Penn-Mor Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

PENN-MOR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 647
WE WILL NOT discharge employees in order to prevent union activity or
unionization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
including the right to join unions or to engage in concerted activity for their
mutual aid or protection or to refrain from such activity.
ORKrN EXTERMINATING COMPANY
OF KANSAS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Penn -Mor Manufacturing Corporation and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 28-CA-721.
March 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1962, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in sup-
port of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On an amended charge dated September 1, 1961 , filed by Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued his complaint
dated September 27, 1961 , alleging in substance that Penn-Mor Manufacturing Cor-
poration , the Respondent herein , discharged six named employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the
Act, and by this action and certain specified statements and conduct violated Section
136 NLRB No. 63.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8(a)(1) of the Act. On the complaint and the Respondent 's duly filed answer
thereto denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices , a hearing
was conducted before me , the duly designated Trial Examiner , at Phoenix , Arizona,
on October 31 and November 1, 2, and 3, 1961. All parties were represented and
participated in the hearing . On or before December 15, the General Counsel and
the Respondent, respectively, filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, my observation of the witnesses and considera-
tion of the briefs filed with me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a Pennsylvania corporation , operates offices and places of busi-
ness in Pennsylvania and Tempe , Arizona. At its Tempe plant, its only operation
involved in this proceeding , it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of underwear.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint herein, it manu-
factured , sold, and shipped from its Tempe plant to points outside Arizona, finished
products valued in excess of $50,000.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
As stated in Respondent's brief, Respondent 's Tempe plant was opened in 1957
and was under the immediate supervision of Nicholas Godshall, plant manager, until
April 1961. Godshall's employment was terminated on April 7, 1961, and on
April 10, Rowland Oonk, office manager of the Tempe plant since October, 1960,
was made plant manager . A number of employees , among them some who are
alleged herein to have been discriminatorily discharged , met informally to protest
Godshall's discharge and circulated a petition seeking his reinstatement. On an
occasion during the lunch hour a group of them went to Godshall 's house but he
asked them to leave inasmuch as he was expecting a call from Jacob Kreider, Re-
spondent 's president and general manager. They left and went to a nearby park.
According to the testimony Kreider drove by the park while they were gathered
there . Velma Roberts, who was later discharged , told Plant Manager Oonk that "the
girls are getting up a petition to get Nick back and are talking Union."
It appears that the Union's organization drive began shortly after Godshall's dis-
charge and may very well have derived its impetus from employee resentment over
the discharge , since several of those active in protesting Godshall's removal became
active in the organizational movement . Beginning in mid-April there were meetings
between union representatives and employees , and some of these meetings occurred
at noon in a public park a few blocks from Respondent 's plant. Nellie Cales, one of
the employees named in the complaint , testified that on one occasion while the
employees were meeting in the park with union organizers , Clyde Mansfield. assistant
plant manager , drove by in a red truck and observed them . Clara Cross, Ruth
Hogan , and Gladys Clark , other employees named in the complaint who were present
on this occasion , testified for the General Counsel but were not questioned on the
point Mansfield denied that he had driven by the park on such an occasion or that
he owned or drove a red truck during that period.
Surveillance is not alleged nor am I able to infer company knowledge of those
active in protesting Godshall 's dismissal from the fact that Kreider drove by a public
park where a group of those protesting the discharge was gathered . It is doubtful
that Kreider , whose office was in the East , would have been familiar enough with
Tempe employees to identify the individual employees in the group , or that by
merely driving by a public park at some 140 feet distance from the group. would
have been able to make much identification . As to Mansfield 's driving by the park
on the occasion of an organizational meeting , had this occurred as testified to by
Cales and had the General Counsel considered the matter significant , it would appear
that he would have sought corroboration of Cales' testimony by the other employees
present on that occasion whom he called as his witnesses Lacking such corrobora-
tion and in view of Mansfield 's denial , I can accord no weight to Cales' testimony and,
in any event , would not infer company knowledge of the organizational character
of the meeting and the identity of employees engaging in it. from the fact that Mans-
field drove around the park at some considerable distance from the group.
PENN-MOR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 649
Oonk and Kreider testified that their first knowledge of the Union's organizational
activities among their employees came when they learned on about April 22 that
the Union had filed a charge with the Board alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in unfair labor practices . The charge, filed April 21, was later withdrawn and
a consent-election agreement entered into.
About May 1 , on advice of counsel , Oonk and Kreider met with Mansfield and
other supervisory personnel , and advised the latter to remain neutral with respect to
organizational activities , "not to take sides either way, not to inform anyone which
way to go . . . which way to vote in the election."
B. Antiunion statements
The only evidence that the Respondent made threatening or hostile statements
with respect to the Union during the preelection period is the testimony of Lucille
Wilson, a supervisor, who was herself discharged on July 25. She testified that she
asked Mansfield if he thought the Union would come in, and he replied that it would
not. She first testified that this was all she could recall of the conversation on this
occasion, but on being prompted added that Mansfield said "they would close the
plant before they would accept a union." Wilson further testified that having heard
rumors that she would be discharged if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant,
she asked Oonk if a union victory would affect her employment, and Oonk replied,
"Lucille, you know better."
Further according to Wilson, after the election she asked Mansfield what he
thought would happen to girls that were union minded , and he replied, "If they step
out of line, it will be too bad." Mansfield denied the statements attributed to him
by Wilson. Finally, Wilson testified that Oonk said that any supervisor who was
union minded should be discharged.
Crediting Wilson in full, it would nevertheless be apparent that the antiunion
statements she testified to did not constitute a violation of the Act because they
were statements made by one supervisor to another and were not made in the pres-
ence of, or repeated to, rank-and-file employees. At most they would show an
attitude, a bias, on the part of management. Nor is there anything violative of the
Act in a speech which Kreider made to Tempe employees following the election, in
which he expressed his pleasure in the election results, thanked the employees for
rejecting the Union, referred to losses in production and quality of production during
the election campaign , and offered the opinion that it would be financially disastrous
for the Respondent to be subjected to a repetition of such losses during an organiza-
tional period. This last might be construed by some as a veiled threat directed against
renewed organizational efforts, but in the entire context of the speech , I do not view
it as such.
I shall recommend that the allegations of independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act be dismissed.
C. Line overseers
In issue are the supervisory functions of persons called quality and production
overseers, or line overseers, or line supervisors, who are in charge of the several
sewing lines maintained at Respondent 's Tempe plant. There are from 15 to 30
employees on each of these lines. The line overseers do very little actual machine
work and their time is occupied chiefly in keeping the work flowing to the various
operators , and in securing quality of production . They exercise independent judg-
ment in determining what garments should be rated "seconds" or repaired and made
"firsts" ; in assigning and allocating work on the sewing or production line; and in the
selection and designation of operators for overtime work on Saturdays , apparently
a prized designation . It further appears that the line supervisor has some, though
limited , disciplinary authority over the operators on her line, such as observing infrac-
tions of company rules, reporting on them to management , and issuing such admon-
ishments as appear to be required. The functions that most clearly establish them
as supervisors within the meaning of the Act are their participation in the interviewing
of applicants for employment , the making of effective recommendations with respect
to employment , and the authority to make disciplinary recommendations . It is also
persuasive on the issue that they attend meetings with officers of management, such
as the meeting in May when they received instructions to observe neutrality in the
organizational campaign . On the entire evidence I am persuaded and find that the
several persons who since April 1961 have been designated quality and production
overseers , previously known as line supervisors or overseers, are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The discharges
The complaint alleges the discriminatory discharge of the following employees,
discharged on or about the dates in 1961 given below. Velma Roberts, April 21;
Clara L. Cross and Ruth Hogan, June 19; Gladys Clark, June 29; Breta Little,
June 30; Nell M. Cales, July 14.
1. Velma Roberts
Roberts was employed by Respondent in August 1957, shortly after the Tempe
plant opened For a period she was a floorlady with supervisory authority over line
overseers. Shortly before her discharge, either at her own request or otherwise, she
was returned to a rank-and-file job as machine operator. This occurred before she
was in any way involved in union activities. According to Roberts, she reported to
Oonk and Kreider, or both, that a petition was being circulated seeking former Plant
Manager Godshall's reinstatement and that the girls were "talking Union " Further
according to her testimony-which was voluble and on the whole confusing-Oonk
showed some impatience and resentment, apparently inferring that she favored the
reinstatement of his predecessor. Oonk criticised her for being away from her
machine on an occasion when she was seeking a conference with Oonk's superior,
Kreider.
,On April 21, Roberts attended a meeting at the home of employee Evelyn Thomp-
son, where union organizers as well as other employees were present, and at this
meeting she signed a union authorization card. According to her, she was the only
one who signed a card at this meeting. She had been absent from her work the
previous afternoon to have some glasses fitted, and was also absent on the day she
signed the union card. That same evening Oonk called her at her home and informed
her that she was discharged. The reason that he gave her for her discharge was that
her "attitude" was not good. Her discharge is recorded as having been required
because she was "unable to adjust to new company management policies."
Oonk testified that after being returned to machine operation, Roberts was not at
her machine at the required time on several occasions and that he observed her in
various areas of the sewing room talking to the operators. On one occasion he
cautioned her to get back to her machine Further, according to him, Roberts'
supervisor reported to him that Roberts refused the instructions normally given by a
line overseer, saying that she needed no instructions , and that as a result some
garments had to be repaired. He denied that he had any knowledge that Roberts
was involved in union activities.
Roberts' discharge, coming on the heels of her meeting with union organizers and
signing a union card, naturally gives rise to speculation on the motives prompting it.
There is no evidence, however, that her attendance at this meeting and execution
of a union authorization card was reported to Oonk or that he had any knowledge
of it, unless we are to infer knowledge from the fact that two line overseers, Wanda
Wise and Breta Little, attended the meeting. Both Little and Wise were witnesses
for the General Counsel and he did not question them on whether they reported
Roberts' action in attending a union meeting and signing a union card to Oonk or
other officers of management, as he 'doubtless would have if such were the fact. As a
matter of fact, Little. herself, signed a union card and was outspokenly prounion, and
it is a reasonable inference that Wise's sympathies lay in the same direction. It is
entirely unlikely that either would have reported on a union meeting to Oonk or to
any other officer of management Roberts' own testimony, disjointed and confusing
though it was. indicates that Oonk was irritated by what he inferred was her partisan
loyalty to his predecessor, and I think it likely that he felt that he could not count
on her cooperation in his management of the Tempe operation. Her demotion from
floorladv to machine operator before she engaged in any union activities is an indi-
cation of 'Conk's lack of confidence and satisfaction in her performance of her duties.
Between April 10, when he was made manager , and April 21 when the Union filed
its first charge of unfair labor practices, he caused six employees to be discharged,
and only one of these discharges-Roberts'-is alleged to have had discriminatory
motivation. In my opinion, the evidence considered as a whole does not establish
a causal connection between Roberts' union activities and her discharge, and, accord-
ingly, I must recommend dismissal of the complaint withrespect to her.
2. Breta Little
Breta Little had been emnloved by the Respondent for almost 3 years when she was
discharged on June 30. During the last year of her employment she was a line
supervisor She testified that her responsibilities as line supervisor were "supposed"
PENN-MOR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 651
to be the same as those of other line supervisors. She did not recall having attended
a meeting with management prior to the June 13 election in which supervisors were
directed to observe neutrality with respect to the Union, but it is clear that she did
attend some meetings limited to supervisory personnel, and she admitted that on at
least two occasions prior to her discharge she had participated in the interview of
applicants for employment. Otherwise, and generally, her testimony tended to mini-
mize the supervisory authority vested in her as a line overseer. Lucille Wilson,
admittedly a supervisor, testified, however, that she told Mansfield that she was sur-
prised at Little's prounion activity "as supervisors were supposed to be neutral" and
that Mansfield replied that he had told Kreider that he was sorry he recommended
Little for a supervisory position.
It may well be that Little did not regard helself as part of the supervisory hierarchy,
and apparently she did not since she attended union meetings, signed a union authori-
zation card, and voted a challenged ballot in the election of June 13, but I can find no
license on the basis of the entire evidence for finding that she, in contrast with other
line supervisors, was vested with no functions which would bring her within the statu-
tory definition of supervisor. As a matter of fact, on the day that she was discharged,
she was invited to attend a luncheon limited to supervisory personnel which was ar-
ranged to enable the latter to meet a representative from Respondent's eastern office
who was present for training instruction purposes. She declined the invitation and
told one of the employees, "I'll be damned if I will attend that luncheon." This
was reported to Oonk. Concerning her refusal, she testified, "I had an idea what it
was about, it was like some of the meetings that they had had about-well, just the
same old thing." She further testified that she was indifferent to the meeting because
the Respondent had just discharged her girl friend, Gladys Clark. When Oonk
approached her on the day of the luncheon, she told him, "You are getting around to
me," whereupon he replied, "You brought it up, yes-'O.K., you're fired."
According to Little, Oonk further said with respect to her discharge that he did
not like her attitude toward the Company or the Union, and that neither that plant nor
any other plant in the vicinity would tolerate a line supervisor being involved in union
activities. He further said, according to her, that you could not be loyal to just one
person, and she inferred that he had reference to his predecessor, Godshall. As a
matter of fact she had been one of the group which had deplored Godshall's dis-
missal, and had had a hand in on the preparation of a petition seeking his reinstate-
ment which was circulated among the employees but which, apparently, was never
shown to management. Oonk denied the statements attributed to him by Little and
testified that her discharge was based on her lowered efficiency and lack of interest
in her job following Godshall's discharge and the Union's defeat at the polls. I
do not find this explanation unreasonable in view of her strong partisan feeling to-
ward Godshall and the Union, but be that as it may, her supervisory status removes
her from our consideration as an employee. I shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint with respect to her.
3. Clark, Cross, Hogan, and Cales
Clark, Cross, Hogan, and Cales, as machine operators, were paid on a piecework
basis. Each signed the petition seeking Godshall's reinstatement and each signed
a union authorization card. With respect to the petition, assuming without finding
that those signing it engaged in protected concerted activities, nevertheless the evi-
dence fails to establish that this petition was ever presened to management or was
ever seen by management. Oonk and Kreider were informed by Velma Roberts that
such a petition was being circulated, and doubtless the line supervisors knew of it-
some, indeed, signed it-but there is no basis in the evidence for finding that Clark,
Cross, Hogan, or Cales were any more active in its circulation than numerous other
employees or that they would reasonably be singled out by the Respondent as its
instigators or prime supporters. In short, I do not believe that their concerted action
with other employees in the signing and circulation of the petition was a factor in
their respective discharges, although their resentment of Godshall's dismissal as
reflected in their production may have been.
With respect to their union activity, Respondent admittedly had knowledge that
Cross and Hogan were active union adherents. Oonk denied such knowledge with
respect to Clark and Cales. There is very little evidence that would support a finding
that either Clark or Cales was singled out and discharged because of union activities.
Both signed union cards but there is no evidence that the Respondent had knowledge
of this. Clark wore a union apron on several occasions while she was cleaning her
machine, but these ,aprons were passed out by union organizers to all the employees,
and the fact that one wore hers while cleaning her machine would hardly suffice to
stamp her as an outstanding union adherent. Aside from her use of the union apron,
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there is Clark's testimony that on an occasion prior to the election her line supervisor,
Mary King, said to the girls on her line, "I hope you girls know what you are doing."
Clark answered, "Well, we think we know or we wouldn't be at it." King asked,
"Well, don't you think this is a good job?" and Clark replied, "Well, not financially."
Cales wore a vote "Yes" badge on the day of election, and on an occasion prior
to the election, Oonk made some joking remark indicating that he identified Cales
with the prounion group. Such evidence, while it may be said to be sufficient to sup-
port an inference that the Respondent had some knowledge that Clark and Cales
favored the Union, failed to establish that they were in any way outstanding or con-
spicuous in their union advocacy, and I would be at some loss to understand why
the Respondent would single them out for discriminatory discharge.
Violations of a plant rule limiting rest periods to 15 minutes a day were advanced
by the Respondent as at least a partial reason for the discharge action with respect
to each of these employees, and some note must be taken of this rule and its en-
forcement. There appears to have been some misunderstanding among the em-
ployees as to whether this 15-minute rule covered visits to the restroom, or was
exclusive of restroom requirements, but this is immaterial since the infractions
charged were that the 15 minutes allowed for coffee breaks, exclusive of visits to the
restroom, had been exceeded. There appears to be no doubt that the Respondent
had such a rule, that employees were informed of it when hired, and a notice of the
rule was posted. The testimony of all the witnesses convinces me that prior to Oonk's
elevation to the plant managership, and for some time thereafter, the rule was honored
more in the breach than in the observance and that prior to the bargaining election
of June 13, there had been no strict enforcement of it. By all accounts production
suffered during the organizing campaign and was still lagging after the June 13 elec-
tion. It is not unreasonable that Oonk in his new post as plant manager would seek
a stricter enforcement of plant rules which affected or might affect production, and
that he would feel somewhat restrained because of the earlier filing of unfair labor
practice charges against the Respondent, in taking vigorous disciplinary action until
after the election was out of the way. Therefore, I do not feel that a stricter en-
forcement of the 15-minute rule following the election was necessarily attributable to
antiunion motivation, though its application in the case of the four employees in
question raises some doubts in my mind. All of them testified that the rule was still
being laxly enforced if at all and all of them were persuasive in their testimony
that others as well as themselves took liberties with it All of them admitted as to
themselves that they had on numerous occasions overstayed the allotted time. Hogan
and Cross, who were among Respondent's better producers, testified that it was their
understanding of the rule that once an employee had made her piecework quota
for the day, she was allowed to exceed the 15-minute time limit, inasmuch as this
would, in effect, be on her own time, and that Kreider had so informed them.
Kreider denied this. I think there may very well have been a misunderstanding on
the point, but Cross, at least, prior to her discharge had been warned against con-
tinuing to exceed the 15-minute limitation, and it appears that Clark was given a
similar warning. I am convinced that neither heeded the admonition.
With respect to Clark, King, her supervisor, testified that she warned all the girls
on her line about exceeding their coffee breaks and that Clark was the only one who
thereafter continued to violate the rule. She also testified that Clark became an
undesirable employee because of her continuous carping about her work, she "was
always complaining about the material-one day it was soft, the next day it was
hard-one day it was slippery, couldn't handle the work, and it was impossible for
anybody to make a rate with such work as that."
Evelyn Gallatin, Cales' line overseer, testified that the quality and quantity of
Cales' production had fallen substantially during the period prior to her discharge,
and were not getting any better. According to Gallatin, shortly before the discharge,
she observed that Cales had exceeded her coffee break time and was sitting at her
machine idle. When she instructed Cales to get to work, Cales replied, "Well, damn
it, I don't like to be told what to do." Several days after this, when Gallatin observed
that Cales was still abusing her coffee break, and there was no improvement in her
production, she reported to Mansfield or Oonk or both and Cales was discharged.
Respondent's quality and production records corroborate Gallatin in her testimony
that an increasing amount of repairs was required on Cales' work during the closing
weeks of her employment, and that her production level had fallen.
On the entire testimony , I can find no preponderating weight of evidence support-
ing the General Counsel' s position that Clark and Cales were discharged because
of union or concerted activities , and accordingly must recommend dismissal of the
complaint with respect to them.
I have found more difficulty in resolving the issues with respect to Cross and
Hogan . This difficulty lies in the fact that they admittedly were two of the Respond-
PENN-MOR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 653
ent's best producers and that they admittedly were known to the Respondent as
leading union adherents. While I think the Respondent was very careful not to
engage in conduct which would interfere with its employees' free choice in the
June 13 election, it is equally clear that the Respondent was opposed to the unioniza-
tion of its employees, as it had a right to be, and was highly pleased at the election
results. Kreider's concern lest the Respondent be subjected to a repetition of loss
in production due to a renewed organizational campaign was expressed in lawful
but nevertheless clear and unequivocal language in his address to employees follow-
ing the election. Respondent might well, therefore, welcome an opportunity to rid
itself of employees known to it to be actively prounion in order to discourage, or
at least postpone, another organizational attempt. All of this has entered into my
consideration of the discharge cases, as has my consideration of the natural desire
on Oonk's part to make a good showing in his new job as plant manager and to re-
move any obstacles which might impede efforts to obtain improved quality and
higher production. To some extent these considerations cancel out each other, or
strike a balance, but the balance is somewhat affected by the fact that from the time
Oonk became plant manager until November 1961, the Respondent discharged a
total of some 31 employees for various reasons ranging from poor work to ex-
cessive absenteeism, and discrimination is charged with respect to only six of these,
four of whom I have eliminated from further consideration here.
It further appears that the discharge of both Cross and Hogan followed com-
plaints made to Mansfield and Oonk by their line supervisor, Gallatin, that they were
exceeding the time allotted for their rest periods, and that the quality of their pro-
duction had substantially fallen, and that Cross, at least, had an insubordinate atti-
tude toward her supervisor. With Cross, I think there is no doubt that Gallatin had
sufficient provocation outside of union activities to cause her to seek Cross' discharge,
the conflict between the two being clearly established I do not intend to give in
detail Gallatin's description of Cross' behavior which she considered sarcastic, juve-
nile, etc. "She was always right," Gallatin testified, "let's put it that way. I was
wrong. . . . I really felt like slapping her face, but I can't do that. . . Every day
I expected trouble.. . These generalizations were sufficiently documented to
convince me that Cross did, indeed, have a contemptuous attitude toward her super-
visor, and Cross' demeanor on the witness stand added to rather than dissipated this
impression. There being no showing that Gallatin was antiunion or biased in the
matter, and Cross' discharge having resulted from Gallatin's complaints and recom-
mendations, I can find in this record no preponderance of evidence to support a
finding of a discriminatory discharge, and therefore will recommend dismissal of
the complaint with respect to Cross.
Hogan made a very favorable impression on me as a witness, and did her discharge
stand apart from Cross' I would find it difficult to regard it as lawfully motivated.
Admittedly, she exceeded the 15 minute break period but I am convinced that so
did many other employees who were not discharged. It does appear, however, that
both Hogan and Cross, because they were good producers and regularly exceeded
the minimum required of them, took more liberties with the rest period allotment
than was customary, feeling that they were justified in doing so because of their high
production. Under Godshall's management apparently they had encountered no
supervisory resistance to these habits, but this is not to say that Oonk, in his effort
to tighten up on production and quality, could not lawfully demand a more strict
adherence to plant rules. It further appears that neither Hogan nor Cross paid any
attention to the admonishments of their supervisor, Gallatin. Finally, there is too
much testimony from rank-and-file employees, as well as Gallatin, that Hogan's
work as well as Cross' had deteriorated in quality since the Union's defeat at the
polls, to discount entirely the probability that this was ,the fact. While the production
records of both remained above the minimal level required of them, these records
do show a considerable drop from the level attained by them earlier in the year.
With all these considerations in mind, I would still entertain strong doubts as to the
bona fides of Hogan's discharge except for her close association with Cross. It is
clear that these two were closely associated both in their work and plant activities,
and while I can find nothing in this record or in her demeanor as a witness to indicate
that Hogan was the sharp-,tongued termagant that Cross appeared to be, there can
be little doubt that she was linked in Gallatin's mind with the latter and that Gallatin
regarded them as jointly liable for the difficulties she was encountering in her capacity
as line supervisor. Inasmuch as I can find no substantial basis for attributing Gal-
latin's complaints and recommendations for their discharge to their union activities, I
must recommend dismissal of the complaint with respect to Hogan also, though
I do so with some hesitancy .and some stubborn doubts.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in and at all times material herein has been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Reed 's Fuel Company and International Woodworkers of
America Local Union 3-246 , AFL-CIO. Case No. 36-CA-1117.
March 29, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1962, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recommended
that the allegations in the complaint as to them be dismissed. Ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief were filed
by the General Counsel.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record, and
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner?
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act the Board has delegated Its
powers In connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Fanning].
2The following sentence shall be added to the notice : "Employees may communicate
directly with the Board 's Subregional Office, 612 Lincoln Building , 208 S .W. Fifth
Avenue, Portland, Oregon, Telephone Number, Capitol 2-1607 , If they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with Its provisions."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint in this proceeding , issued by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board (referred to as the Board herein), alleges, as amended, that
the Respondent , Reed's Fuel Company ( also called the Company herein), has
136 NLRB No. 65.