Pioneer Plastics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 1052 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 threaten our employees with loss of wages or other benefits
or privileges because any employee joins, or contemplates joining, American
Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with harm or physical violence should
they seek the assistance or support of the above-named Union respecting
the maintenance of the terms and conditions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in American Bakery and Confection-
ery Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by reducing
the number of hours worked by any employee, by discharging, refusing to
reinstate or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure
of employment of employees, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Johnny Mike Lummus immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his senior-
ity or other rights and privileges and make him whole for all losses he may
have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named Union.
SCHOTT'S BAKERY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify Johnny Mike Lummus if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228-
4722.
Pioneer Plastics Corporation and Leather Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO and Truckdrivers , Warehousemen and Help-
ers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases 1-CA-5150 and 5210. June 23, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 18, 1966, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
159 NLRB No. 110.
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1053
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
'Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility findings
unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they were in-
correct, we find no basis for disturbing the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner
in this case. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 844, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Leather Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Leather Workers, and by Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers
Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board on December 10, 1965, issued a con-
solidated amended complaint' against Pioneer Plastics Corporation, herein called
the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent filed an answer in which it
admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the amended complaint, but denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at Auburn, Maine,
on January 11, 12, and 13, 1966. After the conclusion of the hearing the General
Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with me.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and plant in
Auburn, Maine. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of plastic
laminates and related products. Annually, the Respondent receives raw materials,
the value of which exceeds $50,000, from points located outside the State of
Maine, and ships goods, the value of which exceeds $50,000, to points located out-
side the State of Maine. On these facts, which are not in issue, I conclude and
find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
'The charge in Case 1-CA-5150 was filed by the Leather Workers on September 8,
1965. The original complaint in this case was issued on October 28, 1965. Charges in
Case 1-CA-5210 were filed by the Teamsters on October 26 and November 12, 1965.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent concedes , and I find , that the Leather Workers and the Team-
sters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Case 1-CA-5150
1. Background and sequence of events
The Respondent has a plant in Sanford, Maine. It had a contract covering this
plant with the Leather Workers. At sometime during about the spring of 1965
the Respondent began operating the Auburn plant.
Albano Quadros, International representative of the Leather Workers, assisted
in negotiations and handled almost all grievances for the Sanford plant. Before
the Auburn plant opened, Quadros had a number of conversations with Arnold
Aron, and Robert Trembly, president and personnel director of the Respondent,
respectively. They discussed the opening of the Auburn plant. Quadros asked that
the Leather Workers be recognized as the bargaining agent for this plant. Aron
stated that it was "premature" to talk about the Auburn plant. On August 4,
1965, Quadros began organization of the Auburn employees. He followed several
employees in their cars and spoke to them.
On August 9 Quadros met in Boston, Massachusetts, with Aron and Louis Chan-
dler, the Respondent's attorney, in connection with the Sanford operation. Quad-
ros stated that the Leather Workers intended to organize the Auburn employees
and asked Aron to recognize it on the basis of a card check. Aron replied that
the Respondent at that time was "not ready for a union" in Auburn.
On August 16 Quadros was parked in his car near the Auburn plant, when Trembly
drove up in his car and talked to him. He told Quadros that Aron had sent him
to find out what he (Quadros) was "passing out today." Shortly after Trembly
left, Aron appeared and told Quadros that he wanted to talk to him. They went
to the Holiday Inn near Auburn where they had a conversation which lasted about
1 hour. Aron told Quadros that the Respondent planned a new product for the
Sanford plant which would employ approximately 30 people, and that he would
grant a union checkoff at that plant if he would discontinue the organizational
campaign at the Auburn plant. Quadros refused.
On August 18 Quadros met with three employees. They agreed to hold a union
meeting at 3 p.m. on August 23 at an Esso gas station in Auburn. The meeting
was held as scheduled. About 15 employees, including Elsie Boston and Rebecca
Gould, were present. Shortly after the meeting started, a police officer told Quad-
ros "to break the meeting up." Quadros and the employees then went to Boston's
home where the meeting continued. Employees Karen Blaisdell and Barbara Le
Bel attended the meeting. Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and La Bel signed union
authorization cards at the meeting. On Tuesday morning, August 24, the follow-
ing appeared in the local newspaper:
Auburn police were called, Monday afternoon, on a report of a disturbance
near 290 Main St. only to find that a union organizer was talking with a
group of men concerning starting a new union at Pioneer Plastics Corp.
Boston and Gould were discharged on August 25. On August 26 from 2:30 to
4:30 p.m. Quadros, Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and some Sanford employees sta-
tioned themselves near the Respondent's plant. They passed out union literature
to employees and solicited them to sign union authorization cards. About 2:40
p.m. Donald La Chance, a supervisor, arrived in one of the Respondent's cars. He
parked the car a short distance away, facing the group, and remained there until
about 4:20 p.m. Shortly after La Chance arrived, Aron drove by in his car. He
stopped and talked to Quadros. When Quadros gave him a union leaflet, Aron
said, "too bad it's not pouring . . . I'll see what I can arrange." Shortly after
Aron left, a police officer arrived and parked across the street from the group.
When Quadros asked him if he and the employees were doing "anything wrong,"
he replied, "as far as I know right now you're not, but we have got a complaint
that you've been tying up traffic." The police officer remained until Quadros and
the employees stopped passing out leaflets.
Similar conduct was engaged in by Trembly on September 1 and 7. He parked
his car and observed Quadros and his group of employees. I find that La Chance's
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION -1055
and Trembly's surveillance of the union activity of the employees was violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On September 21 Aron sent the following letter to the employees:
Over the past several months all of us have joined in a common effort
which I hope will be friendly and lasting as well as profitable. It has been
heartwarming to experience the warmth and friendliness with which you have
helped to establish in Auburn the Pioneer family of which we are all mem-
bers-a family which we hope will grow even more closely knit over the years
ahead.
When we first met one another, you probably wanted to know something
about us and about Pioneer working conditions and what our hopes were for
the future. That is why these things were written out and given to all employ-
ees in the form of a booklet. In a sense, this is our contract with you.
We told you about the paid vacations and paid holidays that you could
expect.
And of the group insurance and makeup pay you would get for time lost
for personal reasons, whether because of family bereavement or National
Guard duty. A program was outlined for paid rest periods and for extra
overtime pay and for recognition of length of service in the form of seniority.
We decided before we opened to extend to employees benefits and condi-
tions that were at least as good as our employees had in the location from
which we are moving in fact, some of the benefits here are improvements.
We did this because we are of the opinion that this would be good for Pio-
neer and good for you.
And in order to keep pace with the future, we all are realistic enough to
know that improvements can be expected. The trend of group insurance
benefits will increase; in 1966 Pioneer will increase the number of paid holi-
days. Our first annual wage review will occur next spring; this should lead
to annual wage increases for all employees.
We know that several unions are attempting to get you to sign cards. We
believe there is no need at this time for a union to come in here and disrupt
the relationship we are trying to build. We hope that you sign no cards
because there is no need for you to pay $60.00 a year to a union. That is
like losing 3 or 4 paid holidays a year. And under union contracts, you get
fired if you don't pay dues.
We hope you sign no cards because we would like to have the opportunity
of working together to see how things go without interference from outsiders-
without possible strikes and without the conflict that most unions bring to
a plant.
That is why we came into this community on a fair and friendly basis and
extended a liberal benefits program to employees.
Your program of benefits is a superior one. A union which promised more
would have no recourse but to tell you to strike if we felt compelled to say
No to the things they promise.
There is no need for you to sign union cards. We hope that you will say
"No"-and say it loud and clear so that any insiders who are on the union
payroll will know you mean it.
We sincerely hope you will give us a chance to work directly with each
other to see how things work out-without interference from outsiders and
without signing cards.
And just bear in mind that this is only the beginning of our relationship.
I am hopeful that as we live and work with each other- and as we get to
really know one another-we will build a relationship that will be peaceful
and prosperous-for all of us.
The General Counsel contends that the above letter is violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. I do not so find.
2. The discharges
There were approximately 50 female employees, "floor girls" and "builders,"
in the "buildup room." Paul Roy and Joseph Alexander were the foremen. Elsie
Boston was the "lead girl," and Rebecca Gould was one of about four "ticket
girls."
In its brief the Respondent contends that Boston was a supervisory employee
within the meaning of the Act. Concerning Boston's duties, Roy testified, "She's
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supposed to help me out on the floor and does paper work . . . Go around the
floor, see that the proper work was being done, see the proper work was at the
right stations, and if there was any question about the work she was there to help
out and answer the questions and instruct the people." He also testified to the effect
that the lead girl relayed his orders as to which employees were to perform the
work, and that she was expected to report to him before any changes in his orders
were made. Alexander was questioned and testified as follows in this connection:
Q. Of course Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould merely relayed the orders
from you and Mr. Roy, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. They had no authority to change assignments on the girls, did they?
A. No.
Boston testified that it was her duty to report to the foreman when.employees
were not performing their work properly; that she did this on only one occasion;
and that she never made, or was asked to make, recommendations concerning
employees.
The builders, the ticket girls, and Boston all were paid an hourly rate. Roy and
Alexander were paid a weekly salary. From the entire record in this connection
I find that Boston was not a supervisory employee.
On August 2 Boston and Gould had a conversation with Frank La Scola, assist-
ant plant superintendent. They asked him if it would be possible to bring "some
Sanford girls" to the plant to help them train the builders. La Scola replied that
he would look into the matter. Some few days later about four Sanford girls
arrived at the plant. La Scola introduced them to the assembled employees in the
buildup room. He told the employees that Boston and Gould had performed "a
terrific job," and that nobody else could have done "any better a job in such a
short time."
On or about August 9 Boston, Gould, LeBel, and several other employees asked
the Sanford girls what pay they received at Sanford. When they could not get
an answer from the Sanford girls,3 Boston and Gould asked Alexander for the
name of the Union at the Sanford plant. He told them to ask La Scola. They
then went to La Scola and inquired when they were going to get a raise in pay.
When Boston asked him for the name of the union at Sanford, he replied, "I'm
not quite sure, . . . but at any rate we don't want that union up here. It didn't
do much for our company anyway, . I think it's Amalgamated Steel." He
asked Gould if she thought a union would get into the Auburn plant. She replied,
"yes. ... if the girls are treated the way they have been lately, ... there's been
talk about it, and I think there will be." Immediately after the above conversa-
tion Boston talked to La Chance. She asked him for the name of the union in
Sanford. He answered. "we've been told not to talk about the union in Sanford
or to say anything about the Sanford plant to anyone."
After August 6 Boston and Gould talked to the other employees about a wage
increase and the need for a union in the plant. They engaged in this activity dur-
ing rest periods, the lunch hour and in the buildup room . Alexander at times
was "within hearing distance." 3
On or about August 9 Roy went to Gould's place of work. He asked her if
the "union from Sanford" was going "to get in up here." When she replied that
she did not know, he said that the union was "no good."
At sometime during the day of August 13, Boston walked past Monica Bedell,
a Sanford girl, and employee Sandra Gayton. Referring to Boston, Bedell said to
Gayton, "I think she can be bitchy when she wants to." Boston stopped and said,
"if she thinks I'm a bitch, then she's a bitch too."
About 4 p.m. on August 13 Boston and Gould were called to Trembly' s office.
He told them that their supervisors had complained that their work was "unsatis-
factory" and that they were "instigators"; that he was making up his mind whether
or not to terminate their employment; that in the meantime they were suspended;
2Boston testified, "[one of the Sanford girls] just sneered at us and giggled and didn't
say anything, so it made us mad .. . . They wouldn't tell us how much they got, so
it did make us a little bit angry."
3 Constance Moad, a Sanford girl, was called as a witness by the Respondent. She
testified that "just a few days" after August 9 Boston and Gould talked to her about a
union. Moad was a lead girl at the time of the hearing herein.
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1057
and that they should report back to him at 3 p.m. on August 16, at which time
he would give them his final decision. Boston asked Trembly what she was sup-
posed to be " instigating ." He replied, "you know what."
During the morning of August 16 Blaisdell and LeBel spoke to the other employ-
ees about going to Trembly's office to "speak about Elsie and Becky's return."
Blaisdell, LeBel, and about 15 employees then met with La Scola in the cafeteria.
Blaisdell and LeBel told La Scola that the employees wanted to speak to Trembly
on behalf of Boston and Gould, but that they were "all scared" to leave the
buildup room to go to his office because they might lose their jobs. They asked
him if it was possible for Trembly to come to the buildup room to talk to them.
He said he would "look into the matter." About 2:20 p.m. Trembly went to the
buildup room, Blaisdell and LeBel were standing at a desk. He asked them
what they and the other employees wanted to see him about. They said that they
wanted to talk to him about Boston and Gould. He asked them to get the other
employees. When the employees were assembled, he told them that he had not
made up his mind about Boston and Gould, that he was the one who hired and
fired in the plant; that it was his decision to make, and that they would have to
wait until he made that decision.
Boston and Gould reported to Trembly's office at 3 p.m. on August 16. After
conferring with some of the Respondent's supervisors, Trembly reinstated Boston
and Gould to their jobs without any loss of pay. He told them that he had
"learned a lot today," that we was going to keep his "eyes open," and that they
should "keep your words to yourself."
Shortly after Boston and Gould started work on August 17, Roy spoke to them.
He told them that they were "very smart girls" and had done "a good job up
until now"; and that they should go back to their jobs and be "very careful"
because the Company would be watching "for the least little thing you do wrong."
Gould did not work on either August 18 or 19. She called the plant and stated
that she was sick. Boston received permission from Roy to be off from work dur-
ing the afternoon of August 18 in order to visit her dentist.
As related above, Boston and Gould attended the union meeting held on
August 23. On August 19 Boston was told about this meeting by one of the male
employees. She in turn informed Gould, LeBel, and Blaisdell. On August 20
Boston told both Roy and Alexander that she had "to go to the dentist again on
Monday at 2:30." They granted permission for her to leave the plant at that
time. Gould told Roy that she wanted to leave the plant at 2.30 p.m. on Monday
in order to visit her doctor. He granted her request.
About 8:45 a.m. on August 24 Alexander came to Boston and asked her for the
name of her dentist, telling her that Trembly wanted the information and that it
was "company policy to check on anyone that was ever out." 4 She gave him the
name of her "eye doctor." During the day Boston talked to a number of the girls
in the buildup room about the union meeting. She asked them to attend the next
meeting which was to be held at her home.
On August 24 Gould told her "two floor girls" about the union meeting. She
said that the employees needed a union and asked them im they would attend the
next union meeting. Some of this conversation took place at Gould's desk which
was only a few feet away from Alexander's desk. Alexander was present at his
desk during part of the conversation. At sometime during the day Alexander
asked Gould for the name of the doctor whom she was supposed to have visited
on Monday. She gave him the name of a doctor.
About 11 a.m. on August 25 Boston was called to Trembly's office. He said that
her employment was "terminated" and told her that her supervisors had reported
to him that her work was not satisfactory and that she had been "swearing at the
girls." He said that she did not know how to keep her "mouth shut" and that he
felt that she had been out "looking for another job" the day before. He stated
she had not been to a dentist and asked her why she had lied. Boston replied
that she had been granted permission to leave at 2:30 p.m.; that she was not get-
ting paid for that "2:30 to 4:00 o'clock"; and that she did not think that it should
concern him since it was her "personal business."
* It is undisputed that Boston and Gould were not asked for this information when
they were absent the previous week.
243-084-67-vol. 159-68
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gould then was called to Trembly's office and discharged. Trembly told her
that he had called the doctor's office; that he had found out that the doctor was
"out of town" that week; that it was "against company policy" for an employee to
"lie for their reason for being out"; that Alexander was not satisfied with her work;
and that he did not want "to waste time training a girl" who did not stay on the
job.
After Boston returned from Trembly's office, she told Blaisdell and LeBel that
she had been discharged. Blaisdell and LeBel took off their smocks and put them
and their knives on Roy's desk. Roy was at his desk at the time. When some
other employees asked them why they had taken off their smocks, Blaisdell and
LeBel stated that Boston had been discharged "for speaking about union in the
plant"; that they "figured it was unjust and unfair"; and that they were "going to
leave with her." Boston, Blaisdell, and LeBel went to the "breaking room" where
they talked to some male employees about Boston's discharge. A possible "walk
out" by the employees was discussed. Gould returned from Trembly's office and
joined the group. After about 15 minutes Alexander went to the breaking room
and told Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and LeBel to "go get [your] checks and leave
the premises."
On August 30 Boston and Gould returned to the plant and spoke to Trembly.
They asked to be rehired. He said that he would "talk it over" at a forthcoming
meeting at Sanford and that he would let them know later. During the conversa-
tion Trembly stated that he did not want "a union" in the plant at that particular
time as the Company would like "to have a chance to get back on [its] feet." On
or about September 2 Boston and Gould called Trembly. He told them that the
Respondent had decided not to rehire them.
The above facts are based upon credited portions of the testimony of Boston,
Gould, Blaisdell, LeBel, Alexander, Bedell, and Moad. Testimony of Trembly,
Roy and Alexander, contrary to the above, is not credited.
Concerning his reason for suspending Boston and Gould on August 13, Trem-
bly testified that he had complaints from both Roy and Alexander. In this con-
nection he testified to the following:
... there was a combination of excess absenteeism and their not being happy
with their performance their work, their duties, such as taking too much time
away from their stations, away from their job, spending too much time in the
ladies room, just a combination of items that they wanted them dismissed
from the room. When I say that, I say that because sometimes we transfer
girls from one department to another where they don't make out in one, we
try them in another department, so they came up to me for whatever action
I thought I would take.
When asked if he suspended them without any investigation, Trembly testified,
"Yes, but I also, when I find that I'm wrong I repaid them for the time they were
loafing [August 16]." As to the results of his investigation, he was questioned
and testified as follows:
Q. Isn't it a fact that you concluded that it was in fact your supervisors who
were at fault and not the girls themselves?
A. Well, in taking them back I told them that it was a new plant, we were
very busy, I was trying to do more than I could do, and do it right, and that
perhaps there was an area here where we hadn't given enough attention to
the personal function of the employees, and we would revise it and go over it.
Roy and Alexander testified to the effect that before the Sanford girls arrived
the work of both Boston and Gould was "very good"; that they so informed them; 5
that Boston and Gould resented the Sanford girls; and that after the arrival of the
Sanford girls their work "slowed down" and was otherwise unsatisfactory. As to
During cross-examination Roy was questioned and testified as follows :
Q. You say that in August you never told Elsie Boston or Rebecca Gould that they
were doing a very good job?
A. I told them when I first went there, yes, if that was the first part of August,
that's when it was.
Q. This was when the Sanford girls were there? -
A. Before or after the Sanford girls. I told them before. As a matter of-fact,
I told them that day they come back after that suspension I thought they did a
very good job, and I told them.
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1059
the reason for the suspension, Alexander testified, "Well, the girls were slowing
down, Rebecca and Elsie Boston, and they were slowing others down,6 and this
was the reason why I suspended them the first time." Alexander also testified that
Boston and Gould stayed in the ladies' room for as long as "15 or 20 minutes at
a time," and that he spoke to them about it.
The undisputed evidence shows that before August 13 the Respondent knew
of the intention of the Leather Workers to organize the plant, and that the Respond-
ent had attempted to dissuade it from doing so. Also before that date, both Boston
and Gould had evinced an interest in the Union at Sanford. On or about August 9,
the date of the arrival of the Sanford girls in the plant, they asked Alexander,
La Scola, and La Chance for the name of the Union. Before August 9 it is undis-
puted that La Scola, Roy, and Alexander had been lavish in their praise of Boston
and Gould. There is no claim that their work was unsatisfactory before the advent
of the Sanford girls. This means that during the week of August 9 to 13 the
Respondent discovered all of the alleged faults testified to by Roy and Alexander
and found it necessary to suspend them without any warning. I find this to be
incredible. I am convinced and find that the Respondent resorted to this action
in order to forestall the Leather Workers from gaining a foothold in the plant.
After their reinstatement on August 17, Boston and Gould continued to talk to
the employees about a union. They attended the meeting of the Leather Workers
and told the employees about it. Although warned that they would be watched
"closely," they were not secretive about this union acivity. It is noteworthy they
were not asked for the names of their doctors when absent before August 23.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's claim that it discharged Boston and
Gould for lying was a pretext, and that the discharges were in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. Blaisdell and LeBel
On August 25 Blaisdell and LeBel accompanied Boston and Gould to Trembly's
office. The checks of Boston and Gould were ready for them. Blaisdell and Lebel
asked for their checks. Trembly asked them if they wanted their checks immedi-
ately or if they would return on Friday to pick them up. They answered that they
wanted their checks and would wait until they were prepared.8 After receiving
their checks they left the plant.
Blaisdell and LeBel returned to the plant on August 26 and asked to see Trem-
bly. His secretary told them that he was at Sanford. They returned to the plant
again on August 27 and spoke to Trembly. They asked for their jobs back and
told him that they were "sorry for walking out" and that they were "mad" when
they "walked out with Rebecca and Elsie Boston." Trembly said that their work
had been "very good," but told them that their jobs had been filled. He said that
he would "look into the matter more." He showed them a leaflet of the Leather
Workers and said that it had been sent to his office. He told them that he wanted
"a couple of years" without a union in the plant.
LeBel called Trembly on September 1 and again asked for her job. He refused
her request telling her that he thought it was "better ... left ... the way it was."
Trembly testified that he saw Blaisdell with Quadros, Boston, and Gould when
they were passing out union literature on August 26. Concerning the filling of
vacancies in the buildup room, Trembly was questioned and testified as follows:
Q. How many girls were hired in the buildup room as builders between
the period Wednesday, August the 25th, and let's say August 29th, 1965?
A. I don't know the exact figure. I would-I know of four girls that were
hired during that period.
e Bedell testified that on one occasion she heard Boston tell two builders to "slow down "
Boston denied that she at any time ever told employees to slow down . Her denial is
credited.
7 Bedell testified that on two occasions, before and after August 13, she heard Alexander
reprimand Boston and Gould for staying too long in the restroom. Moad testified that
Boston went to the restroom "quite often " Roy testified that after the Sanford girls
came to the plant he told Boston to go to the restroom "and get some of these girls out of
there that were spending too much time in there," and that "there was a great amount
of time lost while [Boston] was in there."
8 The above is based upon credited testimony of Boston, Blaisdell, and LeBel Tienibly
testified that Blaisdell and LeBel told him that they wanted "to quit" their jobs. I do
not credit his testimony in this connection.
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And isn't it a fact that the day that Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen
Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel left the plant, that is August the 25th, isn't it a
fact that there were vacancies in that buildup room a that time?
A. I don't know whether they were or not.
Q. (By Mr. DICIERO.) Isn't it a fact, Mr. Trembly, that on the morning
of August the 25th, the day in which the four girls, rather, Elsie Boston and
Rebecca Gould were fired, and Karen Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel left, isn't
it a fact that that morning four girls were hired in the buildup room and
reported to work that morning?
A. Well, there were three girls reported to work that day. I don't know
what time of day they reported to work.
Q. Isn't it a fact that they reported first thing in the morning.
A. I don't remember, really.
Q. And aren't these the four girls that you're referring to that were hired
between the 25th and the 29th.
A. They're the only four that I know were hired at that time.
Q. So they were not hired to replace any of these four girls, were they?
A. That was the intent, to replace these four girls.
It is clear from the record that Blaisdell and LeBel walked off the job on
August 25 in order to protest the discharge of Boston. They announced this in
front of Roy. They did not say that they were quitting their jobs. They merely
said that they were "going to leave" with Boston. Later Alexander told them to
get their checks and leave the premises. Under the circumstances, I find that they
ceased work concertedly and refused to work in protest of Boston's discharge, and
that the Respondent's failure and refusal to reinstate them or and after August 27
was violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
B. Case I-CA-5210
The Respondent transports its finished products by trailer truck and has a sepa-
rate trucking division at Auburn. Hubert Libby, a former member of the Team-
sters, is the traffic manager for the division. There were about 18 employees in
the division, including drivers and mechanics.
Arthur Page is secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters. During about late August
1965, he met Libby and employee Merrill Cowperthwaite in Gray, Maine. Page
said to Libby, "you and I ought to be able to do business. It ought to be an easy
job to sign up your drivers." Libby replied, "to hell with you, it's my job to keep
you [the Teamsters] out." Thereafter the Teamsters sent letters to the Respond-
ent's employees. One such letter was sent just prior to October 23, notifying the
employees of a union meeting.
During the morning of Saturday, October 23, Homer Thurlow, the garage
mechanic, told Libby that he had heard "rumors of union activities . every-
body was unhappy"; that he did not feel "too secure" in his job; and that he was
resigning in order to take another job. Libby then called a number of the employ-
ees to his office. Charles Keller, the Respondent' s general manager , was present
during some of the conversations, as was Robert Stiffler, a supervisory assistant to
Libby.
Libby was alone when he spoke to Cowperthwaite. Libby told him that, due
to "union activities," some "changes" would be made. He asked Cowperthwaite
if he knew "anything about the union." He replied that he did not. Libby said
that it was his job "to keep the union out." He stated that effective October 26
all local work would be performed by Highway transportation; 9 that the long hauls
would be a "single man operation at $3.00 an hour, drive for 10 hours, lay over
for eight"; 10 that "arrangements" had been made at Rochester, Toledo, and Chi-
cago "for lay over facilities for the drivers"; and that this would be at no cost to
the drivers as long as they refueled at such places. Libby asked Cowperthwaite
if he wanted to become a long haul driver. He replied that he did not.
Libby also spoke to employee Harold Hall alone. He asked Hall if he knew
anything about the union activity. Hall replied that he had "heard about it."
9It is undisputed that the Respondent had informed the employees some months be-
fore the above date that local hauling would be terminated as soon as possible after the
move from Sanford.
10 The Respondent uses tractors with sleeping accommodations and a two-man crew.
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1061
Libby told him about the changes that were going to be made due to the "union
activities going on in the plant." He stated that he was going to "start at the top
of the seniority list and go down," asking each employee if he wanted a long haul
job; and that "if the man said no, he was done, if he said yes, he would drive."
Libby stated, "Mr. Cowperthwaite, for instance, (tried] to get the union in, .. .
I could call any place that he went and stop him from getting in but I . . .
wouldn't . . . do that."
Employee Ernest Cota was at home on October 23 when he was called by Stiff-
ler. He asked Cola if he had received a letter from the Teamsters. When Cota
replied that he had, Stif ler said, "well, we got problems, . . . Come on in. We
want to talk to you." When Cota got to the plant he talked to Libby and Stifiier.
Libby said that there had been "some talk of union"; that it was his and Stifler's
job "to keep the union out", that "if the boys wanted the union ... the Company
would be willing to go better than the union and pay ... $3.00 for the long haul
which would mean a single man to Chicago or other destinations"; that there
would be "just five drivers picked by seniority"; and that the mechanic work would
be performed by a local concern.
About noon on October 23 employer Bernard Muehle had a conversation with
Libby. Libby stated that he and Muehle knew that there were "union activities
going on," and that it was his "job to keep the union out." He informed Muehle
of the changes that would be made. Later that day Muehle was called to the
office again. Libby, Keller, and employees Richard Lowell and Roger Jacques
were present. Keller stated that he had "worked in a union shop once" and that
he thought that "our operation would be better without it." Muehle said that if the
Respondent did not want the Teamsters, there should be "a meeting with Mr. Aron
and Mr. Keller and Mr. Trembly, . and all the drivers, and hash it out . .
We could come up with something " They discussed the closing down of the local
operation including mechanic work, "gripes" of the employees such as breakdown
time, and having a single driver on long hauls.
I find that the interrogation concerning the Teamsters by Libby and Stiflier of
Cowperthwaite, Hall, and Cota was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Libby's statement to Hall concerning Cowperthwaite is also found to be violative
of the Act since it was a threat of reprisal. His statement about discontinuing the
local operation threatened the local drivers and mechanics with loss of employ-
ment.ll Since he made it clear that this was because of the employees' union
activity, it is found that his statements in this connection were violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. From Libby's statement to Cota concerning long hauls it
is apparent that he intended a promise of benefit if the employees would forgo
the Teamsters. The fact that none of the employees found this change acceptable
does not detract from the illegality. Accordingly, I find this statement of Libby to
be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On January 7, 1966, Elliot received a telephone call from Libby. He asked
Elliot, "would you be able to go out Sunday or did you get a subpoena." 12 When
Elliot replied that he had received a subpena, Libby said that in such case he must
have signed a statement and asked, "what did you have to tell them." Elliot
answered, "I told them the truth ... I told them just what I'd tell you or anybody
else."
It is found that Libby's interrogation was violative of the Act.
Kenwood Brown was hired by the Respondent as a welder for the trucking divi-
sion during August of 1965. In addition to welding, he also worked at times as
a mechanic. He made about three trips to Sanford as a local driver.
On Monday, October 25, driver Robert Elliot was the only employee who
reported for work. Brown had his wife report to the plant that he was sick. It
appears that only Brown and Elliot reported for work on October 26. About 8:30
a.m. on that day Brown had a conversation with Libby. Elliot was present.
Brown asked Libby "where everybody else was." Libby replied that he did not
know but thought "probably they went to a union meeting." He then told Brown
that "because the boys wanted to get the union in here" he thought he might have
to make "a few changes such as . . . doing away with the local operation and the
mechanics and having A & W do the mechanic work." He said that there was no
11 As of the date of the hearing herein the Respondent had not taken this action
12 The hearing herein was scheduled to commence on January 11.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, for Brown unless he wanted to "go on the road" as a driver . Brown refused
the offer. Libby told Brown that he would call him as soon as he had work for
him.13
Brown was called back to work on October 28. About 6:30 p.m. on October 29
Libby spoke to Brown. He asked him what he knew "about the union." Brown
replied that he did not know "too much about it" and that he was not "for it" or
"against it." Libby said, "I thought the boys had forgotten about it, and things
were back to normal, but evidently they haven't." 14
It is found that Libby's interrogation was violative of the Act.
On November 3 Libby told Brown that he "might possibly be able to find
enough for [him] to finish out the week"; and that "then that would be it" unless
he wanted "to go to driving ." Brown replied that his answer was "still no."
Brown did not report for work on November 4.
On either November 4 or 5 Brown went to the plant and had a conversation
with Libby and Trembly. Brown wanted to know if he was being laid off or fired.
Libby stated that he had "voluntarily quit" since he had not reported for work and
had refused a driving job. Libby explained that "there was not enough welding to
keep a man busy . . . an operation such as ours there would always be welding,
probably fixing a mud flap , or whatever it might be , there's always a little welding,
but definitely not enough to warrant keeping a man on steady as a welder ." Libby
offered him work as a driver or as a mechanic . Brown refused both jobs. As to
the mechanic job offer, Brown stated that he was not going "to invest in several
hundred dollars worth of tools and work for an outfit that didn't know what they
were doing."
I find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving that
Brown's layoff on and after October 26 was violative of the Act. Since none of
the employees had appeared for work on October 26, it is understandable why his
regular work was not available. However, Brown was offered employment as a
driver or as a mechanic . If the Respondent was motivated illegally in the layoff,
I do not believe that the Respondent would have offered him this work . As to the
welding work, Libby testified without contradiction that since November 4 there
has been only 8 to 10 hours of welding work and that this has been performed by
a mechanic. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as Brown is concerned.
IV.' THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in
connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discharged Boston and Gould on
August 25, 1965, and failed and refused to reinstate Blaisdell and LeBel on
August 27, 1965. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer
these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privi-
leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which she would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula pre-
13 The above Is based upon credited portions of the testimony of Brown , Elliot, and
Libby.
14 Brown testified credibly to the above He also testified, "I think that was the evening
that he told me that he'd just received a call from a man telling him that I was the
leader on this union. . . . I believe he said that, but I believe it was on that date. I'm
not sure." Libby, in effect, denied making this statement In view of Brown's uncer-
tainty, I credit Libby' s denial.
PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1063
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, '90 NLRB 289, together with interest on
such sum , such interest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed
by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
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 Leather Workers and the Teamsters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of theAct, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By discharging Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould and by failing and refusing
to reinstate Karen Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Leather Workers, the Teamsters, or in any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees or otherwise
discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in or activities on
behalf of the above unions, or making threats of reprisal or promises of benefit
because of such activity.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of the union activity of its employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action ' which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen Blaisdell, and Barbara LeBel
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make
them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the 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 for the deter-
mination of the amount of backpay due under these recommendations.
(c) Post at its plant in Auburn, Maine, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized repre-
sentatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Oider 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 "
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.16
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates to
Kenwood Brown.
is In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read' "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
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 Leather Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO and Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local
No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of our employees,
by discriminating in regard to their hire of tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their membership in or
activities on behalf of the above unions or make threats of reprisal or prom-
ises of benefit because of such activity.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activity of our employees.
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
organizations, to join or assist Leather Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO and Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 340,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
WE WILL offer Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen Blaisdell, and Barbara
LeBel immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
PIONEER PLASTICS 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
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Bos-
ton Five Cents Saving Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts
02108, Telephone 223-3358.