember
what Harrison did about it.
Chief Steward Harrison testified as follows : Around
May 4, Penkala told Harrison , in Frifeldt 's presence, that
the Company was changing his hours and that his new
schedule was inconvenient because he was going to school.
Harrison asked Frifeldt to talk to Furrer and get permis-
sion for Penkala to come in an hour early . Frifeldt suggest-
ed that Harrison talk to Furrer , but cautioned him against
"demanding that this guy work those hours ," because
3 Koppers Company. Inc., Forest Products Division, 163 NLRB 517, In. I
(1967).
6 The Wallace Corporation v. N. L R . B., 323 U .S. 248 , 254 (1944).
"You know Chuck [Furrer] and Karl [Pfister] got a bitter
taste for these two guys since they come back," or "a bitter
taste towards these guys for joining the union in the action
they taken against the company." Harrison persuaded Fur-
rer to allow Penkala to come in 2 hours early and leave 2
hours early 2 days a week so he could attend school. Al-
though Harrison said on direct examination that Penkala
claimed he "had more seniority," on cross-examination
Harrison said that Penkala did not claim that someone
with less seniority had been given a choice of shift over
him, and that Frifeldt explained he had to have someone
with Penkala's skill on the shift designated for him.
Although Frifeldt did not testify, the above evidence
shows that Penkala and Harrison differed somewhat as to
just what Frifeldt's "bitter taste" remark was as well as to
the context in which it was made. To the extent that Penka-
la intended to convey the impression that Pfister and Fur-
rer had changed his hours because of the bitter taste left by
his unfair labor practice charge in the prior case, there is no
evidence that this in fact happened and it is not supported
by Harrison. Indeed, the record gives the impression that
the working hours of other employees were also changed,
because of an increase in business, after a cutback the pre-
ceding March, and that changes were made on the basis of
seniority. It is also clear that, after Penkala's request was
conveyed to Furrer by either Foreman Frifeldt or Chief
Steward Harrison, an accommodation was made so that
Penkala could attend school . In these circumstances, I find
that Frifeldt's comment about the "bitter taste" Pfister and
Furrer had or might have was innocuous and of no coer-
cive tendency. I conclude that this allegation of the com-
plaint should be dismissed.
D. Allegations Concerning Dettman
The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged
Henry Dettman on April 9, 1975, because Dettman had
indicated that if his problems at work could not be re-
dressed by the Respondent, he would seek help from the
National Labor Relations Board, and because the Respon-
dent feared that Dettman would file unfair labor practice
charges such as those filed by Penkala in Case 7-CA-
11762 or would seek representation assistance and help
from Local 985 or some other labor organization. The Re-
spondent contends Dettman was discharged for cause.
Henry Dettman was employed by the Respondent on
three different occasions. He worked as the foreman of the
pressroom from September 13, 1971, until he was called
back by his former employer January 1, 1972. On Septem-
ber 11, 1972, he returned to the Respondent and worked as
a toolmaker until he quit September 16, 1972. Dettman
returned again to the Respondent August 7, 1974, and
.worked as a tool-and-die maker until his discharge April 9,
1975. His immediate foreman until January 1, 1975, was
Hans Kaufman, a friend of 8 years' standing, and from
then until his discharge was Werner Disch.
Dettman conceded that he had nothing to do with the
unfair labor practice charge involving Hoermann and Pen-
kala, and that neither he nor anyone else tried to organize
the toolroom employees or to bring them within the cover-
MICHIGAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC. 895
age of the collective -bargaining agreement .' I find , as Dett-
man stated in his pretrial affidavit, that he never talked to
Foreman Disch about either the Board or a union;' and
that he never talked about a union with Furrer, or men-
tioned the Board to Furrer, except for Dettman's one al-
leged remark in March, which Furrer denied, discussed be-
low.9
In March, the shift schedule was adjusted because busi-
ness was slow , changes being made on the basis of senior-
ity. When Foreman Disch informed him that his hours
would be changed, Dettman protested that the new hours
would interfere with his school attendance. Disch sent him
to Furrer, but Furrer told him, "If you don't like it you can
quit." Dettman then told Furrer, "Good thing we have a
Labor Relations Board for people like you." Furrer told
Dettman he was not in the Union, and Dettman said,
"Don't bet on it." 10 After Dettman took his protest to
President Pfister, his schedule was adjusted so he could
attend school 2 days a week.
We now come to additional major credibility issues,
those presented by the diametrically opposite testimony re-
garding Dettman's work performance and conduct on the
job, and what was said to him at his discharge interview.
Dettman claimed that management never criticized his
work performance and never remonstrated with him indi-
vidually about his conduct. He also claimed that at his
discharge interview Foreman Disch gave as two of the rea-
sons for his termination that he was a rabble-rouser and
union aligned.
According to Furrer and Foreman Disch, Dettman
turned in a poor performance almost from the last time he
was hired, and Furrer, Foreman Kaufman (who did not
testify), and Disch talked to him and remonstrated with
him frequently, beginning less than a month after he began
work. It was because of Dettman's failure to respond fa-
vorably to these admonitions that Furrer and Disch finally
decided to discharge him even though to Disch's knowl-
edge no toolroom employee had ever been discharged be-
fore. Disch flatly denied telling Dettman at the discharge
interview that he was a rabble-rouser or union aligned.
The following additional evidence was received on these
issues.
7 I do not credit Chief Steward Harrison 's testimony to the effect that he
asked Furrer during February 1975 about unionizing the toolroom and that
Furrer replied he would never agree to it because he could not control those
employees if they were in the Union. Harrison said that Furrer had given
him the identical reason for resisting the inclusion of Hoermann's and
Penkala's jobs in the Unit, and his testimony here had a rote -like quality. I
therefore credit Furrer 's denial that either of these conversations occurred.
8 As this statement in Dettman 's affidavit conforms with Disch's testimo-
ny, I do not credit Dettman 's contrary testimony that he and Disch argued
the pros and cons of unionism during the lunch period once or twice a week,
Dettman pro and Disch con.
9 In view of my finding above and in view of his failure to mention it in
his affidavit , which in these particular circumstances suggests afterthought,
I do not credit Dettman 's unsupported testimony that Furrer told the tool-
room employees at a Christmas party that they were doing an outstanding
job and did not need a union. I credit Furrer that there was no Christmas
party and that, although there was a year-end party , no one spoke of the
Union.
10 I credit Dettman as to the substance of this conversation with Furrer
and discredit Furrer's denial that either the Board or the Union was men-
tioned . Dettman 's version of the remarks made was consistent with the
personalities of these two men as I observed them , and with their other
conduct and views as revealed by the record as a whole.
Furrer testified that during the week of September 3,
1974, he and Foreman Kaufman met with Dettman at
Kaufman's suggestion and told him he was making too
many mistakes, resulting in die breakage. Dettman apolo-
gized and explained that he was going through a divorce
and could not concentrate. He was told to leave his person-
al problems at home as far as possible and improve his
performance. Dettman denied that this conversation took
place, and insisted that he told Pfister, Furrer, and Kauf-
man, that his divorce was final before he was hired.
On September 26, 1974, Furrer said, he spoke to Dett-
man alone after Kaufman complained that he improperly
repaired a die so that it broke, and Dettman promised to
be more careful and said that his divorce would soon be
final. Dettman testified that die breakage was never dis-
cussed with him.
On October 16, 1974, Furrer testified, Kaufman said that
he thought he had found out why Dettman was misreading
things, not adjusting dies right, and making mistakes, as
Kaufman observed that Dettman was going to a place
where the light was extraordinarily bright and using a mag-
nifying glass to read the micrometers. The next day, Furrer
said, he gave Dettman a slip for the eye clinic, and asked
him to go for an examination in order to find out whether
poor eyesight was the cause of his poor work performance.
Dettman testified that Furrer told him to go to the eye
clinic because he had received information from his stooge,
Jim Garrippe. Furrer and Dettman testified similarly that
Dettman told Furrer he had recently bought a pair of eye-
glasses but had little need for them as he had no problem
reading instruments, and that he refused to go to the clinic.
(When asked at the hearing to read a sentence from his
pretrial affidavit, Dettman said, "I haven't got my reading
glasses." When then asked whether he needed glasses to
read, he responded that he did not, proceeded to read the
affidavit, and said he did not have any trouble with his
eyes.)
Furrer testified that he and Kaufman had another con-
ference with Dettman during the week of October 30, 1974,
after new lights were installed in the toolroom. They told
Dettman that he was too slow on the job, and that punches
were still being ground short and dimensions were not
being kept right on the dies; and they pointed out that
because of new lights there was no longer any reason Dett-
man should have a problem with his vision. Dettman de-
nied that the conversation took place, and denied he was
ever told he was slow.
James Garrippe, a tool-and-die apprentice, testified that
it sometimes took Dettman longer than it did others to do
the work, and that he had to redo Dettman's work twice
while Kaufman was foreman, when Dettman ground dies
wrong. Dettman could not recall any such incidents.
Werner Disch testified that after he became foreman of
the toolroom he talked to Dettman several times-in Janu-
ary, March, and early April, 1975-about abusing coffee-
break and washup time and about bad jobs which had to
be corrected by others. After such talkings to, Disch said,
Dettman would improve for a day or two but after that
would ignore what Disch had said to him.
Furrer testified that on January 8, 1975, he directed
Disch to speak to Dettman about violating washup and
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coffeebreak time and about being the only toolroom em-
ployee who did not clean his machine on Friday af-
ternoons . Disch testified that other employees complained
about Dettman's refusal to take part in the cleaning chore
and about his washing up earlier than others , and that he
took these matters up with Dettman January 8 , 1975. Dett-
man denied it.
According to Furrer and Disch , Disch spoke to Dettman
again January 28 or 29, 1975. Furrer described how other
employees got very upset about Dettman's going to the
bathroom 15 minutes before washup time ; that Garrippe
told Furrer Dettman was breaking "just about every rule
that is in the book"; that toolmaker Wolfe told him it was
a shame that he and other top toolmakers had to work at
the same wage scale as Dettman and go by the rules while
Dettman was the only man who did not think he had to go
by the rules , starting his break and lunch times 10 or 15
minutes early . Disch testified he was not sure that he spoke
to Dettman about these matters on this particular date, but
he did remember speaking about his making too many
phone calls on the company phone . Also on January 28,
Disch said, Dettman was working on a special die and cut
off an important timing mark , which a toolmaker of his
experience should never have done ; when Disch told him
about it, Dettman said he did not "even have a damn
print"; but the two of them then found the print lying on
the die itself. Disch said he again raised the question of
Dettman 's eyesight but Dettman said "we are crazy, that
he doesn 't need glasses." Dettman denied that anyone
spoke to him at this time about his work or conduct. He
testified that on January 28 he was instructed to check out
a new die which had just arrived from Switzerland and he
discovered a marker sticking out one thousandth of an inch
from the die plates . He asked another employee whether it
looked like "a grinding mark or chip mark ," the employee
answered, "Yeah . Grind it off," so Dettman ground it off.
Garrippe affirmed that he complained to Disch about
Dettman's violations of the coffeebreak and washup time
rules , which Garrippe said were noticed by others and
caused dissension among them. Hans Wolfe , a skilled lathe
hand engaged in die repair work similar to that of other
employees in the toolroom, also affirmed that he com-
plained to Disch about Dettman 's abuse of breaktime.
Wolfe testified that Dettman was slow , made more mis-
takes than others, and on one occasion Wolfe had to make
new ejector pins for a die because Dettman had cut them
too short . Wolfe said he complained that he should be paid
more than Dettman because he did not make so many mis-
takes.
Disch said that Dettman timed a die wrong in March
and it took Garrippe 2 to 3 hours to rework it. When Disch
spoke to Dettman about this , and again about washing his
hands before quitting time and before lunch time, Dettman
told him to "Fuck off . Get off my back ." Dettman did not
think he ever said this to Disch , and he did not think he
timed the die wrong.
Furrer testified that during the week of April 2, 1975,
and later, he and Disch talked to Dettman almost daily
about his work performance and conduct. Furrer said that
he instructed Disch to tell Dettman that the toolroom em-
ployees were unhappy and that, if things did not straighten
out, something would have to be done. On the occasion
that Furrer himself spoke to Dettman, he told him he was
doing too much talking in the toolroom and the secondary
(production) areas and not enough work; abusing break-
time ; telling Disch to get off his back; and causing anxiety
and uproar among the other toolroom employees. Disch
testified that after discussing these matters with Furrer he
also brought them to Dettman's attention at this time, and
that he told Dettman if he did not improve "something is
going to happen." Dettman denied this testimony.
Furrer testified that between April 2 and 8 the problems
with Dettman got worse instead of better. When Furrer
spoke to one of the secondary foremen about his people
standing around horseplaying and talking instead of doing
their work, the foreman protested that "more expensive"
people, naming Dettman and another toolmaker named
Toddia, were "horsing around all day long. Half the time
they're over here in our areas talking to us, drinking coffee
and all these things."
April 8, 1975. Furrer testified that Disch was out of the
plant, and that Furrer took charge of the toolroom that day
himself. Furrer observed Dettman and Toddia drinking
coffee not during breaktime but during working hours and
told Dettman he could not have it. Half an hour later,
Dettman was back talking to one of the secondary employ-
ees. Furrer called all the toolmakers together and told them
all they were not to go into the secondary area unless it was
breaktime. Half an hour later Dettman was back there
talking to one of the secondary employees. Dettman con-
firmed that Furrer told the toolroom group not to talk or
drink coffee with secondary operators because "he can't
get any work out of these people now," but Dettman de-
nied that Furrer spoke to him personally about this matter.
April 9, 1975. Furrer's testimony: Dettman began the
day by violating the coffeebreak and talking rules. After
speaking to him again about this, Furrer returned to his
office and made the following note for his file.
CF [Charles Furrerl talked to Dettman. Dettman free-
ly talks around, taking coffeebreaks early, which was
brought to his attention before. Henry shows no im-
provement in any of the areas we complained before.
Anticipate discharge anytime because of insubordina-
tion. T. Toddia already starts the same bad habits,
which cannot be tolerated.
Furrer then sent for Foreman Disch and they discussed the
problems they had with Dettman. Furrer asked Disch how
the general work situation was and Disch responded it was
not good. Furrer then suggested it would be best to dis-
charge Dettman and Disch agreed. Furrer instructed Disch
to go and see Dettman and tell him that "on the basis of all
these things that has happened that he will be discharged
as of tomorrow."
President Pfister was out of the plant that morning, but
when he returned in the afternoon and Furrer explained
what he had done, Pfister told him he might as well make
the discharge effective that same day, and Furrer did so.
Dettman gave the following account of his discharge in-
terview, April 9, 1975: Disch told Dettman to accompany
him to the office as Disch wanted to talk to him. After
asking twice why Disch could not say what he had to say
MICHIGAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC. 897
where they were, Dettman followed him into the office.
There, after some hesitation, Disch told him, "You're not
here anymore." Dettman did not understand and asked
Disch to explain. Disch went on, "Yeah. From today you
are canned. You're dismissed." Dettman asked the reason,
and Disch said, "You're too slow" and that the work which
took another guy 4 hours took Dettman 6 hours. Dettman
asked if it had taken 8 months to find that out and Disch
said, "I was union-aligned, a little on the rabble-rouser
side," and that it really was not Disch's decision. Dettman
asked Disch if he had spoken up for him and Disch said,
"No, there was nothing I could do," and that Dettman was
to leave at 3 o'clock. On cross-examination, Dettman add-
ed that Disch had also told him that one of the reasons for
his dismissal was that Dettman could not get along with
people.
Foreman Disch's testimony: After his conference with
Furrer, Disch took Dettman into the office and told him,
I'm sorry. We have to let you go because of your bad
behavior and not improving on jobs, repairing the
dies, washup period, coffee breaks. I brought ev-
erything up . . . coffee breaks, washup time, especial-
ly fixing the dies wrong, or assembling wrong, making
too many mistakes, which is the main reason of dis-
charge . . . And also I even mentioned his job, each
job is taking too long on certain jobs.
Dettman responded that "these items are not true and he
can do his job as good as anybody else." Disch told him,
"Look, I talked to you before and you know it. Chuck
Furrer talked to you a few times. And I'm sorry." Disch
denied telling Dettman he was union aligned. He testified
that he never told Dettman he was a rabble-rouser, that he
does not know what the phrase means, that both men
spoke German during the discharge interview, and that he
does not know how the phrase translates into German.
Dettman appealed his discharge to President Pfister,
who said he could not reverse the discharge action, but
Dettman was a good man and would find another job.
On April 11, 1975, Manufacturing Manager Furrer put
the following memo in the file, with a copy to President
Pfister.
Discharge Memo:
The undersigned can not allow Mr. Dettman to re-
main with MPI anymore. Mr. Dettman on a continu-
ous basis violates the rules and regulations of MPI,
and also undermines the position of Werner Disch,
Toolroom Foreman.
As of April 10, 1975, Mr. Dettman is therefore dis-
charged because of the following reasons:
1. Abuse of 5 minute wash-up period.
2. Violation of coffee-break times and lunch peri-
ods.
3. Failure to perform his job as a Toolmaker.
4. Abusive and harassing conduct toward fellow
workers, foreman and supervisor.
5. Careless and negligent repairing of dies, often re-
quiring rework.
6. Refusal to follow instructions of his foreman
(Mr. Disch).
7. Caused divisions among employee, a bad influ-
ence.
8. Undermining the position and authority of Fore-
man.
President Pfister testified that he received a copy of the
above memo, and that such a memo was normal when an
employee of Dettman's level was discharged.
Thoughtful consideration leads me to conclude that the
Respondent's witnesses were more credible than Dettman
about these matters. Dettman's testimony that he had a
virtually unblemished work record was uncorroborated.
Although the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses to
the opposite effect was not identical in all respects, the
thrust of Furrer's evidence received strong support from
Disch, a very impressive witness, as well as from Pfister
and two of Dettman's coworkers. In addition, Furrer sup-
ported his account of specific instances when he and Disch
remonstrated with Dettman by means of notes made at the
time or notes made from such notes, which I have no com-
pelling reason to discount or to believe were falsely made
after the fact. By contrast, Dettman failed to offer docu-
mentary evidence in support of his testimony that his di-
vorce was final before he was hired and to contradict
Furrer's testimony that Dettman pleaded the continued
pendency of the divorce proceeding as an excuse for his
poor performance. Dettman conceded Furrer raised a
question about his eyesight but his only explanation was
that Furrer got "the information" from a stooge. I am
therefore forced to accept the reason advanced by Furrer
and Disch-that they were concerned about Dettman's
poor performance and thought it might be caused by im-
perfect vision. Dettman's own account of his grinding the
marker off a die on January 28 is consistent with this con-
clusion. Moreover, Dettman's stubborn insistence that he
had no problem with his vision marked him as a man loath
to admit imperfection.
With regard to the discharge interview, I credit Disch
over Dettman because of the considerations stated above,
including the impressiveness of Disch's apparent candor. I
believe Disch's testimony that he was not familiar with the
expression rabble-rouser as it is undisputed that the inter-
view was conducted in German and Dettman failed to re-
but this assertion with the German words allegedly used.
The possibility that Disch accused Dettman of being union
aligned is extremely remote in view of the absence of credi-
ble evidence that Dettman in fact was union aligned or
that management suspected him to be. In these circum-
stances, I cannot infer that management harbored appre-
hensions over Dettman's "Don't bet on it" statement to
Furrer more than a month before.
Two factors remain which tend to favor the General
Counsel's case-that Dettman also blurted out to Furrer
after he refused to change Dettman's new work schedule at
their March meeting, "Good thing we have a Labor Rela-
tions Board for people like you"; and Penkala's testimony,
which I credit, that Furrer told him and Hoermann only 2
weeks before the hearing, "if it wasn't for us he wouldn't be
having all this trouble with Henry Dettman." I cannot,
however, parlay these two factors into a finding of discrim-
inatory motivation in the discharge. The recent remark to
Penkala is too obscure to justify drawing any conclusion as
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to its meaning and intent . Nor does this record indicate
that Dettman's statement would be interpreted by Furrer
as a threat to file an unfair labor practice charge unless his
work schedule was changed, and become so alarmed over
that possibility that he manufactured a whole list of pre-
texts to get rid of Dettman entirely. In the first place, that
Dettman's schedule was changed, as he requested, under-
mines the likelihood of a vengeful reaction to his state-
ment. Moreover, the record shows that the Respondent's
reaction to the original unfair labor practice charge, filed
by Penkala, was not vengeful. Indeed, the Respondent
gave the Union and the dischargees pretty close to ev-
erything they asked for in the settlement of the charge and
other related matters in dispute at that time. Finally, other
than the single technical violation of Section 8(a)(1) found
above, there is no evidence of interference with employees'
statutory rights or of significant union animus on the part
of the Respondent . And there is a 7 or 8 year history of
apparently amicable relations between management and
labor at this plant.
Accordingly, I find that the allegation that Dettman's
discharge was unlawfully motivated is not supported by a
preponderance of the credible evidence, and I conclude
that this allegation must also be dismissed.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, I hereby issue the follow-
ing recommended:
ORDER 11
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.