Plastic Sealers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Plastic Sealers, Inc. and Miscellaneous Drivers and
Helpers , Local Union No. 160, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases 14-CA-6833 and 14-RC-6994
November 7, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On September 15, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig* issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Plastic Sealers,
Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
* The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge' s resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
Unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we perceive no cogent reason for
referring Manager Sarakas ' testimony to the Department of Justice Rather,
it appears to us that the not unusual kind of conflicting testimony was
involved herein requiring credibility resolutions which were made by the
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADwIG, Admimstrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were tried at St. Louis, Missouri, on
July 12 and 13, 1972.1 The charge was filed by the Union
on April 28 and the complaint was issued on June 7, with
1All dates are in 1972
an order consolidating the cases and referring the repre-
sentation case to the Board . The primary issues-following
the belated admission of repeated threats of discharge and
plant closure , interrogation , and creating impression of
surveillance-are whether the Company , the Respondent,
(a) committed other 8(a)(1) violations and (b) discriminato-
rily discharged two union supporters in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
In the representation case , the petition was filed on
March 20, and a stipulated consent election was conducted
on May 4 in a production and maintenance unit . The vote
was four for and four against the Union , with one void
ballot and three challenged ballots . On June 7, the
Regional Director issued his report (to which no exceptions
were taken), recommending that the challenge to one ballot
be overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of the
two alleged discriminatees in the complaint case be
resolved in this consolidated proceeding.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Michigan corporation , is engaged in the
manufacture of plastic sealants and related products at its
plant in St . Louis, Missouri , where it annually ships
products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to points
outside the State . The Company admits , and I find , that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Shifting Defense
In its June 16 answer, the Company denied all 16 of the
8(a)(1) allegations in the complaint , as well as the
allegations that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) by discriminatorily discharging employees Donald
Courtway and Joseph Hurt , whose votes are determinative
of the outcome of the May 4 election.
Without any explanation for its shifting position, the
Company, at the trial and in its brief , admitted much of the
coercive activity engaged in by General Manager Marjorie
Sarakas (including repeated threats to discharge employees
for engaging in union activity), but strongly defended
Sarakas' discharge of the two union supporters , who spoke
up in favor of the Union on the day preceding their
discharge . Thus the Company admitted, after first denying,
certain conduct-the remedy for which would involve only
a cease and desist order and notice , but vigorously
defended the allegations of discrimination on which the
outcome of the election is determinative.
200 NLRB No. 6
PLASTIC SEALERS 23
B. Section 8(a)(1) Allegations
1. Admitted conduct
On Sunday, March 19, 2 days after a union meeting,
employees LaVerne Daniels and Shirley Ansleman visited
the homes of employees Larry Voidanoff and Cynthia
Ratican to get them to sign authorization cards. About
7:30 that evening, General Manager Sarakas (the only
supervisor in the small St. Louis plant) telephoned
Ansleman's home, talked to her daughter, and left the
message that "anyone who was connected with the Union
would be fired the next day." (Sarakas admitted at the trial
that she telephoned the daughter and said she "would
discharge any employee who engaged in activities for the
Union.") I find that the threat of discharge was coercive
and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
That same evening, as credibly testified by employee
Daniels, Manager Sarakas telephoned her after she
returned home from the organizing. Sarakas "told me that
Larry had called her at her home and told her that . . . I
was at his house talking about a union." Sarakas asked if
Daniels knew anything about it," and upon getting a
negative response, said, "Well, I am going to get to the
bottom of this and there will be no damn union s-."
(Sarakas admitted telephoning Daniels and asking her
about union activities.) I find that the interrogation,
accompanied by the above-quoted statement and profani-
ty, was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1).
Also on the evening of March 19, Manager Sarakas
visited the home of employee Hurt (one of the alleged
discnminatees) and "asked me if I had known anything
about people starting to get a union started, and I told her
no. She said that Shirley Ansleman, LaVerne Daniels, and
Shirley's husband had gone to . . . Larry's house, trying to
get him to sign a card, and that my name had been signed
on a card, and she asked me if I had known who had
signed my name to a card, and I said I didn't know, and
she just said that she was going to get it straightened out,
and then she left." (Sarakas admitted visiting Hurt's home
and asking him about union activities.) I find that this
interrogation, at the employee's home, was coercive and
violated Section 8(a)(1).
The next morning, March 20, as employee Ansleman
reported to work, Manager Sarakas called her into the
office, telling her, "I want to talk to you and I want to get
to the bottom of this god damn s- before I blow my
stack." Sarakas said that someone had called and "told her
that we were at Larry's house trying to get him to sign a
union authorization card, that we were trying to start a
union." Ansleman denied it, whereupon Sarakas said,
"Larry has proof that you were there. If you say you
weren ' t he is going to bring these men down ." Sarakas also
said , "There will be no union ." (Sarakas admitted asking
Ansleman on March 20 about the union activities when
Ansleman came to work.) I find that this repeated
interrogation of Ansleman was also coercive and violated
Section 8 (a)(1).
Later- that morning , Manager Sarakas called a meeting in
the plant and said to the employees that Howard and
Harold (referring to Sales Manager Howard Davidson and
Treasurer Harold Davidson , owners of the business, with
offices in Grand Rapids , Michigan) "told me that 30
minutes after the Union came in they would slap a padlock
on the door and nobody would work." (Sarakas admitted
that she at least twice told the employees that the plant
would close if they joined the Union.) I find that these
threats of plant closure were coercive and violated Section
8(a)(1).
About 2 days later, March 22, employee Daniels was
changing a die on the line 1 extruder . She went to line 2 to
get a scraper and said something to employee Ratican,
when Manager Sarakas came from the office and said,
"Get your G. D. a- to work and quit all this union talk."
Daniels said she was working and was not talking union.
Shortly thereafter , Daniels went to the office door, asked
Sarakas if Sarakas was accusing her of talking about the
Union . Sarakas said yes and ordered her out . Sarakas then
"rushed by me and she grabbed my timecard and was
going to punch me out . But before she did I asked her if I
was fired. She said, `No, you are not now but you are going
to be .' " (Sarakas testified that she did tell one of the
employees not to talk about the Union on company time,
and on one occasion threatened to fire Daniels .) I find that
Sarakas' direction to stop the union talk (accompanied by
the abusive , untrue accusation) and the threat of discharge
were designed to interfere with the employees ' protected
union activity-not to prevent disruption of production
-and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Sometime in April, as employee Joseph Hurt credibly
testified , Manager Sarakas talked to him in the lab. She
talked against a union and asked him why he favored one.
He told her because of higher wages and better working
conditions. Sarakas "said that if the Union comes in, that
they would just put a padlock on the door and move out of
the city." Hurt said they would not move anywhere in the
state , and Sarakas "said they would just move over into
Illinois." (Sarakas discharged Hurt on April 27, as
discussed later.) The Company admits the allegation that
Sarakas "threatened an employee" that the Company's
"plant would close and move , and employees would lose
their jobs if the Union were successful in its organizational
campaign ." Her threats were clearly coercive and violated
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
Employee Daniels (who was reinstated after she left the
plant with alleged discnminatees Courtway and Hurt on
April 27) credibly testified that, about the third week in
April, Manager Sarakas came to her home and talked
about the Union. Sarakas said she did not know what was
going to happen, but that Daniels should listen to her and
watch everything she does, that "there was going to be
some changes made," that she and Sales Manager Howard
Davidson "had first thought it was I who tried to organize
the Union but after they thought about it that they knew it
wasn't me, that it was Shirley Ansleman who tried to
organize or started the Union." (The Company admits the
allegation in the complaint that this "created the impres-
sion" that the Company "engaged in surveillance of
employees ' union activities .") I find that Sarakas' state-
ments created the impression that the Company had
engaged in surveillance of the union activities, were
coercive, and further violated Section 8(a)(1). (I have also
considered this undisputed testimony in connection with
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company's motivation for offering Daniels reinstate-
ment on April 27, while discharging Courtway and Hurt, as
discussed later.
2. Other conduct
The Company was on a 4-day week, paying the
employees for 10 hours a day, from 6:30 a.m. until noon,
and 12:30 until 5 p.m. However, under the supervision of
Manager Sarakas, the employees were paid for consider-
able nonwork time. After the employees clocked in around
6:30, they were permitted to eat and to dunk coffee, as well
as play cards, while awaiting Sarakas' assignments for the
day. In addition, Sarakas frequently permitted the employ-
ees to extend their morning and afternoon breaks to 30
minutes, and to take longer than 30 minutes for lunch. In
good weather, the young men employees were permitted to
play ball during the extended lunch periods.
During the week of March 20, after Manager Sarakas
had called the meeting and told the employees that "30
minutes after the Union came in" the owners of the
business said they "would slap a padlock on the door and
nobody would work," Sarakas advised the employees that
6:30 was the starting time in the morning, that the morning
and afternoon breaks would be limited to 10 minutes, and
that the lunch break would be limited to 30 minutes.
However, as the time for the May 4 election came nearer,
Sarakas again permitted eating and the drinking of coffee
after 6:30 a.m., as well as longer morning and afternoon
breaks and the playing of ball during lunch breaks which
on occasion were extended several minutes.
When asked at the trial why she had made the changes
during the week of March 20, Manager Sarakas claimed
that "it seemed to me that the employees were taking
advantage of the fact that I might give them a few minutes
extra, and they would take longer than what I would give
them." However, I find that her action was a reprisal for
the union activity, and was designed to discourage the
employees from engaging in that activity. (As a witness,
she impressed me as being more concerned with giving a
plausible defense than being candid.) I therefore find that
these temporary changes, made in the context of other
coercive conduct, also violated Section 8(a)(1).
About a week later, on March 29 or 30, Sales Manager
Howard Davidson (who did not testify) went to the plant
and held a meeting in which he solicited the employees'
complaints, discussed benefits which the employees pro-
posed, and promised to make a note of the requests, go
back to his office and talk to his brother, and see what
could be done about them. "He said that he can't do
anything now because it would be like a bribe against the
Union," but promised, "I will be back next week with some
new ideas." He asked the employees not to go with the
Union, but "to stick with the Company." About a week
later, Davidson returned to the plant, again discussed the
benefits with the employees, and stated that "after the
union matters are taken care of he thought he could give us
as much as the law would allow" in additional compensa-
tion.
I find, as alleged in the complaint, that the Company in
the first meeting "solicited employees' complaints and
impliedly promised to improve working conditions . . . in
order to induce the employees to abandon the Union," and
that in the second meeting , "promised wage increases" for
the same purpose , in violation of Section 8(a)(1). In making
these findings, I note that the Company gave no reason for
not calling Howard Davidson as a witness, and did not
discuss these additional alleged violations in its brief other
than to contend that the General Counsel failed to meet his
burden of proof.
On April 26, Howard's brother, Harold Davidson, went
to the plant and talked to each of the employees against the
Umon. There is much disputed testimony about what was
said. In view of all the other 8(a)(1) violations, I find it
unnecessary to resolve these additional issues of alleged
threats and coercion. However, Harold Davidson's own
testimony about his separate discussions with employees
Courtway and Hurt is considered below in connection with
their discharge the following day.
Concerning the remaining allegation that the Company
discriminatorily withheld employees' bonus checks in May,
I find that the evidence does not support that allegation.
C. Alleged Discriminatory Discharges
1. Employees speaking up for Union
As found above, sometime in April when Manager
Marjorie Sarakas asked employee Joseph Hurt why he was
in favor of a union and threatened to put a padlock on the
door if the Union came in, Hurt gave his reasons for
favoring the Union and told her the Company would not
move anywhere in the State. Sometime thereafter, Sarakas
went to the home of employee LaVerne Daniels, whom
Sarakas had accused earlier of not working and talking
union on the job. Sarakas told her the Company had
changed its mind and had decided that it was not Daniels
who started the Union. Sarakas advised her to listen and
watch everything Sarakas did, that "there was going to be
some changes made." This undisputed testimony indicates
that the Company was planning to take personnel actions
influenced by the, employees' union activity.
Then on Wednesday, April 26 (8 days before the May
election), Treasurer Harold Davidson went to the plant,
talked to the employees individually in the lab, and argued
against the Umon. Only two of the employees, Donald
Courtway and Hurt, became "argumentative," according
to Davidson. He testified that Courtway "became very
arrogant and said, `Well, you can't tell me this.' The Umon
will do this for me. You possibly can't talk to me that way,
and I said, `I certainly can and I damn well will'.... He
said that they couldn't fire him, that the Union would get
him more money, the Union would get him . . . job
security. The Union would see to it that Marjorie [Sarakas]
didn't conduct herself the way she did . . . and I said,
`They will not run this plant.' " Concerning his talk with
Hurt, Davidson testified , "I went into this business again
of job security, explaining what the Union could and could
not do for him . . . and Joe began to get a little hot, started
to argue with me too about what the Union could and
couldn't do ..." Although some of Courtways' and Hurt's
testimony appears to be more accurate in the details of
what was said, I reply on Davidson's testimony insofar as it
demonstrates his displeasure with the two employees for
PLASTIC SEALERS 25
speaking up for the Union. Also concerning company
motivation, I note that it is undisputed, as credibly testified
by employee Daniels, that about 2 weeks after the election
when she told Davidson "I thought Joe Hurt and Don
Courtway were fired unjustly," Davidson responded, "they
got smart with me"-indicating a connection between
these conversations and the employees' discharge the
following day.
In its brief, the Company argues that "the record is
devoid of probative evidence that Hurt and Courtway were
discharged for reasons other than cause" and that illegal
motivation has not been proved. However, the brief fails to
mention Davidson's own testimony about the two employ-
ees' speaking up for the Union on the day before their
discharge (whereas the other employees did not become
"argumentative"), or the proximity of the election in which
these two prounion employees would be voting, or the
undisputed evidence that Davidson later linked their
speaking up with their discharge by stating that Courtway
and Hurt "got smart with me" (in response to a complaint
that they had been "fired unjustly").
I now consider the conflicting evidence about what
happened early the next morning after Davidson talked
with Courtway and Hurt.
2. Events of April 27
a. General Counsel's evidence
According to the testimony of General Counsel witnesses
Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels, Manager Sarakas opened
the plant that morning, April 21, about 6:30. Then Sarakas
and employee Margaret "Peggy" Brown (a company
witness) went to Sarakas' office for coffee, and Courtway,
Hurt, and Daniels (proumon employees) went to the
kitchen for doughnuts and coffee.
Although the employees were paid from 6:30, they did
not in practice begin work (as conceded by the Company)
until Manager Sarakas gave them assignments for the day.
Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels would then change into their
work clothes, if they had not already done so. (Sarakas had
not objected to their changing clothes after having coffee.)
Upon going to work, they would first clean or change the
die on the extruder, clean up, or make boxes to be packed,
before starting production. At this time , near the May 4
election, they were going to work about 6:45 if they were to
run slugs, or between 7:05 and 7:20 if they were running
beads (which required a batch to be made on the mixer
beforehand). On this particular morning, Manager Sarakas
did not give them any assignments while they were having
coffee and did not notify them whether they would be
running slugs that day.
Employee Daniels was eating doughnuts and drinking
coffee in the kitchen with Courtway and Hurt until about
6:40 or 6:45, when batch mixer Albert Marshall called her
over, asking for a doughnut. Within a few minutes, about
6:45 or 6:50, employees Courtway and Hurt finished their
doughnuts and went to the locker room to change clothes.
After she began talking to Marshall, Daniels noticed
Sarakas and Brown leave the office and go toward lines 1
and 2. (Although Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels thought
that part-time employee Cynthia Ratican was also in the
office drinking coffee-Hurt testifying that he was not sure
about Ratican being there-Ratican did not arrive until
6:50 that morning. Employee Ansleman, the remaining
lineworker on the day shift, was absent that day.)
Shortly after employees Courtway and Hurt began
changing clothes, Manager Sarakas shouted for them to
come to work. (She apparently had decided that they
would run slugs, although she had not told them.) About a
minute later, she shouted to them again. Then, in another
minute or so, she shouted, "If you don't want to work .. .
get your G. D. a- out of here." Courtway and Hurt
rushed out of the locker room (Courtway with his shirt
open and his shoes untied), and Sarakas said, "You guys
don't want to work, get out of here." Courtway said he
wanted to work and Sarakas responded, "No, you don't,"
and ordered them out. In the discussions which followed,
she said she would let them know if they were discharged.
Courtway and Hurt changed back into their street clothes,
Courtway made a telephone call, and they punched out
and left. Daniels, who understood that she was also being
sent home, left with them. Later in the day, Sarakas
advised by telephone that Courtway and Hurt were fired,
stating that Treasurer Harold Davidson said they were not
to come in any more. However, she advised Daniels that
she could return without any loss of pay.
b. Company's evidence
According to Manager Sarakas, she arrived at the plant
with Peggy Brown at 6:15 that morning, sat in the office
with Brown drinking coffee until about 6:29, and "exactly
at 6:30" went to the production line and shouted to
Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels in the kitchen, "Let's go to
work." She proceeded to clean the extruder and set up the
line until "around 6:55" when she called again, "Let's go to
work." Courtway and Hurt were still in the kitchen, and
Daniels was talking to batch mixer Marshall. She waited
about 3 minutes (until about 6:58) and shouted the third
time, "Let's go to work." After waiting another 2 minutes
(until about 7 o'clock), she shouted, "Let's go to work or go
home." But upon observing Courtway and Hurt still in the
kitchen, and Daniels still talking to Marshall-all three of
them still in street clothes-"I told them not to bother, just
to get their cards and go home. At this time [Courtway and
Hurt] got up and headed for the bathroom." About 5 or 10
minutes later (about 7:05 or 7:10), Courtway and Hurt
came from the locker room and she sent them and Daniels
home, saying she would let them know later if they were
discharged. After some discussion, "they just stood around
for a while," walked "around the plant," returned to the
locker room for their street clothes, and "punched their
cards and left."
Manager Sarakas also testified that always before, line
employees Courtway and Daniels, and also Hurt, except
when he was working in the lab, had changed into their
work clothes immediately upon clocking in, but on this
morning, she saw them clock in at 6:20 and go directly to
the kitchen in their street clothes. She also claimed that
they never started to work later than 6:45.
Thus, according to this account of what happened,
Manager Sarakas was aware that Courtway and Hurt were
in the kitchen in their street clothes, but said nothing to
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them about changing clothes first . She merely told them,
"exactly" at 6:30, "Let's go to work ." Then , despite her
claim that they never started to work later than 6 : 45, she
remained silent until about 6 : 55 (25 minutes after her first
call to work), when she merely repeated , "Let's go to
work"-not mentioning their being late or their still being
in street clothes. Hearing absolutely no response , she said
"Let's go to work" the third time about 6:58. Then about 7
o'clock (a full 30 minutes after her first call , and 15 minutes
beyond the latest time she claimed they had ever started to
work), Courtway and Hurt were still in their street clothes,
still in the kitchen , and still failing to make any response
whatever to her first three calls . At that time , she told them,
"Let's go to work or go home ," but added , "not to bother,
just to get their cards and go home ." Only then did
Courtway and Hurt make any response . They "got up and
headed for the bathroom"-after she had told them to "get
their cards and go home."
Even on its face , this testimony is implausible. As the
evidence developed , it became clear that Manager Sarakas'
account was largely fabricated . Sarakas and employee
Brown did not arrive at 6:15 , and Courtway , Hurt, and
Daniels did not arrive at 6:20 . Brown testified that Daniels
"was right behind me" when Brown clocked in, and
Daniels' timecard shows that Daniels clocked in at 6:30.
The timecards also reveal that Courtway clocked in at 6:29
and Hurt at 6:30 (both of them punching out that day at
7:15 a.m.).
Company witnesses Peggy Brown and Cynthia Ratican
contradicted Manager Sarakas ' testimony in significant
respects (although both impressed me as being more
concerned with supporting her account than reporting
candidly what had happened ). On the key point of whether
Sarakas told Courtway and Hurt "to get their cards and go
home" before they went to the locker room , as Sarakas
claimed , or whether she was calling Courtway and Hurt to
come to work while they were in the locker room, as
testified by Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels , the two company
witnesses gave testimony disputing Sarakas and supporting
the General Counsel witnesses ' testimony.
Although employee Brown later conceded that she went
to work about 6 : 30 that mormng and thereafter drank
coffee in the office with Manager Sarakas, Brown first
testified that she left Sarakas' office and started making
boxes about 6 : 31, that Sarakas came from the office about
6:33 and started setting up line 2 , and that Sarakas first
called out "Let's go" about 6:40. According to this
testimony , Sarakas was setting up line 2 for about 7
minutes before calling Courtway and Hurt about
6:40--contrary to Sarakas ' testimony that she called them
"exactly at 6:30" when she first went to the production
line. A few moments later , apparently recalling contrary
testimony by Sarakas , Brown changed her testimony and
claimed that Sarakas' first call was at 6:30 (as Sarakas had
testified), the second call about 6:40, the third call about
6:45, and the fourth one about 6:50. (When thus changing
her testimony about the timing of the first call to work,
Brown further contradicted Sarakas' story . Whereas
Sarakas had testified that she called the employees at 6:30
and the second time about 6 :55, 25 minutes later, Brown
was then testifying that there were second , third, and
fourth calls between about 6:40 and 6 : 50.) Although
Brown (who gave much other conflicting testimony) denied
knowing when Courtway and Hurt went into the locker
room , she indicated that Sarakas called them while they
were in the locker room by testifying that Sarakas called
"the fifth time" when "Cindy [Ratican] was already there,
and they came out . . . of the bathroom at that time" and
asked Sarakas if they should "come out naked or
something."
Company witness Ratican , who arrived at work at 6:50
that morning, corroborated General Counsel witnesses'
testimony that Sarakas called to Courtway and Hurt three
times after they were in the locker room . She testified that
while they were there , she heard Sarakas call out twice,
"Let's go to work ," and then the next time , "they were
coming out of the bathroom about halfway dressed, and
she said, `Just don 't bother, just go home . . . . You don't
want to work .' " (Thus , they were then told to go home,
not before they entered the locker room as Sarakas
testified .) However , in an apparent attempt to support
Sarakas' testimony , Ratican claimed that these three calls
were made after 7 o 'clock , and that she heard Sarakas call
earlier at 6:55 and 6 : 58 (the exact times given by Sarakas).
But by so testifying , she was claiming that she was present,
but did not hear , Sarakas' purported 7 o'clock call, when
Sarakas claimed she told Courtway and Hurt to go home
before they entered the locker room . Contrary to Sarakas'
claim that Brown and Ratican "were running the line"
when Courtway and Hurt went to the locker room to
change clothes , Brown testified that when they returned
from the locker room and were sent home , "I was getting
ready to set up my machine" on line 1 . (Emphasis supplied.)
She also testified that lines I and 2 usually started at the
same time . I also note that Ratican , who claimed that she
heard a total of five calls to Courtway and Hurt , testified
that when she purportedly heard the first of these five
about 6 : 55, she looked and saw Daniels in the kitchen
-contrary to the testimony by Sarakas , as well as by
Courtway , Hurt, and Daniels , that Daniels had left the
kitchen to talk to Marshall.
c. Findings of what happened
Clearly, Manager Sarakas was giving a fabricated story
of what happened on April 27, the morning after
employees Courtway and Hurt spoke up in favor of the
Umon in their talks with Treasurer Harold Davidson the
week before the election . She testified that it was "exactly
at 6:30" when she first called them to work, after she had
had coffee in her office with employee Brown from about
6:15 to 6 : 29. But if she did have coffee with Brown for
about 14 minutes , and if Brown 's initial testimony was
correct-that Sarakas spent about 7 minutes setting up line
2 before Sarakas first called Courtway and Hurt-the lapse
of those 21 minutes after 6 : 30 (when Brown conceded she
clocked in) would place Sarakas ' first call about 6:51,
approximately the time Courtway , Hurt, and Daniels
testified that Sarakas first shouted for Courtway and Hurt
in the locker room to come to work . I find that Sarakas'
testimony (given twice) that it was "exactly at 6:30" was a
fabrication , and I credit the testimony of Courtway, Hurt,
PLASTIC SEALERS 27
and Daniels (who impressed me as being honest , forthright
witnesses).
It is also clear that Sarakas' testimony is false that she
waited about 25 minutes between her first and second calls
and that after a total of about 30 minutes, during which
time she received no response from her four calls, she told
them "not to bother , just to get their cards and go
home"-before they went to the locker room to change
into their work clothes. I also discredit her testimony about
the employees never having gone to work after 6 : 45, and
her claim that the line employees had always changed
clothes before having coffee.
In its brief , the Company argues that Manager Sarakas
"straightforwardly made a number of admissions which
were obviously damaging to her Company 's case" (refer-
ring to certain 8(a)(1) allegations), and submits that she is
"entitled to be believed ." However , as pointed out above,
all the 8(a)(1) allegations were initially denied , and the
remedy for her belatedly admitted misconduct involves
only a cease and desist order and notice. Far from
crediting her, I find that the documentary evidence (the
timecards), the contradictory testimony by other company
witnesses , and the implausibility of her testimony, as well
as the credited testimony by Courtway, Hurt, and Daniels,
tend to indicate deliberate and flagrant falsification of her
testimony , given in an attempt to prevent a certification of
the Union and to frustrate the policies of the Act. I
therefore recommend that the Board give consideration to
referring her testimony to the Justice Department of the
United States.
Accordingly , I find that Manager Sarakas did not call for
Courtway and Hurt to come to work until after they were
already changing clothes in the locker room . Her motiva-
tion for discharging them , while offering Daniels reinstate-
ment without loss of pay , is discussed later.
3. Purported prior warnings
a. The setting
Some friction had arisen in the plant following Manager
Sarakas' illegal response (threats of discharge , interroga-
tion , restriction on breaks , etc., discussed above) when she
learned about the union drive.
In March , before Manager Sarakas' knowledge of the
union activity, lab employee Hurt had notified her that he
was going into the Air Force on May 19. She assigned him
to training lineworker LaVerne Daniels to do the lab work.
However, after Sarakas learned about Daniels' union
activity and threatened her with discharge , Sarakas hired
another employee and ordered Hurt to train the new
employee instead . Hurt refused and complained to Sales
Manager Howard Davidson , "I was training LaVerne" and
"had her most all the way trained except for a certain part
of the test , and then this union thing came up , and Marge
knew that LaVerne was in on it , so she wasn 't going to let
her do the lab part . . . . I didn ' t think it was right for her
to take her off of the lab because of the Union." Davidson
told Hurt that he would have to train the new employee or
be discharged . Hurt proceeded to train him , and thereafter
worked about half of the time downstairs on the line until
the discharge.
There was also the complaint that Manager Sarakas was
not treating employees fairly and equally . Employee
Daniels testified that Sarakas was giving favored treatment
to employees Peggy Brown and Cynthia Ratican (company
witnesses), and to Larry Voidanoff (who, as Sarakas told
proumon employees Hurt , Daniels, and Shirley Ansleman,
had advised her of their union activity). On March 29 or
30, when Sales Manager Davidson met with the employees
and solicited their complaints , Daniels complained to him
about a 240-pound man (Voidanoff) being allowed to sit in
the office with Sarakas "eating sardines and crackers"
whenever the line broke down , whereas Sarakas would tell
Daniels , upon seeing her sit down for a cigarette or cup of
coffee , "Get off your G . D. a- and make boxes." As
already discussed , Brown was having coffee with Sarakas,
instead of with the prounion employees , on the morning of
the April 27 discharges.
In late March , when Manager Sarakas cut the employ-
ees' breaks to 10 minutes as a reprisal for the union
activity , employee Courtway put the extruder down into
low after Sarakas had placed it in second gear , "because
the union matters started coming up " and Sarakas "started
cutting down the breaks." No disciplinary action was taken
on that occasion , or on the one occasion when employee
Hurt refused to carry part of a batch by hand when the
towmotor broke down , and Sarakas did it herself.
With the exception of the one time when employee Hurt
was protesting the asserted unfairness (which I need not
decide) of prounion employee Daniels being taken from
the lab , there is no contention that the Company gave
either Courtway or Hurt any warnings of discharge until
shortly before their discharge on Thursday , April 27.
b. Sarakas ' testimony
If Manager Sarakas' testimony is to be believed , she gave
Courtway and Hurt repeated warnings on the four
workdays , Friday , Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday
before that Thursday , April 27, when she claimed that they
remained in the kitchen , ignoring her calls, for about 30
minutes.
Sarakas testified that it was unusual to work on Friday
(because of the 4-day week), but on Friday, April 21,
Courtway and Hurt worked the full day on overtime. She
testified that early that morning , "I just told [them] they
were either going to have to follow instructions and do
what I tell them to do , or I would take action against
them." (Warning 1. There is no corroboration of this
testimony , although Sarakas testified that company wit-
nesses Brown and Ratican were present , as well as Daniels
and Ansleman .) She claimed that later that day she
contacted her attorney , told him about the problems she
was having with the two employees , and received the
advice that she should tell them "that they would either do
what I told them to do or that disciplinary action could be
taken against them." Then , "later on that day," she saw
them "standing around not doing anything .... Their
batch was ready . . . . I went up and asked them why the
line weren 't going ." Neither one said anything . "I told
them then that they were going to either follow my
instructions , or I would take disciplinary action against
them ." (Warning 2.) According to her , they simply
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laughed, and stood there a full 3 or 4 minutes, doing
nothing, while "I was standing there watching them,"
before they turned on the machine. I consider such
purported defiance, without any response from her, to be
implausible. Although she testified that "Miss Brown was
present," as well as the other employees, there is no
corroboration of this testimony.
At the trial, both Courtway and Hurt disputed Sarakas'
claim that they were working that Friday. Yet, she gave the
detailed testimony about the employees working overtime
that full day and about the two specific warnings. When
the timecards for Courtway and Hurt were produced and
placed in evidence after the close of trial, they revealed that
the two employees did not work that Friday. Moreover,
Sarakas at one point testified that the first warning was on
the following Monday.
Sarakas' initial testimony was that, on Monday, April 24,
"I had to warn them again" around 7:30. "The batch was
ready for them to run. They stood around talking." She
went out, asked why the machine was not running, and
"they never said anything." She told them, "Now, I'm tired
of telling youse. I'm tired of warning youse, and every time
the batch is up here, I got to come out here and tell you to
start the machines." (Warning 3.) Then she testified, "That
was the first warning " (Emphasis supplied.) She claimed
that Hurt said, "That ain't my job," and Courtway said,
"Wait a minute," neither giving any explanation. She also
claimed that they stood there, looking at each other, for 2
minutes before they started up the line. (Employee Brown
testified that about 7:15 that Monday morning, Courtway
and Hurt "were getting ready to start their machine" when
Sarakas came out and told them "they'd either better get
the line on or she would have to do something about it."
Thereafter Brown added, after having testified that they
were "getting ready" to start, "They were standing there
and cutting up.")
Later on direct examination, Manager Sarakas gave
testimony completely at odds with her claim that by early
that Monday morning, she had given Courtway and Hurt
three warnings in 2 workdays. She testified that during that
week of the discharges, she believed that Monday,
Courtway, Hurt, and employee LeRoy Mack were playing
ball until 12:35 when she called them in. They said, "Just a
minute." She said nothing, but waited a few minutes and
called again. "Peggy [Brown] looked at me and I looked at
Peggy, and then I went back out and called them again"
the third time. "I helped Peggy on the line, and they got in
about 20 minutes later," about 12:55 after having taken a
total of 55 minutes for lunch. Then, ignoring her claim of
prior warnings, she testified, "At this point I just didn't say
anything because it wouldn't have done any good. " (Empha-
sis supplied.) Courtway testified that there had been an
occasion when the three of them were playing ball and they
were on their last strike when Sarakas called. "About 2 or 3
minutes afterwards we just gave it up and walked in."
Employee Brown testified that once when the three
employees were playing ball, they did not return to work
until about 12:45, after Sarakas had called twice, but this
was about 2 weeks before their discharge. It is clear that
Sarakas was being less than candid when she claimed that
after she had warned them repeatedly, Courtway and Hurt
took a 55-minute lunch break, despite her three calls, and
that she then said nothing "because it wouldn't have done
any good." (I note that earlier, Sarakas testified "there was
just the one occasion where I did have to call [Courtway,
Hurt, and Mack] three times before they did happen to
come in," and this was "say maybe 3 or 4 weeks before"
the discharges.)
Manager Sarakas next gave clearly fabricated testimony,
claiming that an incident, which had occurred weeks
earlier , happened about 7:15 on Tuesday, April 25, 2 days
before the discharges. She testified that she went out, told
Courtway and Hurt to start the line up, and said, "I'm tired
coming out and telling you . . . Now, I'm not going to
warn you no more. I'm tired of it . . . When the batch is
here, start the line up." (Warning 4.) Then she gave the
revealing testimony, "I put it in second gear and walked
into the office, and . . . about 2 or 3 minutes later . . . I
looked out the window, and [the machine] went down in
low [gear], and that's when I got the finger" (a vulgar
gesture) from Courtway, who later went to her office and
said, "We showed you. We put the machine in low." As
previously found, this gear-lowering incident occurred in
late March, when Courtway put the extruder back in low
gear after Sarakas raised it to the second gear, after
Sarakas "started cutting down the breaks" following her
discovery of the union drive. Citing Courtway's testimony
that this occurred about a month before the discharges, the
Company argues in its brief that this is a "further example
of the conduct displayed by Hurt and Courtway" to
deliberately slow down their line. I consider it most likely
that if this had occurred 2 days before the discharges,
company witness Ratican would have so testified. Instead,
she testified that the gear-lowering incident happened
"about 2 weeks, possibly a week and a half before the boys
were fired," and did not mention the purported finger
gesture. I credit Courtway's denial that he made the gesture
or told Sarakas, "We showed you," and discredit Brown's
testimony about the incident as another fabrication to
support Sarakas' testimony. Thus, when testifying that she
had repeatedly warned Courtway and Hurt before their
April 27 discharge, Sarakas claimed that a March incident
happened on April 25, falsely added the details of a vulgar
gesture and a defiant "We showed you," and testified that
she gave them a final warning on that occasion.
Manager Sarakas next testified that on the following day,
April 26, she gave them a second final warning, after their
talks with Treasurer Harold Davidson. She claimed that
"again the batch was over there, and they were just
standing around talking" to employees Daniel and Ansle-
man. "I went out and told them, `This is the last time I'm
going to say anything. It's the last time I'm going to warn
youse. You either do what I tell you to do, or this is going
to be it. I'll have to let you go . . . . I wasn't going to put
up with any more bulls-.' " (Warning 5.) She also gave
the implausible testimony that "they laughed . . . like it
was really a big joke," and continued to stand there talking
for 5 minutes, during which time she "went back into [her]
office."
Yet, despite these purported five warnings, including two
final warnings on April 25 and 26, Manager Sarakas
testified that on April 27, she called Courtway and Hurt to
PLASTIC SEALERS 29
work a total of four times , over about a 30-minute period,
without any response , and finally told them not to bother
but to go home-without any mention of prior warnings.
I find that this testimony about repeated warnings is an
afterthought . I credit the denials by Courtway and Hurt
that Manager Sarakas warned them of discharge on any
occasion during the week or two before their discharge,
and that she gave them any of the warnings on the week of
their discharge.
I also discredit much of Manager Sarakas' other
testimony about purported difficulties with Courtway and
Hurt "after the union trouble ." I specifically discredit her
testimony that "very seldom would they make a box or
even clean up around their lines unless you stood there and
kept at them ," and that "on several occasions I have talked
to them about it" and their response was that, "It was
either not my job , kiss my a-, or go to hell." When asked
how often they would make such a response , she testified,
"It would be about 600 , 700 times I had this from these
boys." When asked if this might be an exaggeration, she
testified that it might , "but you take 10 hours of working
all day long and having to come out of the office all the
time and tell them what to do , and you get a smart answer
every time you say something to them ." (Company witness
Ratican testified that once, in early April, Hurt was told to
make boxes , and he made one box and returned to the lab.
Company witness Brown testified that Hurt ordinarily
made boxes for both production lines, and that at times she
heard Courtway say something was not his job, but "I
thought he was kidding." Neither Ratican nor Brown
corroborated the purported cursing . I credit Courtway's
testimony that he never refused to do any work which
Sarakas assigned him, never refused to start a machine,
and never told her to "kiss my a-," or cursed her.) I also
discredit her testimony that she had to call Courtway,
Hurt , and Mack two or three times "Almost every day" for
a 3-week period to come in after lunch from playing ball.
She later testified that she had no problem with Mack
coming in except on the one occasion when they took so
long, that he was "pretty good at coming in"-despite the
fact that the three played ball together and came in
together . Company witness Brown testified that she
recalled "a couple times" when Sarakas had to call them
twice before they came in.
Although I have discredited Manager Sarakas ' testimony
that she repeatedly warned Courtway and Hurt on 4
workdays preceding their discharge , the evidence does
show that when Treasurer Harold Davidson talked to them
against unionization on April 26 , he cautioned them about
certain things . He told Courtway that when Sarakas told
him to do something , he had to do it. (Courtway 's response
was that he knew , "I never disobey.") Davidson mentioned
the towmotor incident (in which Hurt , not Courtway,
refused to carry the material by hand). Davidson told Hurt
that he was a good worker but that he , Courtway , Daniels,
and Ansleman (all prounion) were not getting out enough
production , that they would have to get to work, and that
"if we didn 't want to follow Marge's orders and respect her
wishes that we should get out." Davidson specifically
mentioned coming in from lunch when called and,
according to Davidson , the gear-changing incident. He did
not mention a word about Sarakas having given them
repeated warnings-or any warning-as undoubtedly he
would have if she had in fact warned them for insubordina-
tion or for flouting her instructions.
I also note that even by Manager Sarakas' own
testimony , she not only failed to mention the purported
earlier warnings to Courtway and Hurt at the time she sent
them home on April 27 , but she failed to mention them
that evening when , according to her testimony , Daniels
asked why she had not been fired along with Courtway and
Hurt . Sarakas claimed she answered , "LaVerne, I have
never had any trouble with you. You have never talked
back to me , and you 're a good worker . . . . This is the
reason that you were not fired ." This purported conversa-
tion may also be an afterthought . Earlier, before the
Company decided that Daniels was not the instigator of
the Union , Sarakas had accused her of not working and
talking union on the job , and had threatened her with
discharge . Also, Treasurer Davidson-obviously relying on
what Sarakas had advised him-told employee Hurt on
April 26 that Daniels, as well as Hurt, Courtway, and
Ansleman , were not getting out enough production. As
indicated above , Sarakas when testifying impressed me as
being more concerned with giving a plausible defense than
being candid.
4. Concluding findings
The General Counsel 's evidence indicates that by the
time Treasurer Harold Davidson went to the plant and
talked to the employees individually against the Union on
April 26 , the Company was planning to take some
personnel actions to undercut the Union . The election was
scheduled for May 4, and only 8 days remained in its
antiunion campaign , which had already included repeated
threats of plant closure , threats of discharge, reprisals, and
promises of benefits.
About a week before Davidson's arrival , Manager
Sarakas had given indications of the Company 's plans by
telling employee LaVerne Daniels in her home that the
Company had changed its mind about her being the union
instigator, and that she should listen and watch everything
Sarakas did because "there was going to be some changes
made ." Sometime earlier, employee Joseph Hurt had
affirmed his support of the Union, despite the Company's
antiunion campaign . From the content of what Davidson
told the employees in the individual talks , it is clear that
Sarakas had reported to him certain things which had
happened several weeks earlier when she temporarily cut
down on the employees ' breaks and took Daniels from the
lab (the gear-changing and refusal -to-train incidents), the
towmotor-breakdown incident, the employees' failure to
return from lunch promptly upon being called (after
Sarakas again permitted longer lunch breaks ), and Sarakas'
claim that four of the proumon line employees were not
getting out enough production.
In these individual talks between Davidson and the
employees, only Courtway and Hurt became "argumenta-
tive" and spoke up for the Union , indicating their
continued union support. Both were discharged the next
day, and 2 weeks later, when an employee complained
about them being discharged unfairly, Davidson explained
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their discharge by stating that they "got smart with
me"-thereby linking their discharge to their speaking up.
On April 27 (the morning after the talks), as credited
evidence shows, Manager Sarakas failed to notify the
prounion employees that she planned to start production
early running slugs. She waited until Courtway and Hurt
were changing clothes and then repeatedly shouted for
them to come to work and sent them home when they
rushed from the locker room, telling them that they did not
want to work. Later that day, after getting the approval of
Treasurer Davidson (who undoubtedly had reported to her
the day before about their continued union support),
Sarakas discharged them.
In an effort to defend her actions at the trial, Manager
Sarakas gave a fabricated story that she called them four
times without response in about a 30-minute period, and
then told them not to bother but to go home, before they
went to the locker room. Both of the employees who were
called by the Company as corroborating witnesses contra-
dicted this story. Sarakas also claimed that she had given
Courtway and Hurt five warnings-the last two final
warnings-during the preceding 4 workdays. But she made
no mention of the warnings at the time. She said nothing
about them to the employees when she sent them home,
nor to employee Daniels, whom she testified she also sent
home but later offered full reinstatement, explaining that
Daniels had not given her any trouble.
Having concluded that the General Counsel has proved
facts indicating that the Company was discnmmatonly
motivated in discharging the two union supporters, and
having discredited Manager Sarakas' clearly fabricated
version of what happened on the morning of the discharges
as well as her claim that she had given them repeated
warnings, I find that her real reason for discharging
Courtway and Hurt was to eliminate their prounion votes
at the upcoming election. I also find that the real reason
she reinstated employee LaVerne Daniels was the belief,
after talking to her in her home about a week earlier, that
she would forsake the Union and vote against union
representation in the election.
Accordingly, I find that the Company discnminatonly
discharged Courtway and Hurt, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
III. REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING
In the May 4 election, the employees voted four for and
four against union representation, with three challenged
ballots.
Having found that employees Donald Courtway and
Joseph Hurt were discriminatorily discharged on April 27,
I find that they were entitled to vote in the election, and I
overrule the Company's challenge to their ballots.
There being no exceptions taken to the Regional
Director's June 7 Report on Challenged Ballots recom-
mending that the Union's challenge to the ballot of
employee Florence Bankhead be overruled, I overrule that
challenge also.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Donald Courtway and Joseph Hurt
on April 27 because of their support of the Union, the
Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By threatening to discharge employees and to close
and move the plant because of union activities, by
coercively interrogating employees, by creating the impres-
sion that it engaged in surveillance of employees' union
activities, and by taking reprisals against the employees,
the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By soliciting employee complaints and promising
wage increases and other benefits in order to induce
employees to abandon the Union, the Company further
violated Section 8(a)(1).
4. The General Counsel has failed to prove that the
Company unlawfully withheld employees' bonus checks in
May because of the union activities.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged two
employees, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to
offer them full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), from date of discharge to date reinstatement is
offered. Inasmuch as its unfair labor practices clearly
demonstrate the Respondent's determination to frustrate
its employees' organizational rights, I am convinced that
there exists a substantial danger that the Respondent will
in the future commit other violations of the Act. I therefore
find it necessary to order the Respondent to cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the employees'
Section 7 rights.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue
the following recommended: 2
ORDER
Respondent, Plastic Sealers, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting Miscellaneous Drivers and
Helpers, Local Union No. 160, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other union.
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings , its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec deemed waived for all purposes
PLASTIC SEALERS
(b) Threatening to discharge any employee for engaging
in union activities.
(c) Threatening to close or move the plant if the Union
comes in.
(d) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or union activities.
(e) Creating the impression it engaged in surveillance of
its employees' union activities.
(f) Changing starting time or limiting morning, lunch, of
afternoon breaks in reprisal for its employees engaging in
union activities.
(g) Soliciting employee complaints or promising benefits
to induce employees to abandon a union.
(h) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Donald Courtway and Joseph Hurt immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for their lost earnings in
the manner set forth m the "Remedy" section of this
Decision.
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 14-RC-6994 be
remanded to the Regional Director to open and count the
ballots of Donald Courtway, Joseph Hurt, and Florence
Bankhead; to issue a revised talley of ballots; and to issue
a certification of representative if Miscellaneous Drivers
and Helpers, Local Union No. 160, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
31
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, has received a
majority of the valid votes cast, or a certification of results
of election if it has not.
3 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after
trial, that we violated Federal law by discharging two
employees for supporting a union, and by otherwise
interfering with our employees' rights to join and support a
union:
WE WILL OFFER full reinstatement to Donald
Courtway and Joseph Hurt, with backpay plus 6
percent interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting
Teamsters Local 160 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any of you for
engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close or move our plant if
the Union comes in.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about union
support or union activities.
WE WILL NOT imply that we have engaged in
surveillance of your union activities.
WE WILL NOT limit your breaks or take other
reprisals for your supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise you any benefits for dropping
your support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
activities.
PLASTIC SEALERS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Blvd., Room
448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.