Parker-Hannifin Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 809
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 219 South
Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any ques-
tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Parker Seal Company , Division of Parker-Hannifin Corporation
and District 50, United Mine Workers of America . Case No.
9-CA-3024. November 18, 1964 .
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and wasengaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. He also found that Respondent
had not engaged in other' unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting
brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection With
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case , and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the addition noted below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Parker Seal Com-
pany, Division of Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Lexington, Ken-
' We find without merit Respondent ' s contention that its pretrial motion for a bill of
particulars was improperly denied
a In the absence of exception thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding thht the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in the interrogation of an em-
ployee as to whether he had given a Board agent a sworn statement Member Leedom
concurs in this finding on the basis of the majority opinion in Montgomery Ward & Co.,
Incorporated , 146 NLRB 76.
149 NLRB No. 73.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'lucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the follow-
ing addition :
Add the following paragraph as paragraph 2(b), the present para-
graph 2(b) and those subsequent being consecutively relettered:
"Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S' DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Max Rosenberg in Lexington , Kentucky , on February 17 and, .18, 1964, on complaint
of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and answer of Parker
Seal Company , Division of Parker -Hannifin Corporation, herein called Respondent.1
This case poses the issues of whether Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
by discharging Mary Ann Brothers because of her activities on behalf of District 50,
United Mine Workers of America , herein called the Union, and independently vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by certain other acts and conduct . The parties
waived oral argument at the hearing . A brief has been received from the Respondent,
which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses , including their
demeanor while on the stand , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent , an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of hydraulic and
fluid system components at its plant in Lexington , Kentucky . During the annual
period material to this proceeding , Respondent sold and shipped its products , valued
in excess of $50 ,000, to points directly outside the State of Kentucky . The complaint
alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The contentions
The complaint alleges that Respondent , through Raymond G. Tobin, eastern divi-
sion manager ; Edward Reinsch , production manager ; Gary Cochran , finishing depart-
ment foreman ; and Ernie Hatfield , production supervisor , all of whom are concededly
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act, engaged in various act's
of interference , restraint, and coercion of employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).2
3 The complaint , which issued on December 27, 1963, Is based on a charge which was filed
and served on November 8, 1963.
2 At the hearing , I granted the General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint by
adding a paragraph 4(b) which alleges that "At all times material herein, Robert F.
Houlihan , Respondent' s attorney , acting on Its behalf , is and has been an agent of the
Respondent as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act," and by adding a paragraph 5(e)(I)
which alleges that "The conduct of said Robert Houlihan sometime in February 1964, the
exact date being unknown to the Regional Director , by interrogating employees concern-
ing statements given by them to Board agents and/or by demanding copies of their state-
ment." Respondent denies these amended allegations.
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 811
The complaint further alleges that Respondent discharged employee, Mary Ann
Brothers because of her activities on behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section
8(a)(3). Respondent denies the commission of unfair labor practices , and asserts
that Brothers was discharged solely because of excessive absenteeism.
B. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union commenced its organizational campaign at Respondent's Lexington
plant in the last week of August 1963. In July or September 1963, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the IAM, similarly sought to
attract the favor of Respondent's employees .3 According to Tobin, he first became
aware of the Union's organizational activities early in September 1963, when several
employees reported to their supervisors that representatives of the Union had called
at their homes requesting that they sign authorization cards. In line with Tobin's
policy of preferring "to operate without a Union in the plant," he retained Attorney
Houlihan to visit the plant and advise the supervisory personnel about labor law,
and to instruct them not to interrogate employees concerning union activities but
merely to answer questions which the employees might pose on that subject. Tobin
also conducted general meetings with his supervisors and, according to him, he in-
formed them that it was their duty and responsibility that the employees got the
"complete story" of the Respondent's position on unionism, but he cautioned them
not to threaten employees with reprisals or promise them benefits if ,they engaged in
or refrained from engaging in union activity. In addition, Tobin held a series of
informational meetings among all the employees in the plant on October 1 and 2,
1963, in which he commented on the current organizational campaign.
To support the allegations pf interference, restraint , and coercion set forth in the
complaint, the General Counsel relies upon the testimony of Ada Thompson, Bessie
Taylor, Melvin Wilson, and Mary Ann Brothers.
Thompson was employed as a screen sorter in the finishing department under
Foreman Gary Cochran during the times material' herein. She testified that she
learned that Brothers was working fox "the Union in September 1963, and, in that
month, she approached Cochran at his work desk and engaged in in a conversation
relative to the Union. During this conversation, Cochran remarked to Thompson
that Meyer, the president of Respondent, "would shut the door and move out" before
he would permit the Union to enter the plant. In late August or early September,
at a time when an LAM representative was engaged in organizational activities at
the plant gate, Cochran asked Thompson if she thought that Brothers had anything
to do with these organizational efforts, and Thompson replied that she did not know.
During the same period, Production Manager Reinsch informed the employees in the
finishing department "that there was absolutely too much harassing going on in the
department and he wanted it stopped ... that he had a telephone call from one of
the girls and she was being harassed."' Thompson further testified that, during Octo-
ber 1963, Cochran visited her work station and informed her that she was not to
talk to anyone and that she was to remain at her station except for necessary trips
to the restroom. When Thompson complained that Cochran was being unfair be-
cause the other girls in her department were permitted to talk, Cochran replied, "Well,
you brought it all on yourself, you stabbed me right in the back," Thompson inquired
whether Cochran was referring to her union activities , and he replied , "I cannot
mention that name." At one point, Thompson stated that she was told by Cochran
not to talk at "anytime" because she was "there to do a job." However, she acknowl-
edged that she was permitted to talk during breaks and at lunch. Thompson also
testified that, during October 1963, Brothers had a union button on her work table
and that Cochran warned Brothers that "I don't want to catch this on you. You
better not wear that." Thompson further testified that, on or about October 1, she
attended an informational meeting at which Division Manager Tobin addressed the
assembled employees . Tobin placed some union authorization cards in a slide
projector and stated that the employees should be careful about signing one of them
because "It's just like signing a blank check." Tobin went on to read the Union's
authorization card and "said if anybody had signed it they were already a member
and that if they wanted to do so they could go ahead and charge us our Union dues
whether or not the Union got in." According to Thompson, she could not recall
whether Tobin told the employees not to sign the Union's card. Thompson further
8 These activities culminated in the filing of a representation petition in Case No.
9-RC-5657 by the IAM in November 1963, in which the Union Intervened. A hearing
was held on the petition on December 10, 1963, and an election was conducted on Febru-
ary 7, 1964, in which both labor organizations were unsuccessful.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
related that Tobin mentioned that Respondent intended to build a new plant in neigh-
boring Winchester. When one of the employees asked if she could transfer to the
Winchester plant, the personnel manager replied that there would be no transfers.
Bessie Taylor was also employed as a screen sorter under Cochran. She testified
that she attended an informational meeting around October 1, 1963, in the course of
which Tobin displayed the IAM and union authorization cards on a projection screen,
read the cards to the employees, and explained their purport. Tobin stated that the
IAM card was a better card than the union card and "advised us against signing the
[union ] card, that if we did we were signing a blank check." However, Taylor related
that, during the meeting, Tobin attempted to impres's upon the employees that they
should be sure what they were doing before they signed an authorization card, and in
this connection he pointed out that the IAM card simply authorized that union to
seek an election, whereas the Union's card was actually an application for admission
to membership and that when they signed the union card the Union could collect
dues from the employees. Taylor also testified that when one of the girls asked Tobin
about prospective transfers to the Winchester plant, the personnel manager replied in
a joking manner that there would be no transfers. Taylor further testified that she
had attended a union meeting in late October, and on the following day she and three
other employees in her department wore union buttons while at work. She related
that Cochran seemed to act very strangely toward her on this occasion, and this
prompted her to ask him why he and Respondent were so opposed to the Union.
Cochran replied that "the Union could cost the Company money and he said that
there was four of us girls out of his department that had worn the buttons and by so
doing we had stabbed him in the back and that if the Union didn't get in that we had
had it and then he changed it that we had singled ourselves out." As a result, Taylor
did not wear a union button thereafter. In the latter part of October, Taylor had
several conversations with Cochran concerning the Union, during which he "made it
perfectly clear that we had benefits that the Union just couldn't improve upon in his
way of thinking. He said the Union couldn't do anything for us there, that we had
more at our plant than the Berea plant had and they had a Union." Taylor went on
to relate that at the end of October Reinsch visited the finishing department and in-
formed the girls that there had been too much talking in the department and that he
had received some telephone calls from some of the girls complaining that they were
being harassed. Reinsch informed the employees that he did not want any more of
such harassment and instructed them not to talk in the plant during working hours.
Taylor was one of the employees who was called into Respondent 's personnel
office, on a date fixed in the record as February 5, 1964, for questioning by Attorney
Houlihan. Taylor testified that, prior to this date, Tobin had indicated in one of his
informational meetings that he had planned to have his lawyer come out to the plant
"and question any or all of the employees in order that they could get their defense
for this case." She could not recall whether Tobin had told them that they need
not talk with'Houlihan if they did not desire to do so. She testified that she was
summoned to the office by another employee who had been previously interviewed,
and that the personnel manager and Houlihan's secretary were present. According
to Taylor, "Mr. Houlihan asked me a series of questions concerning the charges that
were brought or at least he had a paper that I assumed was the charges brought
against the Company, and he asked me several questions concerning those charges.
about Mr. Tobin and Mr. Reinsch and Gary and Ernie, but he asked me if I had
signed-made a sworn statement or signed a sworn statement to the Labor Board.
And I asked him if he was allowed to ask me that because I didn't think he was,
and he said he thought so. I told him that I had talked with Mr.'Gravitt." Taylor
further testified that Houlihan did not ask her whether she had signed a union card,
that instead she had volunteered the information that she not only had signed such
a card but was also a member of the Union's organizing committee She also testified
that Houlihan confined his questions to whether she knew anything about the charges
against Tobin, Reinsch, Cochran, and Hatfield, and did not inquire as to her union
activities or the activities of any other employee.
Melvin Wilson worked as a press operator under the supervision of Ernie Hatfield.
Wilson testified that on September 25, 1963, Hatfield approached him at his work
station and "He asked me if I had signed a Union card and I said I had, and he asked
me if I thought this Union could do anything for me and I thought it could, and he
said if I was for the Union I was against the Company." On October 7, Hatfield
spoke to Wilson again at work and "asked me if I knew Grover Duty and W. A.
Robinson and I said I did ,4 and he asked me what I had been doing running around
with them and I told him that I was running around helping organize , and he told me
* Hatfield knew Duty and Robinson because he had belonged to the Union at some time
in the past.
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 813
that he was keeping check on me." A week later, Hatfield told Wilson that "if the
Union gets in here that there wouldn't be anything changed, they would fire or hire
anybody they wanted to; that they had a factory in Berea and they were planning on
constructing one in Winchester and this plant could easily be closed." Hatfield
further stated to Wilson that the latter "was in a pretty bad financial state and he
told me if I get any garnishees that I would be terminated and that at any time they
could finagle something up in order to get rid of me." Wilson further testified that,
sometime in October, he complimented Production Manager Reinsch for recalling
a certain, employee. Reinsch replied that it was he, Reinsch, rather than the Union,
who effected the recall of the employee, and concluded by telling Wilson that "If
you have got any influence with these people you better use it," a statement which,
according to Wilson, was a reference to the Union. Wilson also related a conversa-
tion with Hatfield sometime in October in which the former was told by Hatfield not
to talk or leave his work station at any time.
Wilson attended an informational meeting in early October. According to Wilson,
Tobin projected a union card and an IAM card on a screen and "he explained to us
that it [the union card] was a membership card and that if we signed this card that
we were signing a blank check and that he and the Union representative could nego-
tiate our dues and set them at $25 or any amount that they desired to set them at
and they would collect those dues from us " Tobin said "that we better not sign
this [union] card because if we signed it we would be a member." Tobin went on
to state that "he absolutely would not negotiate a contract with this Union-even if
one or as many as one or two people didn't want the Union in that factory...."
Wilson conceded that Tobin had told the employees at least on one occasion after
Brothers' discharge that the employees' selection of a. bargaining representative was
a matter of their own free choice and that they were free to join or not to join a
labor organization, but could not recall whether Tobin had made this statement
prior to Brothers' discharge.
Wilson also testified that he was called into the personnel office on February 5,
1964, and that when Houlihan proceeded to ask him some questions, Wilson stated
that he did not wish to make a comment and "that was the end of it."
Mary Ann Brothers was employed' as a screen sorter under Cochran's supervision
in the finishing department. Brothers testified that she attended two informational
meetings conducted by Tobin on October 1 and 2. Tobin opened the meeting on
October 1 by stating that Respondent had an option on a site in Winchester where
it planned to build a plant. He informed the assembled employees that it had been
brought to his attention that there were several labor organizations seeking to or-
ganize the Lexington plant. He told them that, while he was familiar with one of
the unions-the IAM-and with the type of authorization card which that labor
organization utilized, he was unfamiliar with the Union or its designation card. He
therefore asked that if anyone had a union card, he would appreciate obtaining it
for the purpose of determining whether it was of a type that would "pre-empt" an
election, by which Tobin meant that if a sufficient number of employees signed such
a card there would be no need for an election. As she was leaving this meeting,
Brothers spoke to Cochran because she was confused about the meeting and what
had transpired. In the ensuing conversation, Cochran told Brothers "that the Com-
pany, if they want it, he said a company as large as Parker Seal, if they wanted to
close their plant and move on to anywhere else they could." Cochran went on to
say that "we have a plant site in Winchester and one in Berea, we can move if we
choose... " When Brothers remonstrated that the employees had a right to or-
ganize, Cochran replied that "a company as large as Parker Seal could get by with
anything." Brothers and Cochran then proceeded to discuss the Union. Brothers
asked Cochran if he wanted to know whether she had sighed a union card, and
Cochran responded that he was not allowed to ask her this question, whereupon
Brothers volunteered that she had signed a union card and "I invoke the Union "
Cochran retorted, "Well, you do what you want to" but suggested that "I would
rather you didn't try to talk anyone else-into it. • Let them make up their own mind."
Brothers also related the events-which transpired at the second informational
meeting on October 2.. She testified that Tobin projected the union card on a screen
and read the first paragraph to the, employees. He commented that the card would,
if signed by the requisite number of employees, make an election unnecessary, that
it was "an authorization for membership and that if we signed that card that we were
authorizing them to collect dues, whether the Union came or not they could still
collect Union dues possibly if they wanted to." Tobin then projected an IAM card
onto the screen and remarked 'that this card merely sought employee authorization
for an election. He then stated "for us not to sign a [union] card unless we were
certain of what we were signing ; that the [union]' card was the same as a blank check
and if we signed that that we were doing the same as signing a blank check. He
814 •DECISIONS'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seemed to'b&teat upset about the-Union card and he was telling us definitely'not to
sign that card, that it was the same as signing-a blank check if we did sign." Tobin
then turned his attention to the subject of the Winchester plant site, and commented
that it would be a year or two before that plant would be in operation. He also stated
that, for the present, Respondent had not formulated any plans for transferring any-
one to the Winchester plant.
Brothers further -testified that she attended a union meeting in the latter part of
October 1963 where she obtained some union buttons. The following day, she took
one of the buttons to work and placed it on her desk. Cochran observed the button
and instructed Brothers to "put that thing away. Get rid of that button. When
Brothers replied that she did not have to do so, Cochran warned that "I better not
catch you with that on." On October 28, Brothers appeared at work wearing a union
button,: noficed'that Bessie Taylor was attempting to pin on a similar button, and
advised her how to do it effectively. At this point, Cochran, who observed the inci-
dent, summoned Brothers and stated, "Mary Ann, need I not remind you that you
are on your final warning that there will be no talking." When Brothers replied
that she was unaware that talking was forbidden, Cochran said that she was not to
talk and notified her that "You are in enough hot water as it is-the Company has
enough on,you right now that they could get rid of you if they wanted to. If I were
you, I would watch my step." Brothers continued to wear a union button at work
for 2 more days. During this period, Brothers had occasion to seek out her final
inspector to check on the quality of a ring on which she was working. Reinsch ap-
proached and asked what Brothers was doing in the inspector's area. When Brothers
explained that she sought the inspector's advice; Reinsch took her to one side and
remarked that "he was tired of all this business that was going on, that the people
were tired of it and that he had telephone calls of people that people had been com-
plaining of girls harassing them and worrying them to death about certain things "
When Brothers denied that she had been harassing anyone, Reinsch stated that "I
know what you are up to. I know exactly what you are up to." Later that day,
Brothers inquired of Cochran why Reinsch was always monitoring her work and
complaining about it. Cochran replied, "Well, what do you expect? You wear those
things [pointing to the union button]. That shows right there you are against the
Company. Do you expect the Company to be fair to you? You are not being fair
to them wearing those." Brothers protested that she had a right to wear a union
button, but Cochran replied that Reinsch did not see it that way. Cochran then
added, "Well, Mary Ann, what do you expect with the Union? What in the world
do you expect? The Union can't do anything for you. With your record in the
shape it's in they can't do anything. If the Company wants to fire you they can fire
you any time they choose to."
Brothers also related a conversation which she had with Tobin on November 4,
1963, the date on which she was discharged. After learning that she was terminated,
Brothers protested that it was unfair and stated to Tobin, "Well, they wondered why
people wanted a Union, but things like this is what caused people to want a Union.
I said I worked there for four years and never felt a Union was necessary until that
time.", Tobin asked Brothers to repeat what she had said, and, when she did, Tobin
remarked, "The Union couldn't help you anyway in this case. They couldn't help
you anyway."-
. Respondent's defense to the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion of
its employees is predicated upon the following testimony.
-:Raymond G. Tobin, eastern division manager for Respondent, testified that he first
became aware that the Union was attempting to organize the employees in early
September 1963, when several employees reported to their supervisors that union
representatives had been calling on them at their homes and requesting that they sign
union authorization cards. Tobin identified the representatives as Grover Duty and
W. A. Robinson, the director, and assistant director for the Union. He denied that
any employee-representative's name had been mentioned. At the outset, Tobin made
it testimonially clear that it was Respondent's policy "to operate without a Union
in the plant" and that he was personally opposed to the Union. He acknowledged
that he worked closely with his supervisors to keep them up to date on the progress
of the union campaign, and that he frequently attended the weekly supervisory meet-
ings conducted by Reinsch in which he instructed the supervisors concerning their
relations with the employees in regard to the Union. At these meetings, the super-
visors related to him what the employees did or said. Following his normal policy
of conducting periodic informational meetings, Tobin held meetings in October of
all the plant employees. These were prompted by information which he received
that several unions were seeking to, organize his employees by contacting them at
their homes. He obtained authorization cards of the IAM and the Union and, at
PARKER,SEAL CO., DIV., OF PARKER-HANNIFINy CORP. 815
the meetings, projectedthem on a screen. Tobin testified that he explained the
difference between the cards to the employees, stating that the union card was
actually a membership card and that any employee who executed one might auto-
matically became a member regardless of whether the Union became the bargaining
representative. Tobin informed the employees that they should understand thor-
oughly what they were signing and then, if they chose to sign a card, they should
do so. In this connection, Tobin said that he told the employees that by signing a
union card, with the latent possibility that this might entail immediate membership
and dues' obligations, they were signing a -"blank check." He also explained that
the IAM card specifically sought authorization for an election and noted that only
if the IAM won the election would the employees be asked to join. However, he
testified that he disclaimed any expression of preference for that labor organization.
Tobin denied that he had told the employees he would never sign a contract with
the Union. According to his testimony the Union had been claiming that it would
bargain for a closed shop. Consequently, he spelled out the difference between a
closed shop and the other types of union security. He informed the employees that,
as he understood the law, it was unlawful for him to bargain for a closed.shop be-
cause such form of union security was illegal , and therefore he would not bargain
over a closed-shop issue but would negotiate on other matters with the Union. He
also denied that he told the employees he would not sign a contract with the Union
unless 100 percent of his employees signed in favor of the Union.,' Tobin explained
that employees had told him that the union representatives who visited their homes
told them that they must joint immediately because the Union would succeed in its
organizational campaign and obtain a closed shop, and therefore if an employee did
not then possess union membership he would lose his job. On cross-examination,
Tobin admitted that it was conceivable that he did tell the employees he would not
sign a contract with the Union "unless they had 100 percent of all the employees to
sign in favor of the Union," but he claimed that this answer was given in response
to a question about the Union getting into the plant without an election.
With respect to his statements regarding transfers to the Winchester plant, Tobin
testified that he informed the employees at the October meetings that Respondent
had obtained an.option to purchase property in Winchester for the construction of
another plant if business conditions permitted. At one meeting, an employee asked
whether transfers to the Winchester plant would be permitted, and the personnel
manager jokingly replied in the negative. Tobin, however, reassured the employees
that transfers would be allowed on the same basis as in the past-that transfers
would be granted on a limited basis-and no threats of transfer because of union
activity were ever uttered by him. Regarding the Respondent's attitude concerning
the wearing of union buttons in the plant, Tobin testified that instructions were given
to every supervisor that "we just didn't even notice,them. As far as we were con-
cerned if people wanted to wear them they could wear them." Tobin observed that
any supervisor would automatically know who wore u nion buttons in the plant, and
he instructed them "that if anybody in the plant in their department was wearing a
Union button it means that this guy [supervisor] missed somewhere along the line,
that the person had some sort of a complaint probably as far' as the Company was
concerned and after this thing was all over he was going to have to find out where
he missed ." Tobin went on to say that he felt "strongly" about his supervisors work-
ing closely with the employees to create a happy atmosphere in the plant so that the'
employees would have no occasion to seek out union representation, and he "defi-
nitely" talked to his supervisors about the matter. With respect to Respondent's
attitude toward employees talking m the plant, Tobin testified that Respondent had
no written rule on the subject, that he had encouraged the employees to talk about
the Union on working time provided that it did not disrupt production, and that
when it did the talking had to cease.
Gary Cochran, finishing department foreman, testified on direct examination that
he became aware sometime in the fall of 1963' that the Union was attempting to organ-
ize the plant but that "it didn't make any difference" to him' because "It's not my
affair." He related that he had been "trained on this" by "our boss", who told the
supervisors they were not to interrogate employees concerning their union activities,
but that they were free to discuss the Union if an employee initiated a conversation on:
that subject. Cochran recalled 'a conversation in September 1963 with Ada Thompson
in which she brought up the subject of the Union, but he denied that he ever told
Thompson that Respondent President Meyer would close the plant and move to,
another location if the Union succeeded in its organizational campaign. He averred
that at no time did he ask Thompson whether Brothers had anything to do with the
fact that the IAM was 'soliciting employees at the plant gates because "That didn't'
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make sense." Cochran also denied that he told Thompson that she had "stabbed him
in the back" by wearing a union button, or threatened her with loss of economic
benefits if she selected the Union.
Cochran stated that be knew that four employees in his department had worn
union buttons. He acknowledged that he knew Brothers wore such buttons because
the manner in which she wore them-"one on each of her chests"-had caused a good
deal of amusement. While this fact "didn't make any difference" to him, he testified
that he did not know what to do about the wearing of the buttons with the result that
he inquired of Reinsch as to whether such activity was permissible. Remsch replied
that, as far as he knew, it was, so Cochran "didn't say anything." Cochran also
recalled that he had had a conversation with Bessie Taylor-concerning the wearing of
union buttons because "there seemed to be some misunderstanding." According to
Cochran, Taylor asked him whether she was in trouble because she wore a button.
Cochran replied, "No, not necessarily, it doesn't mean a thing." When Taylor
remarked that the four girls in the finishing department were not the only ones who
wore union buttons in the plant, Cochran expressed indifference. Taylor then asked
what effect the wearing of buttons had on her job and whether she would be discharged
if the Union did not succeed in its efforts Cochran responded that "The only thing
this means, this means that I• have done wrong somewhere along the line, I haven't
treated you fair, the Company hasn't treated you fair, or something, to even make you-
want to join a Union, so we are going to have to spend more time with you four people
and find out why we have wronged you, what it is that we have done wrong..... But
there was a misunderstanding about it. I didn't say she would be terminated...."
Cochran denied he told Taylor that she or the other button-wearers in the department
"would have had it if the Union didn't get in."
Cochran further testified that employees would frequently question-him about the
Union during the campaign, and that he would inform them that in "my personal'
opinion I don't think a Union can help you and improve matters here at all." He told
the employees that they should find out what the Union and the Company had to offer
and then make a choice, that "It doesn't make any difference " With respect to his
enforcement of Respondent's policy dealing with talking in the plant, Cochran testified
that at the time "there was a lot of confusion, a lot of people were complaining about
being shall we say harassed and bothered and at the time I did tell employees that I
did not want talking during working hours...." According to Cochran, his depart-
ment seemed'to be the focal point of "all the trouble," so he laid down a rule that there
was to be no talking during working hours. He testified that Brothers was the main
source of the "confusion" which existed and that he had received complaints about
her from other employees. This prompted him to confer with Reinsch "because it
was getting out of hand because of one employee," namely, Brothers. When ques-
tioned as to whether union considerations had anything to do with his actions in
curbing talking, Cochran at first testified that it did not. He then stated that "I had
employees say they were tired of being bothered about Union people that wanted a
Union and they would ask me if I could do something about it and I said, `You give
me names,' and they said, no, they would never give a name." Cochran denied that
he ever warned Brothers against wearing a union button in-the plant, although he could
not recall whether he issued a similar warning in September 1963 against having a
union button on her desk. He further denied that he cautioned Brothers that she was
already in hot water with Respondent and that she had better watch her step; that he
ever told Brothers that she was unfair to Respondent because she wore a union button;'
or that she had received a, reprimand because of her union activity. With respect to
whether Cochran ever forbade Brothers from talking with her final inspectors,
Cochran at first testified that he permitted the screen sorters to talk' to inspectors if
he was unavailable, "but it got to be where everytime like on lunch break it seemed
like Mary Ann spent the whole lunch hour up there with them." On cross-
examination, Cochran denied that he prohibited Brothers from talking on her lunch
hour although he admitted that he asked all of the screen sorters "not to talk at all
and leave the final inspectors alone." On redirect examination, he explained his
previous testimony on direct that what he actually meant was that Brothers and the
other screen sorters were not to talk to the-final inspectors on his, Cochran's lunchtime. -
Cochran also denied that he told Brothers that Respondent was large enough to get
away with anything. He testified that "if anything I said they were small because
comparing them with large companies in Lexington it's a small company." Finally,.
when questioned as to whether he had warned an employee in October 1963 that the
Union could do nothing for her, Cochran replied that "I have made statements to
employees in my personal opinion, yes, sir." On cross-examination, Cochran was
asked whether he was working to defeat the Union, He replied, "Well, when people
want a Union, of course, we want to try to get the employees to vote against the
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 817
Union . In other words, we want to try to find out why in the world they would want
a Union." Cochran then conceded that he was against the Union and that he had
talked against it.
Edward Reinsch, Respondent 's production manager, testified that he first became
aware that the Union was attempting to organize the plant in late August or early
September 1963. With respect to his attitude toward the Union, Reinsch stated that
he was "impartial to the Union , either way to me, whatever the people choose, that's
what I go along with ," and explained that this position was "perhaps " contrary to that
assumed by Tobin . Reinsch testified that, in late October, Cochran reported to him
that there was a great deal of unrest in the finishing department and requested that
Reinsch speak to the girls in that department . In compliance with this request,
Reinsch called the group 'together and spoke to them about engaging in unnecessary
talking which interefered with production . According to Reinsch , "At no time did we
mention Union whatsoever except that other employees had called and merely
expressed themselves that they were being harassed . Now, they did not say harassed
by who or what about, but they said it was causing them discomfort and so forth trying
to get their work properly performed ." He related that, a few days prior to this meet-
ing, he had received a telephone call at his home from an employee named Kimble
who complained about harassment in the plant, but no mention was made of the
Union during the conversation On cross-examination , Reinsch repeated that "No one
really expressed the nature of the trouble except that they were always being continu-
ally talked to about what subject I do not know, but it apparently was interfering with
their means of getting their work done." When pressed as to whether the trouble
Respondent was experiencing was "Union trouble," Reinsch finally replied that "per-
haps it had a bearing on the Union . I don 't know, but this seemed to be the topic
perhaps of the conversation I imagine . Oh, I couldn 't say it was the Union or not
because no one told me that to be a fact."
Reinsch recalled a conversation with Melvin Wilson in which the latter compli-
mented Reinsch for reinstating a certain employee. Reinsch denied that he asked
Wilson in this conversation to use his influence to discourage employees from
engaging in union activities because "I could see no bearing on where influence would
be even entered in this question because there was no discussion in regard to an influ-
ence type of thing." Reinsch also recalled a conversation with Brothers concern-
ing whether a ring upon which she was working was satisfactory . However, Broth-
ers' testimony stands undenied that, during this conversation , Reinsch told her that
"he was tired of all this business that was going on, that the people were tired of it
and that he had had telephone calls of people that people had been complaining of
girls harassing them and worrying them to death about certain things ," and that "I
know what you are up to. I know exactly what you are up to."
Ernie Hatfield , production foreman and supervisor of Melvin Wilson , denied in
his testimony that he interrogated Wilson concerning his union activity or created
the impression of surveillance of employees ' Union activity . He further denied that
he told any employees that the plant would be closed down if the Union successfully
organized the plant , or that he threatened any employee with discharge if he
selected the Union to represent him. He also denied that he imposed any restrictions
on,the employees ' engagement in union activity . When questioned as to whether he
knew Wilson was actually for the Union , Hatfield at first replied in the negative, but
admitted that he saw Wilson wear a union button and that Wilson even offered
Hatfield a button . Hatfield denied that he asked Wilson whether the latter had
signed a union card, or told Wilson that if the latter was for the Union he was
against the Company . Hatfield did state that "On occasions he [Wilson] would
come to me and volunteer information to me about other people but I have never
questioned him or asked him a direct question about his Union activity ." Hatfield
could not remember whether he asked Wilson whether the latter knew Duty and
Robinson , the Union 's representatives , but he denied that Wilson told him that Wil-
son was attempting to organize the plant . Hatfield disclaimed any conversations
with Wilson in which the former said that he was keeping a close check on Wilson
or that the Union could change nothing and the plant would be moved . Hatfield
admitted having a conversation with Wilson in which the subject of garnishment
arose , but denied telling Wilson that the Respondent could "finagle something up so
as to fire him."
On cross-examination , Hatfield testified that , in conversations with Wilson, the
latter volunteered information about individuals who were active in the IAM drive,
and that Hatfield "did proceed to question him about it." Hatfield believed that
Wilson initially was espousing the cause of the IAM , but learned that Wilson was
promoting the Union 's campaign when he commenced wearing a union button which
Wilson offered to Hatfield, and when he saw that Wilson had union authorization
770-076-65-vol. 149-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cards. Hatfield conceded he knew that Duty and Robinson were organizing on
behalf of the Union because "someone , I don't know who it was, but one of the
employees told me the names of the people who were organizers."
Employee Leota Evans , who worked under the supervision of Cochran, testified
that she attended all of the informational meetings in company with Thompson,
Taylor, and Brothers . She recalled the meeting at which Tobin projected the IAM
and union cards on a screen, but could not remember everything that Tobin said.
According to Evans, Tobin informed the assemblage that they were free to sign
either card , but she could not recall whether Tobin pointed out any difference
between the cards other than - his reference to a blank space on the Union's card.
Tobin did not request that the employees refrain from signing a union card, and
nothing was said by him concerning whether or not the Respondent would sign a
contract with the Union. Evans further testified that she did not hear or see Cochran
engage in the acts or conduct alleged in the complaint . Evans was also called into
the personnel office and interrogated by Attorney Houlihan concerning the charges.
During this interview, she was not asked whether she had given a statement to a
Board agent , and no demand was made to produce any such statement or reveal the
contents thereof.
Employee Pauline Bruin also worked in the finishing department under Cochran.
She testified that she attended an informational meeting on October 2 along with
Brothers , Taylor, and possibly. Thompson. Tobin projected an IAM card and a
union card on a screen .- The only statement which Tobin made was to the effect
that the employees should get all the facts and then make up their own minds about
signing a card. Bruin . was positive that Tobin did not ask the girls to refrain from
signing a union card , and was equally positive that Tobin did not state he would not'
sign a contract with the Union because it would insist on a closed shop. According
to Bruin, she was the employee who asked Tobin whether Respondent would agree •
to -a closed-shop contract with the Union and Tobin refused to answer the question,
stating, "I will not make any statement." Bruin also, asked Tobin whether she
would have to join the Union if it succeeded in its organizational campaign, and
then proceeded to answer the question herself by stating that she would not do so.
At no time did Tobin make any comments or statements regarding this topic. More-
over, Bruin testified that Tobin did not state that the employees should not sign a
union card because it was the same as "signing a blank check," and did not threaten
to close the Lexington plant if the Union came in. While admitting that she did
not hear all of the conversations between Cochran and Brothers, Bruin further tes-'
tified .that she did not see or hear Cochran engage in the acts and conduct alleged
in the cothplamt.'
Employee Fred Stevens worked on the second shift with Melvin Wilson under;
Hatfield's supervision . -He attended an informational meeting at which Tobin pro-
jected an •IAM and union card on a screen and instructed the employees to make
sure that they knew what they were doing by signing the union card, because if all
the blanks on the card were not filled in the result would be tantamount to signing a
blank, check . Stevens testified that Tobin did not advise the employees against
signing a union card ,, and did not threaten to move the plant if the Union became
the bargaining representative of 'the employees Tobin did say that he would not
execute a contract with'the Union, but only if the Union sought -a closed=shop pro-
vision in the agreement . Stevens further testified that Tobin did not remark that
he would not sign 'a contract unless all of the employees had signed a union card.
According, to Stevens , Tobin related that he' would negotiate and execute an agree-
ment if ;51' percent of:-the- employees so desired . 'Stevens knew that Wilson was,,
active. on behalf of the Union because of conversations in which Wilson attempted'
'to self' the Union to, Stevens • and other employees . He admitted that , he never
heard any conversations between Hatfield and, Wilson relative to the Union: Con-
sequently ; he did^not •hear Hatfield utter any of the statements which are alleged to be'
unlawful in the complaint . - - - - ' '
With respect to the amended allegations in the complaint pertaining ,to the inter-
rogation of employees concerning statements given by them to a Board agent and
demanding -copies ' of these statements, Attorney Robert F. Houlihan testified -that
t -the time the charges herein we're filed. • Becausehe was retained- by Respondent at-the'
of the breadth of the charges , Houlihan conferred with the General Counsel's repre-
sentative in a vain attempt to obtain the names of the individuals who were involved',
in the various charges relating to the alleged violations of Section 8(a) (1). There-
after, Houlihan 'moved for a, bill of particulars relating to • these matters ' which'
motion - was denied by a Trial Examiner in a pretrial order . Houlihan therefore
decided 'that, - in order to defend against the charges and the complaint, he would visit
the' plant and interview employees - at random concerning the allegations of the com-
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 819
plaint. This visit occurred on February 5, 1964, approximately 12 days before the
hearing in this proceeding. Tobin testified that, prior to Houlihan's visit he'
informed all the employees that his attorney would call at the plant to interview them
in order properly to defend the case, and assured the employees that they need not
talk to Houlihan if they did not wish to do so. Houlihan interviewed approximately
22 employees, and, in each case, his questions were confined to the allegations of
the complaint and did not touch on the engagement in union activities of the employ-
ees interviewed or of their fellow employees. He testified. that Taylor was the
only employee queried as to whether she had talked to a Board agent, and at no,
time did he interrogate her concerning the contents of any statement which she
might have given to the Board, nor did he demand a copy of any such statement.
At the outset, I shall dispose of the allegations of the complaint dealing with
Respondent's interference, restraint, and coercion which I find have no' foundation
in fact or law., The complaint alleges that Tobin violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by warning employees during the course of his informational meetings on Octo-
ber 2, 1963, that Respondent would transfer them to another plant if the Union
became their collective-bargaining representative, and that they should not sign a
union card, and further offended that section of the Act by interrogating Brothers
about her union activities on November 4, 1963, the date of her discharge. It also
alleges that Hatfield engaged in unlawful conduct by prohibiting, without restric-
tion as to time, employees' talking and soliciting for the Union. I find no probative
evidence to support these allegations. Tobin's testimony regarding his statements
about transfers of employees to another plant stands uncontradicted and, in fact, is
corroborated by the General Counsel' s witnesses . Tobin testified that he informed
the employees.at the informational meetings that Respondent had an option to pur-
chase property in Winchester on which a new.plant would be built when business
conditions warranted such action, and that an employee asked him whether transfers
to the new plant would be permitted. The personnel manager jokingly replied that
no transfers would be allowed, whereupon Tobin' assured the employees that trans-
fers could be made in conformity with company policy. So far as this record stands,
there is no evidence that Tobin threatened to transfer employees .to another plant if
the Union succeeded in its campaign. Nor do I find that the evidence supports the
allegation that Tobin warned the employees not to sign a union card. He testified
that, upon projecting the IAM and union cards on a screen, he pointed out the dif-
ferences between the cards and advised the employees that they should thoroughly
understand what they were signing and then, if they chose to sign a card, they
should do so. He also explained that, because of the nature of the union card with
the latent possibility that signing such a document might immediately result in union
membership with attendant dues' obligations, executing such a card was akin to
signing a "blank check." Tobin's testimony in this regard was, in essence , corrobo-
rated by Bessie Taylor. With respect to the allegation that, Tobin interrogated
Brothers concerning her union activity on the date of her discharge, there is no real
conflict of testimony on this issue. Brothers testified that, when she learned that
she had been discharged, she told Tobin, "Well, they wondered why people wanted
•a Union, but things like this is what caused people to want a Union. I said I worked
there for 4 years and never felt a Union was necessary until that time." Tobin then
asked Brothers to repeat what she had said, and Brothers did so. I fail to see how
-this conduct on the part of Tobin fits into the mold of unlawful "interrogation."
With regard to the allegation that Hatfield prohibited the 'employees from talking
and soliciting for the Union without restriction as to'time, he testified that the pro-
hibition was limited specifically to working time. I find nothing in the testimony of
.Wilson which seriously controverts this assertion. I conclude and find that this
allegation finds no preponderant evidential support and must. therefore fall.
The amended complaint- also alleges that Robert F. Houlihan, Respondent's attor-
ney and agent, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees
,concerning statements"given by then! to Board agents and/or by demanding copies
of their statement. The only evidence adduced by the General Counsel bearing on
'this issue resides in the testimony of Bessie Taylor and Melvin Wilson. Taylor tes-
tified that she was called into the per office and questioned by Houlihan about
'the allegations-in the complaint. She was.then asked whether she had given a sworn
statement to the Board, and she replied in the affirmative. There is no evidence
that Taylor was interrogated concerning the contents of -her statement, or that any
demand was made fora copy of that statement. Wilson testified that he was inter-
viewed by Houlihan, and that, when Houlihan commenced to ask Wilson questions,
Wilson stated that he did not desire to answer them and "that was the end of it."
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the conclusion of the hearing in this proceeding , I requested that the General
Counsel file a brief with me setting forth the respects in which he believed that
Board or court precedent supported his contention that , on the basis of the foregoing
facts, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. None has been received.
So far as my independent research has revealed , the Board has never ruled that the
mere interrogation of an employee concerning whether he had given a Board agent
a sworn statement is violative of the statute . In each of the cases uncovered, the
interrogation included the added ingredient of questions concerning the contents of
the statement , or a demand for the production of a copy of the statement .5 I there-
fore conclude that the allegation relating to Houlihan is not legally supportable.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss the foregoing allegations in the complaint.
With respect to the remaining allegations dealing with interference, restraint, and
coercion , I credit the testimony of Ada Thompson that, during September 1963,
Cochran remarked to her that Respondent President Meyer "would shut the door
and move out" before he would allow the Union to come into the plant, interrogated
Thompson as to whether she knew if Brothers was assisting the IAM in its organi-
zational drive, and warned Thompson not to wear a union button . I credit the tes-
timony of Bessie Taylor and find that , while she was wearing a union button in the
plant in late October 1963, Cochran warned her that "the Union could cost the
Company money and he said that there was four of us girls out of his department
that had worn the buttons , and by so doing we had stabbed him in the back and
that if the Union didn't get in that we had had it and then he changed it that we had
singled ourselves out." I further find, on the basis of Taylor's credited testimony,
that, in the latter part of October 1963, Cochran told Taylor that "we had benefits
that the Union couldn 't improve upon" and that "the Union couldn 't do anything for
us there ... ," a statement which Cochran conceded he had made.
I also credit the testimony of Melvin Wilson and find that, on September 25,
1963, Ernie Hatfield interrogated Wilson as to whether he had signed a union card
and whether he thought the Union could do anything for him, and that Hatfield
stated to Wilson that "if I [Wilson] was for the Union I was against the Company"
I further find that on October 7, 1963, Hatfield interrogated Wilson as to whether
the latter knew Union Representatives Duty and Robinson and whether he had been
organizing for them , and warned that Hatfield "was keeping check on me." I also
find that a week later Hatfield threatened Wilson that "if the Union gets in here
that there wouldn't be anything changed, they would fire anybody they wanted to;
that they had a factory in Berea and they were planning on constructing one in
Winchester and this plant could easily be closed ." I find that Hatfield threatened
Wilson that Respondent "could finagle something up in order to get rid of me" at
any time. I further credit Wilson 's testimony and find that, sometime in October
1963, when he complimented Reinsch for recalling an employee to work , Reinsch
replied that the Union had no part in this action and informed Wilson that "If you
got any influence with these people you better use it," a reference to dissuading
employees from supporting the Union . On the basis of Wilson 's credited testimony,
I also find that Tobin informed the employees at an informational meeting that
Respondent "absolutely would not negotiate a contract with this Union" so long as
one or two employees did not sign up with the Union.
I credit the testimony of Mary Ann Brothers and find that , on October 2, 1963,
Cochran stated to her that "the Company , if they want it, he said that a company as
large as Parker Seal , if they wanted to close their plant and move on to anywhere
else they could . . . that we have a plant site in Winchester and one in Berea, we
can move if we choose...:. I also find that , in the latter part of October, Brothers
wore a union button in the plant and that Cochran ordered her to "Get rid of that
button" and warned her that "I better not catch you with that on ," statements which
find corroboration in the credited testimony of Ada Thompson . I perceive no proba-
tive evidence in the record pointing up special circumstances which would justify
Respondent 's curtailment of such protected employee right . I find that , on October 28,
1963 , while Brothers was instructing Taylor on the wearing of a union button,
Cochran warned Brothers that "You are in enough hot water as it is-the Company
has enough on you right now that they could get rid of you if they wanted to. If I
were you, I would watch my step ." I further find that, when Brothers was found
conversing with her final inspector , Reinsch called her aside and remarked that "he
was tired of all this business that was going on, that the people were tired of it and
that he had had telephone calls of people that people had been complaining of girls
s See Johnnie's Poultry Co, 146 NLRB 770, and cases cited in footnote 12 therein.
W T. Grant Company, 144 NLRB 1179 , and advanced by the General Counsel at the hear-
ing in support of his contention , is inapposite.
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 821
harassing them and worrying them to death about certain things ," and that "I know
what you are up to . I know exactly what you are up to." I also find that, on the
same date , Cochran replied to Brothers ' complaint about Reinsch 's conduct by stat-
ing that Brothers should expect the treatment she had received because, by wearing
the union button , it indicated that she was against the Respondent , and that Cochran
further told Brothers that "The Union can't do anyhitng for you" because "If the
Company wants to fire you they can fire you any time they choose to." I further
find that Cochran forbade Brothers to talk or solicit for the Union on nonworking
time.
I do not credit Tobin 's denial that he told the employees he would never sign a
contract with the Union . According to Tobin , what he really said was that he
would never sign a contract containing a closed -shop clause with the Union because
such a contract would be illegal . Tobin then receded from this testimony when he
testified that it was conceivable that he did tell the employees that he would not
execute a contract with the Union unless 100 percent of the employees signed union
authorization cards, but explained that this had reference to the Union becoming the
bargaining agent without an election . Moreover, Leota Evans , who was called as
a witness to buttress Tobin's testimonial denial , swore that Tobin made no mention
of whether he would or would not sign a contract with the Union . Furthermore,
Pauline Bruin testified that she was the employee who asked Tobin whether Respond-
ent would agree to a closed -shop contract with the Union and, according to her,
Tobin refused to answer her question by saying , "I will not make any statement."
Finally, Fred Stevens averred that Tobin told the employees he would negotiate and
execute an agreement with the Union if 51 percent of the employees so desired, but
Tobin did not remark that he would not sign unless 100 percent of the employees
signed union cards.
Nor do I credit the denials of Cochran , Reinsch, and Hatfield that they engaged
in the acts or uttered the statements attributed to them by he witntesses for the
General Counsel. None of these individuals impressed me with their candor or
veracity . For example, Cochran testified that the wearing of union buttons in his
department by employees "didn 't make any difference" to him . Nevertheless, this
circumstance prompted him to seek out his superior , Reinsch, to inquire whether
this conduct was permissible . When questioned as to whether he forbade Brothers
from talking to her final inspectors during her lunch hour at a time when the union
campaign was in full swing, Cochran initially testified that he did "because every-
time like on lunch break it seemed like Mary Ann spent the whole hour up there
with them ." Cochran then denied that he prohibited talking during lunch period,
but admitted that he told all the screen sorters "not to talk at all and leave the final
inspectors alone." Finally, Cochran explained that the prohibition against talking
during lunchtime related to his lunch period, not Brothers . Moreover , Cochran
denied that he told Brothers that Respondent could move the plant to another loca-
tion if the Union succeeded because Respondent was large enough to get away with
anything . In this denial , he made the remarkable statement that "if anything I said
they were small because comparing them with larger companies in Lexington it's a
small company."
With respect to the quality of Reinsch 's testimony , I find it too implausible to be
worthy of belief. For example , Reinsch testified that late in October 1963 Cochran
came to him to complain that there was a great deal of unrest and harassment in
the finishing department and asked Reinsch to speak to the girls about it. Reinsch
feigned ignorance as to the cause of the unrest and harassment when he initially
testified that "No one really expressed the nature of the trouble except that they
were always being continually talked to about what subject I do not know." How-
ever , when pressed on the matter , he finally admitted that the "trouble" he had refer-
ence to, "perhaps it had a bearing on the Union . I don't know but it seemed to be
the topic perhaps of the conversation I imagine . Oh, I couldn ' t say it was the
Union or not because no one told me that to be a fact." In view of the fact that
Reinsch held weekly meetings with his supervisor at which they concededly reported
to him about the activities of the Union and those of the employees , the fact that
Brothers ' union activities were the main source of "trouble" in Cochran 's depart-
ment , and the fact that Cochran had queued Reinsch as to whether the wearing of
union buttons in the plant was permissible , I find it incredible that Reinsch could be
ignorant that the "trouble " was indeed linked to the union activity in the plant, and
I attach no credible significance to his entire testimony.
Hatfield 's testimony similarly lacks the nng of truth . For example , he denied on
direct examination that he ever interrogated Wilson - about his union activities,
although he knew that Wilson had indicated an allegiance to the IAM and then the
Union . However, on cross-examination , he admitted that he did question Wilson
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about individuals who were active in the IAM campaign. -Further,'Hatfield denied
that he knew that Wilson was in favor of the Union, despite the fact that the acknowl-
edged that Wilson wore a union button, he had been offered a, union button by
Wilson, and he, observed Wilson in the possession of union cards. -
C. The discharge of Mary Ann Brothers
Brothers was hired by Respondent in 1959, and had been employed ,as a screen
sorter in the finishing department under the supervision of Cochran. As chronicled
earlier, she received a visit sometime in August 1963 from W. A. Robinson, the
Union's assistant regional director, who sought to enlist her support in an impending
organizational campaign at the plant. Brothers promised to assist in any way that
she could, and thereafter gave Robinson a list of the names and addresses of employ-,
ees that he could contact, made appointments for Robinson to visit employees at,
their homes, and accompanied Robinson to the homes of employees to obtain signed
authorization cards. According to Brothers, Grover Duty took no part in these
activities.
Brothers' duties required that she check certain rings to insure their quality. She
testified that she had never been criticized for her work performance and, in fact,
had been complimented on it several times by Reinsch, Cochran, and other super-
visors. At an informational meeting in October 1963, an employee asked Tobin
what he considered to be a good absentee record. Tobin replied that he felt that if
an employee had no more than 10 maiks•on his record for an annual period, this
constituted a "very good record," that a majority of the employees had at least 10
marks in their personnel file due to absences, and that he did not consider this to be
excessive. Tobin explained that warning marks always remained' in the file, but
that if an employee had a good reason for being absent and if their work record
showed improvement, extra consideration would be given in the event of an absence.
The record shows that Respondent has three classifications for absences from work-
a total absence, a partial absence, and a tardy. With respect to Brothers' absences,
the record indicates that she was charged in 1959 with four total absences, one par-
tial, and no tardys. In 1960 Brothers had 37 absences, 11 partials, and 6 tardys.
Of the 37 absences, Brothers was granted leaves of absence from July 5 to August 1.
and from late August to early September, apparently because she had undergone a
female operation. For 1961, the record reflects that Brothers was totally absent for
17 days, partially absent for 8 days, and had 8 tardys. In 1962, she accumulated 78
total absences, 4 partials, and 3 tardys. Of the 78 days, 62 or 63 were attributable
to absences occasioned by an industrial accident. In 1963, Brothers was suspended
for 3 days commencing on August 13 for having reported late for work by 7 or 81
minutes the preceding day. This suspension was treated by Respondent as a 3-day
total absence. The fourth total absence occurred on November 1; 1963, which led
to Brothers' discharge: In addition, Brothers was charged with two partial absences
and six tardys for 1963. Apart from the suspension which was imposed by Respond-
ent, Brothers totally absented herself from work on,1 day during the period from
January 1 to November 4, 1963, the date of her discharge.
During the period of her' employment, Brothers received six warnings for absen-
teeism. Her first "final warning" occurred in January 1963, based on her absences
during the preceding year. The warning stated that any further absences "will
warrant immediately disciplinary action." She received a second "final warning" on
August 13, 1963, for "excessive absences and tardiness," which resulted in a 3-day
suspension. According to Brothers, Cochran talked to Tobin about the lateness
which prompted the warning and, because "I had done such a-good job on my
record and all that-and absenteeism and tardiness, that they wouldn't terminate me,
they would just give me a three-day suspension." Brothers received no further final
warnings until the date of her discharge on November 4, 1963.
Concerning the circumstances leading to her discharge, Brothers testified that she
had suffered an industrial accident at the plant 'in 1962 which caused an injury to
her back. On Friday morning, November 1, 1963, her back caused her such pain
that she could hardly walk. She thereupon telephoned Cochran at the plant in
accordance with Respondent's rule which requires timely notice of absences by
employees- to their supervisors, with the assignment of reasons for the. absences.
Brothers informed Cochran that she suspected that her difficulties stemmed from
her back injury and that she would be unable to report for work. Cochran then
advised her to visit a doctor and suggested that she be sure to bring a doctor's state-
ment with her when she reported for work on Monday, November 4. When Brothers,
inquired, "Well, Gary, if I don't come in, if I am not there will Ed [Reinsch] fire me?"
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 823
Cochran replied, "Well, I can't say for Ed" and'repeated his instructiori to obtain a
doctor's statement. Brothers testified that she visited a Dr. Bays on November* 1
and obtained a statement from him
Brothers reported for work on the morning of November 4. As she was punching
her timecard, Cochran,` who was standing in the doorway to the personnel office,
asked her to step inside because he had something to say to her. She found Tobin
.and Reinsch present in the office. After she entered the office, Cochran informed
her that she was being discharged. Brothers protested that the discharge for simply
missing 1 day that year was unfair and handed Cochran the doctor's statement.
Reinsch, who had Brothers' personnel folder in his hand, displayed the warning
sheets to her and stated, "Look at this. You have been absent quite a bit. Look
at the warnings that you have." At this point, Brothers became angered 'with
Reinsch and Tobin,dirgcted Reinsch to leave the room. Brothers then asked Coch-
ran whether he thought she had been fairly treated; and the latter commented- that
"he just had a job to do." Brothers solicited Cochran to read the doctor's statement.
Cochran looked at the statement and "shrugged his shoulders and never made any
comment...... Brothers retorted that "they wondered why people wanted a Union,
but things like this is what caused the people to want a' Union," and then requested
that Cochran furnish her with a termination slip and return .her doctor's statement.
Cochran gave Brothers the statement and left the room to prepare the termination
slip. In his absence, Tobin asked Brothers to repeat what she had said about the
Union, and, when she did, Tobin: remarked that the Union could not help her in her
predicament. Brothers testified that both Tobin and 'Remsch observed her give
Cochran the doctor's'statement, but neither of them appeared to read it because
they "didn't seem very, interested in the,reason I was off at all." After receiving her
termination slip and being informed that the reason for her discharge was absenteeism,
Brothers obtained her personal belongings and left the plant.
Grover Duty, the Union's regional director, testified that he took no part in visit-
ing employees' homes during the campaign to solicit signed authorization cards.
According to Cochran's version of the events leading to Brothers' discharge, he
received a telephone call from Brothers on the morning of November 1, during which
she informed him that she was sick and would not be able to report to work. When
Brothers stated that she was going to see a doctor, Cochran advised her to "Make
sure that you bring a statement from that doctor." Cochran told Reinsch on Novem-
ber 1 of Brothers' absence. On Monday morning, November 4, he met Brothers at
.the door to the personnel office and asked her to enter the office because he wanted
to talk to her. Brothers volunteered that she had' brought along a doctor's state-
ment, and Cochran replied, "Well, just bring it on in with you, we want to talk to
you." After they entered the office,,Cochran spent a few minutes looking through
Brothers' personnel folder and then informed Brothers that she was being discharged.
Cochran admitted that Brothers did have a doctor's statement with her and that she
offered to show it to him, but "I didn't read it. I didn't even hold it in my hand."
Brothers then exclaimed to Reinsch, who was present in the office, that "I hate him
so bad I could kill- him.". Cochran then, collected her personal belongings and
Brothers left the plant.
On cross-examination, Cochran testified that, 'after 'Brothers called in on Novem-
ber I to report her absence, he procured her personnel folder and recommended to
Reinsch that she be discharged. When questioned as to why he did not mention
that he would recommend her discharge when Brothers telephoned, Cochran replied,
"I don't talk over the telephone too much with employees, I find that it's- best not
to do so." When interrogated as to why he demanded that Brothers produce a doc-
tor's statement when she returned to work, Cochran gave the equivocal answer that
Brothers had asked-whether she would be fired for her absence, to which he replied
that "I don't know. 'Bring your doctor's statement, if you go to the' doctor bring
your statement in " Cochran further testified that on either Saturday or Sunday' he
received a telephone call at his home from Reinsch in which the latter reported that
Cochran's recommendation had been discussed. by Reinsch and Tobin and the deci-
sion had been made to terminate Brothers on Monday. Cochran also testified that,
although Brothers brought a doctor's statement with her on Monday, there was no
discussion about the statement because "like Mr: Tobin says, the young lady had
'been absent too many times and it really wouldn't have made a lot of difference I
don't imagine because she was given a discharge on absence and tardiness and we
'had warned her on this." Cochran conceded that employees in his department had
,been absent more times than Brothers during 1963, but he had considered Brothers'
entire record in recommending her discharge. - -
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reinsch testified that on the morning of November 1, as he was making his rounds
through the plant, Cochran informed him that Brothers had telephoned that morning
to report that she would be absent due to illness. Cochran believed that some action
should be taken with respect to her, so both men proceeded to Reinsch's office to
study her personnel record and discuss her status. Cochran recommended that
Brothers be discharged because she was on "final warning" at the time as a result of
her 3-day suspension in August 1963. Although Brothers had been on "final warn-
ing" on other occasions and had not been terminated, Cochran felt that a discharge
was warranted on this occasion because "he had exhausted all efforts to try to cor-
rect this problem." Reinsch concurred in Cochran's recommendation and assured
Cochran that he would take the matter up with Tobin. Because Tobin was too busy
to discuss the Brothers' case on November 1, Reinsch and Tobin met at the plant on
Saturday, November 2. On cross-examination, Reinsch was asked whether he
apprised Tobin that Brothers was absent due to illness and was told to obtain a
doctor's statement. Reinsch replied that "the general discussion as far as the por-
tion about bringing the doctor's statement, I don't believe that portion was known
to me at the time. I don't recall whether I knew it or not. I merely recall this general
thing-conversation with Mr. Cochran that she had called him and said she was ill
and the discussion with Mr. Tobin the following morning on Saturday was a general
overall picture discussion of her past overall record taking the Friday into considera-
tion as well." When questioned as to whether Cochran had given Reinsch all of the
particulars of the telephone call from Brothers, Reinsch stated, "Well, I think he
did. We more or less had a kind of a standing mutual understanding that people
were requested to bring in these doctor's statements when they were ill." However,
Reinsch could not recall whether Cochran had directed Brothers to obtain a medical
statement. According to Reinsch, it would not have made any difference whether
Brothers had brought such a statement with her because the decision to effect her
discharge was based on "the overall picture" and not her specific absence on Fri-
day. The decision having been made to discharge Brothers, Reinsch then called
Cochran at the latter's home on Sunday evening to convey this intelligence to Coch-
ran. Reinsch explained that it was not normal procedure to meet on Saturdays to
discuss the discharge of an employee, and he could not recall any occasion on which
he telephoned a supervisor at home to announce that an employee had been
terminated.
Tobin testified that he first became aware in early September 1963 that the Union
was organizing the plant when he received reports from his supervisors that employ-
ees were being contacted at their homes by union organizers. These employees
named Grover Duty and W. A. Robinson as the only individuals who visited their
homes, and Brothers' name was never mentioned in connection with this activity.
According to Tobin, he learned for the first time that Brothers was an active organ-
izer for the Union when he attended the representation case hearing before the
Board on December 10, 1963, approximately a month after her discharge. How-
ever, he admitted that "perhaps" he saw Brothers wearing a union button in her
department prior to her discharge but could not recall whether Cochran mentioned
the name of Brothers in connection with the Union's campaign.
With respect to the discharge of Brothers, Tobin testified that he was informed
by either Remsch or Cochran, or both, that Brothers was absent on November 1 and
that, because of the press of other business, he deferred consideration of the matter
until the following day. On Saturday, November 2, Tobin met with Reinsch to
consider the Brothers' case, although it was possible that Cochran was also in
attendance. He testified that he had talked with Reinsch and Cochran concerning
the decision to terminate Brothers because of her absence on November 1, and that
these discussions occurred on November 1 and 2. During the meeting on November 2,
Tobin and Reinsch reviewed Brothers' personnel record and decided that, as she
had already received two "final warnings" for excessive absenteeism, her discharge
was warranted. When questioned as to whether he was aware on November 2 of
the reason for Brothers' absence, Tobin at first denied that he had been given any
reason and could not recall whether he had asked Reinsch if Brothers had called
in to report her absence. When pressed as to whether he knew that Brothers had
telephoned Cochran on November 1, Tobin replied, "Probably we did, yes" and
then stated, "I don't recall specifically, but I would rather imagine that we did."
Finally, Tobin admitted that he was informed by Cochran on November 2 that
Brothers had telephoned the preceding day to report that she would be absent
because of a "cold" and Cochran instructed her to bring a doctor's statement when
she returned to work. Although Tobin knew that Cochran had sustained an injury
to her back in 1962, he testified that Cochran made no mention of a back injury as
the reason for Brothers' absence on November 1.
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 825
Having made the decision to discharge Brothers on November 2, Tobin arrived at
the plant on the morning of November 4 and proceeded to the personnel office where
Brothers had already been informed by Cochran and Reinsch that she had been dis-
charged . Brothers protested to Tobin that the termination was unfair , to which
Tobin replied that , based on her absenteeism record , her discharge was in order.
He testified that , of the 23 employees who had been terminated for absenteeism
during the preceding 18 months , Brothers had been absent and tardy more frequently
than they . Tobin acknowledged that Brothers ' attendance record for 1963 had
improved inasmuch as she had been absent of her own volition for only 1 day, but
stated that in order to achieve a "substantial improvement " which would have war-
ranted her retention , Brothers should not have absented herself at all during that
year . Tobin also testified that , although he had learned from Cochran that Brothers
had been instructed to bring a doctor's statement to justify her absence on Novem-
ber 1, he did not observe such a statement and did not inquire whether Brothers had
one because he considered the matter of her discharge closed.
During his examination , Tobin was asked whether there had been any discussion
during his informational meetings in October 1963 relative to Respondent 's policy
on absenteeism . Tobin recalled that he told the employees that "I thought that ten
marks on the record would probably be acceptable , but this again was in the con-
notation of a long-time record also ." When questioned as to Respondent 's policy
respecting absences due to illness , Tobin testified that, while there was no written
policy . in this regard , "we like to have" a doctor's statement even for an absence of 1
day, and that all of his supervisors were aware of this requirement . Where an
absence had been vouched by a doctor 's statement , Tobin initially testified that "It's
given some weight, but not the entire weight" in determining the effect of the absence
on the employees ' record. However , Tobin later admitted that , under Respondent's
policy, an employee would not be disciplined or discharged for an absence due to
illness if a doctor's certificate was produced to verify that the absence was occasioned
by physical incapacity . Tobin also remarked that Brothers would not have been dis-
charged on November 4 if she had not been absent on November 1.
I find that Brothers received a visit in late August 1963 from W. A. Robinson,
the Union 's assistant regional director , and was enlisted to support the Union in its
organizational campaign at Respondent 's plant . Brothers thereafter offered Robin-
son a list of the names and addresses of employees to be contacted , made appoint-
ments for Robinson to visit employees at their homes , and accompanied Robinson
to the homes of employees to obtain signed authorization cards. According to
Brothers ' uncontroverted testimony , I find that , at the informational meeting on
October 1, 1963, she engaged in a discussion with Cochran relative to the Union
during which she informed him that she had signed a union card and that "I invoke
the Union." I further find that , during the latter part of October, Brothers wore a
union button at work and was warned by Cochran to get rid of the button and not to
talk to other employees during nonworking hours because "You are in enough hot
water as it is-the Company has enough on you right now that they could get rid of
you if they wanted to ," and further warned Brothers to watch her step Inasmuch
as Tobin testified that Brothers would not have been discharged if she had not been
absent on November 1, I conclude and find that Cochran's reference to Brothers
being in "hot water " was a reference to her patent activity on behalf of the Union
in the plant. I further find that , while Brothers talked to the final inspectors with
two union buttons prominently displayed on her upper torso , Reinsch told her that
he was tired of hearing that employees were being harassed about "certain things,"
and I conclude that this harassment related to Brothers ' activity in visiting in these
employees at their homes in company with Union Representative Robinson to solicit
their membership , as well as her efforts in that direction at the plant . I discredit
Tobin's testimony that he was unaware that Brothers was any more active than other
employees who wore union buttons until a month after her discharge when she
appeared at the representation case hearing before the Board on December 10, 1963,
and I look with disbelief upon his testimony that , when employees complained to
him about being harassed at their homes by visitations of union representatives, the
names of Duty and Robinson were mentioned , but that of Brothers was never
brought up in this connection . Grover Duty impressed me as an honest witness and
I accept his testimony that he played no part in this aspect of the Union 's campaign
which involved home visitations. Moreover , in light of Tobin 's testimony that he
frequently attended Reinsch 's weekly meetings at which the subject of the union
movement was discussed with all supervisors, and worked closely with his super-
visors during the union campaign, and in view of Cochran 's and Reinsch 's admoni-
tions to Brothers about her "harassment" of employees , which both supervisors
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eventually conceded referred to her union endeavors, I find it implausible that Tobin
was ignorant of Brothers' participation in soliciting union membership both at the-
homes of employees and in the plant before her discharge.
I further find that on the morning of November 1, 1963, in compliance with
Respondent's policy, Brothers telephoned Cochran and informed him that she would
be absent from work because of a possible recurrence of her back injury and that
she intended to visit a physician about her condition. I credit Brothers' testimony,
corroborated by Cochran, that she was instructed to bring a doctor's statement cer-
tifying her incapacity when she reported for work on November 4. I find that
Brothers asked Cochran whether she would be discharged by Reinsch for her
absence, and that he replied, "Well, I can't say for Ed." I also find that Brothers-
consulted a doctor on November 1 and produced a medical certificate which she gave-
to Cochran on November 4 after she had been informed of her discharge.6
. I find it incredible that Cochran, who had cautioned Brothers to be sure to bring
along a doctor's statement to certify her absence because he did not know what "Ed"
would do about the matter, would himself have immediately recommended to-
Reinsch after her telephone call on November 1 that Brothers should be discharged
for excessive absenteeism. Nor can I square Brothers' discharge with Tobin's•tes-
timony that an absence due to illness, when certified by a doctor's statement, would
not lead to discipline or discharge, in view of his admission that he was aware that
Brothers had absented herself because of illness and that she had been instructed to
obtain a doctor's certificate. Moreover, Tobin admitted that an employee attend-
ance record which contained '10 warning marks "would probably be acceptable" in
the "connotation of a long-time record." Yet Brothers was discharged despite the,
fact that she had but six warnings in her record, and despite the admitted improve-
ment in her attendance record for 1963.
As I listened to the testimony of Tobin, Reinsch, and Cochran, I became con-
vinced that the Respondent had singled out Brothers for discharge, not for her rec-
ord of absenteeism, but because she was the most active, known employee proponent
of the Union at the Lexington, and that Respondent had seized upon her absence on-
November 1, 1963, as a pretext to cloak an unlawful discharge. I so find.
D. Conclusions
Based upon the testimony which I have heretofore credited, I conclude that the-
Respondent engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following conduct:
1. Warning employees that Respondent would never sign a contract with the,
Union by Tobin's statement that he would never execute an agreement with the
Union unless all of the employees had designated that labor organization.
2. Threatening employees that the Lexington plant would be closed if the Union
was selected as their bargaining representative by Cochran's statement to Thompson
that Respondent President Meyer would "shut the door and move out" before he•
would allow the Union to enter the plant; by Hatfield's statement to Wilson that the
Lexington plant "could easily be closed" if the Union succeeded in its organizational
campaign, and by Cochran's statement to Brothers that a company as large as,
Respondent could get away with closing the Lexington plant and moving it elsewhere.
3. Interrogating employees concerning the union activities of other employees by
Cochran's questioning of Thompson as to whether Brothers -was assisting the IAM
in its organizational drive.
4. Warning employees that the Union could do nothing for them by Cochran's.
statement to Thompson that "we have benefits that the Union couldn't improve
upon" and that "the Union couldn't do anything for us there.
5. Prohibiting employees' talking and soliciting on behalf of the Union, and pro-
scribing the wearing of union buttons in the plant, by Cochran's refusal to permit
'The General Counsel introduced into evidence a statement dated November 1, 1963,
and signed by a Dr. Bays, to establish that Brothers had visited a doctor on that date'
for treatment Respondent objected to its introduction on the ground that the doctor
should have been called as a witness to verify the visit I do not rely on this statement'
as probative evidence that Brothers visited a doctor on November 1, 1963, although it
should he noted that Cochran testified that-Brothers did produce a doctor's statement
when she reported for work on the date of her discharge 'I have found, on the basis of
Brothers' credited testimony, that she did visit Dr Bays on the day in question and that
she did obtain a statement as requested by Cochran and required by Respondent's policy.
PARKER SEAL CO., DIV. OF PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP. 827
Brothers to talk to the final inspectors during nonworking time and by his statements
to Brothers to "Get rid of that button" and "I had better not catch you with that on,"
and by similar satements to Thompson.
6. Threatening employees with discharge for engaging in activities on behalf of
the Union by Cochran's statement to Thompson that, by wearing union buttons, the
employees "had stabbed him in the back" and they would be discharged if the Union
was not successful, and by Hatfield's statement to Wilson that the Respondent "could
finagle something up in order to get rid" of Wilson.
7. Coercively interrogating employees concerning their activities on behalf of the
Union by Hatfield's questioning Wilson as to whether he had signed a union card
and whether he was active in organizing for the Union.
8. Creating the impression of surveillance of empoyees' union activities by Hat-
field's statement to Wilson that the former "was keeping check on" Wilson, and by
Reinsch's statement to Brothers that "I know what you are up to. I know exactly
what you are up to."
9. Instructing employees to use their influence to discourage the union activities
of other employees by Reinsch's statement to Wilson that "If you got any influence
with these people you better use it."
10. Informing employees that they had been reprimanded for engaging in union
activities by Cochran's statement to Brothers that she had been reprimanded by
Reinsch for wearing union buttons.
I also conclude, on the basis of the testimony heretofore credited, that Respond-
ent discharged Brothers because of her activities on behalf of the Union, and thereby
violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof,
V. THE REMEDY
- Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Mary Ann Brothers, I
will recommend that Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent employment and make her whole for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her by
payment to her of a sum equal to that she would normally have earned from the date
of the discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during
said period. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with
the Board formula set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by
Respondent, which evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in
general , I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in
any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Mary Ann Brothers, thereby discriminating in regard to her hire
and tenure of employment, in order to discourage membership in and activity on
behalf of the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
I recommend that Respondent, Parker Seal Company, Division of Parker-Hannifin
Corporation, Lexington, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging any employee or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Warning employees that Respondent would never sign a contract with the
Union unless all of the employees joined that labor organization; threatening
employees that the plant would be closed and moved elsewhere if they selected the
Union as their bargaining representative; interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and the union activities of other employees in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act; warn-
ing employees that the Union could do nothing for them; prohibiting employees'
talking and soliciting on behalf of the Union during nonworking time and forbidding
employees to wear union buttons in the plant; threatening employees with discharge
for engaging in union activities; creating the impression of surveillance of employees'
union activities; instructing employees to use their influence to discourage union
activities of other employees; and, informing employees that they had been repri-
manded for engaging in union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Mary Ann Brothers immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent employment and make her whole for any loss of pay she may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain any
backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Lexington, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent had taken to comply
therewith.8
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not specifically found herein.
7In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 notice In the further event that the Board's Order be 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."
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
DAIRYLEE, INC. 829
APPENDIX
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization , by discharg-
ing any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT warn employees that we will never sign a contract with the
above-named Union unless all our employees joined that Union; threaten our
employees that the plant will be closed and moved if they select the Union as their
bargaining representative ; interrogate our employees concerning their union
activities and the activities of other employees in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint , or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; warn
our employees that the Union can do nothing for them ; prohibit our employees
from talking and soliciting for the Union during nonworking time or forbid our
employees from wearing union buttons in the plant ; threaten our employees with
discharge for engaging in union activities ; create the impression of surveillance of
our employees ' union activities ; instruct our employees to use their influence to
discourage union activities of other employees ; or inform our employees that
they have been reprimanded for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the above -named Union or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Mary Ann Brothers immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent employment and make her whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against her.
All of our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named Union , or any other labor organization.
PARKER SEAL COMPANY, DIVISION OF PARKER -HANNIFIN CORPORATION
Employer.
Dated--------- ---------- By-------------------------------------------(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Federal
Office Building , Room 2023, 550 Main Street , Cincinnati , Ohio, Telephone No. 381-
2200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Dairylee, Inc. and Local 653, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Case No. 1-CA-4478. November 18, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1964, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision..
149 NLRB No. 83.