Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 1193 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1193
WE WILL restore to all employees in the above bargaining units the wages,
hours, and working conditions which prevailed just before we took over opera-
tion of the Roanoke and Pulaski terminals on November 19, 1964.
WE WILL make whole all employees in the bargaining units for any economic
loss suffered by them as a result of the unfair labor practices , in accordance with
the recommendation of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland, Telephone No. 752-2159.
Sarkes Tarzian , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO
Sarkes Tarzian , Inc. and Hattie E. Logie. Cases Nos. d5-CA-1666,
25-RC-0308, and 25-CA-93056. March 29, 1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On July 9, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Supple-
mental Decision 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
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 Supplemental Decision. In addition, he found that
that Respondent had engaged in conduct which substantially inter-
fered with the election of January 25, 1963, in Case No. 25-RC-2308
and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision
and a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel filed limited
exceptions and a brief.2 Answering briefs were filed by both Respond-
ent and the Union.
1 After Issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision ( a copy of which is attached hereto)
on September 26, 1963, the Union filed with the Board a motion to reopen the record for
the purpose of receiving certain evidence alleged to be newly discovered . On October 26,
1964, the Board granted this motion ; on February 19, 1965, the Board granted motions
by the General Counsel to amend the complaint In Case No . 25-CA-1666 and -to' con-
solidate the case with Case No. 25-CA-2056. 4: _
We find no merit in the General Counsel 's exception to the Trial Examiner 's finding
that the evidence Is insufficient to establish that Respondent promulgated and enforced
an illegal no-solicitation rule. The ambiguity with respect to the intended coverage of
the rule can best be resolved by examining Its application . The evidence does not estab-
lish that the rule was applied in an illegal manner.
157 NLRB No. 96.
1194 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 these cases 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 hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed 3 The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's original Decision, his Supplemental Decision, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner's Supplemental Decision 4 with the following additions and
modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent's dis-
charge of employee Melville Wilber was violative of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act. Prior to his discharge on October 16, 1962, Wilber had
been employed by Respondent for a period of 9 years, during which
time no complaints were made concerning his conduct or his work.
Wilber signed an authorization card for the Union in May 1962 and
thereafter served as a member of the Union's organizing committee,
taking an active part in the Union's organizational efforts by distribut-
ing union handbills to employees, wearing a, union button in the plant,
and collecting union authorization cards from employees.
Respondent contends that Wilber's discharge was caused by his
violation of a longstanding company policy prohibiting employees
from punching the timecards of coworkers. It is undisputed that on
the morning of his discharge, Wilber punched the timecard of his
mother, who was also employed at the plant, so that she would not be
treated as late in reporting to her work station,5 and that later that
s At the reopened hearing, Respondent moved for an indefinite continuance on the
ground that two of its witnesses, Eva Figg and Mary Tarzian, were not available to
testify because of illness. At that time, the Trial Examiner advised the parties he
would reserve ruling on the motion until he had an opportunity to review the record and
assess the materiality of this testimony . Thereafter in his Supplemental Decision, which
issued 4 months after the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the motion on
the grounds that the testimony of these witnesses would be cumulative and because it
would not be proper to allow the record to remain open indefinitely because of the un-
availability of these witnesses . So far as we are able to ascertain , Respondent gave no
indication when these witnesses would be available to testify. Accordingly , we are unable
to conclude that the Trial Examiner abused his discretion in refusing to permit the record
to remain open indefinitely . The ruling is affirmed. See The Sun Company of San Ber-
nardino, California , 105 NLRB 515.
' These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the
Triab Examiner , to which Respondent has excepted , alleging that the Trial Examiner
was biased and prejudiced. After a careful review of the record we conclude that the
Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence. Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings in these cases , and we reject the charge of bias and prejudice . Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A 3).
c Although there is some conflict in the testimony, we find that Wilber's mother, Mrs.
East, arrived at her work station a few minutes after her starting time of 7 a in , but
before work had commenced at her station on the assembly line.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1195
same day, Respondent told Wilber he was being discharged for this
reason. The record indicates that while employees were generally
unaware of the existence of any rule forbidding such conduct, they
did recognize the impropriety of such conduct. Moreover, even absent
a specific rule prohibiting such conduct, we would conclude that it
was not unreasonable for Respondent to discharge an employee for
such an offense, were we convinced that this constituted the true reason
for Wilber's discharge.
In light of the evidence before us, however, we must conclude, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the reason advanced by Respondent for
Wilber's discharge was a mere pretext to disguise its discriminatory
motivation. Although Respondent sought to establish that Wilber
did not receive disparate treatment, the record does not support its
argument. Respondent made reference to three other instances where
employees were allegedly discharged for punching the timecard of
a coworker, but only one such incident is identified in the record.'
On the other hand, several employees testified that they had punched
other employees' timecards and were not reprimanded for such con-
duct. One employee, Taylor, testified that she committed such an
infraction in the presence of General Foreman Hamric; employee
Lockwood stated that on several occasions she observed her foreman,
Elvin Jones, punch an employee's card. In a conversation with wit-
ness East, Production Manager Polley admitted that he was aware
that employees were regularly violating this rule, yet in a 9-year
period, with the possible exception of employee Corlett, employee
Wilber was the only individual allegedly disciplined for such an
infraction. The disparity in the treatment accorded Wilber is brought
clearly into focus when compared with that of employee Allen. Allen
engaged in the recurring practice, for an undetermined period, of not
clocking out until 2 hours after quitting time. As a result, Allen was
paid for 2 additional nonworking hours per day until Respondent
discovered its error. Although the matter was brought to Allen's
attention, Respondent did not see fit to take any disciplinary action
for these serious infractions.
Respondent's special treatment of employee Wilber is best explained
by its attitude toward the Union and the union activities Wilber
engaged in. Respondent's animus toward the Union is demonstrated
by the numerous violations of the Act committed by Respondent in
the course of its campaign against the Union. It also cannot be seri-
ously disputed that Respondent was aware of the active role played by
9 Gertrude Corlett was discharged in 1953 for punching the timecard of another em-
ployee. Prior to her discharge , she had received at least one warning with respect to an
infraction of company rules. At the time of the hearing, Corlett was employed by Re-
spondent , having been rehired in 1955.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee Wilber in the Union's organizational activities at the plant,'
and that such activities incurred Respondent's displeasure. The
extent of Respondent's displeasure with Wilber's activities is evidenced
by a conversation between Wilber and his immediate supervisor,
Pearson, in which Pearson cautioned Wilber about speaking in behalf
of the Union because there would be three people watching him. Pear-
son admitted he issued this warning because he felt Wilber's job
might be in jeopardy.
In view of the foregoing, we are convinced that Respondent seized
upon this opportunity to rid itself of an active union adherent and
consequently, as Wilber's discharge was motivated by discriminatory
considerations, we find it violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by Foreman Adamson's Octo-
ber 16 threat to discharge employee Bechner. According to Bechner's
testimony concerning the October 16 incident, Foreman Adamson
walked over to the workbench where Bechner was seated and, without
speaking, removed a union handbill from the light above the bench
and tossed it into the wastebasket. Bechner responded by telling
Adamson "that if he ever removed anything from my work bench
and threw it away in such an unmanly way, there was going to be some
hell in that shop." Bechner then removed the handbill from the waste-
basket and placed it on his workbench. According to Bechner, at
this juncture Adamson said if the handbill was left on the workbench
"I was going to go." Bechner then threw the handbill back in the
wastebasket, but Adamson nevertheless went on to argue disadvantages
of the Union.8
Respondent explains the incident as one arising out of the enforce-
ment of a company rule prohibiting employees from attaching paper
or other inflammable materials to light fixtures. While the record
indicates that Respondent does have such a rule or policy,9 Respond-
ent's conduct cannot be explained away on this basis. As demonstrated
by the testimony above, Adamson's threat to discharge Bechner was
directed at Bechner's insistence on keeping the union handbill on his
workbench. As there is no suggestion in the record that the keeping
of such materials at the employee's work station involves any breach
of plant safety rules, we infer that Respondent by this threat sought
to prevent Bechner from displaying the union handbill in the plant.
Accordingly, we find Respondent's threat to discharge Bechner in
such circumstances violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7 Production Manager Polley admitted that he had heard rumors that Wilber was pretty
active in union work.
8 Bechner's testimony concerning this incident was corroborated in all material respects
by the testimony of employee Salee.
9 The record also indicates that the rule is frequently violated and there is no evidence
that disciplinary action has been taken in such cases.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1197
Although we have found that Respondent illegally threatened
Bechner with discharge because of his union activities, we are unable
to conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that Bechner's subsequent
demotion from his position as acting group leader was in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The timing of Respondent's announce-
ment of Bechner's demotion creates a suspicion that Respondent took
this action in retaliation for Bechner's union activities, but there is
convincing record evidence to warrant the conclusion that Bechner's
demotion was for nondiscriminatory reasons. Bechner, himself,
admits that he was promoted to the position of acting group leader
with the understanding that he was to serve in that capacity only until
such time as Foreman Adamson would be able to resume his normal
duties. In June 1962 Adamson was forced to undergo surgery and
shortly thereafter Respondent promoted Bechner to serve as group
leader in Adamson's absence. As a result of the promotion, Bechner
received a 10-cent-an-hour wage increase. Adamson returned to work
early in September 1962, but because of his physical condition was
unable to perform all of his duties as foreman. After working on a
limited basis for a week, Adamson found he had not sufficiently
recovered to continue work and that another week of recuperation
was necessary. When Adamson again returned to work, Bechner on
his own initiative began assuming fewer duties as group leader, until
he was advised by Respondent that he was to continue as group leader
until such time as Adamson would be able to carry out the full respon-
sibilities of the job of foreman. These instructions were given to
Bechner between 2 and 3 weeks prior to his eventual demotion. On
October 16 Respondent informed Bechner that he was to return to
his former duties, and, effective October 22, Bechner no longer received
additional compensation for performing the duties of group leader.
Prior to Adamson's illness, the position of group leader did not exist
in this department, and when Bechner was returned to his former
duties, the group leader job was not filled.10
From the foregoing evidence, it is clear that Bechner's appoint-
ment as group leader was temporary and that his services in this
capacity were not required at the time of his demotion. Accordingly,
we find, on the basis of the record before us, that the General Counsel
has failed to sustain the burden of proving that Respondent's action
in demoting Bechner was discriminatorily motivated, and we shall
dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
Finally, we disagree with the Trial Examiner's findings that
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act with respect to the
September 1962 conversation between employee Lockwood and Fore-
man Elvin Jones and the January 24, 1963, incident involving the
repair of employee Hostetter's automobile. The record evidence con-
10 Bechner quit his employment with Respondent in November 1962.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerning the Lockwood-Jones conversation shows that Foreman Jones'
inquiry of Lockwood as to what went on at a union meeting was made
in a jocular vein and was so interpreted by the parties. Therefore,
absent any indication that Foreman Jones was making a serious
inquiry into the union activities of Lockwood and her fellow employ-
ees, we do not find the 8 (a) (1) violation predicated upon this incident.
With respect to the incident involving the repair of employee
Hostetter's automobile, the evidence reveals that on January 24, 1963,
the day before the Board election, Hostetter informed Respondent's
counsel, W. D. Woods, that the generator light on her automobile
was acting improperly. Woods stated that they would take care of it,
adding, "You'll have to be here tomorrow." The repair, which con-
sisted of the replacement of a loose generator wire, was performed by
Respondent's maintenance department at no charge to Hostetter.
However, it is undisputed that since 1953, Respondent has maintained
a policy of helping employees with automotive problems that would
affect their transportation to and from the plant. No charge is ever
made for this service. Respondent's plant engineer, Robert Young,
testified without contradiction that two or three times a week the
maintenance department performs, without charge, services for
employees involving usually the repair of flat tires or dead batteries.
In our opinion, the services performed on Hostetter's automobile
were of the type covered by the Company's policy, and we find no
violation based on this allegation.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Delete paragraph I (h) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order and substitute the following therefor :
[" (h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union,
or any other labor 'organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959."
[2. Paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
is amended to read :
[" (a) Offer Logie and Wilber immediate and full reinstate-
ment...."
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1199
[3. Add the following as paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) to the Trial
Examiner's Recommend Order, and renumber the present paragraph
2 (b) and all succeeding paragraphs :
[" (b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment 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) 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 other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Decision and Order."
[4. The last indented paragraph of the Appendix is amended to read
as follows :
[WE WILL offer to Hattie Logie and Melville Wilber immediate
and full reinstatement ....
[5. Add the following sentence at the end of the 10th indented
paragraph of the Appendix to read as follows :
[. . . , and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization.as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
[6. The last full paragraph of the Appendix is amended to read :
["All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959."
[The Board set aside the election conducted in Case No. 25-RC-
2308.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
June 22,1966.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART,
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 29, 1966, the Board issued its Decision, Order, and Direc-
tion of Second Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which it
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found, inter alia, that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices under Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of
the Act, and ordered that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action in order to remedy these violations. The Board
also found that Respondent had engaged in conduct which substan-
tially interfered with the election of January 25, 1963, in Case No.
25-RC-2308, and ordered that the election be set aside and a second
election conducted. Thereafter, on April 28, 1966, the Respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision, Order, and
Direction of Second Election.' The Board having duly considered the
matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion, insofar as it requests
reconsideration of the remedial aspects of the Board Order as it
relates to Hattie Logie, be, and it hereby is, granted by amending the
Remedy, Order, and Notice in the Trial Examiner's Supplemental
Decision adopted by the Board, in the following manner :
[1. Delete paragraph 2 of the section of the Trial Examiner's Sup-
plemental Decision entitled "The Remedy" and in lieu thereof insert
the following :
["Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated
against employees Melville Wilber and Hattie Logie by discharging
Wilber and refusing for discriminatory reasons to consider Logie's
application for reemployment, we shall order Respondent to take the
following remedial action. Offer Melville Wilber immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer
of reinstatement less interim earnings. In the case of Logie, offer her
immediate employment in the same or substantially equivalent position
at which she would have been employed absent the discrimination
against her if such position became available subsequent to her
June 19, 1964, application for reemployment, or as soon hereafter as
it becomes available. We also shall order Respondent to make her
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her as a result of this dis-
crimination by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which
she would have earned from the date such position became or here-
' Thereafter, the Regional Director for Region 25 scheduled a second election to be
conducted on May 12, 1906. On May 2, 1966, Respondent requested an Order staying
this election , and on May 3, 1966, the Charging Party filed a statement in opposition
thereto. On May 10, 1966, the Board, by Executive Secretary 's Order , denied Respond-
ent's request for an Order staying the election, but also ordered that the ballots be im-
pounded pending the issuance of the Board's Decision on Respondent 's motion for recon-
sideration and further ordered that Hattie Logie and Melville Wilber be permitted to vote
in the election , subject to challenge.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1201
after becomes available, until the date of such offer, less interim earn-
ings. Any backpay to which either Wilber or Logie is entitled under
the terms of this remedy will be computed in the usual manner as set
out in F. W. Woolrworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett Lumber
Company, f NLRB 440, to which shall be added interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing d Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716."
[2. Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Board's Order and in lieu thereof
substitute the following :
["2 (a) Offer Melville Wilber 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 in
the manner set forth in the section entitled `The Remedy.' "
[3. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) of the Board's Order and
renumber the present paragraph 2(b) and all succeeding paragraphs:
["Offer Hattie Logie employment at the same or substantially
equivalent.position at which she would have been employed had she
not been discriminated against, without prejudice to any seniority or
other rights and privileges she might have acquired, and make her
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her in the manner and to the extent set forth
in the section entitled `The Remedy."'
[4. Delete the last indented paragraph of the Board's notice and in
lieu thereof substitute the following paragraphs :
[WE WILL offer Melville Wilber immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him.
[WE WILL offer Hattie Logie employment at the same or a sub-
stantially equivalent position at which she would have been
employed had she not been discriminated against, without prej-
udice to any seniority or other rights she may have acquired, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her.
[The Board denied Respondent's motion in all other respects for
the reason that it is lacking in merit.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed on October 19 and November 29,
1962 , respectively , by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as the Union , the General Counsel issued a complaint on
December 27, 1962, against Sarkes Tarzian , Inc., herein referred to as the Respond-
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent, the Company, or the Employer, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. The Company filed an answer to
the complaint denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
In Case No. 25-RC-2308, based upon a representation petition filed by the Union
on October 5, 1962, and pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon a consent
election executed by the parties on January 12, 1963, an election was conducted by
the Board's Regional Director (Region 25) on January 25, 1963, among all produc-
tion and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent.'
Thereafter on January 30, 1963, the Union filed timely objections to the election,
and subsequently, on March 20, 1963, the Regional Director, after an investigation,
issued his report on objections and recommendations to the Board. The Regional
Director recommended to the Board that a hearing be held to resolve the factual
issues involved in objections 4 and 14, and the additional alleged charges filed by the
Union in Case No. 25-CA-1666, and that the remaining objections be overruled.2
On April 26, 1963, the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendation and
ordered that a hearing be held with respect to the Union's objections 4 and 14, and
that the case be consolidated with Case No. 25-CA-1666, involving similar alleged
conduct. Pursuant thereto the Regional Director, on April 30, 1963, issued an
order consolidating Cases Nos. 25-CA-1666 and 25-RC-2308.
In accordance with the above a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Phil W.
Saunders at Bloomington, Indiana, on May 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1963. All parties
participated fully in the hearing and briefs were also filed by all parties hereto.
Upon the entire record and my observations of the witnesses,3 I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an Indiana
corporation, with its place of business at Bloomington, Indiana. It is engaged in
the business of manufacturing electronic equipment. Respondent, during the past
12 months, which period is representative of all times material herein, manu-
factured, sold, and shipped from its Bloomington, Indiana, plant, finished products
valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Indiana. It is admitted and
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act .4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
1 The tally of ballots shows that there were approximately 1,837 eligible voters and
that 1,716 ballots were cast, of which 510 were for the Petitioner, 1,179 were against
the Petitioner, 20 were challenged, and 7 were void.
2 On April 8, 1963, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Company requested that the Petitioner's objections 4 and 14 be dismissed, and that
charges filed in Case No. 25-CA-1666 not be considered, and that no hearing be directed ;
or, in the alternative, that, should a hearing be found necessary, such hearing not be
consolidated with the hearing In Case No. 25-CA-1666, contending that It "would ne-
cessitate the application of two conflicting rules relating to evidence."
3 Unless specifically indicated to the contrary, the credibility evaluation I make of the
testimony of any witness appearing before me is based, at least in part, upon his demeanor
as I observed it at the time the testimony was given. Cf. Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, Local 219 (National Food Stores, Inc.), 134 NLRB 1680, foot-
note 3; Bryan Brothers Packing Company, 129 NLRB 285. To the extent that I indicate
that I do not rely upon or reject In part or entirely the testimony of any given witness,
it is my intent thereby to indicate that such part or whole of the testimony, as the case
may be, Is discredited by me. Jackson Maintenance Corporation, 126 NLRB 115, 117,
footnote 1, enfd. 283 F. 2d 569 (C.A. 2).
4 The Company has several plants in Bloomington and the largest plant is located on
Hillside Drive. The Air Trimmer Division with service departments, the Semi-Conductor
plant, and the engineering offices are located In other areas of Bloomington. The normal
number of employees working at these plants varies between 2,000 and 2,400 and out of
these numbers between 130 and 150 are supervisors. The main business of the Respond-
ent is building television tuners. Petrosky Is manager of the Semi-Conductor Division,
Polley is production manager at the Hillsdale plant or Turner Division, and Sloan is
production manager in the Semi-Conductor Division.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1203
In essence the complaint alleges that on various occasions the Company, through
its agents and supervisors, unlawfully threatened and interrogated its employees;
threatened to close its business; required employees to cease discussing the Union
during rest and break periods; prevented employees from possessing or displaying the
prounion literature on plant premises; and promulgated rules whereby employees and
others opposing the Union were permitted to publicize such views, on Respondent's
property, while others favoring the Union were prevented and forbidden to express
their views. The complaint also alleges that the Company discriminatorily dis-
charged Melville Wilber because of his union activity, and further that the Respond-
ent discriminatorily decreased the rate of pay and lowered the job classification of
Darrell Bechner. The Company maintains that Wilber was discharged for violating
a plant rule, and that Bechner was only a temporary group leader in the testing
department and was merely returned to his former position as contemplated when
the department foreman resumed his full duties following an illness.
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
1. As to the alleged interrogations
The complaint states that Production Manager Polley interrogated employees and
prospective employees concerning union activities on October 17 .5 Margie Prince
testified that on October 16 Polley inquired if she had been talking about the Union
in the restroom that morning, and also asked Prince if she had been out in the front
of the plant handing out handbills for the Union. The credited testimony as to this
incident shows that John McHenry, general foreman of the machine shop, reported
to Polley that Prince had been seen in the restroom during working hours passing
out union literature and talking union activities to other employees. Polley then
called employee Bessie Young, who had reported the incident to McHenry, to his
office and she confirmed what had happened. Prince was then brought into the
office and Polley then told her that it had been reported to him that she had been
in the restroom handing out union handbills and conducting union activities during
working hours. Prince denied this and said that she had been on a break at the
time. Polley replied that she did not have a break at that time of day. Prince
informed Polley that due to absenteeism on the line, the whole line had been excused,
and they had gone to the restroom on break period at that time. Polley checked this
with her assembly line and found that due to a lack of relief operators, the group
had been excused, and in a sense was on a break period. Polley then told Prince
that it also had been reported to him that she had been passing out handbills on her
assembly line during working hours. She denied this. Polley then stated to her that
she could do these things during her own time, but not during working hours.
The complaint also alleges that Elvin Jones interrogated employees. Lilly Lock-
wood testified that Foreman Jones inquired of her in September if she had ever
been to a union meeting, and further asked what went on.6 Lockwood stated that
these remarks were taken by her as teasing-"because we were always teasing." On
cross-examination Lockwood agreed again that this exchange between her and
Foreman Jones was completely in a joking manner and that she took it as a joke.
Lockwood then testified that she had another conversation with Jones on October 16.
She stated that on this occasion Jones inquired how she and the other girls felt about
the Union, asked how they though the Union could help them, and later on Jones
stated that he was surprised to see Lockwood handing out union handbills that
morning.
It is alleged that Production Manager Russell Sloan interrogated employees. Marie
LaBorn testified that in September she was wearing an IBEW badge and Sloan came
up and asked what she had on and then inquired as to what she would do with it
when the Union did not get in, and also asked LaBorn if she was not afraid she was
going to make enemies? The credited testimony as to this incident shows that the
5 All dates are 1962 unless specifically stated otherwise.
O Lilly Lockwood works in the small Morton Street plant which is a part of the Semi-
Conductor Division of the Company. She works as a silicon-crystal puller and her fore-
man is Elvin Jones.
7 LaBorn worked in the silicon department of the Semi-Conductor Division.
221-374-66-vol. 157-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees were at work in the department when Sloan came up and asked what she
had on . She replied that it was an IBEW button . Sloan then said that he thought
it would make a good coaster because "we did a lot of kidding there ." He also
stated:
... But I said to Marie LaBorn at that time, "Aren 't you afraid you 'll make
some enemies wearing this button amongst these good friends here ?" And it
was in the nature of some advice I was giving her, and we kidded about these
buttons all around the factory. There were lots of them in evidence.
Janet Nash , who worked in the quality control laboratory of the Semi -Conductor
Division , testified that in September she and Sloan at one time talked about the
Union . She testified that Sloan asked if she had been attending union meetings
and if she had signed a card. Nash answered "yes" to both questions . She testified
that he further asked how many went to the meetings and what went on.
Betty Fields testified that she and Production Manager Sloan had talked on one
occasion about a film which had been shown at the union meeting the night before.
Fields stated that Sloan asked her if she had seen the film the night before. She
said she had . Sloan then asked if she believed it, and she answered that she did not
believe all of it. Fields further testified that Sloan then told her that she would
really want to think the situation over, and that there would be some innocent people
hurt by what the girls were doing. She said she could not agree with him. They then
proceeded to have a general discussion on why this was so, and why they needed
help. As Fields described it, "And it was just general talk like this." She said she
thought the talk lasted from 45 minutes to an hour . Sloan credibly stated in his
testimony that he and Fields had discussed the film, and that Fields told Sloan about
the film and what a terrible thing it was . She then talked about how she had worked
at R.C.A. and belonged to a union there. When asked whether Sloan had told her
she was hurting a lot of people in the plant , Sloan answered that he had said that
the union campaign was causing friends to be divided on both sides.
The complaint in this case further alleges that James Moore and John England
also interrogated employees and prospective employees concerning union activities.
Margie Prince testified that in September , Foreman Moore asked her if she had
attended the union meeting the night before , and Prince further stated that in October
Foreman Moore again asked her the same question . Moore in his testimony denied
that he had made these inquiries of Prince . Moore credibly stated that there was
one occasion when Prince and he had talked about the Arkansas plant. Margie
Prince asked him if he had seen pictures of the Arkansas plant, and he answered
that he had. Prince replied that she had , too, at a union meeting.
Charles Wink applied for a job with the Company in late August 1962. He was
first tested in the personnel department . Following the tests, he was interviewed by
John England , manager of employment and services . Wink stated that in the inter-
view England told him that Sarkes Tarzian was a good company and that they did
not need a union, and that England also inquired of him if he was for the Union.
Lowen Berman testified that he applied for employment at Sarkes Tarzian some-
time in March 1963. At that time he was interviewed by John England . His entire
testimony concerning the interview consists of the following:
A. I can't remember precisely what was said . We spoke quite a bit about-
well, part of the application concerning questions what you are , and what you
think is important , et cetera , and in getting into this kind of conversation we
got quite-at one point I'm sure Mr. England asked me specifically what I
thought of unions, because I remember answering something on this order of-
well, at think at one time they served a good purpose, or something . But out
of perhaps forty-five minutes to an hour of interview , I would say approximately
a half hour was spent discussing unions, and what I think of unions; and what
would I do if I was an employer and a union tried to organize my shop; what
would do if I was an employer and a union made this kind of demand , or that
kind of demand; do I think a union is justified in doing this , doing that ; what do
I think of seniority-quite a bit about seniority ; and what would I do if the
union said so-and-so should take a position because of seniority.
We spent some time along that line.
Concluding Findings in Respect to the Interrogations
It appears to me that during the interview of Charles Wink by England , as afore-
stated , England merely stated his opinion that the Respondent did not need a union,
and moreover , Wink's own testimony was conflicting on the point of whether England
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1205
said anything else about a union.8 Lilly Lockwood testified as to the questions asked
of her by Foreman Jones about the Union, but then admitted that the conversations
were framed in a joking and teasing manner and that she did not take it seriously.
On the subsequent occasion when Jones made another inquiry of Lockwood, as
aforementioned, there is a failure in this testimony and under these circumstances,
to show any interference or coercion involved in this isolated incident. Insofar as
LaBorn's testimony is concerned as attributed to Sloan, there is credited testimony
that there was considerable kidding about union buttons going on all over the plant,
and that Sloan's remarks at the time in question were in the nature of kidding.
Certainly this conversation contained no threat or coercion which would interfere
with the employee's protected rights under the Act. The isolated questions asked
Janet Nash contained no expression of any type of threat or promise, and showed
no particular hostility on the part of Sloan. Foreman Moore denied asking Margie
Prince about meetings of the Union, and in addition it is admitted that these ques-
tions by Moore were asked in September and there is no evidence in this record of
union hostility prior to that time. In the subsequent conversation with Moore, as
aforestated, there are no threats or promises connected in any way with this con-
versation, and besides there is a direct conflict as to whether any questions were in
fact asked at all. This latter incident appears rather to be a very simple and normal
noncoercive conversation between Moore and Prince and was free of any interference
or coercion of employees' rights. Insofar as the incident involving Production
Manager Polley is concerned, it appears clear to me that Prince was merely called
in and questioned concerning her activity because of Polley's mistaken belief that
she had been distributing handbills and conducting union activities during working
hours contrary to the company rules. All of Polley's questions were directed toward
ascertaining whether the company rule had been violated. When Prince denied that
she had committed an infraction of the rules and that her line was not operating at
that time, Polley made an inquiry which showed her statement to be true and nothing
further was done. There were no threats or promises made but rather when Polley
had ascertained the truth to his satisfaction he simply dropped the entire matter.
As far as the remarks attributed to Sloan by Betty Fields are concerned, it seems
to me that this conversation was one relating to the pros and cons on the question of
union representation, and that this was fairly well demonstrated by Fields' testimony
that it was merely a general talk. From my understanding of recent Board law,
such discussions under these particular circumstances are not to be considered as
violations of the Act.° I am also unable to find any violation in the testimony given
by Berman as attributed to England. There were no threats or coercive statements,
and certainly general questions of this nature absent any threat or other coercion
do not violate the Act.
In summary of this phase of the case the record reveals that the number of persons
employed by the Respondent varies between 2,000 and 2,400. There are between
130 and 150 of these persons who are supervisors. Even when considered in a light
most favorable to the General Counsel, the record shows less than 10 persons out
of over 2,000 employees were asked questions by supervisors. In addition, when
viewed in the same light, the matters concerning which the questions were asked
appear minor. Such sporadic and isolated incidents under these particular circum-
stances should not be considered to be violations of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act, and
in accordance therewith I so find.
2. Alleged threats of discharge
The complaint alleges that on certain dates Sloan, Foreman Adamson, and Presi-
dent Tarzian threatened employees with discharge or other reprisals because of their
union activities.
This record reveals that in November a dinner was held for 10- and 15-year
employees of the Company. President Tarzian was present at the dinner and spoke
to the group. Dorothy Oliphany testified that on this occasion, Tarzian talked of
the possibility of expansion in the area, spoke of the competition the Company has
encountered from the Japanese, stated that a third party was planting distrust among
employees, and said he saw no reason for the employees to organize. She also testi-
s Wink, after examining a statement given to the Board , testified that England had
asked him if he was for the Union or against the Union . Wink replied that he was against
and that the Company did not need a union if it was as good as it was supposed to be.
Then on cross -examination Wink again testified that he stated that England did not say
anything about a union was a true statement.
0 General Electric Company, 143 NLRB 926.
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tied that in his closing statement Tarzian said that he had told them the facts and it
they chose to believe him they could go on as they had before, but that if they chose
to disbelieve him they would have to learn the hard way. Tarzian credibly testified
that at this dinner he told the employees the same things as he had stated in other
meetings,1° that he also informed the employees that the Company could not pay
more and still continue in business, and that if they did not believe him, "they would
all learn the hard way through these trials and tribulations."
In mid-October Marie LaBorn was passing out union handbills outside the plant
gate. LaBorn testified that one of the girls with her asked then if she had a new
job, and LaBorn answered yes, and that Sloan then said, "Yes, and you may not have
one when you get back upstairs." Sloan directly denied making that statement to
LaBorn. Sloan credibly recounted the following exchange of conversation which
took place:
This was at 7:30 one morning. I was walking in the back door with the
foreman, Richard Lee, and Marie LaBorn, and one of his girls that work for
him, were at the HV gate handing out these papers. The girls spoke to Richard
Lee, not to me, she spoke to Richard Lee, and she said, "Dick, do you want a
paper?"
Dick Lee said, "No, I don't want any."
She said, "Richard, you'd better take it or IT bring it up to you," in a
joking way. And Dick said, no, he didn't want it.
And then I said, "Are you sure you're going upstairs?"
And that was it. I walked in the door.
Janet Nash, a member of the union organizing committee, testified concerning
two conversations she said she had with Sloan in September. Her testimony was
that Sloan on the first occasion asked if she was going to the union meeting that
night. When she replied that she was Sloan asked if she had a union card he could
sign, and that when she said yes, he threatened to fire her if she gave him the card.
Nash further testified concerning another conversation which took place 2 weeks
later in her workroom. She testified that she was having a conversation with Sloan
and that during the course of the conversation he stated that if the Union did not
get in she was on her way out. Sloan credibly stated that he often went into the
area where Nash and others were working for lab test results, that there was always
some kidding going on about the Union, and that Nash talked about the Union
freely and voluntarily. Sloan also stated that he had not made the statement that if
the Union got in, Nash was on her way out. He testified that in his presence Nash
herself had told one of the girls in the lab that she thought probably if the Union
lost she was through. Sloan heard this but did not get into it. Sloan further testi-
fied concerning the incidents related by Nash as follows:
Now, in this particular case that I went up there, I went to the foreman in
the department, Phil Cox. I said, "Phil, there has been something said about
me. I heard that there has been something said about me in a Union meeting,
and I want you to hear what I have to say to Janet Nash."
So he came over to me, to Janet Nash's bench, right close to her, and I said
to Janet, "Now, what are you trying to do to me? Why did you go down there
and tell this story which you know isn't true9"
And she said, "Yes, it is true. You said you'd fire me if the Union didn't
get in."
And I said, "I said no such thing."
And I may have said, "Why do you do this?" I think I did, "Why are you
doing this to me? Do you have a grudge against me? or something."
And she said, "No, nothing personal, but you said you were going to fire me,
and so I made charges against you."
So I said to Phillip Cox, the foreman, "Did you hear me say this?"
He said, "No."
And I asked a couple of other people in there if they had heard it; they said,
"no.,,
And then I said to Janet, "Well, that kind of makes you wrong, doesnt it?"
And then I walked out.
That was the end of that incident.
On October 16 Myron Adamson, a foreman of the test maintenance department at
the Hillside plant, had finished his lunch hour and entered his department. When
he sat down at his desk, he glanced up at Darrell Bechner's workbench, and noticed
i° A more detailed account will be given as to Tarzian 's remarks at such meetings in a
later section of this report . What is set forth above is sufficient for purposes here.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1207
a union handbill attached with Scotch tape to the light fixture over the bench. The
Company has a rule or policy that nothing made of paper or similar material is to
be attached or hung to the light fixtures. Adamson then walked over to Bechner's
bench and took the handbill down and threw it in the wastebasket. Bechner then
walked up, and Adamson in testifying described him as "pretty indignant and antag-
onistic." Adamson explained that he had removed the handbill because it violated
the company policy against attaching things to the light fixtures. Four to six months
prior to that time, Bechner had erected a cardboard device covering his whole work
area and had attached it to the light fixture with tape. At that time Adamson had
asked him to remove it, and Bechner had done so. However, on this occasion
Bechner removed the handbill from the wastebasket and put it back on the light
fixture. Adamson then told Bechner to either remove the handbill from the light
fixture or he would take him over to Polley. Bechner then took down the handbill
and threw it in the wastebasket. At this point a discussion and argument began.
Bechner testified that in the argument Adamson told him that if he left the handbill
there he "was going to go." 11 Bechner also testified that Adamson further stated
"that if the Union got in and asked for a quarter an hour raise, that he wouldn't
doubt but that in a year from then we wouldn't be working there." Salee, who was
also in the conversations, recalled that toward the end of the argument Adamson
summed up the Respondent's position toward the Union and the organizing campaign
by stating, "Well, he hoped 1 year from then everybody would have a job."
Foreman Adamson credibly testified that in the argument between him, Bechner,
and Salee he stated that he did not believe a union would help, that the Company
had been fair, and that if the Union came in and demanded more money than the
Company was able to pay, they would strike and this would possibly cause employees
to lose money and the Company some business. Adamson stated that the above was
strictly his own personal opinion . Adamson denied the other alleged threats, as
aforestated, attributed to him by Bechner and Salee.
In ascertainment of whether or not the Company had a recognized rule prohibit-
ing objects on light fixtures, all parties presented some testimony bearing on the
aspect of their contentions in this respect.12 Salee testified that 3 or 4 months ago
he had observed packing cardboard attached directly to the light fixture in the plant,
and at other times has seen objects attached to fixtures. Salee also related that on
the morning of May 24 he had seen paper objects taped to incandescent lights on
test lines 9 and 11 at the Hillsdale plant, but Salee then admitted that in his depart-
ment employees are not permitted to leave paper objects on the light fixtures. Sue
Crow stated that she had never seen any paper hanging directly from light fixtures.
Janet Nash testified that she had observed Christmas decorations (rope and crepe
paper) around the light fixtures in the Respondent's rectifier plant, and had seen
pictures and calendars attached to the fixtures. Prince stated that at the Hillsdale
plant she had also observed Christmas decorations, pictures, and calendars around
the lights, but her reference was to the rods or angle irons holding the fixtures, and
stated that she had not seen these objects on the light fixtures themselves. Juanita
Conway related that at the Hillside plant she has always had a card or calendar taped
on the shield of her light, but stated that on May 24 she was asked to remove it
Foreman Adamson testified it has been a company policy for years that nothing
was to be hanging from light fixtures. Roger Kelly, who works in the test depart-
ment, stated that employees do hang things on the light fixtures, but when noticed
they are removed as it is a fire hazard. Plant Engineer Young also testified that the
company policy is to prohibit anything on the light fixtures, and pointed out that
Respondent's Exhibit 58-rule 19-states that "Christmas decorations must be fire
proof and displayed in such a way that they will not be a fire hazard."
Final Conclusions in Respect to the Alleged Threats of Discharge
Apparently the General Counsel relies on the phrase "They would all learn the
hard way," used by Tarzian in his November speech, as indicative of a threat to
discharge. When looked at in respect to the rest of Tarzian's speech on that occa-
sion it seems to me the General Counsel's position fails and in view of the context
n On cross -examination Bechner stated that is had placed the handbill on a light fixture
over his bench . He also testified that 6 months prior to October 16 he had constructed a
cardboard partition at his work station, and that Adamson had it removed for the reason
that it was a fire hazard.
12 It is also alleged that Bechner was discriminatorily demoted, as aforestated , and thus
this testimony has some bearing also in that phase of the case which follows herein.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the remarks it appears unreasonable to me to attach the meaning of a threat of
discharge to such an ambiguous phrase. The same conclusion would be reached
even accepting the testimony of Oliphant as to what Tarzian stated at the dinner.
Insofar as the remark attributed by LaBorn to Manager Sloan is concerned, it
appears to me that such statement is too ambiguous also to find a threat of discharge
under the circumstances of this incident. The very nature of the open approach to
the foremen on the morning in question shows that there was a good-natured rela-
tionship between the two girls involved and the two supervisors, and certainly the
offhand remark by Sloan after Foreman Lee had been jokingly offered a union hand-
bill should not be considered as threatening or coercive.
An examination of the circumstances surrounding the statements made by Sloan
to Nash that if she gave him a union card he would fire her reduces to absurdity the
contention that it constituted a coercive threat. The production manager of the
plant asked an employee who constantly made known her support of the Union if
she had a union card that he, the production manager, could sign. There is no
possibility of asserting that this was a serious request and neither of the parties con-
sidered it to be so. The employee then, in going along with the joke, said that she
did have a card he could sign . The threat which followed, even if made, was in the
same vein as the remainder of the incident and cannot properly be considered out of
its context.13 Sloan's credited testimony also shows that in the subsequent conversa-
tion with Nash in her workroom he did not make any threat to discharge her. As
to this incident Sloan confronted Nash before Foreman Cox and the other employees
to ascertain if they had heard him threaten to fire Nash, as aforestated. The evidence
shows that contrary to Nash's testimony, Sloan stated that Nash herself had stated
that she thought that if the Union lost, she was through. This statement was not
made by Sloan.
Relative to the incident involving Foreman Adamson and Bechner: In the first
place this record adequately supports the Respondent's contention that the Company
had a bona fide rule which prohibited the attachment of paper objects on light fix-
tures. As aforestated, I have set forth the testimony bearing on this aspect of the
case, and while there is some conflict in testimony between the witnesses, neverthe-
less, the evidence shows that the rule was in existence , and that supervisors make
constant efforts to uphold its enforcement . 14 In view of the above, Adamson had
every legitimate right to remove the handbill Bechner had attached to the light fix-
ture over his workbench, and to insist that it not be replaced. From the credited
testimony it is clear to me that in the argument which followed the removal of the
handbill, Adamson did not make any threats to discharge employees, or statement
that the plant would close if the Union was voted in. The record reveals that Adam-
son did state his personal opinion concerning the fact that he thought Tarzian was
paying all he could afford and that if a union demanded more than he was able to
pay, it had been the history of other companies that employees in such a situation
would go out on strike and that in doing so the employee would lose some money.
He also expressed his personal opinion that this might cause the Company to lose
some business. The circumstances of the discussion and argument which took place
and the fact that it was a general discussion on the pros and cons of the Union make
it clear that there was nothing threatening or coercive about the statements made by
Adamson. In the final analysis here the remarks which Adamson admitted making
were his personal opinion of what might happen, and as such were also predictions of
possible future'action. There was no threat that the Company would take any part
in inducing this action and, therefore , the statements were not violations of Section
8(a) (1) but rather were privileged under 8(c) under the Act.15 Certainly Adamson
11 Sloan testified that he had known Nash ever since she came to work for the Company
and that they had always been friendly and frequently . joked together . Recognition
must be given to the fact that kidding , teasing , and joking remarks are not uncommon in
an industrial setting. Such remarks are not to be used as evidence of interference or
coercion since they do not in fact interfere or coerce . The employee who is the recipient
of such statements fully realizes that there is no serious intent behind them and his
protected rights are not violated or denied in such cases.
14 Salee, a witness for the General Counsel, even admitted that in the test maintenance
department-the one we are especially concerned with here-employees were not permitted
to leave paper objects on light fixtures . The testimony by Sue Crow, another witness for
the General Counsel, was also in accordance with the above.
15 Even assuming, arguendo, the version of Adamson 's statements as given by Bechner
and Salee in the argument that followed , they too could be considered as predictions of
events that possibly might happen in the future.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1209
had every right to tell Bechner that he would take him to see Production Manager
Polley if the handbill was not removed from the light fixture. In this respect it is
also noted in the testimony given by General Counsel's witness Salee, that even he
did not corroborate the testimony by Bechner to the effect that Adamson had told
Bechner that if he left the handbill on the fixture he was "going to go." In reality
this entire incident involved only what amounted to a general discussion of opinions
as to why a union was or was not needed in the plant, and the fact that the arguments
and discussions were made in a rather heated atmosphere should also enter into
the overall evaluations of what was said. The General Counsel has not sustained
his burden of proving that statements made by Foreman Adamson on October 16
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and in accordance therewith I so find.
3. The alleged threats to close the Company
It is specifically alleged in this complaint that Adamson, Tarzian, Foreman Pearson,
and Barrett threatened on certain dates to close and discontinue the Respondent's
business operations if employees joined or assisted the Union.16
Melville Wilber testified that in early October he and Foreman Pearson discussed
the Union while working together, and that Wilber had stated that he thought it
would be a good thing if the Union came in. Wilber further testified that, in his
own opinion, he thought that if the Union did go in, in a year's time the Company
would probably shut down. On cross-examination, Wilber testified that at this time
Pearson could have said something similar to "Mr. Tarzian will keep the plant open
as long as he can." Wilber also testified that Pearson could have said that Tarzian
had no intention of closing the plant, but Wilber could not specifically recall it.
Foreman Pearson denied ever making a statement to Melville Wilber that in his
opinion if the Union ever got in, in a year's time the Company would probably shut
down. Pearson credibly testified that on the occasion in question, Wilber had asked
Pearson how he felt about the Union trying to organize, and that Wilber had heard
the statement that if the Union did get in, the plant would probably close within a
year's time. Pearson replied that Tarzian had never told him he intended to shut
the plant down, and as far as Pearson was concerned the Company would keep the
plant open as long as possible.
Hacker testified that in September or October he had overheard Foreman Barrett
talking to Hainey and Linn, and stated to them that if the Union organized the plant
it was very probable none of "us" would have a job. Hacker did not engage in the
conversation, and Barrett specifically denied making this statement to the other
employees. Linn credibly testified that he had never heard Barrett make any such
statement as attributed to him by Hacker, and Hainey also denied that Barrett had
ever made such a statement.
Cornelius Salee testified that in June President Tarzian spoke to all employees
(about 100) of the maintenance department at the Hillside plant.17 Salee stated
that on this occasion Tarzian told employees that if the Union came in employees
would have to pay dues out of their own pocket, that the Company could not pay
any higher wages as it could not pass on any higher prices to the public, and that he
was the sole owner and if Tarzian could see that continued operations were unprofit-
able he could close the business. Tarzian stated that no meeting was held in June
near his office where there was a small group of 100 people, and that he did not
make these statements. He stated that the time nearest to June when meetings of
about that size were held was in October. At that time some meetings were held
department by department or line by line, but most of these were held in the mainte-
nance area, and at the meetings he said substantially the same thing to each group
at each meeting. Tarzian denied making the statements which Salee attributed to
him, but Tarzian credibly testified that at the meetings in question he did make
the following remarks:
A. What I said was that we' re in a very competitive business; that we have
a lot of American competition; our main business is building television tuners,
and that we have three other competitors in the United States, and that the
16 In the preceding section of this report I have set forth the remark made by Adamson
relative to his statement as to the possibility that the Company might close if certain
events happened in the future, and therein found that this statement was privileged
under Section 8(c) of the Act.
17 The complaint alleges that Tarzian threatened to close the business on dates unknown,
but approximately late June, October 11 , and mid-October.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOA:t1)
Japanese are, also, becoming very serious competitors , and that we have to
sell our products at a competitive price so that we can continue the volume of
business that we have and maintain the employment that we have.
That our margin of profit, if we make 2% after taxes we are satisfied; there
are years when we don 't even make 2%. That is, for every dollar with which
we gamble in the form of sales that we have .02 ¢ left over, that that is all we
have in our good years, and that, therefore , we do not have a big margin of
profit so that we could go ahead and arbitrarily give a raise of .20¢ or
.30¢ an hour , and still be competitive ; that if we gave such a raise that would
mean we would have to raise our prices , then we would become not competitive,
and become noncompetitive , it would mean that we have less business.
And that the Japanese , because of the threat that the Japanese represented to
our business , that I personally had gone to Japan to investigate to see how they
operated , to see, also , what their wage rates were, and to see the long range
problem that the Japanese operation entailed as far as we were concerned.
I told them that the Japs, when they first came out with personal radios, for
instance , the first year they sold about six million of these, and I said that this
past year they had sold about fourteen million radios and tape recorders, which
represented about 20,000 American jobs, and that they were a serious threat, and,
therefore , we had to be very careful that we did not price ourselves out of
the market.
And I said that it is our policy always to pay as much as we possibly can to
our people , and still stay in business . And it was due to the fact that we had
maintained this policy over the past nineteen years that we had been successful
and we had grown and developed as a private company, and that every year we
reviewed during the summer vacation period, that every year I reviewed our
status with respect to the possible future business that we had with respect to
our costs and the selling price at which we have to sell our tuners and rectifiers
to maintain the volume of business that we had, and maintain the quantities that
we had in Bloomington , and if I felt we could pay more money , we paid it, but
if I felt we couldn't, we didn 't, as witnessed the fact that the last two years we
had every year given a .05¢ an hour increase to them when we thought we
could afford to do it and still stay in business , but there had been years, two or
three years in a row when things had been tough and we had not been able to
give an increase.
And I said it is not possible , knowing the business as I do, it is not possible
at this time to give .200 or .30^ an hour increase , and pass that increase on to
our customers . Our customers would buy from our competitors , and in that
way we would lose our volume of business.
That was the gist of what I told them.
Q. Did you go further and say what losing the volume of your business would
mean to them , or to the company?
A. Well, I said that if we don 't have the volume of business that we now
have, then it means that there is going to be less people working in this company.
Q. Now, did you tell these employees in these small meetings what you have
just told to the Board and to the Trial Examiner and in substantially the same
manner?
A. Yes.
On October 11, Tarzian spoke to the employees of the Semi-Conductor plant at
the plant cafeteria . Three employees of that plant, Lilly Lockwood , Marie LaBorn,
and Janet Nash, testified concerning statements which they alleged were made by
Tarzian during that speech.
Tarzian denied that he told the employees they would have to go on strike if they
wanted the Union to get more money; that he could stand it better than employees;
that he would have to close the plant because of bankruptcy; or that if the Union
were voted in he would shut the doors or close the place, or any similar statements.
He testified that he had never said in a meeting with employees that if the Union
were voted in, he would shut the doors , or would have to close the place. Tarzian's
credited testimony shows the following:
Q. Well, now, you say you didn 't say it. How do you know you didn't
say it?
A. Well, Mr . Duck , you know you have told me we cannot threaten anyone,
and I have no intention at any time of closing this operation . We built it up
the hard way from the ground up over the past nineteen years, and I'm not
an easy quitter , and I'm not quitting and closing the place down , and I have
never told anybody such a thing.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1211
Q In that meeting, Mr. Tarzian, perhaps you did say something about bank-
ruptcy. Do you remember using the word, or saying anything like that?
A. I never used the word "bankruptcy." There is no reason why we should
go bankrupt. If we could start with nothing and build up this company the
way we have, there's no reason why we could go bankrupt.
On the same date, October 11, Tarzian also spoke to the employees of the Hillside
plant assembled in the plant cafeteria. Several of the employees attributed statements
to Tarzian made on this occasion. Tarzian denied making these statements, and
stated that he told the employees at this meeting essentially the things mentioned
before. Tarzian further credibly testified that at this meeting he stated the following:
The WITNESS: That we're in a competitive business; that we pay the maximum
we can afford to pay and still operate at the level at which we were operating;
and that we had this local competition, and we have the Japanese competition
coming in; and that we have to keep the balance between our costs and our
prices.
By Mr. DUCK:
Q. What was the occasion, Mr. Tarzian, of you referring to .200 or .300
increases?
A. Because of the fact that the Union had handed out billfolds saying, insin-
uating and saying in effect that if they would join the union they were going to
get them .200 or .30¢ an hour more, just like R.C.A. was paying. And I tried
to point out at these meetings that we were not in R.C.A.; we did not sell con-
sumer products like R.C.A. sells, who through their advertising can build up an
image wherein the consumer, the American public, will go and pay $25.00,
$30.00 more for a TV set because it is R.C.A.; that we sold to manufacturers a
component , that we sold to purchasing departments , and we sold to engineers
in these companies ; that we had a certain specification to meet; and that the
price had to be competitive.
And that under these conditions, regardless of what our name was, or what
we were, it didn't make any difference, we couldn't get more than what our
competition was quoting on a similar type product with the same specifications.
And I said, therefore, we cannot be compared with R C.A.
Q. Do you remember specifically of the October 11, or approximately 11 date,
but in any event these two large meetings in the cafeteria of Rectifier and Tuner,
anything else that you told the employees?
I think you should say as much as you can for the record of what this talk
consisted of.
A. Well, this was in essence what I told our people. I felt that they should
know the facts here, and based on the facts, and they could do whatever they
wished; that this was a free country, and we wanted them to exercise their
rights as free individuals.
And what I've already said about R.C.A., what I've already said about our
competitive position , and so on . I said all that.
I also, said , as I said previously, about the fact that we pay as high a wage
as we possibly can, and still maintain our competitive position.
And then I, also, said, that we try to do all we can for the people who work
here. As an example I cited the fact that we have air conditioning in all our
plants, whereas none of the other manufacturing companies in this area have
air conditioning . And I felt that we could spend that money and make our
people comfortable by having air conditioning.
I, also, pointed out that we have a swimming pool, and a picnic area right
in back of our plant there on Hillside; where we felt we could do it, and give
these privileges to our people as we can afford to do it, we do it. The people
who were in this, that we were doing all we possible could and still stay com-
petitive, and still maintain the volume of business that we have.
Then I, also, said that we operate on a seniority basis; that if someone has
been with us for a number of years, and they get to the point due to old age com-
ing on that they can't do a line operation , that what we do is we put them some-
where else, in subassembly or some operation on the side where they'll be on
their own where they can work, whereas we know, because I've worked at
R.C.A. myself , helped to get it started in Bloomington , Indiana in 1940, whereas
in those large companies if you can't go on the line and do the work, you're out.
And I said we don't operate that way.
And I, also, said that we have as many of the fringe benefits , like paid holi-
days, sickness insurance , vacation, and so on, we have all those things in the
form of fringe benefits that we could possibly pay, that we are paying.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Final Conclusions on the Alleged Threats to Close the Business
The incident relating to Wilber and Foreman Pearson merely shows that Wilber
had inquired of the foreman as to his thoughts as to the possible future of the Com-
pany if the Union was successful in its organizational efforts. Pearson expressed
only the reply that he had not heard the rumor that the plant would close. Even
assuming here, arguendo, that Pearson did say it was his opinion, that in a year's
time the Company would probably shut down, this is strictly a matter of the foreman's
personal opinion as to what might happen in the future, and is certainly nothing that
can be considered as violative of the Act.18
Insofar as the incident involving Foreman Barrett is concerned, Barrett denied it
and employees Linn and Hainey credibly testified that Barrett had never made
such a statement. Clearly, the General Counsel has failed in his burden of proving
any violation here.
As far as I can ascertain in the talks given by Tarzian to the employees, as afore-
stated, he merely gave the employees some understanding of the economic situation
with which the Company was faced in its operations. It also appears to me that
the witnesses for the General Counsel who attributed various statements to Tarzian
were actually not listening too closely as to what Tarzian was really saying. Lilly
Lockwood testified that in the talks under question here, Tarzian said that if the
Union did get in and requested more money, he did not see how he could operate.
Marie LaBorn testified that he said if they wanted the Union to get more money
they would have to go on strike, and that if they wanted the Union for more money,
they would have to close the plant down because of bankruptcy. Janet Nash testi-
fied that Tarzian said that if the Union was voted in, he would shut the doors. These
witnesses were each attempting to relate what Tarzian had said, yet when their
testimony is compared, the statements which were allegedly made appear totally
different. This is because these witnesses were testifying to their own interpretation
of what they thought Tarzian said, and were recounting these interpretations as
Tarzian's own words. In light of the sometimes subtle but necessary distinctions
drawn by the Board between a threatening statement on the one hand, and a similarly
worded noncoercive statement on the other, it is impossible to credit one or the
other of these patently conflicting interpretations as accurate reflections of Tarzian's
words. The statements made by Tarzian in his talks here contained no threats or
coercion and are protected within Section 8(c) of the Act as contended by the
Respondent.
4. Alleged requirement that employees cease concerted activity during rest periods
The complaint alleges that the Company required employees to cease discussing
and engaging in any union activity during rest or break time.
The record reveals that on October 17 a meeting was held of the employees of the
test maintenance department. Bechner testified that at the meeting Polley was asked
if work periods were the employees' own time, and that Polley replied that a rest
period was company time, but that lunchtime and before and after work was the
employees' time. Salee stated that on this occasion Polley informed them that break-
time was company time and that during such periods employees were not to engage
in union activity. The credited testimony is that Polley made the statement that
employees could not conduct union activities during worktime, but could do so on
lunch hours. When Polley was then asked about rest periods, Polley replied, "As
far as I'm concerned, rest periods are company time, and what you do on company
time we feel like is our business to a certain extent." Polley also explained his under-
standing of working time and company time as follows:
Well, I can tell you my own terminology, you may not like it, but as far as I
was concerned working time is when you are supposed to be at your position
performing a function; company time could be times other than when you are
at your work position carrying on other company activities, or not, such as rest
periods, for example, when you are on the company payroll but performing
something other than your regular operations.
The record here further reveals that from July through October, when the alleged
threat was made, Pearson and Wilber worked together on a part-time job for a contractor
The job was after working hours and not on the company premises. The Board has held
that even if coercive such a statement made to a single employee off the company premises
would be considered isolated and not sufficient to constitute an unfair labor practice.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1213
Final Conclusions
As noted herein Polley's attempts to apply the Respondent's valid no-solicitation
rule during what he considered to be working hours, leaves considerable to be desired
as to the'exact clarity of his explanation. However, it appears to me that this ambi-
guity, in view of other circumstances, is not sufficient to charge the Company with
a violation, and I so find. There are even decisions where it has been held that
sporadic warnings by foremen which were never enforced did not constitute an unfair
labor practice. In this record there is no evidence that the Respondent ever enforced
a rule prohibiting employees from conducting union activities during rest periods,
and it is clear that the Company did not have such a rule. It is noted, as afore-
stated, that on the previous day, October 16, Polley had confronted Prince with a
report that she had been engaged in union activity during working time. But when
it was ascertained that Prince actually had been on a rest period at the time, Polley
then dropped the matter recognizing. that Prince was within the Respondent's rule.
Thus, even the very person who General Counsel alleges stated an improper rule to
several employees did not enforce such a rule and did not believe that such a rule
existed.
5. Allegation that Company prevented employees from possessing or displaying
prounion literature
In the above respect the complaint alleges that Foreman Adamson was violative of
such in the incident on October 16 involving Bechner and Adamson. As aforemen-
tioned and detailed in this Decision, the Company had a recognized rule, at least in
the test maintenance department, that there were to be no paper objects attached to
light fixtures because of potential fire hazards. The credited testimony substantiated
the action and conduct of Foreman Adamson on the occasion in question. The
Respondent had every right to insist on the enforcement of its plant rules during the
organizing campaign so long as there was no discrimination involved.19
6. Alleged disparate promulgation and enforcement of rules relating to
communication of union propaganda
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) through disparate
promulgation and enforcement of rules relating to the promulgation and communica-
tion of propaganda and views favoring and opposing the Union.
There appear to be several bulletin boards located within the Semi-Conductor
Division, and one in the Morton Street building. In the main semiconductor plant
one bulletin board is located in the engineering department, one above the time-
clocks, and one in the cafeteria. The record further shows that in addition to the
boards, various items are also posted in more informal locations-sides of filing
cabinets and the walls. The credited testimony by Manager Petrosky reveals that
-a11 bulletin boards, with the exception of one by the cafeteria, are available for all
use, and in particular the board by the timeclock is used by employees to post what-
ever they want and it is completely unsupervised. Petrosky stated that the board by
the cafeteria was more or less the official board of the division, and that in the past
there had been lots of material removed from it, so in November it was enclosed and
a glass and lock was placed on it or added, and from then on it was used for company
purposes. Petrosky and Company Nurse Gaskill have the only keys to it. Petrosky
also testified that he put on the enclosed board all items requested, but that no pro-
union literature had been given to him for posting in it. Gaskill credibly stated
that she posted in the enclosed bulletin board notices of dances, thank-you cards and
such, that she never refused to post any prounion literature, but none was offered,
and that she never removed any campaign material of any kind from any of the
boards.
General Counsel's Exhibit 4 is a copy of a letter which had been posted on the glass-
enclosed bulletin board. Janet Nash testified that she copied the letter while it was
on the board. Petrosky stated that the copy was substantially the same as the letter
that was posted and that it represented the context of the letter. Gaskill testified
that there was a letter like General Counsel's Exhibit 4 on the bulletin board last
fall. Petrosky testified that the original letter had been posted, on the open bulletin
board, but had been torn down. The employee who had written it rewrote it and
asked to have it posted on the glass board which had been installed by that time.
le It is also pointed out that several of the incidents alleged in this paragraph of the
complaint now being discussed took place prior to the filing of the petition, and as such
would have no direct bearing upon the objections to the election.
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Final Conclusions
It appears to me that the sole evidence on which the General Counsel relies to
show a violation of this allegation was a letter which had been posted on the glass-
enclosed bulletin board.20 However, there was no evidence of any request by any
employee that any prounion matter be displayed on the glass-enclosed bulletin board.
Furthermore, Petrosky and Gaskill credibly testified that they had never refused to
post any campaign propaganda or prounion literature in the glass-enclosed board
which had been offered to them.21 Therefore, the evidence shows that the enclosed
bulletin board was used in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. To find other-
wise I would have to speculate on what might have happened if prounion literature
had been offered for posting on the bulletin board in question here. The facts are
that none was offered.
B. The alleged discharge of Melville Wilber; findings and conclusions
This record shows that Wilber was employed by the Company in 1953, and that
his employment was terminated on October 16, 1962. In July, August, September,
and October, Wilber attended meetings of the Union, and was a member of the
"Sarkes Tarzian Organizing Committee for the Union." He also signed an authoriza-
tion card and on a few occasion in October wore a union badge while working.
The Company contends that Wilber was discharged for violating a plant rule or
regulation.
Wilber testified that on the morning of October 16 he went to his mother's home,
and that shortly thereafter he and his mother then left her house in time to start their
work-in the plant at 7 a.m.22 Wilber stated that his mother had forgotten her den-
tures on the day in question here, and as she returned home to get them Wilber
informed East that he would "clock in" for her. Wilber testified that he then pro-
ceeded to the plant and punched in his own timecard and also the timecard of his
mother.23 A little while later Wilber was then asked by Foreman Hamric as to whose
timecard he had punched in, and Wilber then informed Hamric that it was his
mother's card and he did so knowing that she would be at work on time. Wilber
stated that he mentioned this incident to Foreman Pearson on the morning in ques-
tion and that Pearson then told Wilber that he would probably be called to the office
and informed never to do it again. In the afternoon of October 16 Wilber was called
into the plant office and asked by Personnel Manager Sears if he did not know it
was wrong to punch in another employee's timecard. Wilber testified that he then
informed Sears that he knew it was wrong, but that he did not consider it "such a
big wrong" because he knew his mother, East, would be on time. Wilber further
stated that Production Manager Polley, who was also present at this time, then
stated that by his reports, East was 5 minutes late for work that morning, and that
Polley had known of people being clocked in that had never reported for work. Wil-
ber also testified that about this time President Tarzian came by and asked Polley to
get Wilber's time and "get it over with." Sears then informed Wilber that his employ-
ment was terminated. Wilber stated that he had never had been warned previously
about punching in another's timecard, that there was no written rule, and had never
heard of anyone being discharged for it. Wilber also told Personnel Manager Sears
that he had punched in a timecard of another employee on one prior occasion.
Henrietta East testified that after returning home to pick up the dentures she had
forgotten, her husband drove her to the front entrance of the plant. East stated that
she looked at her timecard and that it had been punched in, and testified that at this
time the clock showed 6:59 a.m. East further testified that she then hurried to her
20 General Counsel's Exhibit 4-this is a letter from an employee setting forth how the
writer had successfully progressed with the Company, and had done it without the
Union. Originally, the letter had been posted on an open bulletin board located by the
cafeteria which was used for the same things as the glass board. However, the letter
was among items which were torn from the open board and the writer of the letter
requested another letter which the writer had written be posted in the glass board. That
request was granted.
21 It is noted also that there were several other boards available, and there are no
contentions whatsoever of any restrictions as to them.
a' Henrietta East Is Wilber's mother and has also been employed by the Company
since 1953
21 Wilber stated that East works at the back part of the plant, so be punched her time-
card located in the front end of the plant so that she could then go directly to her work
station.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1215
work station, but observed Assistant Foreman Banks taking absentees, and East then
informed Banks not to put her name down as she was present. East stated that later
in the morning Banks asked her if she was late because Production Manager Polley
had inquired about it, and that when she got to her work station there was no one
sitting at her place nor had the first operation on the production line placed a single
piece on the line. East stated that a few days later she talked to Manager Polley about
Wilber's discharge, and told Polley that Wilber had a good work record, and that
even if Wilber had done something wrong the Company had a probation system and
that the Employer had placed employees on probation before. East further informed
Polley that on one occasion she had seen Clotha Lively punch out Cora Troth's
timecard, and further told Polley that she felt the wearing of the union badge by
Wilber had caused his discharge. East also related that prior to October she was
not aware of any company rule prohibiting the punching of another employee's
timecard.
Cornelius Salee related that he did not know of any employee other than Wilber
to be discharged for punching another's timecard, but stated that he would never
punch another employee's card. Margaret Herring also testified that no one other
than Wilber had been discharged for punching another's card, that she had no
knowledge as to company rules about this matter, but that she herself had never
punched the card of another employee. Herring stated that she knew of others who
had punched timecards of others, but she had not informed the Company about it.
Herring further related that until Wilber was fired no one thought much about such
a thing, but since the employees know better.24
In addition to the above, the General Counsel also produced testimony through
witnesses Taylor, Lockwood, Oliphant, Crow, Nash, Bechner, and Prince, and pos-
sibly others, as to practices and policies involving the punching of timecards by other
employees. All of these witnesses testified that prior to this hearing they were not
aware of any written or verbal company rule which prohibited the punching of
another's timecard, and several stated that no one other than Wilber was discharged
for it. Catherine Taylor also gave testimony to the effect that on one occasion she
was asked by Foreman Hamric what she was doing at the plant timeclock, and when
Taylor informed Hamric that she was checking employees' timecards, the foreman
then merely told her that this was not supposed to be done, and she was not sus-
pended or even put on probation. Lilly Lockwood testified that on several occasions
she had seen Elvin Jones, her foreman, punch Hollis Glosscock's timecard. Lock-
wood further stated that the "assumption" by the employees was that the punching
of another's timecard was the wrong thing to do. Oliphant stated that such prac-
tices are not right, and that she would not punch another employee's timecard. Sue
Crow testified that she had punched the timecard of Margie Prince a number of
times and never was questioned or warned about it. Margie Prince stated that she
had punched the timecard of Carolyn Peyton during 1962, and was never reprimanded
for it.
General Foreman Hamric testified that about 7:30 on October 16 Lucille Jackson,
a group leader, had informed him that Lois Strain had seen Wilber clock somebody
else in. Hamric then inquired of Wilber and he admitted that he had clocked his
mother in as she was sick. Hamric stated that it is a rare instance when such an inci-
dent of this nature happens so he reported it to Production Manager Polley.
Polley testified that he then checked out this incident with the assistant foreman
on the line and was informed that East was at least 5 minutes late, and that a group
leader took her place on the line until she got there. Polley stated that he then called
Company Attorney Woods, but that Woods was not in so he discussed this matter
with President Tarzian. Polley further related that a few days later he and East
talked about Wilber's discharge, and that he informed East that while it was possible
that there were other occasions where employees had punched another's timecard,
this incident was the only one that had been called to Polley's attention. Foreman
Polley also testified that about the time the Union made its initial efforts to organize,
instructions were received in a group meeting to consult with the company attorney
about discharges, and Polley then admitted that he had heard rumors to the effect
that Wilber was "pretty" active in the Union, that he did not want to do something
that may not be right, and stated that supervisors had to be extremely careful in
anything they did to be sure they did not violate the law. Polley testified that this
particular incident was the first offense of this kind ever brought to his attention
with exceptions of mistakes, and that Wilber was the first employee wherein Polley
was involved discharged for punching in another employee's timecard. Polley further
zs Herring testified that East works on the same production line as she does, and that
on the morning of October 16 she had observed East walking down the line approximately
3 minutes after 7 a.m., and that the line had not started when East came in.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that the Respondent's probation and warning systems deal primarily with
employees' actual work performances, and if work is not satisfactory or is of poor
quality then employees are given a warning or put on probation. Polley admitted
that this system also applies to attendance, but that these procedures were not con-
sidered in Wilber's discharge. Polley had received no prior complaints on Wilber.
Personnel Manager Sears testified that when Wilber was called into his office he
admitted that he had clocked in his mother's timecard, and also informed Sears that
he had done so two or three times before. Sears stated that he then asked Wilber if
he did not realize this was a serious offense and cause for discharge and that Wilber
replied in the affirmative.25 Sears further related that prior violations of this kind
showed that in four other instances employees were discharged for punching another's
timecard. Sears also stated that drunkenness on the job calls for immediate dis-
charge, that three employees were so discharged for this offense without warnings
or probation, and that the punching of another's timecard falls in the same category
and calls for immediate dismissal.26
The Respondent produced testimony through Gertrude Corlett to the effect that
her employment was terminated in 1953 without any warning because she had
clocked out another employee's card, and was caught doing so.27 Corlett stated that
she knew the Company had a rule prohibiting the same, and that she was so informed
when employed. Corlett was reemployed by the Respondent in 1955.
Mary Haysley and LaVern Banks, group leader and assistant foreman, gave testi-
mony to the effect that East was about 5 minutes late for work on the morning of
October 16, and that her absence had been noted and that Haysley had taken East's
place on the production line until she arrived 28
Foreman Pearson related in his testimony that prior to the discharge he knew Wil-
ber was interested in the Union as he had seen him passing out union handbills, and
had also observed him wearing the union button while working. Pearson specifically
denied ever telling Wilber that people were watching him so that he had better stop
talking about the Union.29
On the basis of this record it appears to me that the General Counsel has failed
to prove by the required preponderance of the evidence that the Company discrimi-
natorily discharged Wilber. In the final analysis the evidence shows that Wilber
was discharged because he punched the timecard of another employee, and accord-
ingly I so find.
The preponderance of the evidence clearly shows that the Company has a rule
prohibiting any employee from punching another employee's timecard, and violation
of which is considered to be a serious offense which calls for immediate dismissal.
The evidence revealed that a written rule to this effect has been in existence at least
since 1954, and since 1957 the rule has been explained orally to all new employees.
Charles Wink, a witness called by the General Counsel, acknowledged that he had
been told at the time of his employment several months prior to the discharge of
Wilber, that he was to punch his own timecard only. Moreover, several of General
Counsel's witnesses, although testifying that they had never seen a written rule pro-
hibiting an employee from punching the timecard of another employee, admitted
that they considered such a practice to be dishonest and wrong, and that the general
feeling among employees was that it was not a proper practice. There was also
credible testimony of Personnel Manager Sears to the effect that there have been four
zs Sears testified that he made the decision to discharge Wilber after he had admitted
his guilt.
23 The Company Introduced Respondent ' s Exhibit 58, which are plant rules and regula-
tions, and bears the date of January 2 , 1957. Rule 2 states that all workers are to
punch their own timecards when reporting for work and when leaving work for home,
and that this applies to those who may be tardy for work. Sears testified that these
rules were distributed to employees by each department This record shows that in
February 1957 , a reminder of certain rules was also circulated to employees-Respond-
ent's Exhibit 64. Respondent's Exhibits 66, 67, and 68 appear to be the current
checklist of information given to new employees . In this respect Sears testified that item
2-part A, Exhibit 68 , in which "time card use" is listed, employees are then told that they
are to punch their own timecard.
27 Corlett is one of the four instances previously referred to by Personnel Manager Sears.
28 The record shows that East had the last machine on the subassembly line, and that
it takes about 7 to 8 minutes for the first base to travel down the line to her position.
25 Pearson stated that in September 1962, one of the inspectors who worked within sev-
eral feet of Wilber came to Pearson and complained about Wilber 's constant talking which
was interrupting her work. As a result Pearson told Wilber to do his work during work-
ing hours and not to talk to people on the line.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1217
instances where employees were discharged for violating this rule. Gertrude Corlett,
as aforestated, testified that in 1953 she had violated the rule by punching out another
employee's timecard. The fact that she had violated the rule was discovered and the
following day she was terminated. Catherine Taylor testified that once while she
was standing by the timeclocks, Foreman Hamric asked her what she was doing.
She told him that she was checking timecards. Hamric replied that she was not sup-
posed to do that. Although Taylor testified that she was punching a timecard of
another employee, she admitted that what she told Hamric was that she was checking
timecards. Thus, this incident cannot be used to support the position that known
violators have gone unpunished as urged by the General Counsel. Actually then,
there is no evidence in the record of any intentional violation of the company rule
which has gone unpunished when discovered by a supervisor. There is little ques-
tion here but that the rule may have been violated on occasions by different employees
as so stated by several witnesses for the General Counsel, but admittedly these viola-
tions were without knowledge to the supervisors.
There is also little conflict in the evidence concerning the overall considerations
which led to the discharge of Wilber. The controlling consideration is uncontra-
dicted; that is, that Wilber punched in the timecard of another employee who was
late for work.30 This fact was reported to a supervisor of the Respondent and when
confronted with the accusation that he had punched out another employee's time-
card, Wilber admitted that he had done so. Further, not only did Wilber admit to
this single violation , but he stated that he had done the same thing on at least one
other occasion.
In addition to the above, Wilber admitted that no one connected with the Com-
pany had ever said anything to him about wearing the union badge, as aforemen-
tioned. He also testified that there were many other union buttons scattered through-
out the plant. There is also no evidence in the record that any representative of the
Employer had any knowledge of the fact that Wilber had signed a union authoriza-
tion card and had carried two such cards to a mailbox for two other employees. No
one ever asked him if he had signed a union card; no one questioned him about col-
lecting cards for the Union; he was not active in passing out or gathering cards; and
no member of supervision or management knew that he had performed these acts.31
However, assuming here from Polley's testimony that the Company had knowledge
of Wilber's union activities, it is nevertheless necessary that the General Counsel, in
addition, establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the Employ-
er's motive was to discriminate because of this membership or activity. Such can-
not be inferred from mere suspicion or surmise.
In the final analysis Wilber was guilty of violating a long-recognized company
rule which he was familiar with. After an investigation by supervisors to ascertain
the exact factual situation, Wilber was confronted with the accusation and he then
openly admitted his guilt. The evidence further shows, from the record before me,
that the Company in prior years had consistently enforced this rule with immediate
discharge, and that they had done so on each occasion where they had knowledge of
this particular violation.32
C. As to the alleged discrimination of Darrell Bechner; findings and conclusions
The complaint alleges that about October 16 the Company decreased the rate
of pay and lowered the job classification as to Bechner because of his activity on
behalf of the Union.
The record reveals that Bechner worked in the test maintenance department at the
Respondent's Hillside plant; Department Foreman Adamson was hospitalized in
June, and that as a result Bechner was made a temporary group leader in this depart-
30 General Counsel 's witness Herring even admitted that East was approximately 3 min-
utes late for work. The supervisors then had every legitimate right to initiate their
concern and reports which followed.
31 The admission that Foreman Pearson observed Wilber wearing a union button does
not provide a substantial basis for inferring that knowledge of this isolated observance
is to be attributed to those supervisors who participated directly in the discharge. It
should be noted that Pearson in no way was involved in the actual events upon which
the discharge was based.
31 It is noted also that if employees were permitted to "clock in" for each other such
practices would economically and physically disrupt the Respondent's operations, and
several witnesses for the General Counsel acknowledged such in the substance of their
testimony.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment.33 Bechner admitted on cross-examination that his elevation to group leader
was a temporary assignment due to the illness of Foreman Adamson, and that he
was so instructed by Polley. The record further reveals that Adamson returned to
his duties at the plant in early September, but was on limited status to some extent
until about October 1, when Adamson assumed nearly all of his former responsibili-
ties including the necessary "leg work" in his department. It was also duly estab-
lished that after Adamson returned to the plant on full-time duty Bechner gradually
moved back to his old workbench and performed his job there with more frequency
than his duties as temporary group leader, and that by early October Bechner spent
practically all his time at his old job on the workbench as a technician.34
Polley testified that after Adamson first returned from his illness he was on limited
duty so Bechner remained on as temporary group leader, and that when Bechner
moved back to his workbench the only change in his status was the reduction in his
hourly pay.35
Foreman Adamson testified that he had a discussion with his superiors. Walker
and Polley, on October 12 and 13, relative to the recovery from his illness and as
to when Bechner would return to his workbench, and that Adamson was informed
at this time that Bechner would return to his former duties the following week.
Adamson stated that Production Manager Polley walked into the department after
the argument over the union handbill, as detailed in a prior section of this report,
and inquired of Adamson if he had informed Bechner that he was going back to
his old rob on the bench. Adamson then so informed Bechner.
It is clear by this record that the appointment of Bechner was a temporary one
intended only to last as long as was required for the return and recovery of Adamson
from his illness. All parties including Bechner admitted this to be so. Subsequent
events reveal that Adamson returned to work in early September, but the extent of
his work was limited by the weakness of his physical condition and his doctor's
instructions. Except for a brief absence, Adamson gradually assumed more and
more of his duties following his return. Bechner's job was then primarily to do the
legwork which was ordinarily required of Adamson. As Adamson assumed more
of his duties, Bechner's duties as temporary group leader declined, and he picked
up more and more of his own benchwork. By October 1 Adamson was performing
much of his own work, and he was performing all of his duties by mid-October. This
record further shows that on or about October 12, when Polley, Adamson, and
Walker met together, a decision was made that since Adamson was now performing
all of his own work, the temporary group leader's job was no longer necessary, and
that Bechner should be returned to his normal job classification with the resulting
decline of the extra 10 cents an hour which he had received in his temporary posi-
tion. On October 16 Polley reminded Adamson to inform Bechner of the impend-
ing change when he discovered that Adamson had not done so. At the time Polley
so reminded Adamson, there is no testimony in this record that Polley had any
prior knowledge as to the immediately preceding argument between Adamson and
Bechner over the handbill incident.
In summary here, all of the evidence points to the fact that by October 16 Bechner
had ceased performing any of the duties which had been required of him as tempo-
rary group leader. These duties were understood by all to have been temporary and
occasioned only by the illness of Adamson. The recovery of Adamson and his
resumption of duties terminated the temporary need. In view of these circumstances,
the General Counsel's reliance on the events of October 16 over the handbill inci-
dent does not support his contention that the return of Bechner to his permanent job
classification was motivated by Bechner' s union activity. Especially so in view of
the fact that on October 12 the supervisors involved, as aforestated, had determined
to return Bechner to his old job.
as The record shows that several other men in the department had seniority over
Bechner, but after consultation with these men and after getting their approval Bechner
was designated group leader, and given 10 cents an hour increase in wages
84 Bechner further related that on October 17, there was a general departmental meeting
and that Adamson wanted to know if any of the employees had any complaints , and at-
tributed to Foreman Polley the remark that Bechner was "bumped" back from group
leader because of the union argument on the previous day. Salee testified that at the
department meeting Foreman Polley stated that Bechner 's demotion had nothing to do
with the handbill incident, and that this action had been contemplated. Salee also stated
that the department had never had a group leader before Bechner, and there has been
no one since Bechner moved back to his bench.
35 The record shows that while Bechner was informed of his demotion on October 16,
he still continued to receive his pay as department group leader until October 20
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1219
D. As to matters related to the objections; findings and conclusions
The Union-filed 14 objections allegedly relating to employer conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director's report on objections and recom-
mendations to the Board recommended that all of the objections except 4 and 14
be overruled. As aforestated, objections 4 and 14 were then consolidated with this
proceeding.
Objection 4 was as follows:
From January 7 through January 23, the employer in captive audience speeches,
paid for by the company, did campaign illegally and by disregarding the petition-
er's requests for equal time to same employees at same location, dated Decem-
ber 5, and January 18, 1963, registered mail-copies to the Board, prevent voters
from obtaining both sides of the issues thereby denying employees access to full
and accurate information on the issues involved.
The record reveals that during the period from October up to the time of the elec-
tion,36 the Company held a series of meetings with each group consisting of a depart-
ment or a line. Then on January 23 a meeting of all employees of the Hillside plant
was held in that plant's cafeteria, and a comparable meeting was held in the Semi-
Conductor cafeteria on the same day. Altogether there was a total of about 20 such
meetings. It appears that Tarzian was the sole speaker at the smaller meetings and
his talks were essentially the same to each group, as they were in the earlier talks in
October, when other smaller meetings were held. Both Mr. and Mrs. Tarzian spoke
at the two larger meetings on January 23.
Sue Crow testified that at one of the smaller meetings held at Hillside about a
week before the election, Tarzian said that: several lines were laid off because of a
railroad strike; the Company supplied one-half million tuners a year to the Jarvis
Company and they had told him they were afraid of a strike and were finding another
tuner source, and would only have one-half the business; he hoped they could make up
for the shortage; the Union could not do employees any good; and if asked to pay 20
cents more an hour, he could not do it because he did not have it. Herring also tes-
tified that at this meeting Tarzian spoke of a railroad strike and the Jarvis Company.
Tarzian in his testimony denied making these statements 37
Witnesses called by the Union testified that at the Hillside meeting on January 23
Tarzian stated that: they were a happy family; they could talk to him any time they
wanted to; Union Representative Mace was an outsider; when someone is on strike
he draws no compensation; they tried to give raises when they could; and there was
Japanese competition. They further testified that Mrs. Tarzian said they were all
a happy family and if they had any problems they could always come to her, and
with a union there they could no longer do that. There was also testimony that at
the meeting employee Hostetter made a few remarks to the effect that she did not see
why the employees wanted a union.38 Betty Field testified concerning meetings she
attended at the Semi-Conductor plant in January. She related generally her recollec-
tions of what Mr. and Mrs. Tarzian had said in connection with the Union. She also
testified that Walter Petrosky, manager of the Semi-Conductor Division, spoke at one
of these January meetings. Both Tarzian and Petrosky denied that Petrosky even
spoke at any of these meetings, and Fields denied that she was confusing what Tar-
zian said with what she thought Petrosky said. The Union introduced into evidence
letters to the Employer dated December 5, 1962, and January 18, 1963, which re-
quested that the Union be granted "equal time" to address employees at the company
plants.
What was said in these talks in question has already been outlined and set forth
in a prior section of this report, and, as aforestated, I have credited Tarzian's testi-
mony as to what the employees were actually told. This record reveals that the only
thing that Tarzian stated concerning tuners at those meetings related to cost figures
on the Admiral-type tuner and a demonstration of the current margin of profit. He
further illustrated that with a wage increase of 20 to 30 cents per hour, the cost of
that tuner would go up sufficiently to cause the Company to operate at a loss. He
also stated that if they did not buy from the Company they would buy from a com-
petitor. I do not find any objectionable items in the content of these talks or the two
speeches given on January 23, 1963.
3e The election was held on January 25, 1963.
37 It is clear by this record that the Company does not have a customer by the name
of "Jarvis."
88 Herring admitted on cross-examination that had she wished to speak on the occasion
in question she probably could have done so.
221-374-66-vol. 157-78
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection 4 also contains the contention that the Company did not grant the
Union's request for equal time, thereby denying employees access to full and accurate
information. Whether or not the Company was obliged to honor the Union's requests
to reply to the Respondent's talks depends on whether or not it promulgated and
enforced an illegal no-solicitation rule. In this respect first of all, the record shows
that the Union had numerous opportunities to contact employees, all of which it took
advantage of. It distributed handbills at the plant gates in the plants, it made per-
sonal contacts with them, and it held numerous meetings off the company premises
but available to all. Apparently the Union relies on incidents already set forth
herein,39 to show that the Company had an illegal no-solicitation or no-distribution
rule. The credited testimony and events, as aforestated, have sufficiently demon-
strated that none of the facts involved showed that the Respondent had placed illegal
restrictions upon solicitation or distribution. Under well established and recognized
Board law, the Company had the right to prohibit solicitation during working time,
and there is lacking in this record any reliable evidence that the rule was ever extended
to nonworking periods. In essence, we have only one incident wherein Polley's
interpretation of the rule is subject to some question, but a prior event involving
Prince, as aforementioned, clearly shows that employees were permitted to engage
in union activities during nonworking time. Furthermore, this record is actually
abundant with numerous incidents where employees in the plants freely engaged in
all sorts of promotions for the Union and even on the production lines; in my opinion
it would be utterly ridiculous to hold that the Company had an illegal no-solicitation
rule. In Livingston Shirt Corporation, et al., 107 NLRB 400, 408-409, the Board
held:
Accordingly, we are convinced that, absent special circumstances as herein-
after indicated, there is nothing improper in an employer refusing to grant to
the union a right equal to his own in his plant. We rule therefore that, in the
absence of either an unlawful broad no-solicitation rule (prohibiting union
access to company premises on other than working time) or a privileged no-
solicitation rule (broad, but not unlawful because of the character of the busi-
ness), an employer does not commit an unfair labor practice if he makes a pre-
election speech on company time and premises to his employees and denies the
union's request for an opportunity to reply 40
In The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a The May Company, 136 NLRB
797, 800, the Board discussed various ramifications of prior holdings and also some
Supreme Court decisions in the general area in question. However, the Board in
May Company specifically stated, "It is not necessary to, and we do not, pass upon
the Livingston Shirt case insofar as it affects nondepartment store situations."
It should be further noted that Margaret Herring, a witness for the General Coun-
sel, testified that at the meeting she attended on January 23 she probably could have
spoken also, had she wished to do so. In addition there is no testimony by any
witnesses that they were prevented from speaking at any of the meetings if they had
expressed a desire to do so, and the record also revealed that during the smaller
meetings with departments, employees were privileged to ask questions.
Under the circumstances here, I find that the Respondent's failure to respond to
the Union's request for equal time is not conduct which would warrant setting aside
the election. The Union has not shown that it did not have a reasonable opportu-
nity to contact employees to give those employees its position in the campaign. It
has also failed to show the existence of any illegal restriction upon solicitation.
The Union's objection 14 was as follows:
In the two weeks preceding the election, the employer gave preferential treat-
ment to the posting of anti-union literature, but this same courtesy was not
extended to employees who were pro-union and their literature was removed.
(Copies of anti-union literature are enclosed.)
The Union apparently relies on three incidents in support of its charge that
the Employer gave preferential treatment in the posting of antiunion literature.
In January 1963 James Moore, general foreman of production in the Hillside
plant, removed a paper from the railing supporting the light fixture at the work sta-
tion of Sue Crow on the assembly line. Written upon the paper were the words "For
80
Polley's talk with the test maintenance department on October 17, Adamson's re-
moval of a handbill from the light fixture at Bechner 's workbench on October 16, and the
use of the glass-enclosed bulletin board.
{U This is also the applicable rule to be considered in connection with possible employer
conduct warranting setting aside of an election . Detergents, Inc., 107 NLRB 1022.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1221
Job Security Vote Union." Moore testified that no one had instructed him to take
it down. He further testified that there were many other prounion signs posted
around the plant and that he had never taken any of the others down. Moore testi-
fied that in 1962 all supervisors had been instructed to leave union literature alone
if it was in an area which did not hinder production 41
Betty Fields testified that during the 2 weeks prior to the election she and other
employees brought union literature into the Semi-Conductor plant and scattered it
generally throughout the building. Handbills were left in all of the various depart-
ments, the lounge, the cafeteria, the ladies' restroom, and other sections of the plant.
Fields stated that the distribution was made in the morning as employees were enter-
ing the plant and during the afternoon when all employees left the plant. She admit-
ted that no one from management ever had told her not to distribute material around
the plant. Fields also testified that supervisors, including Sloan and Petrosky, fol-
lowed her around picking up handbills after she distributed them. Both Petrosky
and Sloan denied ever having followed Betty Fields around or having picked up union
literature or handbills that she had been passing out. Sloan testified that he had
picked up handbills around the factory which were lying on the floor or which were
in the way for purposes of work, but he denied that he had ever followed Betty Fields
around the factory.
Janet Nash testified that during the 2-week period prior to the election she also dis-
tributed union literature in various departments on the Semi-Contractor plant by
handing material to employees, and by leaving it on tables. Nash testified as to an
incident which happened one morning about 2 minutes before the 7:30 starting time,
and stated that on this occasion Manager Sloan told her that she and the others were
not supposed to pass out union literature. The credited testimony as to this inci-
dent shows that at the time in question Sloan entered the cafeteria where employees
had been drinking coffee. There were handbills strewn all over the table. Employee
Irene Stengis was there passing out handbills. Nash returned to the cafeteria after
having distributed her handbills in the factory. Most of the people who had been
in the cafeteria had left by that time, and the remainder were getting up to go to work.
Sloan then called to Nash and told her to tell Irene Stengis to stop handing out the
handbills because it was 7:30 and people were going to work, and they should be
at their work stations. The items which had already been handed out remained on
the tables until 8 a.m. when they were cleaned up by the matron.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Company engaged in
conduct which interfered with the election and restrained the free choice of employees.
In the final analysis here this record reveals that during the 2 weeks prior to the
election on January 25, 1963, the campaign became more intensified. This resulted
in an increased amount of posting of both prounion and procompany propaganda.
There were a great many handbills and other types of campaign literature posted
throughout the plant, which supported each side, the Company and the Union. The
Union also handed out numerous items of campaign literature to employees during
the campaign. These included advertisements of general meetings held by the Union
for all employees. In addition, all of the normal facilities usually available for
posting were at that time available to each side and were in fact used. The Respond-
ent's evidence showed a good deal of prounion campaign propaganda and posters
which had been posted throughout the plant. These took varied forms and included
handbills, stickers, cartoons, and other more informal placards prepared by the
employees. The Employer's evidence represented only a small portion of the items
taken down at the conclusion of the campaign. Both sides were given full opportu-
nity to support their position in the campaign without any improper restrictions or
discriminatory enforcement of rules. The campaign was one in which each side
used many means to fully assert its position, and employees were allowed their
free choice based upon the issues presented.
This record shows that Foreman Moore's removal of the paper from the railing
supporting the light fixture was in furtherance of enforcement of the plant rule dis-
cussed earlier which prohibits the attaching of paper or any other similar material
to the light fixture, and in view of the fire hazard involved, the fact that the paper was
near the light fixture and not actually attached to it would not appear to be decisive.
Of greater importance is the fact that even if the Union's evidence on this point were
fully credited, the incident would still remain one of a completely isolated nature.
^ Sue Crow testified that Moore had told her to "get that trash off the line." She
admitted that she knew of no other incidents wherein any representative of the Com-
pany removed any union literature, and further admitted that there was literature all
over the plant for and against the Union.
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Even Sue Crow testified that she knew of no other instance in which any union litera-
ture had been removed. This when taken into consideration with the fact that there
was a great deal of union literature posted, makes it unreasonable to conclude that
there was any preferential treatment given to posting. Isolated incidents are not
considered by the Board to be sufficient evidence which would warrant setting aside
an election. Doughboy Plastic Production, Inc., 122 NLRB 338; Peter Paul, Inc., 99
NLRB 386.
As to the testimony given by Fields the evidence clearly shows that there were
employees distributing handbills throughout the plant on behalf of the Union. Cer-
tainly the Employer dose not have the obligation of leaving absolutely untouched the
massive amount of union literature which was "scattered through the plant," as
described by a union witness. It was entitled to continue its normal housekeeping
functions, and the evidence does not establish that anything more than this was done.
Sloan and Petrosky denied that they had ever followed Fields around picking up the
handbills which she distributed, and further Fields brought out the fact that her
distributions were made at times when it was normal for employees to be entering
and leaving their departments and walking through the plant. By distributing at these
times Fields was naturally followed by a great many people, as they proceeded
toward their destinations. No other evidence was presented of union literature being
picked up or the distributors being followed through the plant, even in light
of the admission by Fields that there were at least a dozen employees who were con-
ducting this activity.
The incident involving Janet Nash and Irene Stengis merely shows that Sloan was
attempting to get employees to their work stations on time. The record does not
disclose whether or not the Company had a rule prohibiting distribution of literature
in the working areas in the plant, but even if so, such a rule would be a presumptively
valid one and Sloan's admonition to Nash, if made, would have been proper under
these circumstances.42
In accordance with my findings herein, I shall recommend that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, and that objections 4 and 14 be overruled.
Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
4. The Union's objections 4 and 14 are without merit and should be overruled.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Having concluded that Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as
alleged, and having found the Union's objections to conduct affecting the election
to be without merit, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, that
the Board overrule the Union's objections, and proceed to issue a Certification of
Results of Election.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On September 26, 1963, I issued my Decision in Cases Nos . 25-CA-1666 and
25-RC-2308, holding that Sarkes Tarzian , Inc., herein called the Respondent or the
Company, had not violated Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and further held that the objections to the election filed by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, be overruled . In accordance therewith , I recommended that the complaint in
the above-mentioned cases be dismissed and that a certificate of results of election
be issued . The General Counsel and the Union then filed exceptions to this Decision.
On October 5, 1964, the Union filed a motion to reopen the record for the purpose
of receiving further evidence which became available since the close of the May 1963
hearing before me. On October 26, 1964, the Board ordered that the record in this
It is not clear to me whether or not the bulletin boards specifically enter into this
objection. However, in the event they do this phase of the case has been set forth in an
earlier section of this report.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1223
proceeding be reopened for the purpose of receiving such additional evidence. On
December 3, 1964, the Union filed a supplemental charge, and based thereon the
General Counsel on December 15, 1964, moved to amend the complaint in Cases Nos.
25-CA-1666 and 25-RC-2308, alleging specific conduct both before and after the
election.l On February 11, 1965, the General Counsel filed an additional motion to
amend the complaint. On February 19, 1965, the Board granted the General Coun-
sel's motion to amend the complaint and to be consolidated with Case No. 25-CA-
2056.2 It suffices for purposes here to say that based on certain newly discovered
evidence brought to the Board's Regional Director's attention by the Union, the
complaint was twice formally amended to allege company misconduct over and
above that originally alleged and heard in 1963.
Pursuant to the above, a supplemental hearing was held before me at Bloomington,
Indiana, on February 23 and 24, 1965. The General Counsel, the Union, and the
Respondent again appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence.
The above parties also submitted briefs which I have duly considered.
Upon the entire record and from my observation and demeanor of the witnesses,
I make the following:
Findings and Conclusions
It is newly alleged by the General Counsel that during certain periods in late
1962 and in 1963, Respondent's supervisors interrogated employees concerning
their union activities and sympathies, and threatened employees with lack of upgrad-
ing promotions if they supported the Union. It is alleged that supervisors in late
1962 and in January 1963 promised an employee monetary benefits if she refrained
fiom giving assistance to the Union. The General Counsel alleges that company
supervisors and agents solicited an employee to engage in espionage and surveillance
as to union activity and to report all such information, and that the Respondent
promised or granted monetary and other benefits for such surveillance . It is further
alleged that a supervisor solicited an employee to interrogate and screen applicants
for employment as to their union desires and activities, and threatened loss of employ-
ment if the employee would not do so. The complaint further states that the Com-
pany furnished money to employees to pay for antiunion badges, and also caused
repairs to be made on an employee's car to assure the employee's continued surveil-
lance. All such conduct and related events are alleged to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Finally, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its refusal to rehire Hattie Logie because she
refused to engage in interrogations, screening of applicants , surveillance , and espio-
nage of union activities.
Preelection Testimony
Hattie Logie testified that in late October or November 1962, she was supposed to
go to the cafeteria to hear a speech given by Respondent's president, Sarkes Tarzian.
She testified that she told Respondent's Foreman Robert Porter that she did not
want to go to the cafeteria and would rather clock out. She stated that Foreman
Porter replied that if she clocked out she would be fired. She further testified that
as she started to the cafeteria, Porter asked why she had the attitude she did toward
the Company and why she was for the Union. Logie testified that she replied that
she had been a union stewardess at RCA, and that Porter then said that the Company
did not know that when they hired her. Hattie Logie also testified concerning the
discussion with Porter relating to her absenteeism . In her testimony she stated that
she was called into Porter's office, and that Porter wanted to know why she felt like
she did toward the Company, why she did not work as much for the Company as she
did for the Union, and that he stated that she was going to be fired because of her
attitude toward the Company. Logie further related that she had another conversa-
tion with Porter after an absence in January 1963. She stated that Porter asked why
she did not go into the office and talk to them because the Company could do more
for her than what the Union was doing, and then the Company would have no reason
' The election involved was conducted by the Board 's Regional Director ( Region 25)
on January 25, 1963. Cast for the Union were 510 votes, and against the Union
1,179 votes.
2 On October 2, 1964, Hattie E. Logle filed an individual charge, and a complaint issued
on this charge on December 11, 1964 (Case No. 25-CA-2056). The history of these cases
and the various other procedural motions, briefs , pleadings , and rulings are contained in the
formal papers filed by the General Counsel. (General Counsel 's Exhibits 5-A through 5-BB,
6 and 19.)
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to fire her. Supervisor Porter denied having told Hattie Logie that she would be
fired if she did not go to hear a speech given by Sarkes Tarzian. Porter further
denied having asked Logie why she had the attitude she did or why she was for the
Union. Porter related that he told Logie that if there was no way her absenteeism
situation could be corrected, the Company would be forced to take further action.
Porter stated that he then referred this matter to the Respondent's personnel depart-
ment, and that after Logie's absenteeism continued he inquired of Supervisor Delphia
Haynes about the matter as it was having an adverse effect on other employees, but
in the final analysis no disciplinary action was taken.
Former employee Leola Hostetter testified that S to 6 weeks before the election
(January 25, 1963), she had a conversation with Respondent's manager, Polley, and
that Polley had a clipboard with a list of all of the group leaders in the plant, and that
he said they would go down the list and Polley would mark union or nonunion on
the names contained in the list. She testified that Polley asked her whether she
thought the group leaders were union or nonunion, and that they went through the
entire list and disagreed on four of them. Production Manager Polley stated and
admitted that he, Hostetter, and Respondent's vice president, Mary Tarzian, were in
a meeting in Mary Tarzian's office about a month prior to the election, but denied
anyone having a list of group leaders. Polley admitted that Mary Tarzian did ask
him on this occasion if he was aware or knew that the plant had some disloyal group
leaders, and that after he replied in the affirmative, Mary Tarzian commented,
"Well, it's not a very good situation. We'll have to be more careful of the type of
people we select for our supervisory or management group." Polley denied asking
Hostetter about any group leaders and denies asking her opinion about "anything
or anybody" because he "didn't trust her."
Hattie Logie testified that she had a conversation with Respondent's president,
Tarzian, in Eva Figg's office prior to the election in January 1963.3 She testified
that she went into Figg's office and told Eva Figg that she wanted to change over
"from being for the Union to being for the Company." Logie further testified that
Eva Figg got up and returned with Tarzian and that Logie then told Tarzian that
she wanted to change and be for the Company if they would help her. Logie also
testified that Tarzian had said on this occasion that he would spare no expense to
help her, that he would guard her night and day if necessary, and he would spare no
expense to guard her against the "damned Communists." Logie further testified
to a conversation with Delphia Haynes, the Respondent's supervisor in the first aid
department and personnel counselor, 2 or 3 days prior to the election. Logie inquired
of Haynes what she should do since she had now decided to help the Company
instead of the Union. Logie testified that Haynes informed her that she should not
come out "in the open," but that Logie was to give what help she could by "spying"
on the Union, and that in return the Company would send Logie and her two chil-
dren to Yakima, Washington, paying her expenses and securing a job for her in
Yakima. Logie stated that the "bargain" was made and she agreed to these arrange-
ments. Haynes testified that at some time she may have served Logie medically in
the first aid department, but that prior to the election had no other contacts with
her? Haynes stated that on January 28 or 29, 1963, Logie came to the plant office
and asked to see Tarzian. Haynes then asked Tarzian if he would see her, and Logie
told Tarzian that she was sorry she had been against the Company and apologized.
Haynes testified that Tarzian's reply was simply, "Okay, okay, okay" and he then
immediately excused himself and left. Haynes denied having talked with Logie
before the election or telling Logie not to come out in the open with an open break
with the Union or any words to that effect. Haynes also denied telling Logie that
she was to be for the Company and work for the Company and that she would go
to Yakima, Washington, later, or any words to that effect. Tarzian testified that he
never had any private conversation with Logie, and frankly could not remember
Logie coming to the office and saying she was sorry and apologizing. Tarzian stated
that after the election many employees made similar remarks to him. Tarzian also
denied the statement attributed to him by Logie to the effect that prior to the election
he had told her the Company would spare no expense and hire a guard for her.
Former employee Leola Hostetter testified that a couple of weeks before the elec-
tion she had a conversation with Production Manager Polley and the Respondent's
general counsel, W. D. Woods, in regard to spending time in the plant restroom.
8 Eva Figg is an interviewer in the Respondent's personnel department.
* At the election on January 25, 1963, Logie acted as the Observer for the Union, and
Haynes was the observer for the Company.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1225
Hostetter stated that she was told to go into the ladies' restroom and listen to the
conversations and feelings of the women employee's toward the election, and then
report such information to Woods, Polley, Haynes, and Mary Tarzian. Hostetter
then testified that she did spend considerable time in the ladies' restroom and that
she made reports to Mary Tarzian and Woods. She further stated that the last week
before the election, Mary Tarzian told her to "slack off" because the girls were
complaining about her being in the restroom. Delphia Haynes testified and admitted
that approximately 2 weeks prior to the election she was approached by Hostetter
who asked if she could be relieved from her job on the line to spend some time in
the restroom to listen for information that might be helpful. Haynes testified she
then informed Hostetter that she could not be so relieved because Hostetter was
working on an assembly line and could not be excused. Haynes described this
request as a "fantastic idea." The Respondent's general counsel, Woods, denied
ever having told Hostetter to loiter in the restrooms and to listen to the conversations
of other employees. He further denied ever telling Hostetter to report to him, Haynes,
Mary Tarzian, or Jennings Polley conversations which she overheard. Woods also
stated that he had never heard Jennings Polley tell Hostetter to loiter in the restroom
or listen to conversations of employees or to report them to these persons. Finally,
Woods denied ever having received a report of conversations of other employees
overheard in the restroom by Hostetter. Polley also denied ever having a con-
versation with Hostetter concerning her spending time in restrooms at the plant.
Leola Hostetter further testified in respect to several conversations she had about
the Union with Mary Tarzian. Hostetter stated that before the election Mary Tarzian
had asked her if she had seen a folder the Union had given out, and then commented
that it was "ridiculous," and that she thought "it's a rotten bunch of Reds." Hostetter
also testified to a conversation with Mary Tarzian 3 weeks before the election.
Hostetter's testimony on what was said on this occasion was as follows:
I told her, I said, "We're using an awfully lot of material from the tool crib,
Mary." I said "To make these posters and things." I said, "Well, all of us
girls along here are using it."
She said, "That's all right." She said, "You use anything you need," which
we did.
Hostetter stated that they were making signs, posters, and badges against the Union,
on working time, and then would hang them at their place of work and on their
cars, and wear the badges.5 Hostetter further testified as to another conversation
which she had with Mary Tarzian 2 or 3 weeks before the election, and attributed
to Mary Tarzian the following:
"Lee," she said, "What we really need is for a bunch of my girls ...," " a
bunch of our girls to really write a letter praising us, and retaliating against the
union, the things that they're saying about us."
Hostetter testified that she then wrote a letter and gave it to Mr. Woods, but that it
was decided that the letter would not be published. Hostetter further testified that
Mary Tarzian thought that if one of the girls would give a speech before all the
girls, it would do more good than a letter, and Hostetter stated that she then gave
two speeches prior to the election.
Leola Hostetter further testified that she had a conversation with Woods in regard
to "Vote No" signs the week before the election. She testified that Woods told her
"this has really got to be, confidential. I've really got to trust you on this." She
then testified that Woods had said that he had to have some signs made that could
be pinned on clothing and asked Hostetter if she knew where she could get them
made. Hostetter stated that she told him of Allen's Printing Shop at Linton.
r Hostetter testified that she obtained materials from the toolcrib in order to make pro-
company or antiunion literature. She testified that she obtained tape and ink markers
from the toolcrib for this purpose. She also stated that she asked for the materials from
the toolcrib and usually signed a card, and that her job did not require her to use mark-
ing pencils. Respondent's witness, Cora Porter, an hourly paid contact machine opera-
tor, and a comember with Hostetter of the so-called "Freedom Committee," testified
that prior to the election she had made tags or signs from scrap materials using, among
other things, scrap cardboard pieces that were available around the plant. She and her
friends did this work both before working hours began, during their "break" periods, and
after working hours. Porter testified that there were signs both for the Company and
for the Union. In making the signs on the cardboard, the employees used "magic mark-
.ers," a small bottle with a felt tip. These markers were generally available to anyone
who wanted to have them and were always on the line.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hostetter stated that she stopped at the printing shop that night and was told that
the tags could be printed, and that she reported this to Woods who told her to go
ahead and have them made, which she did. Hostetter stated that these "Vote No"
tags cost $25 and that Woods paid for them, and that several employees passed
them out in the plant. Woods testified that 3 or 4 days prior to the election, Hostetter
came to his office and asked Woods if she and Cora Porter and others could have
"Vote No" signs made and hang them in the plant. Woods testified that he would
not tell her what she could or could not do except for the fact that she could not
hang signs on the light fixtures because of fire regulations which would not permit
this. Woods stated that this was the extent of their conversation. Woods also
stated that a day or two following the election, Hostetter again went to his office
and told Woods that she had incurred some expense in transporting people to the
election to vote and had also incurred some expense in having signs printed, and
wanted to know if she could be reimbursed for it. Woods testified he then paid
Hostetter $25. Cora Porter testified that on January 23, 1963, she arrived early at
the plant on the request of Hostetter and that she was then given some "Vote No" tags
to pass out. Cora Porter stated in her testimony that on this occasion Hostetter
told her that a friend of Hostetter's had made the tags and had paid this friend $15
for doing so. Cora Porter also testified that she was against the Union and was head
of the "Freedom Committee," and that Hostetter was a part of the committee made
up of 8 to 10 members. Respondent's witness Porter admitted that she and
Hostetter were paid by the Company for printing expenses.
Hostetter testified that the day before the election she had a conversation with
Woods concerning car trouble. She stated that on her way to work her generator light
came on so she told Woods and he called Bob Young. She testified that Woods said,
"Well, we'll get that taken care of ... you'll have to be here tomorrow." She testi-
fied that the car was taken to the basement and fixed, and that she paid nothing for
this service. Robert Young, the plant engineer for the Respondent, testified that he
had talked with Hostetter in his office on two occasions prior to the election on
January 25, 1963. The first time was either in December 1962 or January 1963,
when Hostetter came in and told him that there was something wrong with her car.
Young stated that the problem turned out to be a wire off the car's generator and it
was repaired by the maintenance mechanic, and that this service was done pursuant
to the Company's policy in effect since approximately 1953 of helping employees get
their cars started and providing any service for problems pertaining to transportation.
Young testified that this happens two or three times a week, usually in cases of dead
batteries or flat tires, and that no charge is ever made for this service to employees.
The second occasion when Young talked with Hostetter in his office was when
she asked to park inside the fence surrounding the company property sometime in
January 1963, prior to the election.
Alleged 8 (a) (1) Postelection Violations
In respect to this phase of the case, Hattie Logie testified that she first talked with
Woods 2 or 3 days following the election on January 25, 1963. Logie testified that
Haynes called her into the office and said she wanted Logie to meet Woods. Logie
related that on this occasion Woods and Haynes then told her to attend meetings
of the Union and to spy on the Union as to their activities; told her she should make
no open break with the Union, and that she would be of better help to the Company
if she continued working with the Union but reporting what the Union did to the
Company. Logie also testified that Woods gave her his telephone number and
that she was "to call him long distance and reverse the charges, and anything that
came up anytime, I was to call him and report these things, either to him at his
home or in the office." Logie further testified that Woods then stated that in return
for her services the Company would send Logie to Yakima, Washington. She also
testified that Woods then called the Republican National Committee Chairman to
get in touch with Catherine May, Congresswoman from the State of Washington,
about securing employment for Logie in the State of Washington. Logie testified
she was given Mrs. Jean Smith's telephone number and she was to contact her when
she got to the State of Washington .6 Logie testified that in a telephone conversation
with Woods in April 1963, she told Woods she had been to a union meeting. Logie
stated they also talked about the progress of the Union, and that Woods then asked
her why she did not forget about her trip to Yakima, Washington, and that Logie
could be used in the office to "screen applicants before they got inside the plant, and
that way we wouldn't have all this trouble."
Olt appears that Mrs. Jean Smith lives or resides in the State of Washington, and
is a secretary there to Congresswoman May.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1227
Woods denied ever having met with Hattie Logic during the period from 2 days
to a week following the election. He stated that he first met Logic in July or
August 1963. He denied having told Logic during the week following the election
or at any other time to attend the union meetings and to spy on their activities, or
any words to that effect. Woods also denied ever having told Logic to make no
open breaks with the Union but to continue to work with the Union and to report
information to the Company, or using any words to that effect. Woods further
denied giving Logic his telephone number during the week following the election,
but testified he had given Logic his telephone number in July or August 1963. Woods
further denied ever having called the Republican National Committee Chairman or
the Indiana State Republican Chairman. He also denied telling Logic during the
week following the election that he would send her to Yakima, Washington. Woods
stated that in July or August 1963, Logic came to his office with Haynes and wanted
to talk to him. She then told Woods that the Company did not know what kind of
people they were dealing with in the Union, that Union Representative Lucas had
stated, "If the Tarzian people were too stupid to vote in the Union, then they were
going to run Tarzian out of town." Woods testified that on this occasion, Logic also
described in detail a certain incident in\olving immorality and a sacrilegious com-
ment by a union organizer. Woods testified that Logic described this incident to
explain why she had turned against the Union. Woods further related that at this
meeting he informed Logic that she could get in touch with him at any time and
gave Logic his home telephone number as Logic was afraid to come into the plant
office. Woods testified that he talked with Logic about her going to Yakima,
Washington, in November 1963. Logic came to the conference room with Del
Haynes and Woods talked with her there. Woods testified that Logic then told him
that she felt that she was in danger, that the Union was watching her, and that she
wanted to get away from Indiana and go to Yakima, Washington. Logic then told
Woods that she had a husband living on an Indian reservation to whom she had
been previously married, and that she would go to Yakima either to remarry him or
to complete a divorce in accordance with Indian tribal customs.
Woods testified that Logic then asked to borrow $1,000 from the Company for
this move, but that he informed Logic that the company policy did not include loans
for such a venture.
Logic testified that in September 1963 Woods wanted her to attend a union meet-
ing to find out "what they were going to do." She stated that she made a report to
Woods by calling him. She testified that she then told Woods that the Union was
going to start signing cards again and that she asked what she should do if they
asked her to sign a card. Logic testified that Woods replied that he would discuss
the matter with their labor attorney. She testified that it was later agreed that she
should sign a union card, and that she should sign up everybody that she knew was
for the Union who would sign union cards anyway. Logic further stated that she
signed a card and that she received cards from other people which she took into
Haynes' office on several occasions. Logic testified that she would leave the cards
with Haynes and go back and pick them up 2 or 3 hours later, or even the following
day. She stated that she had taken over 50 such cards to Haynes at various times.
Logic then testified that when she received the cards back from Haynes she would
turn them in to Union Representatives Mike Lucas or Dale Mace, or take them to a
union meeting. Logic further related that she was in the hospital in October 1963,
and that she was at that time visited by Union Representative Mike Lucas. She
testified that while she was in the hospital she talked with Woods on the telephone,
and that Woods wanted her to find out what the Union was doing in the Respondent's
plant in Arkansas. She testified that Woods also said that if Lucas came back to
the hospital, for Logic to call Woods. She testified that following her dismissal from
the hospital, she called Woods to tell him that they were having a union meeting,
and that Woods then asked her to attend it if she "possibly felt like it." Logic
testified that following this meeting, which she did attend, she called Woods to
report what had happened at the union meeting. She stated that she told him that
the Union had decided that they were going to fight to get in. She stated that Woods
told her to call again when she got to her home in Bedford, Indiana, and in the
meantime he would call the Respondent's labor attorney. She then testified that
she did call when she arrived in Bedford, and that she again told Woods that the
Union definitely was going to make a stand to get in and were definitely "going
ahead with it." Logic also stated that in November 1963 she told Woods she was
"sick and tired" of the arrangement and wanted out of it. She stated, however, that
Woods told her that she was the only link the Company had with the Union and
they wanted her to continue spying on the Union. Woods stated he received a call
from Logic in September or October 1963, asking whether she should attend a union
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting, and that he told Logie that it was entirely up to her and he was not going
to give her instructions. As to the union cards, Woods testified that he told Logie to
do with them what her own judgment indicated. Woods denied telling Logie to
turn over the union cards to Haynes, and Haynes denied that Logie had ever brought
any union cards to her. Woods testified that he did receive a call from Logie while
she was in the hospital in Bedford dunng the fall of 1963. At that time, Logie stated
that she was in the hospital and wanted to know if Woods wanted her to go to a
union organizing meeting. Woods testified that Logie told him she was sick and
hated to go, but if Woods wanted her to go she would. Woods replied. "We are
not going to ask you to attend the meeting or not attend a meeting; it is entirely
up to you."
Meetings With Logie at Woods' Home
Logie testified that she met on three different occasions in the home of Woods
with Respondent's Labor Attorney D. C. Duck, Delphia Haynes, and Woods. She
testified that the first such meeting was in the spring of 1963. Logie stated that the
meeting resulted from Haynes having summoned her into the office and saying that
Respondent's Attorney Duck would be in Woods' house the following day and that
Logie should be there at 9 o'clock. Logie testified that the next day she drove her
car from Bedford to Woods' home. She testified that Woods had a list of people
and that he said that they did not know for sure "just which way they were, and we
went over this list of people that were either pro-union or pro-management." She
testified that it was a typewritten list with 400 or 500 names contained within it.
Logie testified that as the group went over the list Duck and Woods took notes. Logie
testified that Woods also asked her about Mary Tarzian coming into the plant.
Logie also testified that she attended a second meeting in the Woods home in
September 1963. She said that the meeting was again attended by Woods, Haynes,
Duck, and herself. Logie testified that the meeting was taped and that there was
discussion of the Respondent's Arkansas and Tennessee plants. She testified that
she reported to Woods that the Union was going to use "A" members of the I.B.E.W.
as contacts inside a plant. She testified that Woods said that they "would fire anyone
that, you know, they caught signing the union cards." She stated that Duck said,
"Well, they would probably be too dumb to know whether it was unfair labor
practices or not." She further testified that Woods stated that they had the tape
recorder because Tarzian could not be at the meeting and he wanted to know what
was going on. In addition, Logie testified that Woods wanted her to find out what
was going on in the Tennessee and Arkansas plants from the Union's standpoint.
She also testified that she was given instructions to sign union cards.
Logie testified that she had a third meeting with the same people in November or
December 1963. Logie testified that it was at this meeting that it was decided to
put in the telephone for her at company expense, that she was having trouble at
home; and "it was felt at this time that I should have some kind of protection."
She also stated that the Company agreed and that they hired private detectives to
guard her.
Woods testified that the first meeting with Logie was in November 1963 at his
home after Logie had told him she was afraid to come into the plant office, and that
she wanted Respondent's Labor Attorney Duck to be there also. Woods stated that
he, Logie, Duck, and Haynes then met at his house. Woods testified that much of
the conversation on this day was a reiteration of what Logie had told him. She
told of the incident at the Van Orman Hotel, and the statement of Mike Lucas that
if the Tarzian employees were too stupid to vote in the Union, they were going to
run Tarzian out of town. Logie also said that the strategy of the Company in its
campaigning was in error in certain respects. She stated that Mary Tarzian was
ineffective in her speeches and that more speeches should be made by Mr. Tarzian.
Woods testified that the second meeting with Logie at his home was on December 9,
1963, with the same people present. According to Woods, at this meeting Logie
urged her immediate departure to Yakima and stated that the Union suspected her
and was watching her house. Woods testified that Logie then told them she needed
a telephone to call the police, and that he then agreed that a telephone with an
unlisted number should be immediately installed, and made such arrangements with
the Company paying for it. Both Woods and Haynes denied any third meeting with
Logie and denied questioning her concerning any list of employees. Woods also
denied asking Logie what was going on at the Respondent's Clarendon, Arkansas,
plant, but admitted that Logie had volunteered the fact that Union Representative
Mace was at Clarendon trying to organize this plant.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1229
Alleged Promises and Benefits
Logie testified that in January 1964 Woods told her that it was getting too risky
for her to stay in Bloomington and that they were going to try to move her out.
She testified that "they were going to get me to Yakima, Washington, but these
things just wasn't panning out." She further stated that Woods arranged to have her
laid off and sent to California. She testified that she was to go to the Company's
service repair department in North Hollywood, California. Logie testified that she
was given two checks by the Company. She stated that Woods told her "to get an
estimate from the van lines about moving my furniture to California." She stated
that she obtained an estimate of some $400 and took this to Haynes. Logie testified
that in one of her conversations with Woods she "went into the office, in the con-
ference room, and met with Mr. Woods," and "he gave me the check for moving
my furniture to California." She stated that the check was for "four hundred and
some dollars." She testified that the check was drawn on a Bloomington bank and
that she thought Sarkes Tarzian had signed it. She then testified that while on her
way to California she had cashed the $400 check. Logie stated that a check for
$743.91 was given to her by Woods as she was leaving for California. She admitted
that she signed a promissory note for the amount, but added that Woods "told me
not to worry about it, that it would be put in a secret file, I never had to pay it back."
Woods testified, as forestated, that in November 1963 he did have a talk with Logie
about going to Yakima, Washington, and wherein she asked to borrow $1,000.
Woods stated that he had called Congresswoman May at Hattie Logie's request
around January 1964 in order to get some assistance in getting a job for Logie in
Yakima. Since no definite job could then be located in Yakima, Logie asked to
borrow money in order to get to her sister's in California. Woods replied that they
would consider the possibility of a loan if she was going to her sister's since she
would have a place to live there, and if she would then work toward getting a job
in Yakima. He stated that they would also offer employment in the Company's
Los Angeles service department. Woods testified that costs of moving were then
ascertained, and that in February 1964 Woods prepared, and Logie signed , a prom-
issory note for $743.91 in return for a check issued and payable to Logie. Woods
denied ever having given a check for $400 and some to Hattie Logie in February 1964,
or at any other time. He also denied having told Logie that she did not have to pay
the $743.91 note, or any words to that effect. Woods admitted that in December
1963, or January 1964, the Company made arrangements to hire a private investigator
for Logie's protection. Logie left for California in February 1964, and then returned
to Bloomington , on about June 19, 1964.7 Logie testified that when she returned in
June she called Woods at the plant. She stated that during this conversation she
asked Woods about going back to work inside the plant (her old job) and that
Woods asked if she would be interested in a job in the office. Logie testified that
she asked in reply whether this was a job of screening applicants for employment,
and that Woods said "Yes." Logie then told Woods she was not interested in this
job, but wanted her old job back. Logie stated that she was never given her old
job as she requested. Woods testified that when Logie called him after she returned
in June, he told her to contact the Respondent' s personnel department, and that he
had no discussions with Logie as to any job wherein she would be screening appli-
cants for union activities.
Credibility and Final Conclusions
In the preceding paragraphs and sections of this Decision I have set forth consider-
able testimony of the witnesses in my efforts to unfold this case with as much detail
and clarity as possible, and because several of the events and incidents relate to
many highly unusual situations. What strikes me initially as completely overwhelm-
ing in this case is the Respondent's contention that Hattie Logie was just another
employee who received no unusual handling. Yet, it is most obvious and glaring
to anyone reading this record that the exact opposite is the truth. Logie worked as a
technician in quality control at the Respondent's plant making about $60 a week,
and was one of the main organizers in the union efforts during 1962. Despite such
circumstances she admittedly met twice in a private home with Woods, Haynes, and
the Respondent's labor attorney; she was given Woods' home telephone number and
told to call at any time; she was assisted with plans and money in moving to California;
7 General Counsel's Exhibits 9 and 13 through 16, show correspondence between Logie
and Woods following her arrival in California up to June 1964.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from time to time she was given other smaller amounts of money in cash; she was
the subject of at least one call to a member of Congress concerning employment in
the State of Washington; she was given a telephone in her home with an unlisted
number at company expense; and to top it all off she was then provided with a
private investigator for her protection. I submit that the admissions of these facts
and events by the Respondent's own witnesses establishes, in agreement with the
General Counsel, that Logie was undoubtedly the most endowed and unique employee
in the entire history of the Company. I set forth the above prior to my findings of
the specific allegations because I feel that the Respondent's position, testimony, and
contentions here are absolutely ridiculous and untrue, and also shed considerable
light in other aspects of this case and the general incredibility of the witnesses for
the Company irrespective of the findings in my earlier Decision. In the final analysis
here it is fully noted that many of the events and happenings as admitted by wit-
nesses for the Company only vary as to the timing, and the exact language used on
the occasions in question, other than these factors there is actually very little differ-
ence in establishing the main events and circumstances.
The credited evidence shows that in October or early November 1962 Foreman
Porter told Logie that if she did not hear a speech by Tarzian she would be fired, and
then Porter inquired of Logie as to why she was for the Union. In January 1963
Porter told Logie, while discussing her absenteeism, that she should become a con-
vert to the Respondent's cause. In crediting Logie's testimony it is noted that Porter
stated he had reprimanded Logic about her poor attendance record, and that he had
referred the matter to Haynes for action; and, most significantly, that nothing was
ever done to correct the situation, notwithstanding that Logie's absence had a dis-
cernible adverse effect on the performance of the work of Porter's unit. The only
reasonable explanation for this company inaction is, of course, that Logie was
performing useful services away from the assembly line.
The credited evidence in this record shows that about 5 or 6 weeks prior to the
January 25, 1963, Board-conducted election, employee Hostetter was interrogated
by Production Manager Jennings Polley concerning a list of the Respondent's group
leaders (part of the unit of employees eligible to vote in the election). Hostetter
informed Polley as to the union sympathy of each employee on the list, and Polley
marked their respective names with the notation, "Union," or "non-union." While
Polley denied this specific interrogation he significantly admitted such a meeting, and
then testified to remarks uttered by Mary Tarzian (wife of Sarkes Tarzian and a
vice president of the Respondent) to Hostetter in his presence revealing that Mary
Tarzian had found out that some of the group leaders were "disloyal" in that they
were for the Union. Mary Tarzian admittedly also instructed Manager Polley at
this time that in the future employees were to be more carefully selected for these
nonsupervisory job promotions thereby eliminating any union adherents from the
ranks of the worthy.
Leola Hostetter also credibly testified that 2 weeks prior to the election she was
told by Woods and Polley to listen to union conversations in the ladies' restroom.
Hostetter carried out these instructions and reported back what she heard. It is
pointed out that Respondent's witness Haynes added to the credibility of Hostetter
by testifying that Hostetter had discussed this restroom-spying proposal with her,
and by admitting on cross-examination that complaints actually reached her that
Hostetter was spending an unusual amount of time in the restrooms. It therefore
appears clear to me that if Haynes, Woods, and others in management had not
encouraged and solicitated such surveillance Haynes would never have received such
complaints on Hostetter because the plan would have then been abandoned.
The credited testimony by Hostetter further shows that her activity as part of
the operations of the "Freedom Committee" included use of working time and
company materials to produce antiunion signs with management's express approval.
The facts also show that she was directed by Respondent's general counsel and
assistant to the president, Woods, to purchase some 2,000 "VOTE NO" signs. These
signs were not designated as respondent propaganda, but were distributed on com-
pany time by the committee. Woods paid the $25 cost for the signs in cash. Woods
not only failed to deny the payment, but admitted that he reimbursed Hostetter
knowing that at least part of the $25 had been spent for antiunion literature, and
Respondent's witness, Cora Porter, also testified and admitted that she and Hostetter
were paid for printing expenses. It is also apparent from this record that as part
payment for this and like services rendered, Hostetter's car was repaired at company
expense on the day before the election. While the Company attempted to show that
Hostetter's car was repaired in conformance with a long established company policy
calling for the repair of all employees' cars, it developed that the policy in question
merely called for simple repairs absolutely essential for an employee to remove his
car from the company parking lot (flat tires and dead batteries), and nothing more.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1231
In the overall aspects of this phase of the case it is pointed out again that the details
of Hostetter's testimony were indirectly corroborated and even admitted in several
relevant parts by the testimony of the Respondent's own witnesses.
The credited evidence shows that before the election Hattie Logie also notified
Tarzian that she was changing over and would work for the Company instead of
the Union. Tarzian then informed Logie that he would spare no expense in helping
her do so and would even provide her with a guard for her protection, and, as afore-
stated, this is exactly what the Company did. Logie was then told to keep her dis-
affiliation with the Union a secret, and in return for her surveillance the Company
agreed to send Logie to Yakima, Washington. Later Logie was given Woods' home
telephone number, and Logie in turn furnished the Company with detailed informa-
tion on what she learned at union meetings and in conversations with union officials.
Logie's surveillance reached major proportions when she described the activities
of the Union and employees during the meetings at the home of Company Attorney
Woods, wherein she reviewed a list of employees as to their union sentiments
with Company Representatives Woods, Haynes, and Duck. At one of the meetings
the discussions were tape-recorded so that Respondent's President Tarzian could be
fully informed, and at this meeting Logie gave information about the Union's
organizing attempts at the Company's Tennessee and Arkansas plants. At the last
meeting it was decided that a telephone should be installed in Logie's home, and
that private detectives should protect her-all to be paid for by the Company-and
in light of Logie's verbal assertion that she was capable of protecting herself.8
On February 10, 1964, Logie received a $743.91 check from the Company given
to her by Woods. The Company maintained that this was a loan in accordance with
their loan program to employees in urgent need. However, Woods could not recall
another loan to a person leaving the Company's employ which did not call for
installment repayments. Woods also had some difficulty with the note Logie had
executed for the "loan." While he testifies on one day that the Logie note "is a
standard note that we use in this type of loan to our employees," the next day found
him testifying that the note was not the same form used in connection with other
company loans. In a letter by Woods to Logie dated June 12, 1964, a year before
the note was payable Woods wrote:
Mr. Tarzian ... is not at all worried about any loan which has been made
and asked me to assure you that you need have no worry about it.
The evidence is clear that the so-called Logie "loan" was nothing more than com-
pensation for her surveillance upon the Union.0
The factual evidence in this record shows that on or about June 19, 1964, Logie
returned to Indiana from California. Within an hour of her return she telephoned
Woods. He expressed his shock at her sudden appearance and asked if she had not
read his latest letter to her promising Tarzian"s assistance in sending her from Cali-
fornia to Yakima, Washington. After explaining to Woods that she was returning
as she was running out of money, Logie asked for her old production job back in the
quality control department. Woods, however, again offered Logie a job screening
applicants to determine their union activities.'0 Logie declined this offer, and stated
that she did not want to get involved "in all that." Woods then informed Logie that
they wanted her for the "screening" job, and if not this she should go to work for
R.C.A. Subsequent to the above Logie also made formal application to the Company
for her old job in quality control, but was not rehired.
The above instances of interrogations of employees as to their and other employees'
union activities, threatening discharge of Logie and threatening certain other employ-
ees with lack of upgrading in their promotions, soliciting employees to engage in
surveillance , promising and granting monetary and other benefits for such surveillance,
8 The testimony by Logie further established that from time to time during her period
of spying on the Union , she also received various cash amounts from the Company varying
from $5 to $60.
9 As the Union points out, the loan criteria, if any, were also "unusual" According
to Woods' ,testimony, when Logie asked for $1,000 in December 1963, he told her that
the "Company policy" did not permit him to lend her money at that time , because she did
not have a job lined up at her intended destination. However, in February 1964, only
3 months later, Logie had no trouble "borrowing" $743 through Woods even though her
employment prospects had in no way become brighter , and admittedly she was only going
to California to see her sister.
io Back in April 1963 , as aforestated, Woods had suggested to Logie that instead of going
to Yakima she take a job in the Respondent 's office screening new applicants for their
union sympathies.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promising and granting monetary benefits to employees for antiunion badges and
literature, and soliciting an employee to interrogate new applicants for union activities,
constitute violations of Section 8(a) (1) and I so find.'1
When Logie asked Woods for her old production job back about June 19, 1964,
Woods did not claim at this time that there was no work available, and, likewise,
did not claim that her old job was not available.12 Woods made the Respondent's
position clear when he again offered Logie the job of screening new employment
applicants to prevent the hiring of union adherents. When Logie then refused to
again became involved in such matters she was told to find work elsewhere. In
this respect the General Counsel states as follows:
The Respondent's overt conduct does not require the drawing of inferences for
understanding. If Logie would consent to participate in perpetual 8(a)(1)
machinations she would be welcomed with open arms, and, if not, she could
"hit the road." This is as evident a case of illegal motivation in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as is likely to be found, short of an employer
confession.
For the reasons given here, the demeanor of the witnesses, and in consideration
of the events, the record as a whole, and the Respondent's union animus, it is clear
that Logie was discriminatorily refused reinstatement on June 19, 1964.13
Impact of New Evidence on Original Decision
The General Counsel and the Union urge that in light of this newly discovered
evidence I ieconsider the findings in my original Decision, as aforestated.14 In my
original Decision dated September 26, 1963, I dismissed several of the 8(a) (1)
specifications alleged therein on the grounds that they were isolated incidents or that
the interrogations, threats, and other statements made by supervisors contained no
unlawful interference under the total evidence and particular circumstances then
presented to me. However , in this Supplemental Decision I have made 8(a)(1)
and (3) findings against the Company, as aforestated, and in view of such new
evidence I now have made reevaluations of the dismissals in my original Decision,
and in relationship thereto hereby make the following upon which it is found
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) :
(1) Foreman Elvin Jones' interrogation of Lilly Lockwood as to her union
activities.
(2) Manager Russell Sloan's interrogation of Marie LaBorn and Janet Nash as
to their union activities in September 1962.
(3) Manager Sloan's threat to discharge Marie LaBorn because of her activity
for the Union in mid-October 1962.
(4) Manager Sloan's threat to discharge Janet Nash when he asked Nash if she
had a union card he could sign.
(5) Foreman Adamson's threat to discharge Darrell Bechner on October 16,
1962, because of his union activity.
n Section 8(a) (1) Is violated when an employer in any way encourages employees to
attend union meetings and report back on what occurred , and the fact that the person
doing so was already a company informer does not change the result.
12 In February 1964, Logie was laid off by the Company on the basis of a cutback in
work when she made her trip to California.
72 Near the close of this hearing , on February 24, 1965 , the Respondent asked for a con-
tinuance of the hearing on the grounds that two of their witnesses , Mary Tarzian and
Eva Figg, were not available to testify because of illnesses. Both had been served with
a subpena , but under orders from their doctors could not appear. Eva Figg was in New
York receiving treatments and was seriously ill. At the hearing I reserved ruling on the
matter until such time as I reviewed this record to ascertain the materiality of their
presence and testimony to the Respondent's case. It now appears clear to me that there
can be no prejudice to the Company in issuing this Decision without their testimony.
Both are actually minor witnesses , and both of them are involved in allegations and in-
cidents along with other management people who did testify as to such incidents . There-
fore, even their denials of these happenings and conversations as offered in the proposed
stipulation by company counsel would be merely cumulative . The Board has held on
several prior occasions that a hearing cannot be indefinitely postponed because witnesses
with knowledge of the issues are unavailably sick See Sun Oil Company , 105 NLRB 515.
14 The Board 's order reopening record specifically authorizes a supplemental decision
with such findings of fact and conclusions of law as I deem warranted by this additional
evidence . As urged by the General Counsel I have also taken judicial notice of the
Board's Decision in Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., 149 NLRB 147.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1233
In my original Decision I found that Melville Wilber was discharged for cause 15
In light of all the present evidence and the Respondent's full and dedicated union
animus now before me, I will reverse my prior determination, and herein find that
Wilber was discriminatorily discharged on October 16, 1962. I think it sufficient for
purposes here to merely point out that Wilber was a member of the organizing
committee for the Union, and on occasion wore a union badge while working.
Admittedly no one complained about Wilber or his work before his discharge and
no warning was given to him. My prior determination as to Wilber hinged to a
considerable extent on the testimony of Manager Jennings Polley, and in this Supple-
mental Decision I have rejected his testimony, and now do likewise as to his state-
ments involving the discharge of Wilber. It is noted, however, that Polley admitted
in the initial hearing before me that he had heard rumors that Wilber was "pretty"
active in the Union. In the final analysis I now must conclude that no employees
were aware or any written rule of recent vintage prohibiting the punching of
another's timecard, and that actually no employee other than Wilber was discharged
for such an offense although the rule had been violated on various occasions. While
the initial view of the events on October 16, 1962, indicates conduct which violated
a company rule, a closer look at the facts now, coupled with the newly discovered
evidence demonstrating clear and overwhelming union animus, shows that Wilber's
conduct was merely a convenient pretext for discharging a known union supporter.
Accordingly, I reject the Respondent's reliance on a naked right to discharge for the
alleged infraction of a company rule, as it was not the real reason for Wilber's
termination.
In my original Decision I held that the Company had not discriminated against
Darrell Bechner on October 16, 1962, in returning him to his permanent job classi-
fication from that of a temporary group leader. This action resulted in a decreased
rate of pay as Bechner was placed in a lower classification. In light and in view
of the new evidence and the Respondent's full union animus now before me, I find
that Bechner was discriminated against on October 16, 1962, because of his activity
for the Union. In brief recapitulation the evidence discloses that on October 16
Foreman Adamson noticed a union handbill attached to a light fixture over Bechner's
workbench, and after Adamson had taken it down and Bechner had put it back up all
argument between them ensued. Adamson then told Bechner that if he left the
handbill there he "was going to go." Bechner then removed the union handbill.'°
The Company maintained that Manager Polley reminded Foreman Adamson on
October 16, prior to the preceding argument between Bechner and Adamson, that
Bechner would be returned to his permanent job on the workbench because Adamson
had now fully recovered from his illness. In consideration of the full circumstances
and events now before me it is clear that Bechner was specifically identified by
Adamson as a union adherent when he noticed the union handbill over his bench,
and that this incident triggered the Respondent's action in demoting Bechner. The
Company also relied on their testimony to the effect that Adamson, Polley, and
Supervisor Walker had a conference on October 12, and that at this time it was
decided that Bechner would be returned to his former duties the following week since
Adamson had recovered from his illness. I do not believe this testimony, and as I
have noted earlier in this Supplemental Decision, the new evidence now shows the
general incredibility of most of the Respondent's witnesses, and this is certainly
another incident where there incredibility has been amply demonstrated in consider-
ation of all the relevant factors involved.
In reexamination of my original Decision based on the impact of the new
evidence before me, I am urged to also find that the Respondent's conduct was of
such a character as to warrant setting aside the January 1963 election to which union
objections are now pending, on the basis that the totality of the Company's conduct
was of such a nature that the employees had no free choice. The Respondent argues
that the alleged preelection conduct does not reveal sufficient evidence to setting
aside the election, that isolated incidents are not sufficient, and that since the election
was held over 2 years ago no useful purpose can be served by setting aside the election
now.il A brief summary of my findings in this critical period shows that in late
15 The Company contended Wilber punched the timecard of another employee (his
mother's).
1e The Company had a rule preventing employees from hanging things on light fixtures,
but it appears that the rule is frequently violated and that no disciplinary action is ever
taken against employees causing the violation.
17 The critical period of time involved in this particular phase of the case is from
October 5, 1962, when the representation petition was filed, through January 25, 1963,
the date of the election.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October or early November 1962, Logie was threatened with discharge if she did
not listen to a speech by Tarzian,18 and was also interrogated as to why she was for
the Union. Five or six weeks prior to the election Hostetter was interrogated about
the Respondent's group leaders (who were eligible to vote in the election), and
such union adherents were to be eliminated from promotions. Two weeks prior to
the election Hostetter conducted detailed surveillance activity for the Company in
the plant restroom, and prior to the election made arrangements for the printing of
2,000 antiunion badges which were paid for by the Company and was given other
benefits, as aforestated. Prior to the election Logie notified Tarzian and others in
management that she was changing over from the Union to work for the Company,
and most important she then served as a union observer at the election when the
Company knew she was working for them. In other words the Union had no bona
fide representative to officially represent them at the election. My findings also
show that on October 16, 1962, Foreman Jones interrogated Lilly Lockwood as to
her and other employees' sentiments about the Union, and on October 16, 1962, the
Company threatened Bechner with discharge because of his union activity and then
discriminatorily demoted him, and on the same day discriminatorily discharged
Wilber.
The main question here is whether the sum total of the above conduct amounts
to substantial interference with the election. The Board has held that a secret-
ballot election, held under Government supervision and with safeguards developed
through the years, should not lightly be set aside, and that the Board will exercise
the power sparingly, only in cases of "excessive acts" and "conduct so glaring that
it is almost certain to have impaired employees' freedom of choice." 19 However,
the Board has a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and standards
necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representative by employees,
and it has been held that the Board may set aside an election because of speeches
which are not coercive, conduct which does not constitute unfair labor practices,
coercive remarks even if made to relatively few employees, or even if they are only
indirectly or impliedly coercive, if, in the exercise of the Board's discretion, it
appears that such conduct interfered with the employees' freedom of choice.29
Hence, I must give due weight to the fact that Respondent's conduct in the crucial
period, while involving comparatively few instances and employees in relation to
the total eligible voters, were all unfair labor practices, involving numerous interro-
gations and threats by key management officials, who had throughout the campaign
kept extremely close track of employees' union sentiments and the progress of the
Union's efforts by various means, lawful and unlawful. I cannot agree with Respond-
ent that the instances of coercive conduct were casual or isolated conversations to be
treated as just another subject to talk about, or too few in number to affect the
election results. This is especially pronounced when union adherents are discharged
and demoted, and also when the union observer at the election is actually working
for the Company. Furthermore, these coercive statements and the other discrim-
inatory conduct were made in the course of the Respondent's intensive election cam-
paign, during which the employees were subject to a constant barrage of propaganda
in the form of speeches, pamphlets, and department meetings. In consideration of
all of the above facts and circumstances and on the totality of this record, I am led to
the conclusion that Respondent engaged in conduct amounting to substantial inter-
ference with the election sufficient to warrant setting it aside, and I shall recommend
that the election be set aside, and a new election held.21
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The operations of the Respondent, occurring in connection with the unfair labor
practices described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
18 This issue was fully litigated at the hearing as detailed earlier herein.
19 Liberal Market Inc., 108 NLRB 1481 ; General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124 ; also
see Threads-Incorporated, 124 NLRB 968.
20Aeronca Manufacturing Corporation, 118 NLRB 461, 466, 467, and cases cited in
footnotes 10 through 20.
21 Plaij kool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417; Louisiana Manufacturing Com-
pany, 152 NLRB 1301.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC.
THE REMEDY
1235
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employees Hattie Logie, Melville
Wilber, and Darrell Bechner immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to that which they would have earned as wages from the date of the discrim-
ination against them to the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, and
in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, to which shall be added
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Having found that some of Respondent's actions described above have interfered
with the election and deprived the employees of their freedom of choice, I also
recommend that the election be set aside and a new election be held.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent preserve Ind make available to the
Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records and reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
right to reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations. In order to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing on the rights
guaranteed in that section. N.L.R B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426;
N L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union 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 discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Hattie
Logie, Melville Wilber, and Darrell Bechner, thereby discouraging membership in
the above Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(4) By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices withi the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(5) Between October 5, 1962, and January 25, 1963, the Respondent engaged in
conduct interfering with its employees' freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining
representative.
(6) 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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire .record in the case, it is recommended that Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their own or other employees' mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization, in a
manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening its employees with discharge and lack of promotions because of
their union activities.
(d) Soliciting and encouraging employees to engage in surveillance activities.
221-374-66-vol 157-79
1Gc^C) DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Promising and granting monetary and other benefits to employees for surveil-
lance activities and reports.
(f) Promising and granting monetary benefits for antiunion badges and literature.
(g) Soliciting employees to interrogate new employment applicants for views as
to their union sympathies and sentiments.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Logie, Wilber, and Bechner full reinstatement to their former or a sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges, and make them whole, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant and offices at Bloomington, Indiana, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 25, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and 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
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.23
It is recommended that the election which was conducted on January 25, 1963,
be set aside and that a new election be directed at an appropriate time by the Regional
Director for Region 25.
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the receipt of the Trial
Examiner's Decision herein, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director,
in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid
action.
21 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court 'of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for ,the words "a Decision
and Order."
13 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 the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their or other employees'
interest in, and intentions with respect to, joining the above-named or any other
labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge and lack of promotions
because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit or encourage employees to engage in any surveillance
activities.
WE WILL NOT promise and grant any monetary or other benefits to employees
for surveillance activities and reports.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant any monetary benefits for antiunion badges
or literature.
RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 1237
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to interrogate new employment applicants
for any views as to their union sympathies and sentiments.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to abandon their membership in the above-
named Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of our employees to make a free choice
in any election ordered by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce out
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor orga-
nizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Hattie Logie, Melville Wilber, and Darrell Bechner immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization.
SARKES TARZIAN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their 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.
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, 614
ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, Telephone No. Melrose
3-8921.
Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. and Truck Drivers and Helpers,
Local Union 568, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , and Helpers of
America
Union of Transportation Employees (Red Ball Motor Freight,
Inc.) and Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local Union 568, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 16-CA-
2226, 16-RM-273, and 16-CB-249. March 30,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1965, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action. He further recommended that objec-
tions to the election held on December 2, 1964, in a related representa-
tion proceeding, Case No. 16-RM-273, be sustained and the election
set aside, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
157 NLRB No. 107.