Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 755 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

HEILAND DIV . OF MINNEAPOLIS -HONEYWELL REG. CO. 755
tion of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act and has thereby interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent , in violation of the Act, refused to bargain
with the Union as representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, by the
refusal to produce necessary information , and by the imposition of illegal conditions.
To remedy the refusal to bargain in these respects and to effectuate the policies of
the Act , it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and,
upon request, bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees in the
unit in which the Union was certified as such representative and, if an understanding
is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
As it is implicit in my recommendation requiring Respondent to cease and desist
from refusing to produce certain information that it so produce it, I find it re-
dundant and unnecessary to affirmatively order Respondent to produce the requested
information.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the
Act, and its operations occurred in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent employed at its
West Memphis , Arkansas , plant including welders, setup men, layout men, painters,
truckdrivers , stockroom clerks, installation , janitors, sweepers , and all helpers and
the shipping and receiving clerk , excluding office clerical employees , salesmen , drafts-
men, guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. On and since February 1, 1961 , the Union has been and now is the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above , by virtue of
a certification of a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board.
5. By imposing a condition upon the production of information requested by the
Union as necessary for the intelligent preparation for bargaining , and by imposing
a condition upon the Union 's attorney and its representatives that they provide verbal
assurances of good conduct during the course of future negotiations , together with
the requirement of a guarantee of performance of such assurances with a monetary
penalty clause , Respondent has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and (1 ) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Heiland Division of Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Co. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 927-CA-859 (formerly SO-CA--859). Janu-
ary 31, 19692
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 29,1961, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the
135 NLRB No. 80.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.' There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner found that Steyer was discharged and Olguin
was suspended because of their union activities. The Respondent has
excepted to these findings, contending that the separations were for
cause, since Steyer had instigated and Olguin had participated in a
production slowdown. According to the testimony credited by the
Trial Examiner, the events leading up to the separations on August 10
were as follows :
The Respondent's plant at Denver, Colorado, at which the occur-
rences took place, manufactures automatic control devices, including
miniature electrical galvanometers. The 17 or so employees who
worked in the galvanometer room were supervised by Foreman Frank.
On or about July 1, 1960, these employees approached Frank to com-
plain about working conditions, wage rates, and the length of training
time. Frank relayed their complaints to Imhof, the plant superin-
tendent, who later addressed the group telling them that remedial ac-
tion would be taken, but that he regretted their bringing these matters
up by group action rather than on an individual basis. He also re-
marked that they did not need any third party to represent them.
On July 22, Respondent announced to its employees that it was
conducting a wage survey, that it had been able to keep them busy
because they could be shifted between departments, and that such flexi-
bility was possible only under the present employee-relation plan.
The same day the Union held its first organization meeting and on
July 27 held another such meeting. Both Steyer and Olguin were ac-
tive in urging employees to attend these meetings. Stillwell, an em-
ployee from whom Steyer had attempted to obtain a union authoriza-
tion card, informed Frank on August 4 that Steyer was bothering her
about the Union and asked what she should do. Frank told her to let
him know if it happened again.
'In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's finding that
the Respondent 's retraction of a general wage increase soon after the Charging Union's
demand for recognition did not constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG. CO. 757
At an employee picnic on Saturday, August 6, Frank told a group
of four or five employees that the Respondent was a good company to
work for, but that the pleasant relationship might end if the Union
got in. He also said that : Steyer had worked for the Union while he
was at'another company; this company had been organized and was
now out of business; Steyer was a union agitator who was "on his way
out" whether or not the Union got in; and Olguin was a good boy
until he started listening to Steyer.
On August 10, Frank, Imhof, and Ohrns, Respondent's manufac-
turing manager, summoned seven employees individually to Ohrns'
office where they were questioned about a suspected production slow-
down in the galvanometer room. A majority of those interviewed
confirmed the Respondent's suspicion that some employees were en-
gaging in such a slowdown, although none of them implicated either
Steyer or Olguin as its instigators or as participants therein 2
However, according to Ohrns' own testimony, some of those inter-'
viewed did say that Steyer was trying to push for the Union. Imme-
diately after the interviews, Steyer and Olguin were summoned to
Ohrns' office where Steyer was discharged and Olguin was given a
5-day,suspension, allegedly for their part in the slowdown.
The Trial Examiner doubted whether there was in fact such a slow-
down. We do not share these doubts. Whether production was fall-
ing in the galvanometer room or whether it was not increasing at the
rate at which Respondent believed it should as employees gained more
experience , it is certain that some employees were deliberately not
putting full effort into their work and were attempting to get others
to do the same. The issue is not, however, whether there was a dis-
cernible slackening of activity in the galvanometer room but rather
whether the Respondent seized upon the rumors of such a slowdown in
order to rid itself of Steyer and Olguin because they were active
adherents 'of the Union. In affirming the Trial Examiner's finding
that Steyer and Olguin were separated because of their union activi-
ties, we rely on the fact that Respondent had made known its opposi-
tion to having a union in the plant; it was aware of Steyer's and
Olguin's activities for the Union; Foreman Frank's statements at the
picnic` indicate that the Respondent was considering some disciplinary
action against Steyer and Olguin even before the interviews of
August 10, when its suspicions as to a slowdown were confirmed; and,
the interviews did not link either Steyer or Olguin to the slowdown.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent discharged Steyer and suspended Olguin in violation of
Section 8(a) (3), because of their activities on behalf of the Union.
2 The Trial Examiner credited Boespflug ' s and Racz' testimony that they had not told
Frank that Steyer and Olguin were participating In or had instigated the production
slowdown.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Heiland Division of Minneapolis-
Honeywell Regulator Co., Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening employees with discharge or less desirable work-
ing conditions if International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1823, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization should repre-
sent them; interrogating employees with respect to their activities on
behalf of Local 1823, or any other labor organization, in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act; and timing its announcements of wage increases
so as to interfere with union organization.
(b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization, by discharging, suspending, or otherwise discriminating
against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join and assist International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization 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. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Ivan Steyer immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges and make him and Joe 01-
guin whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against theip, in the manner set forth in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG. CO. 759
ports and all other records necessary or appropriate to analyze the
amount of backpay and other benefits due.
(c) Post at its offices in Denver, Colorado, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-seventh Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discharging or suspend-
ing any employee or in any other manner discriminating in re-
gard to hire, tenure, term, or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with respect to their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in a manner constitut-
ing interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT time our announcements of wage increases so as
to interfere with union organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Ivan Steyer immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Ivan Steyer and Joe Olguin for any
loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, except
as these rights may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
HEILAND DIVISION OF MINNEAPOLIS-
HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 609 Railway Exchange Bldg., 17th and Champa St., Denver,
Colorado (Telephone Number Keystone 4-4151, Extension 513) if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was tried in Denver, Colorado, on October 25 and 26, 1960. It pre-
sented questions including the unlawful discharge of employee Ivan Steyer and the
unlawful disciplinary layoff of Joe Olguin. Also presented was the question of
whether the granting and withdrawal of a general pay increase along with certain
alleged statements to employees by supervisors were violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
On consideration of the briefs submitted by General Counsel and Respondent, the
entire record in the case, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, it is found that Heiland
Division of Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., herein called Respondent, is a
Delaware corporation with its office and principal place of business in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. It operates a plant in Denver, Colorado, the installation here involved,
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG . CO. 761
where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of automatic control
devices and systems . During the course and conduct of its business , Respondent
annually ships from its Denver, Colorado , plant to customers outside the State of
Colorado , finished products valued in an amount in excess of $ 500,000. Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce , within the
meaning of the Act.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823 , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The portion of Respondent's Denver plant with which this case is primarily con-
cerned is called the galvanometer room. The production in this room involves the
assembling of miniature electrical units.
The Union first held an organizational meeting on July 22 followed by one on
July 27, 1960. On July 22, after a request by the employees of the galvanometer
room, a wage study was commenced by Respondent to make its wage rate attractive
enough to avoid losing key personnel. Steyer was discharged on August 10 and Joe
Olguin was given a disciplinary layoff for 5 days, commencing on that date. They
were both galvanometer room employees. On August 31 the Union requested recog-
nition which was refused by Vice President and General Manager Keller. At the
time of this request, Respondent's vice president of industrial relations, Morse, was in
the Denver plant of Respondent and he was advised by Keller of the Union's request.
That evening Morse returned to Minneapolis and had an emergency meeting of Re-
spondent's wage board, and on September 1, the next morning, he called Keller
stating that the wage increases asked by Keller had been authorized. Keller an-
nounced the wage increase shortly after noon on September 1, and after he announced
the increase he was given a copy of the Union's petition for representation, filed with
the National Labor Relations Board. The personnel manager was the individual who,
according to Keller, handed him this petition after the announced wage increase. The
record is silent as to what time of the day on September 1 it came to the attention of
the personnel manager. In any event, Keller then, after consulting counsel, told the
employees that in order to have a fair election he would have to withdraw the just
announced general wage increase.
There had been an excessively high rate of employment turnover in the galvanom-
eter room during the 6 months preceding August 10, 1960, due to the fact that the em-
ployees could obtain higher wages elsewhere.
The record reflects that the general attitude of the management of this company
was in favor of retaining a nonunion work force. For example, in a letter dated
July 22, 1960, to all hourly employees, Vice President and General Manager Keller,
in connection with reporting to the employees concerning the efforts of Respondent
to keep maximum employment, stated that only under the present employee relation-
ship would this flexibility be possible. Plant Superintendent Howard Imhof advised
the employees of the galvanometer department that he would prefer that they came to
him individually rather than as a body with their grievances and stated that he did
not believe a third party was necessary in Respondent's plant. Imhof also made this
statement when Manufacturing Manager Ohrns was advising Joe Olguin that he was
being given a disciplinary layoff. On the occasion of a company picnic, Francis
Frank, the foreman of the galvanometer room, expressed the view that Respondent's
plant was a much better place to work because there was no union.'
B. Independent 8(a) (1) violations
(a) The complaint alleges that on or about July 21, 1960, Howard Imhof, the plant
superintendent, told the employees that Respondent would take reprisals against the
employees if the Union came into the plant. The record reflects that in July Imhof
told the employees of the galvanometer department that a third party was not needed
to represent them and that they should be spanked for coming to him as a group and
and not individually? This statement of Imhof I find to be a permissible expression
of opinion under Section 8(c) of the Act.
1 Other statements of Frank on this occasion which are alleged to be violations of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) will be noted below.
2 Imhof's testimony that he was complaining about the production of the employees on
this occasion is not credited. This testimony is incompatible with Manufncturing Man-
ager Ohrns' testimony that the first knowledge he had of an alleged slowdown was on
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) The complaint alleges that Foreman Francis Frank on or about August 6 told
employees that Respondent would take reprisals against the employees if the Union
came into the plant . At the outset, it is noted that Frank in his testimony denied that
he told anyone that he would take reprisals in the event of union organization. How-
ever, this is regarded as a conclusionary remark and it is open to speculation as to
what Frank meant by reprisals. He did not specifically deny comments which are
found herein to be unlawful.
John Olguin , no relative of the Charging Party, Joe Olguin , gave the following
credited testimony relating to Frank's statements at the company's picnic:
Francis Frank . was telling us what a wonderful company this was to work
for, isn't this a wonderful picnic. He says, "If the union gets in it will never
be dike this ." He says, "If the union gets in it would be harder down at work,
too; I would have to be more strict , maybe breaks would be terminated, they
would be shorter, and maybe not any." And he says, "Another thing, too, I
would have to be more strict ." In other words, a phrase he used , "use every
rule in the book," that he would have to in regards to if the union got in.
And then he says, he says that Ivan Steyer was the agitator , was an agitator,
something like that , and that Joe Olguin was a good boy until he started listening
to Ivan Steyer. And he said that Ivan used to work for Elgin , for the union
there , and, he says, "they folded up , and look where he is now," or something
like that.
Ernest Martinez, who was with John Olguin, also heard Frank saying on the same
occasion that if the Union did get into Respondent 's plant , he was going to make it
rough for the employees in the galvanometer room . It is found that these comments
by Frank , Respondent's supervisor , were coercive and by their nature were unlawful
threats aimed at defeating the rights of Respondent 's employees to organize.
(c) The complaint alleges that on or about August 6, 1960, Frank told employees
that an employee was about to be fired because he had engaged in union activities.
It is noted that Frank's testimony contains a denial that he stated he was going to
fire Ivan Steyer on August 6, but he did not deny the statements attributed to him
by credited witnesses . It is possible that Frank's denial left open the question of
his knowledge that someone else in management would discharge Steyer . Irrespec-
tive of semantics the following testimony with reference to Frank's statements on
that occasion is credited , and establishes that Frank on this occasion told other
employees that 'Steyer was a union agitator and was going to be discharged from
Respondent 's employ. Devona DaMoude, a galvanometer employee, also at the
company picnic heard Frank say that Steyer worked for Elgin and that he was a
union agitator and that Elgin went broke and closed down and that Steyer was on his
way out if the Union came in or if it didn't come in. On the same occasion employee
Ernest Martinez heard Frank make the statement that Steyer was nothing but a
damned union agitator and that he was on his way out. Antal Racz on this same
occasion also heard Frank say that Steyer was a union agitator.
In the context of the circumstances in which these statements were made, it is
found that the statements of Frank; attributing to Steyer the character of a union
agitator , and the statement that he was on his way out, would unlawfully tend to
discourage union organization and support the charging allegations that Frank told
employees Steyer was going to , be fired because of union activities.
(d) The complaint alleges that on or about August 10, 1960, Ohrns, the produc-
tion manager , interrogated' employees concerning union membership activities and
desires of other employees.
The only evidence relating to this charging allegation is contained in the credited
testimony of employee Alfred Zeller; who testified that Ohms asked him who was
pushing the Union and pegging production . In view of the findings set forth herein
there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for making this inquiry as to who
was pushing the Union and it is found that this interrogation was an unlawful intru-
sion into the organizational rights of employees , guaranteed by the Act. The record
supports the finding that the Respondent was hostile to union organization and no
legitimate purpose is suggested why Respondent should ask an employee who was
pushing the Union.
the morning of August 8, 1960. It Is also Incompatible with the' credited and undenied
testimony of Steyer that he was complimented about his work 1 week prior to his dis-
charge as well as the fact that Imhof offered Joe Olguin to pay him from his personal
funds an additional amount of money if Joe Olguin would remain in the employ of
Respondent until a wage Increase could be effected.
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG. CO . 763
It is noted that this interrogation was coupled with an inquiry as to who was
pegging production. Because of the finding set forth herein that the interrogation
of employees on August 10 was not designed to get information concerning Respond-
ent's production but to set the stage for Steyer's discharge and Joe Olguin's layoff
the inquiry as to who was pushing the Union remains unlawful. Because of the
antiunion attitude of Respondent reflected by the disciplining of Steyer and Joe Olguin
and statements of its supervisors, this interrogation does not come within the per-
missible area of interrogation such as that permitted in Blue Flash Express, Inc.,
109 NLRB 591.
(e) The complaint further alleges that on or about September 1, 1960, Respond-
ent granted a wage increase to its employees and retracted the wage increase on the
same day in order to discourage the union activity.
Respondent conceded that it had knowledge prior to August 10 of the union activity
of dischargee Ivan Steyer, and on August 31 it was presented with a request by
Business Representative Thuis for recognition. That same afternoon Keller, the vice
president and general manager of Respondent's Denver plant, consulted with the
industrial relations vice president of Respondent concerning this request, and after
such consultation advised Thuis that Respondent would not recognize the Union as
the representative of its employees. Following this, Morse returned to Minneapolis
from Denver and called an emergency meeting of the wage board of Respondent
and obtained authorization to grant the increase, which had, according to Respond-
ent, been under study since about July 22. Keller was notified by phone on the
morning of September 1 that the authorization for the wage increase had been given.
It was announced by Keller shortly after noon. Sometime before that, Personnel
Manager Cowdery had received a copy of the Union's petition to the National
Labor Relations Board, requesting an election. This petition, according to Keller,
was given to him after he had announced the wage increase. Keller then told the
employees that in order to have a fair election he was compelled to withdraw the
wage increase.
Having in mind that the record reflects an attitude of general opposition to union
organization, the timing of the wage increase in the circumstances here present would
unlawfully interfere with the union organizational effort by demonstrating that a
union was not needed to obtain a wage increase.
Although the initial announcement of July 22 that a wage study was to be under-
taken was made on the day of the first union meeting, no finding made herein relies
on the coincidence, even though it must be assumed there were organizational
activities in the plant preceding the July 22 union meeting.
However, when a wage increase is accelerated by calling a special meeting of
Respondent's wage board on the evening of the same day Respondent is requested
to recognize the Union and is advised that the Union intends to file a petition for
an election, and the wage increase is granted the following day, the unlawful nature
of this wage increase cannot be changed by the fact that a wage survey had been
underway for some time. Nor is the commencement of a wage survey an adequate
justification for the acceleration of the wage increase against the background of a
demand for union recognition.3
.
Respondent makes a point of the fact that on August 31, Business Representative
Thuis did not state when he was going to file the' petition for an election with the
National Labor Relations Board. However, it is clear that Respondent was on
notice that the Union was claiming to represent a majority of the employees .4
It may be argued that the retraction of the wage increase was designed to exhibit
to the employees of Respondent that the Union was responsible for having its wage
increase taken from them. On the other hand, assuming the wage increase was left
in effect, it could be equally argued that the wage increase could continue to exhibit
to the employees that a union was not necessary. Under these circumstances, I find
the retraction of the wage increase not to be violative of the Act.
C. The alleged illegal discharge of Ivan Steyer and discriminatory layoff
of Joseph Olguin
It is conceded by Respondent that it had knowledge that Steyer was an active
union proponent prior to his discharge. On August 4, 1960, Donna Stillwell, an
employee in the galvanometer room, complained to Frank that Steyer was bother-
ing her about the Union. Since Steyer had been a union member for a long time
the other galvanometer employees would ask Steyer questions about union organiza-
8 N.L R B. v. Hoffman-Taff, Inc, 276 F: 2d 193 (CC A. 8).
* The credited and uncontradicted testimony of Business Representative Thuis reflects
that he advised Keller on August 31 that the Union represented a majority.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion. The probabilities are that these inquiries took place under the scrutiny of
Foreman Frank and led to his characterizing Steyer as a union agitator at the com-
pany picnic of August 6, and to his informing employees that Steyer was on his
way out.
The uncontradicted testimony of both Steyer and Olguin shows that they were
complimented with respect to their work by Howard Imhof, the plant superintendent,
shortly before their discharge and layoff, respectively. In the case of Steyer this
occurred 1 week before his discharge and in the case of Joe Olguin, Imhof offered
in July to pay part of Olguin's wages from his own money if Olguin would continue
working for Respondent.
The record indicates that Foreman Frank worked in the same room with approxi-
mately 17 other employees in the galvanometer department and spent a substantial
part of his time in that room, working at a bench. Joe Olguin and Ivan Steyer
worked with their backs toward Frank. On one occasion Frank was immediately
behind Olguin and Steyer when they were discussing the Union. The general picture
that emerges from Stillwell's complaint to Frank about Steyer bothering her about
the Union and the proximity of Frank to the other employees in the galvanometer
room is that Frank would be in a position to know what was going on among the
employees, including their organizational attempts. Vice President and General
Manager Keller stated that prior to Steyer's discharge someone in supervision had
told him that Steyer wasl an active union proponent. The logical source of this
information would seem to emanate from Frank's close contact with employees in
the galvanometer department.
On August 10, 1960, Steyer was discharged. His termination slip contains the
notation "discharged for due cause-instigating and aggravating a work slowdown
movement." On the same date Joe Olguin was given a disciplinary layoff for alleg-
edly participating to some extent with Steyer in this alleged slowdown movement.
In discussing the evidence in connection with the alleged cause for this disciplinary
discharge and layoff, it is noted that the characterization "slowdown movement"
originated with Respondent and was equated by Ohrns with the term "pegging pro-
duction." The evidence, which will be discussed in some detail, poses the question
as to whether in fact there was instead a "speedup" movement on the part of
Respondent.
Frank testified that Mike Boespflug, a galvanometer room employee, at the
company picnic on August 6 told him, that Steyer and Joe Olguin were bringing
pressure on him to limit his production to 12 or 13 units a day, and that Boespflug
was keeping additional units in his drawer because of his apprehension of incurring
the disfavor of Steyer and Joe Olguin. During the same conversation Frank stated
to Boespflug that Alma Stewart was capable of producing 13 to 17 units a day and
that a Jim Rynearson before her could produce 19 or 20, and that Homer McKissack
had produced as high as 23 units. Although this picnic was on August 6 and although
Ohrns and Imhof, Frank's senior supervisors, were present at the picnic, he did not
tell him about this alleged charge of the slowdown by Boespflug against Steyer and
Olguin until Monday, August 8. Boespflug, who was still in the employ of Respond-
ent at the time of hearing, was called as a rebuttal witness by the General Counsel
and categorically denied that he told Frank that Steyer and Olguin had told him to
produce only 12 or 13 units a day. Boespflug did testify that Frank told him that
McKissack was making as much as 26 suspensions and that Alma Stewart was making
40 tubes, whereas Ivan Steyer was making only 20. Boespflug also denied that he
told Frank on that occasion he had any units in his drawer that he had not turned in.
On August 10, the Wednesday following the Saturday company picnic, Frank in
connection with Ohrns, the manufacturing manager, and Plant Superintendent Imhof
conducted interviews with seven employees for the alleged purpose of getting corrob-
orative evidence of Boespflug`s information given to Frank that he was told to limit
his production by Steyer and Joe Olguin. Boespflug testified that it was at this
interview that he disclosed for the first time that he had some extra units in his
drawer and that the reason he had them was to have some available, because on some
days, because of the cold or the heat, he was not able to produce a sufficient amount
and that he wanted to have some in reserve for his bad days. Boespflug also denied
that at this interview he told Ohrns, Imhof, and Frank that Steyer and Olguin had
asked him to limit his production to 12 or 13 units per day.5
5I credit Boespflug as against Frank, Imhof , and Ohrns . My impression of his testi-
mony was that he was attempting to give an accurate version of what transpired between
himself and Frank on August 6 and on the occasion of the interview on August 10 with
Ohrns, Imhof, and Frank , who all testified substantially the same not only with respect
to the interview with Boespflug but with respect to the six other employees interviewed
on August 10, 1960. Imhof as well as Ohrns stressed in their testimony that Steyer was
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG. CO. 765
On August 11, the day after Steyer's discharge, Ohrns, the manufacturing manager,
wrote a detailed memorandum purporting to relate the events and interviews leading
up to Steyer's discharge and Joe Olguin's disciplinary layoff, the record reflects that
General Manager and Vice President Keller made the decision to discharge Steyer
and to lay off Olguin on August 10. Consequently, the oral reports received on
August 10 from Ohrns must form the basis for any belief on the part of Keller that
Steyer and Olguin were responsible for a slowdown movement. This leads to a fur-
ther consideration of the basis for Ohrns' report to Keller on August 10.
Prior to interviewing Boespflug on August 10, Frank, Ohrns, and Imhof interviewed
McKissack, a galvanometer employee, who told them something had been going on
and that he had been approached 6 months before but he did not name any person.
The other employee interviewed before Keller's decision was Antal Racz who,
according to Ohrns, told the interviewers that Steyer and Olguin had asked him to
limit his production to 12 fluid suspensions a day. As in the case of Boespflug,
Ohrns allegedly reported to Keller that Racz was being emotionally disturbed by the
pressure caused by Steyer and Olguin in favor of union organization. Racz credibly
denies that he told the interviewers that he had been asked to limit his production to
12 or 13 units a day.6 Racz does not admit or deny Ohrns' testimony that he not
admit or deny Ohrns' testimony that he told the interviewers he was emotionally
upset. However, Boespflug's credited recital of how Ohms queried him on the
occasion of the interview as to whether or not his conscience bothered him because
he was not producing enough units is credited and Ohrns' version that Boespflug
told him that he was upset because of the atmosphere in the galvanometer room is
not 'credited nor is Ohrns' version that Racz had made similar complaints. Aside
from the personal observation of the witnesses, I discredit Ohrns, Imhof, and Frank
because of what appeared to be an attempt to distort the significance of the produc-
tion records, and their inconsistent testimony about them noted below.
This record does support,a finding that Steyer and Olguin had been discussing pro-
duction with other employees at least 6 months before they were disciplined on
August 10. 1 am not making a finding that Respondent was unaware of this but
that the information did not come to them in the manner claimed. The claim of
recent knowledge, that is after August 6, was a posture aimed to conceal the actual
reason for the disciplinary action taken against Steyer and Olguin which was to set
an example in disciplining them to inhibit other employees in their attempts to
organize. I find Respondent's actual attitude to be reflected in Frank's statements at
the company picnic saying that Steyer was a union agitator and that he had to go.
The evidence is equivocal as to whether Steyer was urging a slowdown or resisting
a speedup. Whatever it may have been it commenced at least 6 months before
Steyer's discharge and was not significant enough to be a subject for notice by man-
agement until the advent of union organization. Frank had probably heard Steyer's
discussion about rate of production before the company picnic on August 6, as well
as noting the influence Steyer appeared to have as an advocate of the Union, and
this information led to the interviews to obtain evidence against Steyer and Joe Olguin.
On the basis of the interviews with McKissack, Boespflug, and Racz, Ohrns recom-
mended to Keller that Steyer be discharged and Joe Olguin be given a disciplinary
not being discharged because of his work but because of the effect he was having on the
other employees. Imhof testified this was supported by the records. I find that the
records introduced by Respondent which were prepared 2 or 3 weeks after Steyer's dis-
charge do not support such a conclusion . For example , the production records after
Steyer 's discharge show that Boespflug's production ranged from 12 to 14 units for an
8-hour day . The reliance by management officials on the production records as a justifica-
tion for dischargingSteyer because they concluded that the employees were nonprogressing
in their output seems very dubious when there was a very high turnover in the galvanome-
ter department in the 6 months prior to Steyer's discharge . Further Imhof testified in
some detail as to the supply problems that were cutting down galvanometer production
and that these problems continued until August , the month of Steyer 's discharge.
Imhof's credibility also was impaired by the contradictory testimony of Respondent's
witness, Alma Stewart, who testified that 15 fluid suspension units would represent a
good day's production whereas Imhof claimed 18 to 23 units a day was possible. The
impression received was that Imhof exaggerated actual production norms. Respondent
did not offer any records to support Imhof's claim although he stated he had seen them
over the past 2 years.
He did testify, however, that he heard Steyer and Joe Olguin tell other employees to
keep their production at a certain level. He did not think he told this to Ohrns, Imhof,
and Frank and it is found he did not. Otherwise this would have been included in Ohrns'
detailed memo of August 11 or included in the testimony of Ohrns, Imhof, or Frank.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
layoff. Keller agreed and on the advice of counsel four more employees were inter-
viewed to obtain corroborative evidence.
There is some evidence that Keller took the disciplinary action against Steyer and
Joe Olguin because he believed they were advocating a slowdown. Prior to a further
consideration of this, the information given by the four additional employees will be
considered.
Alma Stewart said she felt a "slowdown" was going on but did not give the inter-
viewers any names. She did testify that at one time Steyer and Joe Olguin told her
that her production was "too much," but she did not disclose this at the interview.
Donna Stillwell, who had complained about Steyer bothering her because of her
refusal to go to a union meeting, told the interviewers she had not been approached
about limiting production.
Al Zeller and LaVerne Carman were also interviewed, but gave no information
about a slowdown movement.
The decision to take disciplinary action against Steyer and Olguin was made after
the interviews with McKissack, Boespflug, and Racz. McKissack did not name
Steyer or Olguin in the interviews and I credit Boespflug and Racz in their denials
that they told the interviewers that Steyer and Olguin were attempting to limit pro-
duction. While not entirely free from doubt, the versions of Boespflug and Racz
seemed more truthful. Ohms testified he was concerned about production because
overtime had not shown a proportionate increase whereas in a letter Keller stated
a concern because production had been reduced and Imhof testified the records
showed a nonprogression in production. In view of the large turnover and mate-
rial problems until the time of Steyer's discharge and the fact that the production
records do show a proportionate increase during overtime work, the alleged partial
reliance by Respondent on records to demonstrate that Steyer and Olguin were
encouraging a "slowdown" must be rejected.? Having rejected this portion of
Frank's, Imhof's, and Ohms' testimony and crediting the witnesses who testified
contrary to them with relation to the interviews on August 10 prior to the decision
by Keller to discharge Steyer and lay off Joe Olguin, it must be concluded that the
report of a "slowdown" given by Ohms to Keller had no basis in fact stemming
from the interviews or production records.
The standard production rate for fluid suspension galvanometers was 11 a day
set after an engineering study. Respondent's witnesses claim this was based on
production of relatively new employees. Whether this is significant in view of the
various types of units mentioned in the record is difficult to ascertain. As Steyer's
credited testimony reflects: "Every month there is some type of change made on it.
Different methods all the time." Steyer's viewpoint was expressed in this com-
ment: "We are supposed to be working at a normal rate of speed for a normal
day's pay." Racz testified Steyer and Olguin made comments to employees that
12 or 13 units a day were enough. This alone is not to be equated with a "slow-
down." 8 If the standard set after an engineering study which had not been super-
seded was 11 units a day, an expression of the view that 12 or 13 units a day were
7 Respondent stressed that Steyer and Olguin were not disciplined because of their own
slowdown in production . The fact that Steyer 's rate of production had been uniform is
claimed by Respondent to be evidence he was urging others to slow down Respondent
points to the records of Steyer 's production and claims that it was abnormal to have
production of fluids suspension varying only by one a day. During the 2 months pre-
ceding Steyer's discharge the records reveal that he worked on fluid suspensions 12 days
On one day he produced nine. On the remaining days he produced either 12 or 13. Inas-
much as Respondent does not claim that Steyer was discharged for limiting his own
production , the production records do not support the contention that he was urging others
to slow down . The only demonstration of a slowdown in the production records would
come from the relatively uniform rate of production on the part of Steyer. Respondent
rejected the use of the records for this purpose and inasmuch as Joe Olguin 's production
records show a greater variance than Steyer's and since Joe Olguin was an alleged collabo-
rator with Steyer in urging a slowdown , I find the production records do not contain
support in making a finding that Steyer and Olguin were urging a slowdown.
8Inasmuch as the record does not support a finding that any of the claimed informa-
tion concerning the slowdown was given to any representative of Respondent in the manner
claimed in this proceeding, it is not necessary to evaluate the correctness of this testimony
by Racz. However, serious doubt is cast upon this aspect of testimony because Joe Olguin's
recent production records reflected during a regular 8-hour day 16 fluid suspensions on
3 days ; 15 on 4 days ; and 14 on 4 days. This does not seem compatible with the testi-
mony of Racz that Olguin was urging a production limit of 12 or 13 at a time when he
was producing a greater amount himself.
HEILAND DIV. OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REG. CO . 767
enough is not necessarily urging a slowdown. If Respondent had further engineer-
ing studies indicating more units should constitute a standard day's production a
different question might be presented, if the expression of views on the rate of
production were actually the cause of the disciplinary action, which was not the case
here. McKissack's version as to how he made every second count resulting in ex-
tremely high production brought on a comment by Steyer and Joe Olguin some 6
months before they were disciplined that he was making the other employees look
bad and also a complaint from a woman who had difficulty keeping up with Mc-
Kissack.9 None of these events were told to management representatives in the
interviews of August 10, or any other time as far as the record reflects.
Having found that the reports to Vice President Keller based on information re-
ceived from employees and the production records do not establish that Steyer and
Joe Olguin instigated a "slowdown." the remaining question is whether Keller took
disciplinary action against these employees because he believed these reports. On
balance, I find that the evidence does not reasonably support a good-faith belief on
Keller's part as to the alleged information of a slowdown conveyed to him by Ohms.
Boespflug and Racz, the only two employees who Respondent claimed gave any
significant information concerning the slowdown allegedly instigated by Steyer
and Joe Olguin, demonstrated Respondent's claimed information was contrived. A
consideration in crediting the testimony of Boespflug and Racz against that of
Ohms, Imhof, and Frank was that they were both still in Respondent's employ and
their self-interest would seem to dictate that they would not contradict their super-
visors except for their compulsion to tell the truth under oath. Also Keller timed
the wage increase so that it would have a natural effect of discouraging union
organization. These factors balance the probabilities in favor of the fact that
Keller was motivated by antiunion considerations in disciplining Steyer and Olguin.
In view of the foregoing, and the entire record, it is found that a motive of
Respondent in discharging Ivan Steyer and giving Joe Olguin a disciplinary layoff
was discriminatory and for the purpose of discouraging union organization.10
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes threatening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has discriminated with respect to the tenure and
employment of Ivan Steyer, it will be recommended that Respondent offer him im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of discrimination against
him by a payment to him of a sum of money in accordance with the Board's
Woolworth formula.ii
Having found that Respondent has discriminated with respect to the tenure of
employment of Joe Olguin, it will be also recommended that he be made whole
in accordance with the Board's Woolworth formula.
It also having been found that Respondent engaged in illegal conduct consisting
of interrogation, threats, and giving a wage increase aimed at discouraging em-
e McKissack testified as follows:
Well, on my six-month review it was explained to me that my production wasn't as
good as it should be. So I started trying to work out a faster system to produce the
same suspension-without changing the suspension, but a faster way to do it.
And I worked on time study , picking up tools and laying tools down , no wasted
motion, and scheduling my process so that at all times I would be busy and doing the
most I could do with the time that I had.
10 Keller admitted to knowledge of Steyer's union activities prior to his discharge. The
record is replete from the evidence offered by Respondent that Olguin was regarded as a
participant along with Steyer in what the Respondent claimed to have been activities
aimed at a slowdown of Respondent's production.
u F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees from exercising their rights under the Act, it will likewise be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Heiland Division of Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Co. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By making threats, interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of
Ivan Steyer and Joe Olguin, thereby discouraging concerted activities and mem-
bership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not commit unfair labor practices by advising the employees of
Respondent's preference in dealing with the employees as individuals rather than
as a group.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, ' Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 6-RC-2911, 6-RC-2912, and 6-RC-2913. January 31,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before F. J. Surpre-
nant, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons :
Petitioner requests separate units at the Employer's Altoona, Penn-
sylvania, plant, of over-the-road truckdrivers (Case No. 6-RC-2911) ,
machine shop employees (Case No. 6-RC-2912), and maintenance
employees (Case No. 6-RC-2913). The Employer contends that the
1 Hereinafter referred to as the I.U.E.
a Member Fanning dissents from the majority findings, Member Rodgers concurs, and
Member Leedom concurs in part and dissents in part. Their separate opinions are set
forth below.
135 NLRB No. 69.