Samosonite Corp, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

SAMSONITE CORPORATION, INC. 35,
the repair of merchandise brought into the plant. The stockman, who
is the counterpart of the parts employees in the annex but is located in
the basement of the main building, takes care of maintenance and
stock there, and spends a considerable part of his time loading and
unloading stock. As it is apparent that these employees are not in-
volved primarily in the performance of building maintenance duties,,
we shall exclude them from the unit.
On the other hand, the porters and matrons, who are engaged in
cleaning the Employer's premises, are basically maintenance employ-
ees 4 and we shall therefore, in accord with the Employer's contention,,
include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 5
All building maintenance employees at the Employer's Kansas City,
Missouri, catalogue plant and annex, including powerhouse employees,
carpenters, painters, elevator mechanics, electricians, general me-
chanics, conveyor belt and pneumatic tube mechanics, plumbers,
sprinkler fitters, porters, and matrons, but excluding office clerical
employees, business machine repairmen, merchandise repairmen, parts
employees, stockmen, professional employees, all other employees,,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
See Heublein, Inc., 119 NLRB 1337, 1339.
5 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of the inappropriate-
ness of the unit sought is hereby denied.
Samsonite Corporation , Inc. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-
2027. February 23,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 27, 1965, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices, as to which he recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
157 NLRB No. 5.
221-374-66-vol. 157-4
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
rulmgs are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
inendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on February 9, 1965, by United Rubber , Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Charging Party or Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 26 ( Memphis, Tennessee ), issued a complaint dated March 19, 1965,
against Shwayder Brothers , Inc.,' herein called Respondent or Employer , alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act . The Respondent's answer admits
many of the facts but denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Jerry
B. Stone at Murfreesboro , Tennessee , on May 13, 14 , and 17, 1965. All parties
were represented at the hearing , participated therein , and were afforded the right to
present evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to offer oral argument,
and to file briefs . The General Counsel filed a brief and it has been considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The facts pertaining to the business of the Employer herein are based upon the
pleadings , admissions thereto, or undenied portions thereof which are deemed to be
admitted pursuant to Section 102.20 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
Samsonite Corporation (Respondent) is now, and has been at times material here-
in, a Colorado corporation and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of furniture
at its plant located at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the only location involved herein.
During the 12 months preceding March 27, 1965, Respondent , in the course and
conduct of its business operations , purchased and received at its Murfreesboro, Ten-
nessee, plant , materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Tennessee, and during the same period Respondent processed,
sold, and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside the State of Tennessee.
Based upon the foregoing , it is concluded and found that the Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
'The correct name of the Company was revealed at the hearing to be Samsonite Corpo-
ration , Inc The General Counsel ' s motion to amend all papers to so reflect was granted
at the hearing
2 All credibility resolutions made with respect to the witnesses ' testimony are based on,
a composite evaluation of witness demeanor and logical consistency of the evidence.
SAMSONITE CORPORATION, INC. 37
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The facts pertaining to the labor organization involved are based upon the un-
denied allegations in the complaint which are deemed to be admitted pursuant to
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The issues as raised by the pleadings are (1) whether Lonnie Holladay is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act, (2) whether Respondent by Lonnie Holladay
illegally interrogated employees Walls and-Parker concerning their and other em-
ployees' union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and (3) whether
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Walls on February 5, 1965, in violation of
.Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. The supervisory status of Lonnie Holladay
The General Counsel alleges and contends in effect that Lonnie Holladay was a
foreman of the material handling department and a supervisor within the meaning of
-Section 2(11) of the Act. The Respondent admits that Holladay was the foreman
of the matenal handling department but denies that Holladay is a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Although the status of Holladay is in issue by virtue of the pleadings, the evidence
is clear-cut that Holladay is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.3 Respondent's witnesses, Director of Industrial Relations and Assistant Plant
Manager Morgan and Production Manager High in effect in their testimony reveal
that as to the alleged problem with Walls that Respondent operated principally
through Holladay as to the supervision of Walls.
Holladay was the foreman in immediate charge of the jeep drivers and instructed
the jeep drivers in their work, granted employees time off, and instructed employees
when to work overtime As to periodic step increases in raises, Holladay had the
power to block such raises and also 4 had the power to discipline employees.
Holladay's power to discipline employees is overwhelmingly revealed by the evi-
dence. Holladay credibly testified to the effect that he could discipline Walls. Mor-
gan credibly testified to the effect that Holladay could issue a written reprimand
himself and that there was no plant rule that anyone else had to approve the repri-
mand before issuance, that normally in the production area such a reprimand would
be countersigned by the production manager. In the case of the January 29, 1965,
reprimand to Walls, it is noted that it was issued by Holladay as supervisor and
countersigned by Production Manager High.
Considering all the evidence and the foregoing, I conclude and find that Lonnie
Holladay is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
C. Dean Walls' background, union activity, alleged interrogations,
and discriminatory discharge
1. Background 5
Dean Walls commenced working for the Respondent in 1962 and worked for the
Respondent until he was discharged on February 5, 1965. During his period of
8 The facts as to Holladay 's status are based upon a composite of the credited testimony
of Morgan , Holladay, Parker , Wall 's, and Markum.
4 Holladay credibly testified to this effect and Morgan testified to the effect that Holla-
day was the immediate supervisor of Walls and had to approve the grant of such step
increases , and that John Craig ( Holladay ' s superior ) would be the man to approve
the card that went out.
6 The facts relating to background as pertains to Walls' employment are based upon
a composite of Walls' credited testimony and General Counsel ' s Exhibit 2.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment Walls received general wage increases and received step increases within
his wage rate. At the time of his discharge Walls was receiving the top of the wage
rate classficiation that he was in.
2. Union activity e
On January 25, 1965, Walls signed a union authorization card and thereafter on
January 26, 1965, Walls attended a union meeting. Walls around this time and
until his discharge commenced soliciting employees to sign union cards. Walls con-
tacted between 75 and 100 employees about signing union cards. Walls also attended
four union meetings between January 25 and February 5, 1965.
3. Alleged interrogation 7
On January 27, 1965, Walls and Foreman Holladay had a conversation about the
Union. Holladay told Walls that he (Holladay) knew that a union meeting had`
taken place the night before. Walls told Holladay that he had attended the union
meeting and that he had signed a union card. Holladay told Walls that signing a
union card was his own business. Holladay asked Walls what union was trying to
organize the Company. Walls handed Holladay a ball point pen with the name of
the United Rubber Workers on it. Holladay took the pen, looked at it, and handed,
it back to Walls. Later, around this time Holladay told Assistant Manager Morgan
about this conversation.
Considering the foregoing, I am not convinced that the General Counsel has estab-
lished that Respondent by Foreman Holladay has illegally interrogated employee
Walls in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the mean-
ing of the Act. The credited testimony does not clearly reveal the initial develop-
ment of the union conversation. The credited testimony does not reveal that Holla-
day questioned Walls about his union activity but merely reveals that after Walls
had mentioned that he had attended a union meeting that Holladay inquired of Walls
as to the name of the Union involved. Under such circumstances, I cannot see that
the inquiry of the name of the Union constitutes illegal interrogation of an employee
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The events of January 29, 1965 8
On January 29, 1965, around 8 a.m., Foreman Holladay talked to Walls and in-
structed Walls that he should remain on his forklift at all times except for company
The facts relating to Walls' union activity are based upon Walls' credited testimony.
7 The facts relating to Holladay's alleged interrogation of Walls are based upon a
composite of the credited portions of the testimony of Walls and Holladay. Walls was
a frank and forthright witness and in this request was much more impressive than
Holladay. Holladay in many respects did not appear frank and forthright. It is also,
noted that his affidavit recitation concerning reprimands varied substantially from his
testimony. I discredit Holladay's testimony to the effect that Walls asked Holladay if
he knew the Union was trying to organize the plant, that he (Holladay) told Walls that
he did not know it, and that Walls told Holladay that he (Walls) was working for the
Union I believe and credit Holladay to the extent that his testimony reveals that he
returned the ball point pen (with union name on it) to Walls.
s Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Walls and Holladay. As in-
dicated previously, I found Walls to appear to be a more credible witness than Holladay.
Hayden's demeanor, similar to that of Holladay, was lacking in the appearance of frank-
ness and forthrightness and lacked the ring of objectivity. I do not credit Holladay's
or Hayden's testimony inconsistent with the facts set out. As an example I do not
credit Holladay's or Hayden's testimony to the effect that they timed Walls while he was
in the restroom. Considering Holladay's affidavit, and Holladay's and Hayden's testi-
mony, it would appear that Holladay and Hayden each met the other, who was already
there, at the foot of the stairs to the restroom and jointly timed Walls while in the rest-
room. Hayden, according to his testimony, timed Walls for 15 minutes . Holladay,
according to his testimony, initially timed Walls for 10 minutes, proceeded to the foot
of the restroom stairs and timed Walls for 10 more minutes (along with Hayden), for a
total of 20 minutes Neither Holladay's nor Hayden's testimony as to this incident was.
convincing.
SAMSONITE CORPORATION, INC. 39
business ,9 that when he did not have anything to do to park by the production fore-
man's bench, that if he had to go to the restroom to notify the production foreman.1°
Around 11:30 a.m. Walls asked and received from Foreman Holladay permission
to go to the restroom . Walls went to the restroom and while there, in addition to
normal usage, smoked a cigarette and talked to an employee. After about 10 min-
utes 11 Walls returned to his jeep. Holladay confronted Walls as he was returning
to his jeep and told him that he had been in the restroom about 15 or 20 minutes.
Walls told Holladay that he did not feel that he had been in the restroom that long.
Holladay told Walls that he had timed him on different occasions , that he (Walls)
had been going to the restroom too frequently and too long , that he (Holladay) had
been timing Walls on his lunch period, and that Walls had been leaving the plant and
taking about 40 minutes for lunch. Walls told Holladay that he had not left the
plant that day. Holladay told Walls that he was talking about this incident in par-
ticular. Holladay told Walls that he had timed him. Walls told Holladay in effect
that he did not have a watch and could not argue with him.
About an hour later Holladay and Walls had another conversation . Foreman
Holladay told Walls that if he had kidney trouble that he should see the company
nurse and reiterated how long Walls had been in the restroom . Holladay then gave
Walls a written reprimand the substance of which is herein set out:
X X X
Shwayder Brothers, Inc.
Murfreesboro Plant
DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE'S WORKMANSHIP AND/OR CONDUCT
Date: 1-29-65
Name: Dean Walls Badge Number: 530
Department : 46 Job: Jeep Driver
The following Points Were Discussed : At 8:10 this morning I instructed
this man to remain on his Jeep at all times. This man 10 minutes after
returning from lunch requested to go to the restroom . He stayed there
for about 20 minutes showing disregard for the instructions given him
earlier, in order to keep our Jeeps running maximum time . When asked
why,the delay he said , I was talking to a boy.
Warning issued
COPIES TO:
Employee's Personnel File (S ) Lonnie Holladay
Supervisor Signature of Supervisor
Employee
D/H
Production Supt.
X X X
0 Testimony of Respondent Supervisors Baines, High, Holladay , Ghee, Hayden, Smith,
and Morgan to a large extent as to work problems and "warnings " appeared simply to
advert to relaying of instructions to Walls to do certain work. To a composite extent
it added up to the effect that Walls was reprimanded , etc. As indicated later , I do not
find this testimony credible . I also note that as to the restroom incident that Holladay's
and Baines ' testimony is in conflict , that as to Morgan's testimony relating to hearing
High and Holladay discuss the restroom incident, that he both heard and did not hear
about the incident. Considering the total consistency of all the evidence , the demeanor
of Respondent witnesses Baines, Ghee , High, Holladay , Hayden, Smith , and Morgan which
appeared constrained and not frank or forthright and the testimony of said witnesses
lacking the ring of objectivity , I do not credit the testimony of Baines , High , Holladay,
or Morgan to the composite effect that they discussed Walls' work record and issued
instructions designed to keep the forklift ( referred to also as jeep or tow motor) drivers
on their forklifts and/or parked at the foreman 's desk. I note that Morgan's testimony
was to the effect that he advised High and Holladay to issue an oral warning or written
reprimand . The facts reveal that general oral instructions related to the forklift driver
remaining on his forklift or parked at the foreman ' s desk and that Walla at the time was
not warned about his work. I am convinced from all the evidence that the discussion
regarding the instructions was with reference to a plan to discharge Walls
10It is undisputed that similar instructions were given the other jeep drivers.
2 'Walls testified to the effect that he talked to an employee for about 5 minutes, and
that he did not stay longer than normal which he described as being 10 minutes.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This reprimand was the first written or oral reprimand that Respondent had given
Walls.12
Again around 3 p.m. Foreman Holladay and Walls engaged in a discussion at a
time when Holladay told Walls he wanted him to work some overtime. Holladay
and Walls again discussed the restroom incident and Holladay told Walls that an-
other foreman had timed Walls in the restroom also. Walls asked Holladay if he
could talk to Assistant Manager Morgan about the matter and Holladay told Walls
that he could. Later after work was over Walls told Foreman Holladay that it
would not do any good for him to see Assistant Plant Manager Morgan since
Holladay had another foreman to back him up (about the timing).
5. The February 5, 1965, incident 13
On February 5, 1965, Walls was driving his forklift by the packing line area where
Cecil Jordon worked as a packer. Jordon spoke and waved to Walls and the latter
got off his forklift, looked around, and went to speak to Jordon. The two spoke
about some hubcaps that Jordon was to put in Walls' car. As Walls started to leave
Jordon, Baines rode up on a bicycle 14 and told Walls that he thought the jeep drivers
were supposed to stay on their forklifts. Walls answered that they were except for
company business but that he did not know what Jordon wanted.15 Foreman Baines
told to get back on his forklift and stay there.
Baines, thereafter, asked Holladay if the instructions about staying on the forklift
had been given the forklift drivers and was told that they had.16 Baines then related
to Holladay what had happened. Baines thereafter related the incident to Production
Manager Dave High and Baines and High went in to see Morgan.
Later Holladay told Walls that Assistant Plant Manager Morgan wanted him in
the office. Holladay and Walls went to Morgan's office where they encountered
Foreman Baines and Morgan.
1' I credit Walls' testimony to the effect that he had received no prior oral or written
reprimands as indicated previously. I found Respondent 's witnesses Baines , Hayden,
Holladay , Ghee , and Morgan not to appear to be frank or forthright witnesses , `and much
of their testimony to lack the ring of objectivity. I discredit the testimony of Holladay,
Gbee, Baines, Smith, Hayden, and Morgan as to various contended conversations they
had with each other or Walls concerning faultfinding with Walls ' work I find it hard
to believe that if as many complaints existed as the Respondent ' s witnesses testified to
that a specific written reprimand or discharge would not have ensued prior to his union
activity. I note that Holladay's affidavit and his testimony vary substantially as to
the number of alleged reprimands lie made to Walls I note that at the time of the
issuance of the general oral instructions relating to staying on the jeep or parking at
the foreman 's desk and in the written January 29, 1965 , reprimand that no mention was
made of prior reprimands or derelictions . The Respondent ' s employee witnesses ' testi-
mony relating to Walls' talking, to help rendered Walls, and to Walls' use of the rest-
room alluded to much not brought to the attention of supervisors and is insufficiently
correlated as to time or place with reference to production need to constitute evidence of
great weight as to probative value. The credibility resolutions herein have been based
upon a composite evaluation of witness demeanor and total consistency of the evidence.
13 Based upon a composite of the credited portions of the testimony of Walls , Baines,
Jordon, and Adcock There is little dispute as to the facts. Baines testified that he did
not see Jordon motion to Walls. Respondent witness Jordon and General Counsel wit-
nesses Walls and Adcock testified credibly to the effect that Jordon motioned to Walls. I
credit Baines ' testimony to the effect that Walls looked around when he got off the
forklift.
1* In the plant foremen used bicycles to travel around the aisles.
lc Considering Walls ' union activity, the timing of the January 29, 1965, instructions,
the January 29, 1965, reprimand, and his looking around at the time he got off his jeep,
I am convinced that even though he might not have known specifically what Jordon
wanted, that he suspected it was not company business.
16 Based upon Baines' credited testimony . There appears little dispute as to these
facts and only with respect to the credibility of Holladay as to a statement in Holladay's
affidavit.
11
SAMSONITE CORPORATION, INC. 41
6. The discharge conversation 17
Assistant Plant Manager Morgan showed Walls a copy of the January 29, 1965,
written reprimand, told Walls that he had been warned before, that he (Walls) was
slowing down production, and that he (Walls) was not supposed to sell hubcaps on
company time. Morgan asked Walls if he had anything to say in his own defense.
Walls replied "No." Assistant Plant Manager Morgan then told Walls that he was
discharged. A discharge slip was thereafter prepared and given to Walls. The dis-
charge slip reflected that Walls was discharged on February 5, 1965, for "leaving
job after warnings to that effect."
Respondent Assistant Plant Manager Morgan was questioned at length as to the
reason for Walls' discharge. In essence it was Morgan's testimonial contention that
Walls had been orally warned numerous times during the last several months before
the written January 29, 1965, reprimand, that Walls, because of this, would have
been discharged on January 29, 1965, but for the fact that he had not received a
written reprimand, that Walls would not have been discharged for the February 5,
1965, incident alone, and that Walls was not discharged because of his failure to
state a defense on February 5, 1965.
The credited evidence does not reveal that Walls had received oral reprimands
prior to January 29, 1965. The January 29, 1965, reprimand notice referred to the
oral instructions of that day concerning staying on the forklift but did not refer to.
prior warnings about the same. There is no testimony to the effect that at the time
of the oral instructions about staying on the forklift-or at the time of the discussions
with Walls about the restroom incident-that he had been reprimanded about leaving
his forklift. The very conflicts in Hayden's and Holladay's testimony as to the
"timing" of Walls in the restroom reveals that Walls' sojourn in the restroom was
not timed by both Hayden and Holladay and that the restroom incident reprimand
in fact was a pretextuous device to build a record to sustain a pretextuous discharge.
Considering the foregoing and all the evidence, I conclude and find that Respondent
commenced immediately after knowledge of Walls' union activity to seize upon inci-
dents to build a record and to discharge Walls and did discriminatorily discharge
Walls on February 5, 1965, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
D. Interrogation of Parker
In the middle of February 1965, one morning about 8 o'clock, Foreman Holladay,
had a conversation with employee Sam Parker in the receiving department. What
was said between Foreman Lonnie Holladay and employee Parker is revealed by
the following excerpts from Parker's credited testimony: 18
A. Well, Lonnie asked me how me and my buddy was getting along, and I
asked him who he was talking about, and he said, "Well, I don't know his name,
and I didn't reply anything and in a few minutes he said, "You are not talking-
any more, are you," and I said, "Yeah, I reckon I am still talking," and, then,
I didn't say anything else after that and he went on down to the boy that was.
crane hooking and when he came back, it was about 30 minutes later, I guess,
and he asked me how I thought the rest of the boys felt about the union and r
told him I thought the talk was picking up, it looked like, around the plant,
more of the boys was talking more about it, and he said, "Well, I hate to hear
that." He said, "That makes me think you boys think I ain't treating you-
right," and I didn't reply anything, and that was all that was said then.
Q. Well, was that all that was said, Mr. Parker, or is that all that you recall?'
17 Based upon the credited testimony of Walls. In view of the total evidence in the
case I find Walls' testimony more reliable as to what was said than Morgan's Baines'
and Holladay 's recitation of the event is more in line with that of Walls - Morgan's
testimony was to the effect that he referred to the prior warnings and complaints and
that Walls had received a written reprimand and that despite this he had left his jeep
to see Jordon Morgan's version is not substantially different from Walls' but to the
effect that it varies it is discredited The ultimate findings in this case would not be
changed if Morgan's version were accepted.
"As indicated with respect to other issues, I did not find Holladay to be a frank , forth-
right, or candid witness I did not believe and do not credit his version of his con-
versation with Parker which was to the effect that Parker brought up the matter of the,
union activity completely on a voluntary basis.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. That's all that I recall.
Q. Now, how long did this conversation last?
A. Just a matter of minutes. Two or three minutes, I guess, something
like that.
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find that Respondent by Foreman Holla-
day illegally interrogated employee Parker about the union activities or beliefs of
Respondent's employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce upon the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondent cease and'desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the
discriminatory discharge of Dean Walls, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to
Dean Walls immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of such
discrimination by payment to him a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the said offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, 294, and with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in
.Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a character
which go to the very heart of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon
the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
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. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
aengaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employee
Walls thereby discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organiza-
tion, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. 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 the
-entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , it is recommended that Respondent , Samsonite Corporation,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor orga-
nization of its employees , by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure of employment or any terms or condition of employment of any
of its employees.
SAMSONITE CORPORATION, INC. 43
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their or other employees' union affili-
ations or activities, or protected concerted activities, in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor orga-
nizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from
any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act-
(a) Offer to Dean Walls immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority.and other rights and
privileges.
(b) Notify Dean Walls 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 Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Make whole Dean Walls for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement in the manner set forth in the
section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary to
the determination of the amounts of backpay due and to the reinstatement and related
rights provided under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its premises in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 26, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith?e
As to the allegation of the complaint paragraph No. 7, insofar as it refers to an
incident of alleged interrogation on January 27, 1965, it is recommended that such
allegation be dismissed.
"In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
2u In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a 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 offer Dean Walls immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any
other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or otherwise discrim-
inating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment of any employee.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their or other employees'
union affiliation or activities, or protected concerted activities, in a manner con-
stituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
SAMSONITE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: We will notify Dean Walls if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
.amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone
No. 534-3161.
Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO and Emmett Electric Company, Inc. and Industrial Work-
ers of Allied Trades, Local 199, affiliated with National
Federation of Independent Unions; United Construction Con-
tractors Association , Inc.; D-Lion Construction Co., Inc. Case
No. 29-CD-8 (formerly 2-CD-316). February 23, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
157 NLRB No. 10.