Pacific Southwest Airlines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 215 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 215
Pacific Southwest Airlines and Southwest
Independent Stewardess' Association. Case
21-CA-8508
February 19, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 23, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman
Marx issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order, the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Pacific Southwest Airlines, San Diego, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
Footnote 34 second sentence should be amended
to read as follows:
In the additional event this Order is enforced by a
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the
words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
The Respondent has not excepted to the Trial Examiner 's finding that it
violated Sec 8(aX3) and ( I) by discharging stewardess Field , and we adopt
this finding pro fc•ma
DECISION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN MARX, Trial Examiner: The complaint alleges
that the Respondent, Pacific Southwest Airlines (herein
The Company or PSA) has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act' (herein the Act)
by discharging two employees, Elaina Bowen and Edith
Field, because they engaged in union or other activities
protected by Section 7 of the Act, and has, by other
misconduct, both before and after the discharges, abridged
rights guaranteed employees by said Section 7, thereby
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
The Respondent has filed an answer which, in material
substance, denies the commission of the unfair labor
practices imputed to it.
A hearing on the issues was held before me, as duly
designated Trial Examiner, on July 15, 16, and 17, 1969.
The General Counsel of the Board and the Respondent
appeared through respective counsel, and all parties were
afforded a full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and submit oral argument
and briefs.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having read and
considered the briefs filed with me since the close of the
hearing, I make the following findings of fact-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS;
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Pacific Southwest Airlines is engaged in the business of
carrying passengers by air solely within the State of
California; maintains its principal place of business in San
Diego, California; and is, and has been at all material
times, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.'
The enterprise, each year derives gross revenue from its
operations in excess of $500,000; annually purchases, and
directly receives, goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
suppliers located outside the State of California; and, by
reason of such purchases and receipt of goods, is, and has
been at all material times, engaged in commerce, and
operations affecting such commerce, within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the Board
has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Southwest Independent Stewardess' Association (herein
the Union), the Charging Party in this proceeding, admits
persons employed by the Company to membership; exists,
at least in part, for the purpose of dealing, on behalf of
employees, with employers regarding terms and conditions
of employment; and is, and has been at all material times,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.'
129USC 151, elseq
'The complaint was issued on April 30, 1969, and is based upon a charge
filed by Southwest Independent Stewardess ' Association on March 28,
1969. Copies of the charge , the complaint , and a notice of hearing have
been duly served upon the Respondent A copy of the notice of hearing has
also been duly served upon the Charging Party
'As the Respondent concedes in its brief, "PSA . is not a common
carrier by air subject to the Railway Labor Act "
'Sec 2(5) defines the term "labor organization" as meaning "any
181 NLRB No. 38
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
The Company has a "Stewardess Department" which
has a complement of approximately 325 stewardesses,
more than half of them based in San Diego , to serve
passengers on its flights. The head of the department is
Nancy Marchand , who has the title of Director of
Stewardesses , and has her office in the Company's
headquarters at the San Diego airport . Her responsibilities
include overall direction , hire, and discharge of stewardess
personnel.'
The performance and appearance of the stewardesses
are subject to inspection and evaluation by so -called PEP
or "check " stewardesses , who to that end take "check
rides" on planes while stewardesses are on duty. The
individual making the inspection may offer the inspected
stewardess corrective criticism , and reports her findings
either orally or in writing , or by both methods, either to
Mrs. Marchand or to an assistant of the director who has
the title of Chief Stewardess , and whose functions include
checking on the performance of the stewardesses,
instructing them , coordinating information about them
with the other check personnel , giving stewardesses
corrective criticism , and preparing "confidential" reports
on them for the use of Mrs. Marchand .' Mrs Marchand's
staff includes two chief stewardesses , Carol Cisco and
Joanne Cunningham, who are stationed at the Company's
San Diego office.
The Company formerly employed Edith Field and
Elaina Bowen as stewardesses , hiring Miss Field in or
about May 1967 and Miss Bowen on September 16, 1968.
Both were based in San Diego , and both were discharged
by Mrs. Marchand in the latter part of March 1969.' The
legality of the dismissals is the major issue in this
proceeding , and findings thereon will be made at a later
point following a description of pertinent events that
preceded the discharges.
B. The Alleged Union and Other Concerted
Activities : the Allegations of Unfair Labor Practices
Preceding the Discharges
In February, about a month before her termination,
Miss Field went to see Mrs. Marchand to discuss some
organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation
committee or plan in which employees participate , and which exists for the
purpose , in -whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, or
conditions of work " The Respondent denies that the Union is a "labor
organization ," but does not specify in what respect the Union fails to meet
the definition . The Union was formed in March 1969 upon the initiative,
principally , of Elaina Bowen and Edith Field , both then in the Company's
employ as stewardesses, and documentary evidence [G C Exhs. 5(a) and
5(b)) and the testimony of both establish that the Union is an
"organization" or "employee representation committee or plan" in which
employees participate , and that it exists, at least in part , for the purpose of
collective bargaining between employees and their employer. The absence
of evidence that its officers have been elected by the general membership,
or that the organization has a constitution or bylaws, is immaterial
'As the Respondent concedes in its answer, Mrs Marchand is, and has
been at all material times, the Company 's agent , and a supervisor within
the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act
'The chief stewardesses have additional duties unnecessary to list here
The record reflects an issue whether one of them , Joanne Cunningham, is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act Findings and conclusions on the
issue will be made at a later point
'Unless otherwise specified , all dates mentioned below occurred in 1969.
grievances of stewardesses, and in the course of discussion,
Mrs Marchand told her that a "grievance committee" of
stewardesses would meet with the Company's president, J.
Floyd Andrews. Miss Field asked why she was not on the
committee, and Mrs Marchand replied that she was
"leaving (Miss Field) for bigger things, that (Miss Field)
was in her league."' Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Marchand
prepared a ballot on which she placed the names of some
stewardesses, including Miss Field, for use by the
stewardess corps in electing a "scheduling committee" to
represent them (presumably in matters pertaining to work
schedules). Miss Field was elected '
The evidence reflects no accomplishment by the
committee, nor even that it functioned, but in any case,
the record portrays developing efforts by Miss Field and
Miss Bowen to secure, by other concerted means, what
they deemed to be improvements in their working
conditions. Toward the end of February or early in
March, both called on a representative of the California
Division of Industrial Welfare at its San Diego office,
discussed their working conditions with him, requested
information as to their legal rights in that regard, and
were given some information, including a copy or
summary of provisions of an "order" promulgated by the
Division, under the California Labor Code, requiring
employers in the "transportation industry," including
airlines, in California to comply with certain prescribed
standards relating to hours of work, overtime and
reporting pay, and the provision and maintenance of
uniforms that employers require their employees to wear
while at work.
On March 8, Miss Field posted a document containing
the information on a bulletin board in "the crew lounge"
used by PSA stewardesses at the San Diego airport,
together with an anonymous letter, which she had
prepared, addressed to Andrews, directing attention to
provisions of the order and requesting compliance with its
terms. Miss Field also mailed a copy of the letter to Mrs.
Marchand, and another to Andrews The material on the
board was removed by someone not identified in the
record soon after it was posted, but on the day following
the posting, the management posted one of the mailed
copies, to which Andrews had added a note addressed to
"Girls," and stating that he was aware of "certain
changes in the Labor Code," and that "we're working to
effect certain changes."
Miss Field then prepared an anonymous "reply" dated
March 12, addressed to Andrews, and containing
statements to the effect that there had been no "changes"
in the uniform maintenance requirements since 1963, and
none in any of the other pertinent regulations since
November 1967, and that the time since then was a
sufficient period "in which to recognize, and comply with
current existing Labor Laws." She posted a copy of the
letter on the same day, together with purported excerpts
'Although Mrs Marchand denies that Miss Field was a "good
stewardess," Miss Field 's account of the conversation , upon which findings
regarding it are based, is uncontradicted . Indeed, it is given some
corroborative support by Mrs Marchand , who described herself and Miss
Field as having "a fairly good rapport ," and Miss Field as being "a very
bright gal"; and testified , without specifying any date , that Miss Field had
been "informative" in discussing with her "deficiencies in the Stewardess
Department things that needed improvement "
'The "scheduling committee" was probably the "grievance committee"
mentioned in the conversation between Miss Field and Mrs Marchand,
but whether that is correct does not materially affect the results here
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 217
from the order, on the bulletin board. The material was
removed within a few days by an unidentified person.
Within a day or two after the March 12 posting, Miss
Field was summoned to Mrs. Marchand's office, and Mrs.
Marchand told her there that she knew that Miss Field
had written the letters The latter replied that Mrs.
Marchand "didn't know," and the Director said that that
was correct, but that she was assuming that Miss Field
had written the letters, and would prefer it if the girls "got
together" and took their problems up with Andrews. Miss
Field said that she would pass the request on to the girls
concerned. Later that day, Mrs Marchand told Miss
Field that the stewardesses should purchase their "own
bulletin board."' °
A day or so after the posting of March 12, while Mrs.
Marchand and Miss Bowen were both reading the bulletin
board, Mrs. Marchand remarked, "I don't know why you
girls don't go to Andy's (Andrews') office and talk to him
personally. Why don't you girls sign these letters9" Miss
Bowen replied that "if we signed these letters, we'd be at
the same place where we started from "
Miss Field and Miss Bowen procured a bulletin board
shortly thereafter, placed it in the stewardess lounge on
March 16, posting thereon the letters previously affixed to
the board provided by the Company.
In mid-March, also, they took steps looking to the
formation of an organization consisting of PSA
stewardesses, and to that end procured the names and
telephone numbers of a great many from a box containing
the information, which is kept on a desk in the
Company's Scheduling Department; and between them,
within a period of several days, canvassed almost 200 of
the stewardesses by telephone, informing them that they
were thinking of forming an unaffiliated "union," and of
submitting for their signatures "pledge cards"; and
soliciting their view of the proposed organization. One
may fairly infer that the stewardesses surveyed would
understand that the function of the "union" would be the
conventional one of representing the stewardesses for
collective bargaining purposes, but, in any event, Miss
Bowen, at least, in her telephone conversations, spelled
out the purpose as that of bettering the "working
conditions" of the stewardesses. A substantial number of
those canvassed said that they favored such an
organization, and supplied Miss Field and Miss Bowen
with their addresses for the submission of "pledge cards"
for execution.
On March 20, after discussing the results of the survey
with Miss Bowen, Miss Field sought the advice of a Los
Angeles attorney regarding the organizational procedure
to be followed, and he advised her that it would be
necessary to have a name for the organization, and
officers for it, and to obtain "pledge cards"; and told her
that he would draft a constitution and bylaws.
On the following day, Miss Field reported the advice to
Miss Bowen and three other stewardesses, Loraine
Daveson, Tibi McDowell and Karen Krull, requesting the
three to serve as officers with Miss Bowen . They agreed.
That day, also, Mrs. Marchand told Miss Field that she
understood that "you girls are forming an association,"
and that "cards" would be mailed to the stewardesses; and
that she felt that the girls "should get together with Mr.
Andrews and iron anything out that way." Miss Field said
"There is no dispute that Mrs. Marchand had formed the belief by
March 13 or 14 that Miss Field had authored the letters and had posted
them and the related material Mrs Marchand concedes as much in her
testimony.
that that "we had discussed it (speaking to Andrews) and
decided against that."
Later in the day, Miss Field ordered some printing
matter consisting of cards, with blank spaces for dates,
names and addresses, and copies of a form letter. The
cards contained language above the signature space,
which, upon execution of, the card, would amount, in
substance, to an application for membership by the
signatory in "Southwest Independent Stewardess
Association," and a designation and authorization by her
of the "Association" as her "sole representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining" with her employer.
The form letter bears the caption "Southwest
Independent Stewardess Association," with a blank space
for the insertion of a salutation; contains allegations of
substandard working- conditions for PSA stewardesses,
and violation by the Company of working standards
established by California law; states that the purpose of
the "Association" is to represent stewardesses in dealing
with PSA concerning wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment; solicits the addressee to
execute and return an enclosed card to a specified post
office box in San Diego; and is subscribed with Miss
Field's name as "Acting President," and the names of the
Misses Bowen, McDowell, Krull and Daveson as
"officers." The post office box listed had been rented in
Miss Bowen's name, and she and the other three listed as
"officers" had reviewed the contents of the letter with
Miss Field prior to printing and had approved the use of
their names.
The printing was ready by March 24, and on that date,
Miss Field mailed an envelope containing one of the card
forms, a copy of the form letter, and a "return envelope"
addressed to "the association at the post office box" to
each of about 100 stewardesses who had previously
supplied their addresses during the survey Approximately
80 of the cards were thereafter executed and returned in
the mail to the post office box "
On March 24, also, Mrs. Marchand called Miss Field
to her office, and told Miss Field that the use of a bulletin
board and posting of materials by her would thenceforth
be prohibited; that anything posted by her would be taken
down; that anyone caught posting material "would be in
trouble"; that "all soliciting was to be kept off the PSA
premises and . . the association was not to be discussed"
there; and that she was warning Miss Field "about this "'_
"None of the executed cards is in evidence , but the absence of
authenticating evidence of their execution does not materially affect the
issues . It may be noted in that regard that quite apart from the execution
of any of the cards , the Union is a "labor organization " within the
meaning of Sec 2 ( 5) on the basis of the evidence of its purpose , and of the
participation of the Misses Field, Bowen , Krill, McDowell , and Daveson
in the organization
"Findings as to Mrs Marchand 's remarks are based on Miss Field's
account which is to a substantial extent uncontradicted Mrs. Marchand
concedes , without specifying any date, that she forbade Miss Field to post
material, and told her that "we'll just take it down ," claiming that she did
so because Miss Field had "hung up a letter about Steve Gardella (PSA's
Director of Security ) which was, in (Mrs Marchand 's) estimation, petty
and nearly slanderous " The basis for these descriptive terms does not
appear , but in any case , Mrs Marchand corroborates Miss Field to the
extent that the latter claims that Mrs Marchand forbade her to post any
material on the premises ; and Mrs Marchand does not deny telling Miss
Field that "solicitation" and discussion of "the association" on the
premises were forbidden Mrs Marchand , it may be noted , too, was asked
on direct examination whether she had ever made "any threats against
Miss Field if she continued to post letters such as those about Gardella,"
and testified that she told Miss Field that if the latter "was going to write
that kind of stuff, she couldn 't post it up there any more " This is hardly a
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Marchand does not deny that by March 24 she
had become aware that a movement was under way to
form an organization of PSA stewardesses;" and
particularly in the light of the widespread survey made
among them by Miss Field and Miss Bowen, it is fair to
infer, and I find, that Mrs. Marchand's reference to "the
association" was an allusion to the Southwest Independent
Stewardess' (or Stewardess) Association.
Clearly, too, the total prohibition of solicitation and
discussion of "the association" on PSA's premises was as
much as to forbid solicitation of support for the Union, or
any discussion of the organization, on the premises among
stewardesses when they are not at work such as, for
example, when they spend time in the stewardess lounge
waiting to board a flight and are at liberty to "have coffee
or eat" or otherwise while away the waiting time. Such a
prohibition is manifestly unlawful without the warning
given by Mrs Marchand, and the implication, imbedded
in the warning, that a violation might result in discipline
of the offender was separately unlawful. The sum of the
matter is that by reason of Mrs Marchand's prohibition
of solicitation and discussion of "the association," and as
a consequence of the warning, the Company interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C The Discharge of Elaina Bowen
On March 25, Mrs. Marchand, as Miss Bowen testified
without material contradiction, summoned Miss Bowen to
her office; informed her, first, that she was "terminated
right now"; then read to her what Mrs. Marchand said
were two "letters" from passengers, one "a Dr. Miller,"
and the other "a female passenger" (both complaining
about Miss Bowen, according to the sense of her
testimony); and told Miss Bowen that she had not passed
her "probationary period," that she was thus being
discharged, and that she could pick up her check, and
could contest the dismissal if she so desired. Miss Bowen
replied that she would do so.' °
According to Mrs. Marchand, Miss Bowen had not yet
completed the 6-month probationary period prescribed by
the Company for its stewardesses, and was discharged
because of unsatisfactory performance during the period.
Enlarging on this, Mrs. Marchand testified that the
Company maintains for each stewardess a "Confidential
Personnel Form" containing reports on the performance
and appearance of the stewardess while on duty by PEP
or other check personnel; that she based the decision to
discharge Miss Bowen, in part, on the deficiencies
reflected in the latter's confidential personnel form; that
denial that she warned Miss Field about violating the prohibition of
solicitation and discussion of "the association "
"Mrs. Marchand 's testimony that she does not "know when the
Southwest Stewardess Association came into being" is not a denial that
she was aware of its existence on March 24 or before that date
"Mrs Marchand , whose testimony contains practically nothing of what
she said to Miss Bowen in discharging her, was uncertain as to the actual
date of the discharge, but admittedly decided to discharge Miss Bowen on
March 25 and made out a "termination report" (not in evidence) regarding
her on that date , although testifying that she "believe [s]" that she "could
not reach" Miss Bowen , until March 27 The latter's account of what Mrs
Marchand said and did in discharging her is undisputed , whether the
episode occurred on March 25 or 27, and, moreover, Miss Bowen's
specification of the date is unambiguous , and her description of the
circumstances surrounding her summons to Mrs Marchand 's office is clear
and detailed I credit Miss Bowen 's relevant testimony, and have made
corresponding findings
the document contains a summary by Chief Stewardess
Cisco of a report on Miss Bowen made in mid-February
by a PEP stewardess named Sandy Daniels; that she
(Mrs Marchand) shortly thereafter discussed the Daniels
report with Miss Bowen, and "told her she'd better shape
up"; and that upon receipt of the letter from Dr. Miller,
"that was it," or, in other words, that the letter
precipitated the decision to discharge Miss Bowen
According to Mrs Cisco's summary in the confidential
personnel form, Sandy Daniels reported that while on
duty on- February 15 and 16, Miss Bowen, contrary to
regulations or instructions, had worn "flat low-heeled
shoes," claiming that she had to wear them because of
"leg pain," and had worn her jacket "during flight and
coffee service"; that after Chief Stewardess Cunningham,
who was on board, had instructed Miss Bowen to go
about her duties instead of talking to "VIP's" on the
plane, Miss Bowen remarked to Sandy Daniels that "she
was not going to kiss up to anyone" (meaning Miss
Cunningham, presumably); that Miss Bowen sat in the
"aft lounge" filling out work reports until Sandy Daniels
"told her to get her work done and circulate in cabin";
that Miss Bowen had "to be channelled away from
grouping at the buffet with other stews (stewardesses)
engaging in personal conversation", and that she was
deficient in public relations, and offered such excuses for
it as her "aching" legs, and that she did not feel well
The Respondent produced the Miller letter, details of
which will appear at a later point, but no other, although
it is undisputed that Mrs. Marchand told Miss Bowen that
there was a letter from "a female passenger," as well as
the one from Dr. Miller, and purportedly read her both
letters. In any case, Mrs. Marchand testified to an alleged
complaint about Miss Bowen by telephone from "a
woman," but the claim is demonstrably vague and
tenuous Mrs Marchand stated that she could not recall
when the woman called, and that she "think(s)" her name
was "Mrs Brush," but does not "know for sure," "and
believe(s)" that the woman "had asked for a glass of
water on (Miss Bowen's) flight " According to Mrs
Marchand, the woman did not mention Miss Bowen by
name but "described her," and, under cross-examination,
Mrs. Marchand conceded that she does not "remember
the exact reason why she (the woman caller) was upset,"
but it was about "a glass of water" and a failure of the
stewardess who brought it to smile.
Mrs. Marchand does not say in so many words that the
alleged episode had any connection with Miss Bowen's
dismissal, and I am convinced that it was not a factor
Indeed, one would be hard put to it to understand why the
testimony about the alleged call was offered were it not
for substantial indications that the justifications offered
for the dismissal are pretexts Against that background,
the alleged episode involving an unnamed, unsmiling
stewardess appears to me to be nothing but an
afterthought makeweight to bolster the Respondent's
claim that Miss Bowen was discharged for lawful cause
Pretext is clearly visible in the claim that she had not
completed her probationary period at the time of her
dismissal. The Company's Stewardess Manual, which
prescribes regulations particularly applicable to its
stewardesses, provides: "Each stewardess or steward hired
by PSA is employed on a six-month probationary basis
subject to dismissal at any time during the probationary
period if they are found to be unsatisfactory for any
reason" (emphasis supplied) Plainly, under these
provisions, the probationary period for a stewardess starts
when she begins her employment It is an indisputable fact
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 219
that Miss Bowen, who entered the Company's employ on
September 16, 1968, and was discharged on the following
March 25, worked for the Company longer than 6 months
(some 9 days longer), and it would seem to be clear,
beyond cavil, that she was discharged after completion of
her probationary period.
Yet Mrs. Marchand claims that the period had not yet
expired, arriving at this result by deducting a training
period of some 2 weeks, with which Miss Bowen, in
common with all newly hired stewardesses, began her
employment. There is no warrant for such a measurement
in the stewardess manual , but Mrs Marchand invokes as
the basis for her claim some language, of general
application to all of PSA's employees, in another manual
entitled "Employee Benefits and Company Rules," which
provides that "all employees have a probationary period
when joining PSA," and that the "department head or
supervisor will advise the new employee of that
duration.""
Mrs. Marchand, in substance, reads this as authorizing
her to deduct Miss Bowen's training period from her
employment in computing her probationary period. Under
this calculation, the period would have ended about
March 30, and Miss Bowen was discharged some five
days before that date But Miss Bowen had been given a
copy of the stewardess manual at the time she was hired,
and had been informed, as part of her course of training,
that her probationary period was 6 months; and there is
nothing in the simple affirmation that "all employees have
a probationary period when joining PSA," and that their
respective supervisors or department heads would tell
them what it is, to authorize Mrs. Marchand's
computation and the consequent disregard of the
probationary period expressly established for Miss Bowen
by force of the stewardess manual. In short, Mrs.
Marchand's claimed interpretation appears to me to be
totally without warrant and arbitrary.
Her purpose in following such a course may be fairly
inferred from the record as a whole, and serves to
illuminate the motive for Miss Bowen's dismissal It is an
important fact that the discharge came soon after she and
Miss Field played primary roles in the steps leading to
formation of the Union, and on the very next day after
Mrs. Marchand forbade further organizational solicitation
and discussion of "the association" on PSA's premises,
and warned Miss Field about engaging in such activities.
In that setting, there is ample reason to look to the
Respondent for a credible explanation for the discharge,
and, obviously, the motive for Miss Bowen's dismissal
would be substantially more suspect, to say the least, if
the discharge occurred after completion of the
probationary period, especially as the Daniels report,
which Mrs. Marchand emphasizes as a factor in the
"The manual of "Employee Benefits and Company Rules" also contains
a provision that "[a]ll employees serve a probation period when joining
PSA," and that during "this probation period , which shall be a minimum
of three months, a new employee has an opportunity to demonstrate" his
capacity , and the Company an opportunity to evaluate him There is some
suggestion in the record that this portion of the manual was revised as of
March 15, 1969, and there is no evidence that it was in effect prior to that
date It is clear from Mrs . Marchand 's testimony that she does not base
her alleged interpretation on it , and, in any case, it does not have the effect
of modifying the relevant provisions of the stewardess manual, which
expressly establishes a 6-month probationary period for stewardesses. I
dispense with a recital of other provisions of the manual read into the
record and dealing with the evaluation of new employees and their
eligibility for wage increases , as they clearly have no connection with any
issue in this case
discharge decision, reached her over a month before the
dismissal. Against that background, taking into account
Mrs. Marchand's arbitrary extension of Miss Bowen's
probationary period and the timing of Miss Bowen's
discharge in relation to her organizational and other
concerted activities, the claim that Miss Bowen was
discharged before the expiration of her probationary
period has the earmarks of a contrivance aimed at putting
a gloss of propriety on the discharge, and I am persuaded
that that is the purpose of the claim.
Moreover, there are clear indications that Miss Bowen's
confidential personnel form, upon which Mrs Marchand
claims the discharge decision was based in part, is neither
a complete nor a reliable guide to Miss Bowen's
performance, even if one assumes the accuracy of the
Daniels report entries (although these are manifest
hearsay, and Sandy Daniels was not called as a witness);
and that Mrs Marchand was not as dissatisfied with Miss
Bowen as she now claims. As Mrs Marchand admitted,
not all reports on a stewardess by PEP or other check
personnel are reflected in her confidential personnel form.
She testified that some reports "get lost on the way," and
that if "it's something that I know, it doesn't go in there "
According to Chief Stewardess Cisco, complimentary
letters from passengers are not recorded in the form, and
it is not customary to record in it complimentary check or
other appraisals of the stewardess concerned, nor reports
of satisfaction with her performance, although
occasionally such an entry may be made.
It is evident from the reporting and recording practices
that adverse entries in the form can give a highly distorted
image of a stewardess' performance, and of the overall
attitude of her supervisors toward her, and it is
noteworthy, in that regard, that "the last check ride"
made with Miss Bowen took place on February 19, after
the Daniels report; that she was rated satisfactory in each
of the many subjects of the inspection in a "Stewardess
Competency Report"; that the PEP stewardess who made
the inspection, in addition to completing that report, told
Mrs Marchand that Miss Bowen's performance had been
"fine"; and that there is no reference of any kind in Miss
Bowen's "Confidential Personnel Form" either to the
written or the oral report of the results of the "check
ride."
What is more, it is a fact that Mrs Marchand
commended Miss Bowen on March 17, the day after the
latter completed her probationary period, and only about
a week before her discharge. A member of the medical
faculty of the University of California who had used a
PSA flight returning from a medical conference late in
January wrote a letter to the Company shortly thereafter,
stating that the trip had been made "in less than ideal
flying weather," and that he "greatly appreciated ... the
pleasant and efficient manner in which stewardess, Elaina
Bowen, aided us with our equipment." (There is no
reference to this letter in Miss Bowen's confidential
personnel form.) So far as appears, no supervisor took
any action on the letter until March 17, when Mrs
Marchand forwarded a copy to Miss Bowen with the
following letter (also not mentioned in the Confidential
Personnel Form):
Dear Elaina:
My personal thanks and appreciation to you for the
efficient and pleasant manner extended passengers on
this particular flight; as I am sure you offer the same
on all flights [Emphasis supplied ]
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am enclosing a copy of the passenger's letter of
commendation for your personal records. Keep up the
good work, Elaina, and thanks again for your
contributions toward our passengers and your work.
Sincerely,
/s/ Nancy
Nancy Marchand
Div. of Stewardesses
NM:dh
In her testimony, Mrs. Marchand sought to discount
her letter with a claim that it was a "formality" in
accordance with customary practice upon receipt of a
commendation from a passenger for a stewardess; and
that her secretary composed the letter. But there is only
Mrs. Marchand's self-serving word for this, and it is a
fact that she signed the letter, and that her initials appear
in the letter as its dictator. Her effort to dissipate or
dilute the value and meaning of the letter, the truth of
which she had attested with her signature, does nothing
for her credibility.
One may assume, as I do, that Mrs. Marchand, on the
basis of the Daniels report, had good reason to question
Miss Bowen's suitability, and to warn her "to shape up,"
but the report antedated the discharge by some five or six
weeks, and was followed by a "check ride" on which Miss
Bowen gave a "fine" performance, as reported to Mrs.
Marchand; and taking into account the unreliability of the
Confidential Personnel Form, the report of the last "check
ride," the fact that Miss Bowen worked substantially
beyond the completion of her probationary period, and
Mrs. Marchand's letter of March 17, notably its
expression of her view that Miss Bowen extends an
"efficient and pleasant manner" to passengers "on all
flights," there is good reason to conclude, and I find, that
as of the end of the probationary period, at least, Mrs.
Marchand was on the whole satisfied with Miss Bowen,
albeit some deficiencies in her performance and attitude
had been reported by "check" personnel.
To be sure, Mrs. Marchand claims that the Miller
letter precipitated the discharge decision, but the events
leading up to the letter, the letter itself, and the way in
which Mrs. Marchand handled the complaint it contains
persuade me as much as any factor in this case, that the
reasons given Miss Bowen for her discharge, and
advanced by Mrs. Marchand in her testimony, are not
entitled to credence.
The letter arose from an episode on March 7 on a PSA
flight on which Miss Bowen was a stewardess. During the
flight, she had occasion tp deliver a message to a
passenger, whose name was given to her as Dr. Miller, to
the effect that a flight departure from Los Angeles had
been confirmed for him. The passenger was unknown to
her, and she paged him on the plane's public address
system, requesting that he ring the stewardess call button
to identify his location. Someone rang in response, and
proceeding to the seating area served by the button, she
observed three men sitting abreast in a three-seat row
there, and asked for Dr. Miller She gathered the
impression from something the man in the window seat
said that he was the person she sought, and she asked
him, "Are you Dr. Miller?" Thereupon the man in the
middle seat, who appeared to Miss Bowen to be about 23
years of age and was dressed in "cowboy" or "western"
costume, said that he was Dr. Miller. Miss Bowen asked,
"Are you really Dr. Miller?" Receiving an affirmative
reply, she gave him the message and returned to the place
where she had been sitting. He approached her several
minutes later, and appearing to be "very angry," accused
Miss Bowen of doubting that he is a doctor, and asked
her for her name. She declined to furnish it, stating that
she was not required to do so. He said that he would
"find out one way or another," and she replied that he do
so. Then he asked to "speak to the captain" and she
replied that he would have to wait until the plane landed
in Los Angeles. He thereupon returned to his seat. Upon
arrival of the flight in Los Angeles, as Dr. Miller was
disembarking, Miss Bowen said to him, "Goodbye, Dr.
Miller "16
Dr. Miller secured Miss Bowen's name from another
source, and wrote the letter to the Company, previously
mentioned, on March 13, about a week after the episode
on the plane The letter follows-
Gentlemen:
I am writing this letter to express my concern and
chagrin over an incident which occurred to me on flight
415 on 3-7-69 going from S.D. to LAX. On this
particular flight I was paged and a stewardess by the
name of Ellena Bowen (spelling may be incorrect) came
up to my seat after I had pressed the page button. I
responded by saying "I am Dr John Miller " "Are you
really Dr John Miller9" was her query which carried
with it a haughty and doubting connotation. I gazed at
her in amazement -- who was she to doubt my
answering of the page When someone queries Dr.
Miller in such a fashion, he usually turns to others for
verification; and I said then, "No, this man is Dr.
Miller," the gentleman happened to be a S.D. State
College student by the name of John Fitzgerald (phone
583-9546). He replied "this man - this cowboy - is
Dr Miller." Miss Bowen then said "Flight 709 space
has been confirmed for you." She then went forward
and sat down. I mused about this scene for about three
minutes and wondered what school for uncouthness had
groomed her. I then proceeded to venture forward and
politely asked if I might have her name She replied
"What for)" I asked then if she thought I was some
joker who just for kicks passes myself off as a
physician. "I didn't know you were a doctor," she said.
I asked her for her name once more and she replied,
"Jane Doe." I then said, "I can see we are now playing
games - I can find the information out from the
pilot." "You'll have to wait after the passengers have
departed at LAX," she replied. I then went to my seat
and in two minutes Mr. Ellington (286-8381) obtained
the information from another stewardess. In three -
four minutes, Miss Bowen came back to my seat and
said "I didn't realize you were a doctor; but you were
very nasty to me." I replied, "Dear Ellena, I wasn't
nasty - I dislike people whose explanations don't
support the intonations and connotations of their
preceeding actions." "You were nasty and embarrassed
me" she then said. I then said, "I don't wish to talk
about it any more - you are continuing to upset me."
As I deplaned Miss Bowen then remarked,
"Goodbye, Dr. Miller," with a coy smirk on her face
- which is a typical bitch goddess type remark! Now
gentlemen, I have these questions to ask:
Would you continue to fly on PSA with a malignant
creature like this to help make your trip pleasant? Does
one really have to pay money for this type of
frustrating experience? Has your publicity department
"Findings as to the episode are based on Miss Bowen 's testimony In
addition to the fact that her account is not contradicted by any evidence,
she impressed me as a truthful and objective witness
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 221
seduced these young ladies into a state of narcissism' I
would appreciate an answer to the above - it may
provide interesting reading while I fly on Western
Airlines, tell my thirty associates about my treatment,
and will shock my fiance who is a hostess for TWA.
With a deep sense of
disappointment,
/s/ John P Miller, M.D.
The Respondent did not call Dr. Miller, although it has
his address, nor any of the individuals whose names and
telephone numbers he mentions in the letter, nor did it
offer any explanation for these omissions. The letter has
been set out at length, not as evidence of what actually
took place (since it is obviously hearsay, not to speak of
its descriptive opinions and conclusions), but as a basis for
judging Mrs. Marchand's claimed attitude toward it, and
the action she asserts she based on it.
In view of Dr. Miller's apparent youth, his "cowboy"
or "western" costume, and Miss Bowen's obligation to
deliver the message to the proper person, her queryr "Are
you really Dr. Miller?" would seem only natural. And any
seasoned air traveller, young or old, especially one like
Mrs. Marchand who has been a stewardess, would be
familiar with the common practice of stewardesses of
saying farewell to disembarking passengers, addressing
them by name, if they know it. Dr. Miller's letter, to be
sure, denounces Miss Bowen's alleged manner and attitude
while inquiring if he was the person paged, and in bidding
him "goodbye," but the very quality of the rhetoric,
notably the epithets such as "bitch goddess" and
"malignant creature," and the apparent preoccupation
with status, evidenced by Dr. Miller's professed
"amazement" that one such as Miss Bowen should
"doubt" that he was Dr. Miller (although he himself
quotes his seat companion as referring to him as "this
cowboy") should, by rational standards, surely have raised
some question in Mrs. Marchand's mind as to the letter's
objectivity, to say the least.
Yet it is an illuminating and critical fact that Mrs.
Marchand admittedly did not ask Miss Bowen for her
version of the episode, although she claims that the letter
precipitated the discharge decision Indeed, in her
testimony, Mrs. Marchand termed the letter "eloquent,"
and went so far as to attempt to justify the
characterization of Miss Bowen as "a malignant
creature," stating that the term "personified some of the
things I heard she (Miss Bowen) had done," although at a
later point, she agreed that the statement was
"extraordinary," adding "it was in poor taste, probably "
The attempted justification of the epithet is in marked
contrast to Mrs. Marchand's letter of March 17,
commending Miss Bowen for her "efficient and pleasant
manner" toward passengers, and expressing confidence
that she displays that attitude "on all flights." The
commendation, it is well to bear in mind, was written near
the time the Company received Dr. Miller's letter, very
likely after the receipt of the letter," and particularly in
the light of the commendation and Mrs. Marchand's
admission that she_regards the characterization of Miss
Bowen as "a malignant creature" as extraordinary and
"probably" in poor taste, I think it beyond reason that
she would discharge Miss Bowen on the basis of Dr
Miller's letter, with its brand of rhetoric and epithet,
without first securing Miss Bowen's version of the episode
in question.
"Mrs. Marchand testified that she does not recall when the Miller letter
reached her , but it may be noted that the envelope containing the letter is
The reason Mrs. Marchand omitted to do so, I am
convinced, is that she used the letter as a pretext to cloak
an ulterior motive for the discharge, and, obviously, any
explanation by Miss Bowen would be irrelevant to such a
purpose.
The motive, I find, was rooted in Miss Bowen's
activities in promoting the formation and growth of the
Union. It is true that there is no direct showing that Mrs
Marchand was aware that Miss Bowen had any role in the
matter, but such knowledge may be inferred from
circumstantial evidence.' 9
As a starting point in that regard, one may fairly infer
that Miss Bowen's active interest in unionization was
widely known among PSA's San Diego stewardesses, for
she and Miss Field, in combination, canvassed practically
all of them, numbering almost 200, about a week before
Miss Bowen's discharge to ascertain their attitude toward
formation of a union; and her name was listed as an
officer of the Union in the soliciting form letter mailed to
more than a hundred of the stewardesses on March 24.
Mrs Marchand had by that time become aware from
some source that there was an organizational movement
under way, for on March 21, after the canvass and Miss
Field's consultation with an attorney, Mrs. Marchand told
Miss Field that she understood that "you girls are
forming an association and that cards are going to be
mailed"; and expressed the view that the girls "should get
together with Mr. Andrews and iron anything out that
way." Miss Field replied that "we had discussed it and
decided against that." And by March 24, the day before
Miss Bowen's discharge, Mrs. Marchand had become
openly hostile to the Union, as evidenced by her
prohibition, on that date, of any discussion of "the
association" on PSA's premises, and the related warning
to Miss Field
So far as appears, only Miss Field and Miss Bowen
were significantly active in forming and promoting the
Union (there is no indication that the three other
"officers" did anything more than approve the soliciting
letter and lend their names to it), and it is an important
fact that both were discharged within a few days after the
wide distribution of the letter and membership application
cards, and soon after Mrs. Marchand's admonition and
warning to Miss Field. These circumstances point to a
connection between the union activities and the discharges,
and putting Miss Field's termination aside for later
conclusions, in Miss Bowen's case, particularly against the
background of such circumstances, the very fact that the
Company has seized upon pretexts to justify the dismissal
bespeaks not only a hidden motive, but an unlawful one.
I find, in sum, that the Company discharged Miss
Bowen because she engaged in activities aimed at
promoting the formation and growth of the Union, and
that by the dismissal, it discriminated against her in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and interfered
with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of
Section 7 rights, thus violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
correctly addressed to the Company at its San Diego office, bears the
required postage, and was postmarked at Los Angeles on March 14 It is
reasonable to conclude that the letter was delivered to the Company by
March 16, and that it reached Mrs. Marchand soon after such delivery,
especially as the envelope indicated that the letter was intended for the
"Director of Stewardess Protocol " meaning, obviously , the person who
supervises the conduct of PSA's stewardesses
See, for example , A J Kra/ewski Mfg Co v N L R B, 413 F.2d 673,
(CA 1).
"From Miss Bowen 's remark in mid-March that "if we signed these
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The Discharge of Edith Field
Shortly after her discharge, Miss Bowen encountered
Miss Field, and informed her of the dismissal, and they
then made an appointment to see an attorney (the one
previously consulted by Miss Field) in Los Angeles at 9
a.m. on March 27.
To keep the appointment, both came to a counter near
the PSA embarkation gate at the San Diego airport about
7 a.m. on March 27, with the intention of securing a flight
for Los Angeles scheduled to leave at that hour, or one
scheduled for 7:15 a.m. The counter was maintained for
expedition of "last minute" departures, and was served at
the time by a PSA ticket agent named Paul A. Hamels.
To secure a seat, Miss Field presented a portion of a
"complimentary pass" of a type issued by the airline to its
employees, providing them with the privilege of passenger
travel for a small charge between San Diego and other
cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, served by
the line. The pass, as issued, is divided into three portions
marked off by perforations. The left portion includes
blank spaces for the insertion of the flight date and
number and the processing ticket agent's initials. The
middle portion contains spaces for the insertion of the
pass holder's name, signature, address number, originating
and destination points, and other information. The third
or right portion under a caption "IMPORTANT"
contains the following: "Please retain this coupon. Your
stewardess will collect it after departure from Bur/Lax"
(Burbank or Los Angeles airports). The processing ticket
agent is required to collect the left stub prior to
embarkation, verify the pass holder's identity, and collect
the requisite charge ($1 to $3 depending on the
destination). If the pass holder embarks at San Diego for
Los Angeles, the flight stewardess will collect both
remaining portions; but if the destination is San Francisco
with a stop at Los Angeles or Burbank, she will collect
the right portion for the first leg of the journey, and the
middle part for the second.
The portion presented to Hamels was the third or right
hand stub, and he declined to accept it on the ground, as
he told Miss Field, that it was valid only on a flight from
Los Angeles or Burbank. She asked him why he could not
write a new pass for her, and he told her that she could
get a refund for the stub, and secure a new pass from the
Stewardess Department. The discussion went on for some
time (estimates of its duration vary from about 4 to 10 or
15 minutes), each repeating positions previously taken,
while Hamels continued to attempt to process passengers
for the 7 o'clock flight which had not yet left when the
discussion began, and one or more subsequent flights.
With the arrival of additional passengers, Hamels decided
to call his supervisor, Larry Gross, to handle the matter.
Miss Field stepped aside to wait for Gross who came to
the counter about 5 minutes later. Miss Field told him
that the stub she had tendered was the remainder of a
pass from a flight from the San Francisco area, and that
she had not been able to use it because she had been
"bumped" from the flight in Los Angeles and had
purchased a ticket for the remainder of her journey, but
letters (sent to the management , and posted on the bulletin board ) we'd be
at the same place where we started from ," there is good reason to believe
that Mrs . Marchand , at least from that point, was aware that Miss Bowen
had had some connection with the anonymous letters The end result in her
case is the same whether or not Mrs Marchand had such knowledge, and
whether or not it entered into her decision to discharge Miss Bowen, for, in
any case, it is clear that the latter's union activities precipitated the
decision
the discussion otherwise took much the same course as
before, Gross taking the same position as Hamels, and
Miss Field persisting in her position and asserting that the
refusal to accept the stub was "ridiculous " During the
discussion, she produced a pass for travel from San Diego
to San Francisco, and asked whether she would have to
pay the $3 required for such a journey on the pass in
order to travel to Los Angeles, but the upshot of the
discussion was that Gross told Hamels that she would not
be permitted to fly without a proper pass or ticket and
then left the area.
After his departure, Hamels offered to alter the full
pass by inserting Los Angeles as the destination, and to
accept $1, the customary charge on a pass for a flight to
that city. This was done, and Miss Field and Miss Bowen,
the latter having purchased a round trip ticket, took an 8
o'clock flight to Los Angeles.30
Later that morning, hearing from another PSA
employee that a passenger was "irate" because he had
missed a flight to Sacramento, scheduled for departure at
7:20 a.m., and visualizing the possibility that it was
attributable to processing delay at his counter and that he
would be held responsible, Hamels, who knew Miss Field,
decided, "in protection of myself," as he put it in his
testimony, to make a report of the episode to the
Stewardess Department. He told Gross of his intention,
and according to him at one point, he called Mrs.
Marchand and told her that there had been "an incident .
. with a stewardess" and she told him to submit a report
and to tell Gross to submit one.21 Hamels prepared a
report later that day and transmitted it to Mrs.
Marchand The report gives a version of the episode,
describing Miss Field as becoming "irate" during the
discussion , and stating that a passenger had missed a
flight to Sacramento "because" of Miss Field and Miss
Bowen. (Hamels admitted in his testimony that he could
recall nothing that Miss Bowen said.)
Gross, hearing from Hamels that the Stewardess
Department wished a written report of the episode, called
Mrs Marchand about the matter that same day, and she
told him to submit a report, which he did, stating in it
that Miss Field "would not listen to reason and continued
to argue," and that "her arguing with the agent caused a
"Hamels testified that Miss Field initially tendered two stubs , and not
one, as Miss Field claims Gross also claims that she presented two stubs
The possible implication of such a claim by Gross and Hamels is that Miss
Field tried to get pass transportation for Miss Bowen, as well as herself,
but neither Gross nor Hamels quotes her as making such a request; the
Respondent makes no claim in its brief that Miss Field sought pass
transportation for Miss Bowen, and there is no contention that Miss Field
was discharged for that reason I believe that Gross and Hamels gave their
best recollection , but are mistaken , perhaps confusing the full pass Miss
Field produced at one point or another with a stub , or perhaps assuming
that she had two stubs because she was accompanied by Miss Bowen
Gross, it may be noted , denied that Miss Field showed him a full pass,
although there is no dispute that she had one on her person , and that it
was subsequently altered and processed by Hamels Moreover, Gross
quotes Miss Field as telling him that she had "these stubs " left over
because she had been "bumped" in Los Angeles on a flight from San
Francisco , but it does not appear why she would have two such stubs for
the one flight from San Francisco
"Under cross-examination , Hamels testified that it was "somebody" in
the Stewardess Department to whom he made his oral report, and that he
did not mention any names, reporting only that "an incident" with a
stewardess had occurred According to Chief Stewardess Cunningham, it
was she who received the telephone call, and Hamels gave her a brief
account of what had happened , expressing concern that he would be
blamed for a processing delay Miss Cunningham testified that she believes
that he referred to Miss Field as the stewardess involved, but that she
"can't be sure" that he did.
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 223
man to miss a flight to Sacramento 22
Miss Field returned later in the day and reported for
scheduled duty, proceeding to the stewardess lounge,
where she sat at a table with two stewardesses who asked
her how "the association was coming along " She replied
that she and Miss Bowen had been to see the Los Angeles
attorney that morning, also telling them that he had tried
to reach Andrews, but had been unsuccessful; that the
attorney had told her that Andrews was unavailable, and
that she had heard that he was out of town
According to a stewardess named Shirley Wright, she
was in the lounge at the time and heard Miss Field say in
"a rather loud voice" to the other stewardesses with
whom she sat that "[w]e have been trying to get in touch
with Mr. Andrews, but he is out to us." Miss Field
testified that she could not recall ever having made a
statement that Andrews had refused to see any
stewardesses.
Miss Wright was not at the table with Miss Field, but
was seated alone at another table, and it is evident from
her account that she heard only snatches of the
conversation. It may be that she is placing her own
construction on Miss Field's statement that she had heard
from the attorney that Andrews was "unavailable." On
the other hand, Miss Field says that she has no
recollection that she made the remark attributed to her,
and this suggests the possibility that she did make it and
has forgotten it. In any case, whether or not she made the
statement, it may be noted, for future reference, that Miss
Wright denies that she informed Mrs. Marchand of the
remark before Miss Field's discharge; that shortly after
Miss Field had mentioned the attorney's effort to reach
Andrews and the latter's unavailability, while she was still
seated with the two stewardesses, while Miss Wright was
still in the lounge, and while another stewardess, to whom
Miss Wright claims she repeated the remark in question,
was still there, Mrs. Marchand came out of her office
which is near the lounge, entered that area, and
apparently addressing those present in general, said, "I
want you all to know that Andy (Andrews) is sitting up in
his office and any of you that want to talk to him can do
so." Then she told Miss Field, "I want to see you in my
office right now," and both proceeded to the office.
There, Mrs. Marchand told Miss Field that she was
"fired for bald-faced lying about the company." Miss
Field asked what she was referring to, but Mrs. Marchand
refused to comment further on that subject, and then read
"quickly" from what appeared to Miss Field to be
"letters" (presumably the reports) from Gross and
Hamels. Miss Field asked to see the documents, and Mrs.
Marchand replied that she did not have to show her
anything. Then Miss Field asked for copies, and Mrs.
Marchand said that Miss Field could go to her counsel for
them. Mrs. Marchand told Miss Field that she could draw
her terminal check, and that appears to have ended the
discussion Mrs. Marchand did not ask Miss Field for her
version of the episode with Gross and Hamels.
That same day, following the discharge, Mrs.
Marchand prepared and posted on the bulletin board in
the stewardess lounge a notice addressed from herself to
"ALL PSA STEWARDESS PERSONNEL," containing
"Both the Gross and Hamels reports say that Miss Field presented two
stubs For reasons previously stated, I believe them to be mistaken, but in
any case, Mrs. Marchand makes no claim that she understood from the
reports, or otherwise , that Miss Field was attempting to secure pass
transportation for Miss Bowen, nor, as previously indicated, does she say
that she discharged Miss Field because of any such belief
the following.
All of you, I am sure, have heard of the termination
today of stewardess Edye Field Undoubtedly, because
of recent events within our department, there will be
many rumors as to the reason behind this termination
I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to
inform all stewardess personnel of the facts concerning
this termination. Simply, there were two reasons
1. Earlier today, Miss Field attempted to alter pass
procedures at the San Diego counter. In the process
of causing a disturbance at the counter, other
passengers were affected.. to the degree that one
passenger missed our flight and we were forced to
place him on a United flight.
2. Miss Field made statements this date to other
stewardess personnel that Andy refused to see any of
our stewardesses, that he had instructed switchboard
personnel to inform any stewardesses calling-in that
he was out of town and not available, etc.
Proceeding to an assessment of the conflicting claims as
to the motivation for the discharge, it is clear from the
terms of the pass stub offered by Miss Field to Gross and
Hamels that it was not valid for the transportation sought
That view of the matter is not affected by the fact that a
flight stewardess may accept the stub for a part of a
journey from San Diego to San Francisco, for in such
cases, so far as appears, the stub is attached to, and
tendered as part of, the pass. I am persuaded, too, that
Miss Field was overly persistent and argumentative, at
least in her discussion with Hamels He had other duties
to perform, and one may fairly believe that he was under
some pressure to process passengers for flights that were
to depart soon. But it is quite another matter to say that
the episode at the counter or any other reason given by
Mrs Marchand brought about Miss Field's dismissal. On
that score, the following excerpts from her testimony are
noteworthy
Q. (By Mr Gardiner) Why was she terminated9
THE WITNESS: I found Miss Field in violation of
several counts of Section 15.145 and also 15.210 of the
Stewardess Manual (regulating the conduct and
discipline of stewardesses).
* * * * *
Q. (By Mr. Gardiner) Would you complete your
answer now?
* * *
A. Well, that was it, and because - I had no
recourse but to make a decision When a girl commits
an act of misconduct it's entirely my decision to decide
whether to keep her or not, and I felt as though -
particularly two acts of misconduct were extremely
severe and warranted my making a decision
One of them, I felt as though, to use my
terminology, she told a bald-faced lie regarding J.
Floyd Andrews' open-door policy, and also the fact that
she had said that she did not receive her - the bids
that she put on her schedule, which I knew for a fact
was not correct, and I got this information from girls
who came in and told me that she was making these
statements. That's one.
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. That's one of the reasons for the termination?
A. Yes, it is
Q. What was the other?
A. The other one was I felt as though her conduct at
the ticket counter on, I believe it was, the 27th was
terribly detrimental to PSA and obviously broke the
rules, and I just would not condone it. I did not think
that any girl should act that way, and it was my
decision to terminate her for that reason.
MR. ROBERTSON: May I have that last answer.
* * * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: You were telling us, if I recollect,
before the testimony was read back the reasons for
discharge and you referred to this ticket incident; is
that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What other reasons, if any, were
you going to give us?
THE WITNESS: Well, ,I have to refer again to her past
record - I mean , you have to take that into
consideration. It was posted on the board. I thought it
would be unkind, but I did refer to the accumulation of
facts about Miss Field because I did not know her as a
stewardess, really - I had only been back there for a
month, and I was influenced by it.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What items - what did you take
into account?
THE WITNESS: Well, her past record, such as she had
been called in for appearance checks. Obviously, her
appearance was not satisfactory. She had been brought
in on numerous occasions - I believe in the file there
were repeated instances where she came in with.
handsewn uniforms, and things like this, which is not
acceptable, which would be indicative to me of a person
who is not prideful in their responsibility. If you're
going out there and meet the public, you should look
nice.
She had been overweight. However, I can recall
saying, "Well, we'll see if we can work something out."
But these are all things that you do take into
consideration, because there are prerequisites,
requirements for a girl to maintain the position of
stewardess, and when a girl is negligent in - obviously,
everybody isn't perfect, but when she builds up a whole
track - a whole list of things, it is indicative to me
that she's not being productive, so, yes, I took this into
consideration along with the scene at the counter, which
I felt was a direct violation of all company policies, and
her false statements about Andy's open-door policy.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You referred to some other false
statements that she made about a trip, did you not?
THE WITNESS: When Edye was out in the crew room
she made a statement - and I don't remember who the
girl is, but I can find out -
* * * *
TRIAL EXAMINER: Now, tell us what was reported.
THE WITNESS. We have a system whereby a girl may
bid for her flight sequences for the whole month She
made the statement - it was told to me, I didn't hear
her say it - that the system was absolutely no good
because she bid six times and she didn't get any of her
bids, and I went and looked it up and she did. So, that,
to me, is not a very healthy thing to say. It wasn't true
TRIAL EXAMINER Now, when was this reported to
you?
THE WITNESS: I believe it was the same day I
terminated her, but, gee, there were so many things
happening, I don't know I assume it was. I can find
out - this particular statement
Q. (By Mr. Gardiner) You mentioned the conduct at
the terminal -
THE WITNESS At the counter?
Q. (By Mr. Gardiner) Yes
A. I relied very heavily upon the two gentlemen who
filed the complaint.
Q. What did Miss Field do that you relied upon?
A. Miss Field caused a scene - at least this was my
interpretation of it - what I think one of the fellows
said was "A very mad woman," which is directly in
violation of -
TRIAL EXAMINER: Who said that?
THE WITNESS: One of them, Hamels or Gross I
don't know which one of them said it.
* * * * *
... on the telephone . I don't remember which one I
even talked to.
Q. (By Mr . Gardiner ) Mrs Marchand, I believe you
testified sometime earlier that you relied upon a
number of incidents which were set forth in the
confidential stewardess report (of Edith Field ); is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Afterthought , exaggeration and pretext, as in the
purported reasons given for Miss Bowen ' s discharge, are
clearly visible in the quoted testimony when measured by
the whole record . Miss Field was told at the time of her
dismissal that she was being discharged "for bald-faced
lying, about the company ," and, by implication, because of
the Gross and Hamels reports of the episode at the ticket
counter,1 3 and nothing was said to her about "her past
record" or adverse reports about her "appearance,"
wearing "handsewn uniforms ," being "overweight," or
any other aspect of her work , whether entered in the
Confidential Personnel Form or not. Moreover, the posted
specification of the reasons, prepared soon after the
discharge„ and with deliberation , as is evident from Mrs.
Marchand's testimony , :' makes no reference to her past
performance or appearance record , and expressly states
that there were "simply ... two reasons ": ( 1) the episode
at the ticket counter , and (2 ) "statements" made by Miss
Field about Andrews on March 27
For reasons previously pointed out, a stewardess'
Confidential Personnel Form may be an incomplete and
unreliable guide to the quality of her performance and,
what is more, as recently as Februray , about a month
"So far as appears, the only explicit reason given Miss Field was alleged
"bald-faced lying," but , by inference, the reading of the reports to her, in
the setting of the discharge , may be taken as a position that they were an
additional reason for the dismissal
"According to Mrs Marchand , after the discharge , she discussed it with
one or another of her superiors , possibly Andrews, "because I wanted to
let the girls [stewardesses ] know what the reason was."
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 225
before the discharge, Mrs. Marchand had a high regard
for Miss Field, as is evident from the fact that she chose
her as a candidate for election to "a scheduling
committee," and told her that she was in her (Mrs.
Marchand' s) "league ," but quite apart from these factors,
it is abundantly clear from the professed discharge reasons
given Miss Field and, particularly, from those posted on
the bulletin board, that alleged deficiencies in her past
performance or appearance had no connection with Miss
Field's discharge, and that the claim that they were
factors in the discharge decision is an afterthought.2!
The claim that "false statements" by Miss Field were
causal factors in her discharge is also marred by shift of
position and afterthought. The contention includes
testimony by Mrs. Marchand that a stewardess whose
name she says she does not remember reported to her on
March 27 that Miss Field, while in the lounge that day,
made statements about the Company's system of
stewardess flight schedules, which, according to Mrs.
Marchand, were untrue; yet there is no evidence that Miss
Field made the alleged statements; nor is it demonstrated
how Mrs. Marchand could have learned of them prior to
the discharge, particularly as Miss Field was still in the
lounge talking to other stewardesses when Mrs. Marchand
came in and summoned her to discharge her. There is no
mention of such remarks in the posted notice of March
27, and I find that they had no connection with the
discharge and are an afterthought.
What is more, the accusation of "bald-faced lying" is
far from established, and there is good reason to believe
that Mrs. Marchand has ballooned Miss Field's remarks
to other stewardesses in the lounge into a makeweight for
her discharge. What she meant by the accusation is a
matter of some guesswork, for she refused to tell Miss
Field the basis for the accusation, and the "false
statements" she attributes to Miss Field in her testimony
shifts, as already noted, from those she imputes to her in
the posted reasons. Before Mrs. Marchand entered the
lounge, Miss Field had been telling two other stewardesses
of her information that Andrews was out of town, and
that her lawyer had not been able to reach him, and Mrs.
Marchand made an announcement upon entering the
lounge to the effect that Andrews was in his office and
available to any stewardess. From these circumstances,
one may fairly infer that the accusation of "lying" which
followed soon thereafter referred to something Miss Field
had said about Andrews' unavailability 26
" I note , in passing , that there is actually relatively little adverse
comment in Miss Field 's confidential personnel form for almost a year
preceding her discharge The first of the four reports for the period, made
in May, 1968, notes that she was "still wearing high heels," but that her
"appearance has improved greatly since she has been flying," that her
"complexion ' is looking great ," and that her "hair looked nice" The
second , made in September, 1968, by Miss Cunningham, states only that
Miss Field' s "overall appearance (was) good " The third, in December,
1968, states that her "general appearance (was) satisfactory," but notes
that she should "wear bright orange lipstick all the tune"; that on a prior
"check ride" (not reported on the Form , by the way), it was observed that
her hat needed cleaning , and her purse refinishing ; and that she should get
a new hat and purse . The fourth, made by Mrs. Cisco on February 13,
1969, states that a "uniform check (was) satisfactory," but that Miss Field
should lose 6 pounds by February 27, 1969 The issues require no judgment
here whether the items of criticism dealt with anything more than trivia, it
is enough that the alleged reliance by Mrs. Marchand on the confidential
personnel form is an afterthought , and that the entries in it had no
connection with the discharge
"However, in the light of the whole record , notably the evidence of Mrs
Marchand' s recent prohibition of discussion of the Union on PSA's
premises , it is possible that what she meant by the accusation were the
But it is quite another matter to say that the accusation
was justified. Andrews did not testify, and there is, in fact,
no evidence that he was in his office that day prior to
Mrs. Marchand's announcement (which does not prove
the fact of his presence or availability). Mrs. Marchand
makes no claim that she overheard Miss Field, nor does
she identify the source of her information; and from the
accounts of both Miss Field and Miss Wright, it is evident
that no one quoted Miss Field from the moment Mrs.
Marchand entered the lounge until she left with Miss
Field to accuse her of "lying" and to discharge her.
Moreover, Miss Field denies that she made remarks,
attributed to her in the posted notice, that Andrews had
instructed switchboard personnel to tell calling
stewardesses that he was unavailable, and there is no
evidence that she made them. That being the case, and in
view of Mrs. Marchand's failure to give the source of her
information, her refusal to give Miss Field any particulars
of the accusation of "lying," and Mrs. Marchand's resort
to afterthoughts to justify the discharge, I find no rational
basis in the record for the allegation that Miss Field had
made such misstatements about instructions to
switchboard personnel, and am persuaded that Mrs.
Marchand had no information at the time of the discharge
that such remarks had been made, whatever she might
have heard on the subject between the time of the
dismissal and the subsequent preparation of the posted
notice of alleged reasons.
It may be that Mrs. Marchand had received
information, whether correct or not, from some source
before she entered the lounge to the effect that Miss Field
had said that Andrews was "out to us," but especially in
view of the high regard she had for Miss Field only a few
weeks before the latter embarked on efforts, with Miss
Bowen , to improve employment conditions and form a
union, one would think that if such information was of
actual concern to Mrs. Marchand, she would have asked
Miss Field for an explanation, or at least complied with
her request for some details, instead of summarily
discharging her without any more explanation than an
accusation of "bald-faced lying" and a hasty reading of
the Gross and Hamels reports.
Moreover, Mrs. Marchand's testimony regarding the
episode at the ticket counter tarries a note of
exaggeration, and it is noteworthy that as in Miss Bowen's
case, she neither asked Miss Field for her version of the
episode, nor gave her an opportunity to give it before
discharging her According to Mrs. Marchand, Miss Field
caused a "scene" at the counter, and she quotes Gross or
Hamels - she claims she cannot recall which, or whether
she spoke to one or both before the dismissal - as
describing Miss Field as "a very mad woman " There is
nothing in the accounts given by Gross and Hamels of
their respective conversations with Mrs. Marchand to
indicate that either made any such reference. It is true
that each pictures Miss Field as arguing with him, and
Gross says that she was "upset," while Hamels states that
she was "irate," but Gross testified that she did not create
a scene while he was at the counter, and that he does not
remember her tone of voice, and Hamels stated that he
statements in the anonymous letters to the effect that the Company was
violating state labor requirements , and the allegations of substandard
working conditions and violations of state labor regulations made in the
letter soliciting membership in the Union , signed by Miss Field as "Acting
President ," and sent by her two days before her dismissal to more than a
hundred stewardesses There is no evidence as to the truth or falsity of
these allegations , and, in any case, the end results here are the same,
whether or not they were the focus of Mrs Marchand 's accusation
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"would say" that Miss Field was "argumentative" and
had a rising "voice level" while the discussion proceeded.
We are not told how high Miss Field's voice rose, and
there is no evidence that any passengers were actually
privy to what passed between Miss Field and Gross and
Hamels. In short, Mrs. Marchand appeared to me to be
more disposed to defensive advocacy of the propriety of
Miss Field's discharge, much as in her apparent
willingness at one point to justify, Dr Miller's
characterization of Miss Bowen as "a malignant
creature," than to give an objective account of her
motivation and events that formed it.
Her failure to ask Miss Field for her version of the
counter episode is all the more remarkable in view of the
fact that Hamels made it plain to Miss Cunningham, as is
evident from her description of Hamels' initial
communication with the Stewardess Department
concerning the affair, that his purpose in reporting the
incident was to protect himself and to place the blame on
the Stewardess Department in the event of a complaint
from a passenger that he had missed a flight because of
processing delay at the counter.' The discharge came with
obvious celerity after the written reports were submitted,
and that Mrs. Marchand acted with such speed, without
taking the precaution of asking Miss Field for her version
as a possible means of defending the Stewardess
Department in the event Hamels had misdirected the
blame, is quite understandable if Mrs. Marchand had no
interest in any explanation because her purpose was to
discharge Miss Field on a pretext.
The full record leads me to conclude that such was her
aim, and that the motive for the discharge is to be found
in Miss Field's union activities. She played a primary role
in forming and promoting the Union, and in soliciting
support for it, and I have no doubt that Mrs. Marchand
had a substantial awareness of Miss Field's role This is
evident, if from nothing else, from Mrs. Marchand's
statement to Miss Field on March 21 that she understood
that "you girls are forming an association and that cards
are going to be mailed "; by her proposal to Miss Field on
that occasion that the girls "get together with Mr.
Andrews and iron anything out that way"; and by the
prohibition, addressed to Miss Field on March 24, of
solicitation for, and discussion of, the Union on PSA's
premises Significantly, the discharge came within several
days after the warning, and the mailing by Miss Field of
the letters, signed by her as "Acting President" of the
Union, to more than 100 of the Company's stewardesses,
soliciting their membership in the organization.
Against the background of Miss Field's role in
organizing and promoting the Union, and of the timing of
her dismissal, it is of major importance that instead of
providing a straightforward explanation for the dismissal,
what emerges from the Respondent is a melange of
afterthoughts, implausibility, shifting justifications, and
exaggeration. These very characteristics point to a
concealed and unlawful motivation, and that view of the
matter is fortified by the fact that only a few weeks before
Miss Field's dismissal , another stewardess had misused a
pass issued to a PSA ticket agent, using it for
transportation from San Francisco to San Diego; and that
when the matter came to the attention of Mrs. Marchand
or Miss Cunningham, the latter interviewed her, gave her
"There is actually no evidence that any passenger missed a plane
because of the ticket counter discussion Gross says that Hamels told him
that that had happened , and Hamels says he heard about it from another
employee who , for all that appears, heard about it from another
an opportunity for an explanation, and let her off with a
warning that another act of misconduct would be ground
for termination. Moreover, the ticket agent to whom the
pass had been issued, and had abused the pass privilege by
giving it to another, was not discharged for his conduct in
the premises.
I find, in summary, that the justifications put forward
by the Respondent, whether at the time of Miss Field's
dismissal , or in the posted notice of March 27, or in Mrs.
Marchand's testimony, were pretexts; that Miss Field was
discharged because of her activities in promoting the
Union; and that by the dismissal, the Respondent
discriminated against her in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, and abridged Section 7 rights of employees,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
E. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Following the
Discharges
On March 31, Mrs. Marchand convened and presided
over a meeting attended by some 15 to 40 stewardesses
(estimates of the number vary). Much of the meeting
consisted of a "pep talk" by her and a recital of her
claimed reasons for discharging Miss Field, as set forth in
the posted notice of March 27, and is ungermane to the
issue, raised by the complaint and answer, whether Mrs.
Marchand made unlawful promises of wage increases and
other benefits."
During the course of the meeting, she told her audience
that she had called the meeting because of the "unrest"
among the stewardesses, and because of "the association"
(the recently formed Union, as is evident), that it was not
her purpose to coerce or threaten, or to make promises;
that it was up to the girls whether they wished to sign the
"pink (membership application and authorization) card";
and that they would not be discharged if they did, but,
first, to weigh "the pros and cons" and "make an honest
estimate of the facts"; that she was going to give them "a
good working environment, a fair schedule with good days
off"; that "we'll pick the flight of the month and the girls
that are the best," and "give them a hundred dollars or . .
. send them to Mexico"; that if the girls gave her 90 days,
she would "try to make things better for them"; that she
had a goal of securing for the stewardesses "better wages
and time and a half for overtime"; and that she was
"establishing a boutique whereby the girls could buy wigs
and cosmetics at discount prices."'e
"In view of the conclusions reached regarding the discharge , I deem it
unnecessary to pass on an "alternative " position of the General Counsel
who, citing the doctrine of N L R B v Burnup and Sims, 379 U S 1,
maintains that in the absence of evidence that Miss Field's remarks in the
lounge concerning the effort by her attorney to reach Andrews and the
latter's unavailability were untrue , a discharge on the purported ground
that she was "lying" in what she said, violated Sec 8(axl) since her
relevant statements , made in response to queries from other stewardesses
about the progress of the Union, constituted concerted activity protected
by Sec 7 of the Act
"According to Mrs Marchand , she also held a similar meeting on April
1, and there is some intimation in her testimony that she covered
substantially the same ground at both meetings As the General Counsel
centers his claim of unlawful promises on the first meeting, I dispense with
further mention of the second
"The findings as to the meeting are a composite of testimony by Mrs
Marchand and a stewardess named Jan Parr There is no material dispute
that Mrs Marchand made promises of wage improvements and other
benefits outlined above, and, in the main , those set out are taken from her
testimony She denied at one point that she mentioned "the association,"
but then turned evasive when the matter was pressed, stating that "there
are several associations ," and that she "also referred to the Teamsters"
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 227
In evaluating the legality of her remarks, I am unable
to attach any weight to Mrs. Marchand's disavowal of
any purpose to threaten or coerce the stewardesses, or to
promise them anything, nor to her words of assurance
that they could decide for themselves whether to sign the
cards, and that they would not be discharged if they did
so The fact is that she did make promises, both express
and by intimation, in the course of her remarks. As for
her disclaimer of coercive purpose, the best measure of its
quality, it seems to me, is her discharge of Edith Field
and Elaina Bowen several days earlier for promoting the
Union In short, her assurances appear to me to be mere
lip service to detachment and neutrality.
In the context of events, notably the recent
establishment of the Union, and the widespread
circulation of the membership applications, of which Mrs.
Marchand was aware, as evidenced by her remarks about
the "pink card" and her allusion to "unrest," I am
persuaded that the organization of the Union and the
membership drive were underlying reasons for the
meeting, and that the promises were made to undermine
the interest of the stewardesses in the Union
Thus I find that the promises of better wages and
overtime pay, a boutique for "discount" purchases, prizes
for the "flight of the month," a "fair schedule with good
days off," and the other promised improvements she
mentioned interfered with the free exercise of rights
guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, and that
by such conduct, the Company violated Section 8(a)(I) of
the Act
The remaining issue is whether Chief Stewardess
Cunningham made unlawful remarks to several
stewardesses, including one named Donna Howell, about
the end of March or the beginning of April. It was, and
is, part of Miss Cunningham's functions to maintain,
make available to stewardesses, and discuss with them,
materials, including union contracts, dealing with airline
industry working conditions for stewardesses.
According to Miss Howell, on the occasion in question,
while she and two other stewardesses were in Miss
Cunningham's office, there was some conversation among
the stewardesses "about going to Andy on our own" (that
is, by implication, instead of dealing with the Company
through a union ), and Miss Cunningham said "that Andy
did not have to speak or bargain with any labor union
leaders, that he could close the Company down."
Miss Cunningham's version is that in response to a
remark by one of the stewardesses present (apparently in
the context of some discussion about collective action by
stewardesses to secure an improvement in working
conditions) that "we'll just close down the airline" (by
striking, as may be inferred), she said, "Well, Mr
Andrews can close down the airline. Really, is it an
accomplishment to close it down, or what?" Under
cross-examination, Miss Cunningham conceded that "I
might have said something in reference to that he
(Andrews) doesn't have to bargain, but he wants to, and
revert back to the open-door policy."
The two versions are in partial accord, but also
incomplete, in my judgment. Miss Cunningham's
admission , under cross-examination, that she "might have
said something in reference" to bargaining gives
corroborative support to Miss Howell's version of the
remark about it. On the other hand, Miss Howell
(thus indirectly conceding that she did refer to "the association," or, in
other words , to the Union) The findings as to what she said about the
organization are based on the relevant testimony of Jan Parr
conceded, under cross-examination, that a stewardess
made a remark "about the union or the association calling
a strike," and that it was possible that it was in response
to that that Miss Cunningham "made an observation that
the Company could close down "
Drawing upon both versions, I find that what took
place, in substance, was that in the course of discussion
about labor relations between the management and
stewardess personnel, one of the stewardesses present
visualized the possibility of a strike by stewardesses and
the consequent shutdown of operations, and that Miss
Cunningham responded to the effect that Andrews did not
have to bargain with any union representatives, and could
shut down the airline.
The Respondent denies that Miss Cunningham was at
the time a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, thus
apparently taking the position that her remarks are not
imputable to the Company. Whether or not her status
meets the statutory definition of "supervisor," the
disclaimer of responsibility is untenable in view of her
title, participation in management of the Stewardess
Department, and her function of supplying information to
the stewardesses regarding labor-management relations in
the airline industry. In such circumstances, stewardesses
would reasonably regard her remarks about bargaining as
a reflection of the management's views.
Moreover, as Mrs. Marchand testified, Chief
Stewardesses possess and exercise authority "to instruct
lead, motivate . . . (and) check on the performance of the
girls." They make "confidential" reports on such
performance, criticize stewardesses for deficiencies in their
work and appearance; direct the correction of
shortcomings (as evidenced, for example, by entries in the
confidential personnel forms); administer reprimands to
stewardesses; and interview and screen applicants for
employment. Reference of an applicant by a chief
stewardess to Mrs Marchand for consideration following
such an interview is treated by the latter as a
recommendation for employment; and a failure to refer is
thus in effect a denial of employment." The exercise of
the authority to recommend hiring, to deny employment
by omission to make such a recommendation after an
interview, to discipline stewardesses through reprimands
and related "confidential" personnel entries, and direct
them to correct their deficiencies is "not of a merely
routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment," and I find that by force of such
authority, and its exercise, Miss Cunningham is, and has
been at all material times, a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Miss Cunningham's remarks should be appraised in the
light of the total record, and doing so, I am unable to
view them as mere repartee or as said in jest, albeit there
was "some kidding" during the course of the conversation.
The discussion was about labor relations between the
management and the stewardesses and improvements in
working conditions, and that these subjects had become
matters of deep concern both to the Company and many
of its stewardesses is too evident to require elaboration at
this point. Against that background, and taking into
account Miss Cunningham's supervisory status and her
function of disseminating information about
labor-management relations, it appears to me that she
went well beyond a mere rhetorical rejoinder that if the
employees could bring operations to a halt, the Company
"Since the events in issue here , chief stewardesses have been vested with
direct hiring authority
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could do the same, but that she as much as said, in
addition, that it could do as it pleased about bargaining
with a union , irrespective of the organization's
representative status. Harnessing this to her statement
about Andrews' power to "close down" the airline, the
stewardesses present would be warranted in construing
Miss Cunningham's remarks as an intimation that union
representation would be futile and could lead to a loss of
employment.
I find that the Company interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) as a result of Miss
Cunningham's remarks that Andrews did not have to
bargain with any union representatives, and could close
down the Company's operations.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial 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 the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found, and take
certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices committed, and in order to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall
recommend an order below which will in effect require the
Respondent to refrain in the future from abridging any of
the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 33
Having found that the Company discriminatorily
discharged Elaina Bowen on March 25, 1969, and Edith
Field on March 27, 1969, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend below, that the
Company offer each of them immediate and full
reinstatement to her former, or a substantially equivalent,
position," without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of her said discharge
from the date of such discharge to the date on which she
is offered reinstatement as aforesaid, together with interest
thereon as provided below; and that the said loss of 'pay
be computed in accordance with the formula and method
prescribed by the Board in F W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and include interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum , as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
""a discriminatory discharge of an employee because of his union
affiliations goes to the very heart of the Act" NLRB v Entwistle
Manufacturing Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C A 4) See also May Department
Stores v N L R B. 326 U S 376; Bethlehem Steel Company v N L R B.
120 F 2d 641 (C A D C )
"In accordance with the Board ' s past interpretation the expression
"former, or a substantially equivalent , position" is intended to mean,
"former position wherever possible, but if such position is no longer in
existence , then to a substantially equivalent position " Chase National
Bank of New York, 65 NLRB 827
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following conclusions of law:
1. The Company is, and has been at all material times,
an employer within the meaning of ' Section 2(2) of the
Act.
2. The Union is, and has been at all material times, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3 By discriminatorily discharging Elama Bowen and
Edith Field, as found above, the Company has engaged,
and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Company has
engaged 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 2(7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I recommend that Pacific Southwest Airlines,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of its employees in
Southwest Independent Stewardess' Association, or in any
other labor organization, by discharging any employee, or
in any other manner discriminating against any employee
with respect to such employee's hire, tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Promulgating, maintaining, or applying any rule
prohibiting solicitation by any employee of any other
employee, during time when neither is working, to become
or remain a member of any labor organization or to
support or assist any such organization; or from
discussing any such organization, or any activity related to
it, during such time.
(c) Threatening, warning, or otherwise informing any
employee that such employee will be subject to any loss or
denial of employment or any other reprisal if the
employee violates such a rule, or employees choose a
labor organization to represent them, or seek to bargain
through such an organization.
(d) Offering or promising employees any wage increase
or other benefit or improvement in their terms 'or
conditions of employment if they refrain from becoming
or remaining members of any labor organization, or
giving it any assistance or support
(e) Directly or indirectly stating to or otherwise
informing any employees that the Company can or will
refuse to bargain with a labor organization as the
representative of such employees, irrespective of its right
to represent them.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor
organization; to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing; to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 229
2. Take the following affirmative actions which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Elaina Bowen and Edith Field immediate and
full reinstatement to their respective former, or
substantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, as provided
in section V, above, entitled "The Remedy," and make
each of them whole according to the formula and method
prescribed in said section V.
(b) Preserve until compliance with any order for
reinstatement or backpay made by the National Labor
Relations Board in this proceeding is effectuated, and
make available to the said Board and its agents, upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security records, timecards and personnel records,
which may be relevant to a determination of the amount
of backpay due, and to the reinstatement and related
rights provided by such order.
(c) Notify Elaina Bowen and Edith Field in the event
that they are now serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Post in conspicuous places at the Company's office
and place of business in San Diego, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of the
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Company, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in such conspicuous
places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said
Company to insure that said notice is not covered, altered,
or defaced by any other material 91
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith 35
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " In the additional event that
the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
par 2(e ) thereof shall be modified to read "Notify the said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith "
APPENDIX
The Act gives employees the following rights-
To engage in self-organization
To form, loin or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To engage in activities together for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee because such employee has
exercised any of such rights
WE WILL NOT establish, maintain or apply any rule
prohibiting any employee from soliciting any other
employee on our premises, during time when neither is
working, to become or remain a member of any union,
or assist or support any union, or from discussing any
union, or any activity related to it, during such time.
WE WILL NOT threaten, warn or otherwise inform
any employee that such employee will be subject to any
loss or denial of employment or any other reprisal if
the employee violates such a rule, or employees choose
a union to represent them, or seek to bargain through
such a union.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise- our employees any
wage increase or other benefit or improvement in their
terms or conditions of employment if they refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any union, or
giving any assistance or support to it
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly tell any
employees that we can or will refuse to bargain with a
union, irrespective of its right to represent them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with any
employee's exercise of any of the rights given
employees by the Act.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that
we discharged Elaina Bowen and Edith Field in
violation of the said Act, and has ordered us to offer
each full reinstatement to her former, or substantially
equivalent, job, and to reimburse each for any loss of
pay she suffered because of such discrimination.
WE WILL, therefore, offer Elaina Bowen and Edith
Field such reinstatement and reimburse each of these
employees for such loss of pay, together with interest
thereon, in accordance with the Board's order.
If Elaina Bowen and Edith Field are presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States we
will notify them that they will be reemployed if they
apply for reemployment after their separation from the
Armed Forces.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we have violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post
this notice.
Dated By
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern
Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles,
California 90014, Telephone 688-5229