North American Rockwell Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 833 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORP. 833
North American Rockwell Corporation and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No.
50 and The Centralia Plant Grievance Committee.
Case 14-CA-5715
June 30, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On March 8, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lip-
ton issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative actions, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief and the General Counsel also filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, North American Rockwell Corporation,
Centralia, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order.
complaint2 alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to present relevant evidence
and to argue orally on the record. Comprehensive briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent have been duly con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
North American Rockwell Corporation , herein called the
Respondent, operates plants in various States; only its facility
at Centralia, Illinois, is involved in this proceeding. At the
Centralia plant, Respondent manufactures , from reinforced
plastics, automotive parts and related products. During the
year ending July 1, 1970, such products valued in excess of
$50,000 were sold and shipped directly in interstate com-
merce. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 50, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
Contrary to Respondent, I find for reasons indicated infra
that The Centralia Plant Grievance Committee, herein called
the Grievance Committee or the Committee, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of the Act,
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introductory Facts and Issues
On April 8, 1970, Respondent acquired the Centralia plant
from Molded Fiber Glass Body Company. Thereafter, sub-
stantially the same supervision of the plant continued under
Norman Schuchman, plant manager, and Richard Heitanen,
plant superintendent. Undisputed testimony indicates that,
after a Board election, the Union was certified as majority
representative in the Centralia plant, but for reasons not
shown on this record, a long shutdown of the plant took place
in 1968, and there was ultimately no contractual bargaining
history with the Union.' In approximately April 1970, new
union organizational activity became evident, and Respond-
ent engaged in efforts to defeat such activity.
In substance, the complaint alleges independent acts of
restraint and coercion, including interrogations; threats of
plant closure, job loss, and overtime reduction; promise of
increased overtime, and of improved fringe benefits; creating
the impression of surveillance; and restricting union solicita-
tion on company property. Further, it is alleged that Re-
spondent unlawfully assisted and supported the Grievance
Committee, and that it discriminatorily discharged Teddy
King. All the alleged violations are denied by Respondent.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was heard before me on December 9 and 10, 1971,' in Salem
and Centralia, Illinois, based upon the General Counsel's
I All dates are in 1970, unless otherwise indicated.
2 On July 30, the charge by the Union was filed and served on Respond-
ent by registered mail; the original complaint and an amendment to the
complaint were issued respectively on September 6 and November 27.
' Official notice is taken of the Board's decision in Molded Fiber Glass
Body Company, Midwest Division, 182 NLRB No. 59, which reveals that
the Union was certified on October 16, 1967, that on March 15, 1968, the
Company "permanently" closed down the plant for "economic reasons,"
that it was reopened mostly with new employees on November 22, 1968,
and that the parties engaged in lawful collective bargaining , principally
concerning the effects of the plant shutdown, without reaching any agree-
ment.
191 NLRB No. 139
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Restraint and Coercion
On April 17 and July 2, Plant Manager Schuchman dis-
tributed letters and also made speeches to the employees on
the subject of union organization. The complaint specifies
that, on April 17, Schuchman told the employees the plant
had previously been shut down upon being organized by the
Union, and that, on July 2, he told them the work force would
be reduced if the plant were unionized.
In mid-April, the Glass Bottle Blowers Association, herein
called the Glass Blowers, was openly campaigning at a plas-
tics company located directly across the street from Respond-
ent's Centralia plant. According to Schuchman, one of the
handouts from this union came into his possession and, upon
advice from Respondent's industrial relations department, he
prepared the letter of April 17. This letter proceeds on the
premise that Respondent's employees were being approached
by the Glass Blowers to sign authorization cards, and then
advances various arguments against union representation.
Schuchman testified he was unaware that the Teamsters
union was then on the scene. The July 2 letter begins with the
statement that "the Teamsters union has now entered the
race to sign you up for their union" and then, among other
things, it emphasizes that the Teamsters won a Board election
in October 1968, but was unable to obtain a signed contract
or accomplish any "improvement" in existing conditions.
Lee J. Hammond, a current employee and previously a
foreman, testified that, in his first speech (i.e., April 17),
Schuchman stated that "the Teamsters organized there once
before, and they had to close the door, and hoped-the people
didn't make that mistake again." In the later speech (on July
2), Schuchman told the employees that the Company had to
make a profit, but if the Union got in, the profit would not
be "so high," and the plant would have to be run with fewer
people. Tommy Bryan, an employee, gave similar testimony:
In his first speech, Schuchman wanted all the employees to
know the Union had been in there before and what happened.
The Union had won the election, "but they closed down the
plant." In the second speech, Schuchman said that if the
Union came in, Respondent "would have to have a reduction
in force probably because it would have to sign a contract,"
which would be costly. Kendall Young was employed as a
quality control manager4 until he was terminated on July 27.
He testified that, in the first speech, Schuchman stated that
a union in the plant would operate to reduce profits, and to
maintain its profits, the Company would have to "cut back
in manpower." In the subsequent speech, Schuchman related
that the Union had gained bargaining rights just before the
plant shutdown, and he would not like to see such a shutdown
repeated.
It is credited that the foregoing statements were made by
Schuchman, in substance, as described by Hammond and
Bryan.' I find Young's version is corroborative notwithstand-
ing his variance in the dates.`
° Equivalent to a foreman
Schuchman testified that his speech on April 17 reflected the substance
of the letter, which was written after the speech on the same date I do not
accept this testimony as establishing that the letter is descriptive of the
speech, particularly in view of the employees' testimony clearly conflicting
with the letter.
6 The two speeches by Schuchman were fixed in time, and afforded full
opportunity for litigation on this basis. Even if Schuchman's remarks were
made on the dates given by Young, I would reach the same result. It is not
critical in deciding this issue whether or not the Teamsters were in the
process of organizing Respondent's plant as of April 17 The intended
implication of Schuchman's message to the employees was that a shutdown
might again follow upon the introduction of any union in the plant
While it is true that, within months following the Union's
certification in 1967, there was a fortuitous occurrence of a
plant shutdown for legitimate business reasons which may or
may not have prevented the Union from achieving a collec-
tive-bargaining contract, Respondent was not thereby privi-
leged to utilize this fact in the speech on April 17 as a predic-
tion of the possible effects of renascent unionization of the
plant. Most of the present employees were not employed
during that period and could not be expected independently
to know of the economic necessity for the prior plant closure.
In the speech, the employees were scarcely given a fair ac-
counting of these earlier events; rather the remarks of
Schuchman were cast in a form which was likely to evoke
employee fears of plant closing as a consequence of unioniza-
tion. "The Board has often found that employees, who are
particularly sensitive to rumors of plant closings, take such
hints as coercive threats rather than honest forecasts."' The
record well demonstrates, in my opinion, that whatever the
precise words that were used in Schuchman's speech, the
employees understood the meaning as a threat of a shutdown.
As to both speeches, I conclude that the statements in issue
were not justifiable predictions based on objective facts out-
side the Respondent's control, but were threats of retaliation
based on misrepresentation and coercion.' Accordingly, it is
found that Respondent made the threats that, in the event of
unionization, (1) the plant might again be shut down, and (2)
that the work force would probably have to be reduced -
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1), as alleged.
Freda Thorpe, an employee, is the former wife of Teddy
King, the dischargee in issue, infra. She testified that on June
30,9 she approached Plant Superintendent Heitanen about 7
a.m., before the workday commenced. She told him that a
man from the Union had been to her house the night before,
and that "they were trying to organize the Centralia plant."
She disclosed that King had previously told her the Union
was trying to come back and that she would be visited by a
union organizer on June 29 or 30; but she was not personally
at home when the organizer came. An hour later, Plant
Manager Schuchman was making the rounds and stopped at
her work station. He asked what she "knew of the union,"
and she answered "nothing really." He asked, "Are you with
the union?" She replied, "Hell, no. I don't want no part of
it because I don't want the plant to be closed. I'd be out of
ajob."10 He asked, "Is Teddy with them?" She stated she was
not sure, but Teddy said he was for the union and "didn't give
a damn who knew it." Thorpe testified that she then saw
Schuchman go to speak with Heitanen and Foreman Feiber.11
Respondent seeks to refute Thorpe's testimony, inter alia,
on the basis that Heitanen was in St. Louis at a business
meeting on June 30. However, Heitanen testified he was at the
plant from about 6 until 6:20 a.m. that morning. The ques-
tions of Respondent's counsel put to Heitanen and Schuch-
man were, in my view, imprecise and ambiguous in attempt-
ing to establish denials of Thorpe's evidence. When asked if
he spoke with Thorpe "on Jun 29," Heitanen answered that
he "can't verify the date." He denied that he spoke to her on
June 30. 12 Schuchman was asked if he had a conversation
N.L.R.B v Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S 575, 620
° Ibid. And see, e g., Wausau Steel Corp v. N.LR.B., 377 F 2d 369,
371-372 (C.A 7)
Initially she testified "around the 29th or 30th."
° In a letter to the Board dated August 16, she indicated she had as of
then signed a card for the Teamsters
11 On cross-examination, she added that she saw Heitanen "almost con-
stantly through the day in and out."
12 On cross, he admitted that Thorpe had previously come to tell him she
was "being bothered at her home by union organizers," but he could not fix
the date and that he told Schuchman everything Thorpe said
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORP. 835
with Thorpe "on June 29" in which, she told him that King
signed signed a card for the Teamsters, and he replied, "Not
that I can recall."
Respondent also attacks Thorpe's credibility on the ground
of her testimony, elicited by Respondent, that she was offered
money by Teddy King, through an intermediary, to testify in
his behalf. There is no evidence that she agreed or that money
was passed; and it would appear that her testimony is slanted
in any degree in favor of King. Upon full consideration of the
record, Thorpe is credited in the testimony that she was
interrogated by Schuchman as to her own union activity and
that of employee Teddy King." Such conduct, particularly in
the context of other coercive practices found herein, is viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1).
John Ashby's testimony is uncontradicted. On July 20,
Schuchman stopped him and asked if he had signed a union
card. He answered negatively. Again Schuchman questioned,
"You didn't sign a union card at the local tavern?" This time
Ashby admitted he had signed. In the further conversation,
Schuchman inquired if he had been offered money to sign a
card. Ashby said, no, but he was aware of "hearsay" that
"they offered people money." Schuchman told him, among
other things, "You have been a good worker and we would
hate to lose you...... Ashby finished unloading the truck,
punched out, and quit. This evidence establishes that Re-
spondent engaged in coercive interrogation, in creating the
impression of surveillance of union activities at the local tav-
ern, and in a clear threat of reprisal ("we would hate to lose
you")-each constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Also undisputed is the testimony of David Diehl. In Au-
gust, when he sought employment at the plant, he spoke with
Supervisor Jack Mathes, a friend of his father. Mathes said
he could not hire him directly but "if he got on," Mathes
would try to get him transferred to his "grit blast" depart-
ment. Then Mathes told him they were having some prob-
lems with the union and asked if he thought he might sign a
union card if he were to get on and be transferred to grit blast.
Diehl did not say whether or not he would sign . He was hired
and worked in grit blast until he was terminated 3 weeks later
under circumstances not relevant herein. No proper assur-
ances were given Diehl, as a job applicant, that his own
perference for or against joining a union would not affect the
hiring decision or his future employment. Nor was any legiti-
mate purpose shown for the interrogation. The violation is
found, particularly in the light of Respondent's similar con-
duct in this record."
On October 26, shortly after 6 a.m., Gerald Crystal, a
maintenance employee, asked Edward Mroz, a janitorial em-
ployee, if he would like to sign a union card. Crystal's regular
work day commenced at 6:30 a.m., and he was unaware that
Mroz started at 6 a.m. About 6:20 a.m., Foreman Tim B.
Feiber, who had overheard the conversation from his office
hearby, told Crystal he did not appreciate his "soliciting
union business on company property and company time,"
and wished he would cease such activity immediately. Later
that day in the course of a meeting with maintenance depart-
ment employees, infra, Feiber stated openly and "as an
apology" that he "might have been wrong" in telling Crystal
that morning that he should not solicit union business on
company property or time. There is no evidence that Re-
spondent issued, maintained, or enforced a general rule
" I am satisfied that the conversation took place on or about June 30
Whether Thorpe was mistaken in testifying she saw Heitanen "almost con-
stantly" on June 30 or the conversation occurred on an earlier date, I do not
find a critical conflict.
10 E g., Bendix- WestinghouseA utomotive Air Brake Co, 161 NLRB 289,
792; The Singer Company, Wood Products Division, 158 NLRB 677, 689.
against solicitation on company property, i.e., a rule which
would presumptively violate the Act" Mroz was on working
time. Insofar as Crystal was restricted from soliciting on
working time, either of the solicitor or the solicitee, Feiber
was acting within the lawful powers of the Company. 11 To the
extent that Feiber restrained Crystal from soliciting on com-
pany property, I find that it was sufficiently neutralized the
same day by his retraction in the presence of the assembled
maintenance employees. This allegation therefore is dis-
missed.
Foreman Feiber testified that he returned to the plant on
October 26, after having been away on vacation. The previous
day, he was informed by Cletus Snow, the acting foreman in
his absence, that there was a "lot of trouble" among the men
in the maintenance department, e.g., difficulties between
Snow and another foreman tramee, and resentment by the
men over the hiring of Feiber's father-in-law at a high starting
wage. Feiber then planned to have a meeting with all em-
ployees in the afternoon on October 26.
During the early morning that day, Felber came to Bryan
and inquired as to why the employees were signing union
cards and "how come everybody was, Crystal especially,
wanting to go union." On this uncontroverted evidence, un-
lawful interrogation is found. It is also indicative that "trou-
ble" regarding the Union was a matter of particular concern
to Feiber.'
The meeting on October 26 was convened at 3 p.m. to
include all maintenance employees at the change of shifts. As
pertinent, the following transpired: Feiber congratulated the
employees for a fine job they did while he was on vacation,
and then addressed himself to the "discontent" in the depart-
ment. Each employee was individually asked the nature of his
complaint. Certain plant problems were raised by employees
and answered by Feiber. Among other things, he asked what
a union could do for the employees. And he stated that if "the
union got in, it probably would go to 40 hours because we
would have to work under a contract," and they would lose
their present overtime work. If they were patient, after the
current General Motors strike (which was curtailing work in
this plant), they "would get more overtime than jthey would]
know what to do with." He did not think a union would do
them any good. When Crystal was questioned as to his com-
plaint, he responded that everything was fine. Feiber said he
did not understand: when he went on vacation Crystal was
solidly for the Company and now he was for the Union." As
previously noted, Felber declared that he might have been
wrong when he told Crystal that morning not to solicit on
company time and property.
Concerning the Feiber meeting of October 26, I find the
following violations of Section 8(a)(l): Interrogation of Crys-
tal as to why he changed from antiunion to prounion. Interro-
gation of the employees collectively as to what a union would
do for them, since their individual answers would tend to
reveal their union sympathies. The remark, without valid
basis for prediction, that a union contract would probably
limit the workweek to 40 hours and thereby result in a reduc-
tion of overtime work. 'I However, although Feiber was seek-
ing to dissuade the employees from union representation, I do
not find as an unwarranted forecast his statement that over-
" Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd 289 F 2d 177
(C.A 5).
" N.L.R.B. v Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 142 F.2d 1009 (C.A. 5),
cert denied 322 US. 730
37 Feiber in effect admitted this remark. He testified he also stated that
there were "quite a few that has went over to the union " while he was on
vacation.
' a See Yankee Trader, Inc., d/b/a Treadway Inn, 184 NLRB No. 81.
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time work would be plentiful after the General Motors strike.
On November 6, Plant Manager Schuchman also spoke to
the assembled maintenance employees. He recalled that, at an
initial meeting in April shortly after the plant was taken over
by Respondent, he told them that their fringe benefits would
be reviewed. Now he indicated that he recently updated a
wage survey he had conducted in the Centralia area and
learned that the fringe package at the plant was considerably
below the national average. And he was currently working on
a program for improved fringe benefits which he hoped would
be put into effect "very shortly."
Schuchman's general purpose in speaking to the mainte-
nance employees was inferrably the same as that which
prompted the Feiber meeting on October 26; i.e., as relating
in part to the union campaign. His promise of improved
fringe benefits coming at this time was undoubtedly designed
and did tend to influence the employees against having a
union. I do not find the coercive impact of such promise was
relieved or diminished by his reference to an earlier an-
nouncement, preceding the Union's appearance, of a broad
intention to review fringe benefits. Among other things, there
was no earlier commitment to grant such employee benefits
in any specific regard or basis for finding that such benefits
at this time were normally to be expected by the employees.
Accordingly, I find that this allegation is sustained.
In his speech, Schuchman also referred to a plant problem
involving theft of tools and damage to an expensive die. There
is a conflict as to whether Schuchman said that, after the
instant hearing, the employee "troublemaker" would be out
of a job. Crystal's testimony to such effect was uncertain and
vague and not corroborated in Bryan's version of the speech.
Even if some similar statement was made, I find that it had
reference only to the described damage to company equip-
ment.
D. Discharge of Teddy King
King was employed as a janitor until his discharge by
Foreman Feiber on July 1.19 As earlier found , on June 30,
King's former wife , Thorpe, told Heitanen that King had
arranged for an organizer to visit her home and, upon his
inquiry, she told Schuchman that King has said he was with
the Union . King testified that , a week before his discharge,
he signed a union pledge card and that he took blank cards
and passed them around to employees at the place where he
ate lunch, not in the presence of any supervisor.
Ferber did not specify and King did not ask the reason for
the discharge, but Plant Manager Schuchman later told him
it was because he was "not dependable ." When he applied for
work at another company, the personnel manager called Re-
spondent and was given the reason as "excessive absentee-
ism." In the minutes of a grievance committee meeting on
August 10 , the explanation appears on the part of the Com-
pany that King was dismissed because "his absentee record
was bad ." He had received two written warnings on absentee-
ism20 and also verbal reprimands from Heitanen and Feiber.21
King admitted that, within the month prior to his discharge,
there were times when he failed to abide by the plant rule for
"reporting off," i.e., calling in to report an absence for the
day, and also times when he failed to work Saturdays when
" He had worked for Respondent for about 2 years until he quit in 1968;
he was rehired in August 1969.
20 On January 24, for not reporting when requested to work on a Satur-
day; and on January 31, for leaving work Saturday noon without permission
and not reporting on Sunday on request.
11 King denied he received verbal "warnings," but related that Heitanen
as well as Feiber spoke to him shortly before his discharge about his missing'
"a little too much tune .. and would like it stopped."
requested. The records show, from May 18 until June 30, that
King had been absent without notification on two occasions
and had been late in reporting to work on two occasions."
Feiber testified as to conversations, essentially uncon-
tradicted, which occurred about a week before the discharge:
King had punched in at 12:30 p.m. When Feiber asked him
why he was late without notice, King replied that he had
called. After Felber checked and found no record of the call,
King said his landlady had made the call. On another ocas-
sion, he saw King leaning against a foreman's desk and asked
him what he was doing there. King asserted - "either get
him more men or he would walk out of the plant." Feiber told
him - "there was the door, we could do without him." King
said no, he needed the job, but he needed more men. Feiber
then responded that, as far as he was concerned, this was
King's "last chance."23 King testified to a conversation in the
same time period in which Feiber told him, "Ted, you're
lucky to have a job, you're crippled.... I am, too.... We're
lucky to have a job." But he (Feiber) did not want people he
could not depend upon.
King was a group leader of the janitors from September
1969, reporting to Plant Superintendent Heitanen. In April
1970, with the advent of North American Rockwell, ground
maintenance, including the janitors, was combined with plant
maintenance in a single department under Foreman Feiber.24
On June 15, Respondent eliminated all group leaders, and
Feiber then assumed all direct supervision of the janitors." A
further contention of Respondent is that King resented Fei-
ber's authority. It has already been shown that there was
some friction between the two. Respondent relies on tes-
timony of Supervisor Bill Oiler that King, after he was re-
lieved as group leader, told him he would not take orders
from Feiber. King denied this testimony, and there is no
evidence that he ever refused to carry out orders.26
Considerable litigation was' devoted to Respondent's fur-
ther grounds that Feiber was dissatisfied with King's work
performance. One in particular was that King frequently lin-
gered during his janitorial duties around the work station of
his former wife, Thorpe, and spent excessive time speaking to
her. It is unnecessary to detail the evidence on the alleged
criticisms of his work. The same conduct was known to the
supervision for a long period of King's employment, with no
disciplinary action and was not dissimilar generally from the
12 Felber testified that, in the last 3 months, there were a half dozen tunes
King refused or failed to report on Saturday as requested. King also told him
he could not make him (King) work beyond 40 hours. Other janitors had
similar attendance and performance problems and at times failed to report
on Saturdays but, according to Felber, the problems with King were greater
in degree. On this question, a stipulation of data extracted from company
records was introduced in evidence to show the amount of overtime worked
by certain classifications in the maintenance department from January
through June. As argued by Respondent, the stipulation does not indicate
the instances an employee was requested to work on Saturday and refused
The record does not otherwise provide an explanation of the stipulated data.
The stipulation shows that King put in weekly overtime more consistently
than did other janitors and that, for example, since April he worked from
5 to 6 hours each week, but without showing whether the extra work was
done on Saturday or Sunday.
29 King denied Respondent's characterization of "loafing," but not the
substance of the conversation.
1° Feiber was employed with Respondent for 2 years, the first as a mainte-
nance employee and the second as a foreman.
23 Contrary to General Counsel, it is evidenced that Feiber did have
authority to discharge King without prior consultation with higher super-
vision. In any case, the discharge was necessarily and in fact approved by
management.
" However, I am inclined to credit Oiler, and, in any event, it is presuma-
ble that Respondent was award of Oiler's information prior to King's dis-
charge, although perhaps based on a misunderstanding
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORP. 837
conduct of other janitors. I am of the opinion that the allega-
tions relating to King's work performance were makeweights
and not of material consequence.27
At this point, the immediate circumstances of King's dis-
charge may be properly evaluated against the essential back-
ground as above described.
On Tuesday, June 30, King was absent and failed to "re-
port off." In the afternoon, Feiber asked the acting personnel
manager to pull King's timecard from the rack if he failed to
call in.2fl According to King's testimony, when he came to
work the next morning, Feiber told him he did not think he
was any longer with the Company. King then asked Feiber
for "another chance." Feiber said he did not think so, but he
would speak to John Evans, the production manager .29 After
speaking to Evans, Feiber told King it was no use. King also
went to see Evans, with the same result. Two days later, King
came to the plant and spoke to Schuchman about getting his
job back. Schuchman could not help him, explaining that he
had already consulted with Heitanen and Feiber, and neither
of them was willing to take him back. He was terminated
because he was "not dependable." However, if requested,
Schuchman would do all he could to give him a recommenda-
tion with another company.
My consideration of Respondent' s asserted cause for
King's discharge is focused chiefly on the evidence of his
absenteeism, latenesses, failures to work when requested on
Saturdays, and disregard of the rule to "report off." Excessive
absenteeism was essentially the reason conveyed to King and
given out at the time by Respondent. He had received written
and verbal admonitions. A week before his discharge, he was
warned by Foreman Felber that this was his "last chance."30
Viewing Respondent's reaction, it cannot readily be found
that King's conduct in question was condoned. The evidence
submitted in this record, in my opinion, does not provide the
basis for a valid comparison of King with similar mainte-
nance employees.31 And I am unable to find that the evidence
of his working more overtime each week than other janitors
serves to discredit Respondent's criticism of his specific viola-
tions of plant rules on attendance. Still, as in all such cases,
the issue must turn on Respondent's motive for King's dis-
charge. The timing of his discharge is a factor. In the morning
of June 30, Respondent was informed voluntarily by Thorpe
that King told her a union organizer would call at her house.
Later interrogation by Plant Manager Schuchman elicited
from her that King said he was "with" the Union. King has
signed a pledge card and passed blank cards to employees
away from the plant, although I do not infer that Respondent
had knowledge of such further activity. I do not believe, in
the circumstances, that King's union activity was of such a
1' Respondent's assertion of these additional grounds tend to weaken its
defense. It is apparent that counsel was zealous in attempting to bring out
all possible faults of King throughout his employment without credibly
establishing that Felber was conscious of these incidents in reaching his
decision to discharge King.
a Thorpe testified that, at 2:30 p.m., she saw King's card was not in the
rack.
39 Schuchman and Heitanen were not then in the plant, and Evans was
in charge.
30 The reason for the warning is not entirely clear. There was a sharp
exchange, as already described I construe the warning as reflecting Feiber's
dissatisfaction with King generally, including King's recent record of absen-
teeism.
31 Daily attendance records of 13 employees, as well as that of King, were
introduced by General Counsel One such employee is Thorpe, a molder;
the classifications and supervision of the others, most of whom are female,
are not shown, although they appear not to be maintenance employees.
These exhibits were apparently selected to show the poorest attendance
records among the employees in the plant. The exhibits on their face cannot
be held to establish disparate treatment of King.
conspicuous character in the union movement as to make him
a likely object for reprisal, if Respondent were so minded.
Nor do I find here the type of situation where the evidence
strongly reveals a purpose of selecting a random employee for
discrimination merely as an example to other employees. It
is a significant fact that, also on June 30, King was again
absent without calling in, and this conduct precipitated the
discharge. In sum, I reach the conclusion that Respondent
has shown some cause for the discharge and that General
Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of establishing that
Respondent's real motive, in substantial part, was King's
union activity. The allegation is therefore dismissed.
E. Assistance and Support of the Grievance Committee
As of January 20, 1970, in a memorandum to all hourly
production employees, Respondent inaugurated and set forth
the basic terms for the existence of the grievance committee.
The announcement described, inter alia, that it was a man-
agement decision to form the committee to meet weekly in the
plant with company officials for the purpose of discussing
employee complaints, gripes, and questions. It listed the num-
ber of representatives to be elected by employees from each
department and shift for a term of 3 months and provided
that these representatives in turn would elect a chairman. It
specified that "voting for the representatives and chairman
can be made in any way your department choses." For the
additional time beyond their normal work day which the
representatives would spent in the scheduled meetings with
management , they would be paid at the overtime rate.
As the charge herein was filed and served on July 30, the
6-month statute of limitation provision in Section 10(b) of the
Act precludes any finding of an unfair labor practice substan-
tively based on Respondent's conduct preceding January 30.
However, evidence of the earlier events may be fully utilized
to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within
the limitation period."
The minutes of the subsequent committee meetings with
management through August 10 clearly indicate a broad
range of subject matter under discussion; e.g., working hours,
job assignments, wage inequities, merit raises, bonuses, se-
niority, retirement fund, equipment and conditions of work,
and generally the whole gamut of grievances. Accordingly, I
find that the grievance committee is a labor organization in
which employees participate and which exists for the pur-
pose, in whole or in part, of meeting with an employer con-
cerning grievances, wages, hours, and conditions of work
within the definition of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In substance, the complaint alleges that, since January 30,
Respondent has assisted and contributed support to the
Grievance Committee in that it has authorized and permitted
elections of its representatives to be conducted on working
time on plant premises, and has paid employee representa-
tives for their time in the regular committee meetings."
The committee has no constitution, bylaws, or any form of
dues. It has not met independently but only at times sched-
uled with and by management for meetings in a plant confer-
ence room. Originally the meetings were weekly but were
subsequently changed to a regular monthly basis. As pro-
vided in the January 20 memorandum, employee representa-
tives at the meetings were paid the regular wage rate plus
overtime, if any. The discussion, as above indicated, did not
embrace contract negotiations. The minutes at each such
30 Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO (Bryan Manufacturing Company), 362 U S. 411, 416.
33 At the hearing, General Counsel clarified that the essence of this
allegation relates to any payment to the employees for such time, although
the complaint was worded in terms of overtime payment.
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting were taken usually by a secretary of the acting per-
sonnel manager; they were typed and reproduced under Re-
spondent's direction. The minutes were posted on the bulletin
board but not otherwise cleared with or shown to the commit-
tee.34 Plant Manager Schuchman determined and gave the
instructions when the election of representatives should be
conducted. On April 30, the election was held on the premises
generally from 3 to 3:30 p.m. covering both shifts in each
department. It was shown that in instances the voting ex-
tended beyond nonworking or breaktime; e.g., the night shift
in one department cast their ballots after reporting on duty
at 3:30 p.m. The ballots were furnished to Committee Chair-
man Bryan by the acting personnel manager with instructions
to give them out in each department and thereafter to receive
the marked ballots. Bryan distributed the ballots to the com-
mittee representatives during worktime, between 2 and 3 p.m.
The foregoing evidence of support rendered to the commit-
tee by Respondent, despite its arguments,, cannot be regarded
an minor and insubstantial in the particular circumstances."
It is largely illumined by the background facts of Respond-
ent's formation of the committee on January 20 to show a
significant degree of control over the Committee continuing
to be exercised by Respondent in the post-10(b) period. A
particular illustration is Respondent's admitted determina-
tion and direction as 'to the holding of the committee's inter-
nal elections.3" In addition, Respondent provided the time,
premises, and ballots for the elections." Served with the com-
plaint as "party in interest," the committee made no answer
or appearance, and no employee or representative gave any
testimony in defense of its status. There is no evidence that,
since its creation by Respondent, it developed any degree of
independent viability. Thus, it has not met or made decisions
of its own will, and in all respects shown the committee has
followed the predetermined path or the immediate lead of the
Company. Functioning in this manner as a labor organiza-
tion, it is engaged in forms of collective bargaining with Re-
spondent, as described, but hardly at arms length." While the
Union did not make its appearance on the scene until some
months after Respondent's creation of the committee, Re-
spondent has exploited the fact of the committee's existence
to combat outside union representation." Thus, in its letter
of April 17, when organizational activity became overt at the
plant, Respondent moved promptly to discourage any incli-
nation of the employees in this direction and reminded them
that they had a committee to handle their problems and are
already representing themselves. Also, in his July speech,
Plant Manager Schuchman told the employees they had, a
committee of their own and did not need a union to represent
" See Reed Rolled Thread Die Co., 179 NLRB No 6 (emphasizing the
factor that the minutes were prepared by management and seen for the first
time when generally distributed to the employees), and Dale Electronics,
137 NLRB 1212 (that minutes kept and distributed by the personnel direc-
tor were puma facie evidence of the "negative capacity of the Committee)."
35 Cf. Ladis Company, Texas Division, 180 NLRB No. 92 (where the
Committee was formed by the employees themselves , requested and was
accorded recognition as majority representative, and negotiated fully and
freely collective-bargaining agreements), Coastal States Petrochemical Com-
pany, 175 NLRB No 92 (where there is no evidence that the company
formed the committee preceding or within the 10(b) period, and the only
adverse evidence was the payment of wages to committeemen for attending
meetings with management); Hesston Corporation, Inc., 175 NLRB No 15
(where the Association for many years was the contractual representative
of the employees following bona fide bargaining negotiations)
36 See , e g , Federal Tool Corp., 130 NLRB 212
37 See, e.g., Ampex Corporation, 168 NLRB 742, Newman-Green, Inc.,
161 NLRB 1072.
38 Cf Federal-Mogul Corporation v. NL.R B., 394 F.2d 915 (C A 6)
" E.g., Ampex Corporation, 168 NLRB 742 at fn. 2.
them., A further consideration is Respondent' s union
animus40 demonstrated by the other violations herein, includ-
ing the threats of shutdown and reduction of the work force
in the event of unionization.
As litigated within the complaint, Respondent's rendering
of assistance and support to the committee is found to be
substantially in conflict with the statutory purposes of collec-
tive bargaining engaged in,by freely chosen representatives of
the employees. Therefore, I conclude that Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(2), as alleged.41
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act by rendering assistance and support to the grievance
committee, I will recommend that Respondent cease and
desist from recognizing or dealing with the grievance com-
mittee and, affirmatively, that it withdraw and withhold
recognition from the Grievance Committee as representative
of any of the plant employees unless and until it shall be so
certified as representative by the Board.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union and the grievance committee are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section III E, supra, .Re-
spondent has rendered unlawful assistance and support to the
grievance committee and thereby has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, and by other acts and conduct
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. By discharging Teddy King, Respondent has not en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issued the following recommended:
°° See, e g , NL R.B. v. H & HPlastics Manufacturing Co., 389 F.2d 678
(C.A. 6), enfg 158 NLRB 1395; Modern Plastics Corporation v. N.L.R.B.,
379 F.2d 201 (CA 6).
°' E. g , Tuscarora Plastics Co., 167 NLRB 1059; Hydraulic Accessories
Company, 165 NLRB 864, and cases cited above in this section
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORP.
ORDER 41
Respondent, North American Rockwell Corporation, Cen-
tralia, Illinois, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and sentiments, or those of other employees;
threatening employees with plant closure, reduction of the
work force, loss of overtime, discharge, or other reprisal for
engaging in union activities; coercively promising benefits to
employees; or creating among the employees the impression
that their union activities are under surveillance.
(b) Recognizing or dealing with the Centralia Plant Griev-
ance Committee, or any successor thereto, as the representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
Respondent concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment,
unless and until it shall have been certified by the Board as
representative of such employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Cen-
tralia Plant Grievance Committee, or any successor thereto,
as representative of any of the, employees, unless and until it
shall have been certified by the Board as such representative.
(b) Post at its Centralia, Illinois, plant, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."43 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, and be
maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14,,in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifi-
cally found herein.
" In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order as
provided by Sec.102.46 of the Fules and Regulations of the National Labor
Relations Board , the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and recom-
mended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 10(c) of the Act and 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.
°J In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
44 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial, in which both sides had the opportunity to
839
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post
this notice; and we intend to carry out the order of the Board,
and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a Union or
who is in the Union in a manner which would coerce you
regarding your rights under the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with closing down the
plant, reduction of employment, loss of overtime work,
or discharge, or punish you in any way in order to stop
you from joining or helping a union.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise you better fringe or
other benefites to keep you from joining or supporting a
union.
WE WILL NOT create the impression we are spying on
your union activities, in order to coerce you or to find
out who has joined or is in favor of the Union.
WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with The Centralia
Plant Grievance Committee as the representative of any
of our employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Company concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment , unless and until it shall have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as representative
of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any similar manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed employees in the National Labor Relations Act,
which are as follows:
To engage in self organization
To form, join or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection and
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
The Centralia Plant Grievance Committee as represent-
ative of the employees unless and until the National
Labor Relations Board shall have' certified it as such
representative.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor
organization of their choice, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
NORTH AMERICAN
ROCKWELL CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be-defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101,
Telephone 314-622-4174.