Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
29
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Carpenters employed' by Belou & Co. Accoustics, Inc., who are
represented by Carpenters Local Union 1846, are entitled to perform
the work of attaching horizontal, metal tracks to the floors and ceil-
ings and then inserting metal studs vertically within the tracks to re-
ceive drywall board, called sheetrock, which is attached to the track
and stud by means of a screw-nail, in the Royal Orleans Hotel, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
2. Lathers Local Union No. 62, Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to
assign the above work to lathers.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Lathers Local Union No. 62, Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers
International Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 15, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to lathers rather than to
carpenters.
Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Proc-
essors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America . Case No. 21-CA-5559. De-
cember 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.'
, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
record, including the Respondent 's exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues
and the positions of the parties.
150 NLRB No. 12.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the en-
tire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Sci-
entific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, with the following modification :
Insert the following as a separate paragraph following paragraph
2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, renumbering suc-
ceeding paragraphs accordingly :
"(b) 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 of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
DECISION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint alleges that the Respondent , Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc.
(herein called the Company), has violated Section 8 ( a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.; also referred to herein as the Act),
by discharging, and refusing to reinstate , five named employees because they engaged
in a strike or joined or assisted a labor organization named Sales Drivers, Food
Processors , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America ( herein
called the Union); and has by the foregoing and other conduct abridged rights
guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section 8 ( a)(1) of
the statute.'
The Respondent has filed an answer which, in material substance , denies the com-
mission of the unfair labor practices imputed to it in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon each of the other parties by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , a hearing upon the issues in this
proceeding has been held before Trial Examiner Herman Marx at Los Angeles,
California. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared through, and were
represented by, respective counsel ; and each of the parties was afforded a full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , adduce evidence, file a
brief, and submit oral argument . Decision was reserved upon a motion to dismiss
the complaint , made by the Respondent upon the close of the evidence. The motion
1 The complaint was issued on November 29, 1963, and is based upon a charge filed by the
Union with the Board on September 19, 1963, and an amendment thereof filed on Novem-
ber 19, 1963. Copies of the complaint , the charge , and the amended charge have been duly
served upon the Respondent.
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 31
is denied upon the basis of the findings and conclusions made below. I have read
and considered the respective briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent filed
with me since the close of the hearing. The Union, which filed the charge upon
which this proceeding is based, has not filed a brief.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. NATURE OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS ; JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
The Company is a New Jersey corporation; maintains its principal office and a
place of business in Bloomfield, New Jersey, and branches in other States, including
one at Fullerton, California; is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
scientific equipment and related products; and is, and has been at all material times,
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. The issues in this pro-
ceeding involve only the Fullerton plant.
In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Company ships and de-
livers goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside California to its
place of business'in Fullerton. By reason of such shipments the Company is, and
has been at all material times, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As the complaint alleges, and the answer admits, the Union is, and has been at all
material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The Company's Fullerton branch consists, in the main, of office and warehouse
facilities, and normally has a staff of some 10 persons, including office personnel,
warehousemen, outside salesmen, and a general manager named Clifford Boreen,
who is in charge of the operations of the branch and is, and has been at all times
material to the issues, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
As of September 16, 1963,2 the office staff (excluding Boreen) consisted of five
individuals- David Florez, Mary Weber, John R. Murphy, Edith Shibla, and Esther
Bushay. The warehousemen were John Vander Heide and Gary C. Bronsart.
Although Florez was primarily concerned with purchasing duties, he also exercised
supervision over other personnel, subject to Boreen's authority, substituting for the
general manager in the latter's absence; and, as stipulated at the hearing, was, at all
material times, a supervisor within the purview of Section 2(11) of the Act.
There is disagreement, however, whether Bronsart had such a status. I find, con-
trary to the Respondent, that he did not have it, notwithstanding the fact that he had
the title of "warehouse manager." Vander Heide, it may be noted, had formerly
held the title, but the duties of both warehousemen remained substantially the same
after the change. In the main, Bronsart's functions consisted of the preparation of
merchandise for packing and shipment by Vander Heide; and of related "paper
work." Plainly, whatever authority Bronsart was empowered to exercise was "of a
merely routine or clerical nature," and thus was not supervision within the scope of
Section 2(11).
On September 16, shortly after 8 a.m., the customary starting time, Florez gave
Boreen written statements of "grievances" from himself, Bronsart, Murphy, Weber,
Shibla, and Bushay. Whether the grievances were justified is of no moment here,
nor is it necessary to dwell on them in detail; and it will suffice to note that they in-
cluded criticisms of Boreen's management, and of wage conditions, and sought im-
provements in terms and conditions of employment.
The submission of the grievances was followed by a discussion of their contents
between Boreen and the others, Florez doing most of the talking for the employees
(as well as in subsequent talks with Boreen to be described later). During the
course of the discussion, Florez asked Boreen a number of times to wire or telephone
the Company's general manager (also described in the record as one of the "owners"),
2 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates set forth below occurred in 19G3
775-602-65-vol. 150-4
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William J. Geyer, Jr., at its main office in Bloomfield, New Jersey, and request him
to come to Fullerton for a discussion of the grievances. Boreen declined to do so,
stating that Geyer was due in Fullerton in 6 weeks, and that the grievances could be
taken up with him at that time.
Other details of what was said regarding the grievances are of no moment, nor,
happily for the interests of materiality, does the record spell out much of the
minutiae that must have been involved in the hours of talk that took place. It will
suffice to say that the discussion continued until about 12:30 p.m.; that it bore no
fruit; that, without any objection by Boreen, relatively little work was done by Florez
and the other employees involved; that one or another of the employees suggested
that they go to lunch as a group, rather than on a "staggered" basis as was customary,
in order to discuss their positions; that Boreen gave his permission; and that Bronsart,
Weber, Murphy, Bushay, Shibla, and Florez left for lunch in a body about 12:30 p.m.
Although the allotted and customary lunch period for each was 45 minutes, the
group was gone for some 2 to 3 hours, spending much of the time seeking advice
about union "representation" from various State agencies, with the result that they
were referred at one point or another to the Union, proceeded to its office, and there
consulted a representative of the organization and signed "authorization cards."
Upon their return, Boreen asked them where they had been, and Florez related, in
substance, that they had called on various State agencies, had been referred to a
union, and had gone to it for advice regarding representation. There is no dispute
that Boreen made a reply to this, but the record reflects material conflict as to its
content between the General Counsel's witnesses (Murphy, Bronsart, Florez, Bushay,
and Shibla), on the one hand, and Boreen and Robert Ledbetter, one of the Com-
pany's salesmen, who was present, on the other.
There are variables in the respective terms in which the General Counsel's wit-
nesses quote Boreen, but the central thrust of his remarks, as each quotes him, is
that the Company would not tolerate ("go for" or "stand for") union activity by the
employees; and, in addition, all such witnesses, except Bronsart, quote Boreen, in one
form or another, to the effect that the employees involved were subject to discharge
for engaging in union activity .3
Boreen, on the other hand, testifying for the Respondent, quotes himself as saying
that "I could not see why we could not handle this among ourselves and have our
conversation and settle this without the union coming into this, the settlement, that
we had among ourselves." Ledbetter, called by the Respondent, quotes Boreen in
substantially similar vein.
The record contains objective evidence that supports a conclusion that Boreen did,
in substance, voice a threat of reprisal against the employees for engaging in union
activity. The evidence consists of a document labeled "Employee-Management Arbi-
tration" (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4), dictated by Murphy to Weber in Boreen's
presence, and typed by Weber, in the office on the morning of September 17, much
of which was devoted to continued discussion by employees and Boreen of the griev-
ances submitted to him on the previous day. The document consists, basically, of a
listing of "Assets" and "Liabilities" of given courses of action. Item III of the paper
lists as "Liabilities" of union representation that: "Cliff (Boreen) will be terminated.
Dave (Florez) and John (Murphy) will be singled out and dismissed at earliest pos-
sible chance. Other key employees stand to be discriminated against eventually."
Boreen admittedly "listened" to the dictation and made no comment with respect to
item III. Moreover, upon completion of the typing, a copy of the document was
given to Boreen; he retired to his private office where he read it; and it is evident
that after doing so, he raised no objection to the prediction of discharge and dis-
crimination it contains.
3 The General Counsel's witnesses respectively quote Boreen's reply as set forth below:
Munrar: Bloomfield would not go for it; that he (Boreen) would not go for 1t;
that this would end up in all of us losing our jobs. We might as well go out and seek
employment now and cut it off.
BRONSART : If you went to the union you might as well cut it off now. Bloomfield
won't go for it.
FLOREZ: That is it. If you went to the union we might as well cut it off right now.
You are through. I don't want the union in here and Bloomfield would not go for it
BUSHAY: All right, if you are going to the union, let us cut it off right now. You
can seek employment someplace else
SHIBLA: If you have gone to the union, you might as well cut it off right now be-
cause you can all seek employment elsewhere. Bloomfield will never stand for it.
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 33
The content of item III, coupled with Boreen's failure to object to it, adds cor-
roborative weight to the evidence of the General Counsel's witnesses, supporting their
testimony to the effect that Boreen had made antecedent remarks on the subject of
the Company's hostility toward union activity by employees at the Fullerton branch.
That view of the matter is not negated by Boreen's testimony that factory and ware-
house employees at the Bloomfield plant are represented by a union. Without imply-
ing a judgment as to the relevancy of that testimony, it is enough to note that the
record tells us nothing of the circumstances of such representation; and that, obvi-
ously, an employer's attitude toward collective bargaining may turn on such variables
as the type of employees (for example, whether factory or office workers), regional
attitudes toward unionization, the state of the labor market, and his economic strength
in relation to the collective economic pressures the employees can bring against him.
I find, in sum, that in response to the disclosure that the employees had counseled
with a union regarding their representation, Boreen made statements to the effect
that the Company would not tolerate union activity by the employees, and that they
were subject to discharge for engaging in it.
Much of the afternoon of September 16, following the return of Florez and his
lunch companions to the office, was taken up with a continued discussion by them
and Boreen of the grievances. As in the morning session, the participants achieved
no results and did relatively little work.
The discussion resumed the following morning, practically at the beginning of the
workday, and continued throughout much of the morning. A substantial portion of
the time was devoted to dictation and preparation of the "Employee-Management
Arbitration," previously mentioned. During the course of the morning, Florez asked
Vander Heide to join those in the office, and the latter did so. As on the previous
day, relatively little work was done, Boreen offering no objection until about noon
when he told the employees that "some work had to be done," and "a settlement had
to be made." One of the employees, noting that the lunch period was at hand,
suggested that the employees go to lunch as a group and discuss the "Employee-
Management Arbitration," and Boreen consented, telling the group not to take longer
than an hour .4 Murphy, Florez, Weber, Bushay, Vander Heide, Bronsart, and Shibla
thereupon left for lunch together, all going in Bronsart's car.
The group went to a restaurant, but finding it crowded, drove to Bushay's house
in Fullerton where they had lunch and remained for several hours discussing their
grievances and the contents of the "Employee-Management Arbitration " Vander
Heide protested a number of times that their absence was excessive, stating that he
wished to return to work, and was assured (apparently by Florez) that he would be
taken back to work.
After some hours at Bushay's home, the group left in Bronsart's car for the plant,
some 2 or 3 miles from Bushay's residence. They paused briefly on the way because
one of the women became ill, and arrived at the Company's parking lot adjacent to
the plant about 3:30 or 4:30 p.m. (estimates of the time vary). At one point or
another, either during the trip or upon their arrival, all but Vander Heide decided
not to enter the plant. According to Florez, the reason was that he and the others
involved were "upset" and not feeling well. This could have been a factor, at least
with Florez who appears to me to be given to excessively emotional attitudes, but I
am persuaded that the underlying reasons for the decision of the group as a whole
were, as Bronsart testified, in substance, that they had received no satisfaction from
their discussions with Boreen and felt it useless from their standpoint to return to
work "until we can get something concrete"; and that they wished to take some time
to think about their future work plans, and try to discuss the matter with "the head
office in Bloomfield" before reaching a decision. This testimony is corroborated by
the fact, as will presently appear in greater detail, that Murphy and Florez spoke to
Geyer by long distance telephone several hours later.
Upon their arrival in the parking lot, Murphy or Bronsart,or Florez (or all three)
told Vander Heide, in substance, that they and the women would not return to work,
and Florez, whose coat was in the plant, asked Vander Heide to fetch it. The three
women dispersed to their respective cars and went home, while Murphy, Bronsart,
and Florez waited for the latter's coat.
' Various of the employees testified that they could not recall whether a time limit was
set. According to Vander Heide and Boreen, the latter specified the hour limitation. In
view of the protracted absence of the previous day, it is quite plausible that Boreen would
prescribe the limit, although one is led to wonder why he did not make it 45 minutes, the
customary lunch period In any case, the results in this proceeding are the same whether
or not he prescribed any limitation.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vander Heide entered the office and informed Boreen of Florez' request . Boreen
asked Vander Heide whether the other employees were "going to come in," and
Vander Heide replied that "they are not coming back." Boreen thereupon in-
structed Vander Heide to ask Florez for a key to the premises in the latter's pos-
session. Vander Heide brought Florez his coat and secured the key.
Florez, Murphy, and Bronsart thereupon left the area and went to a motel to spend
the night and telephone Geyer. Florez reached Geyer by telephone at the latter's
home in Montclair , New Jersey , about 8:30 p.m. (11:30 p.m. in Montclair), and
told Geyer "that the situation out here in Fullerton was such that we could not
longer . stay on"; and requested Geyer "to come out . to look into it."
Geyer asked for specifics, at which point Florez "got excited" and Murphy "took the
telephone over." Murphy identified himself to Geyer, and the latter asked Murphy
what was "going on at the Fullerton plant." Murphy replied that he "could not give
any specific details," but that "the situation was such that [he] felt that it required
his [Geyer's] presence." Geyer again asked for details, and Murphy stated that he
preferred not to give them "for fear of running the risk of jeopardizing , or misrepre-
senting the situation." Geyer said that he could not come out immediately because
he had some meetings scheduled the following day; and, stating that continued opera-
tion of the branch was important to him, he asked Murphy whether the latter and
the other employees "would not go back." Murphy said that he could not speak for
the others; and Geyer, promising that there "would be no reprisals, and that the
company and he would look upon them [the employees] favorably," asked Murphy
to inquire of the others "if they would be willing to go back to work" until Geyer
could come to Fullerton. Murphy promised to make the inquiry and to give Geyer
an answer by telephone in 45 minutes.
Florez then telephoned Shibla and informed her of Geyer's request and assurance.
Shibla said that she would secure the views of Bushay and Weber and then call
Florez. Later that night, she telephoned Florez at the motel and told him that "under
the existing conditions we were afraid to go back, because we just did not know what
was going on," and "could not go back as long as Mr. Boreen , Mr. Fleck [a sales-
man] and Mr. Ledbetter were there." (According to Shibla, she was "physically"
afraid of Boreen. The record does not establish whether this was in any way
justified.)
Thereafter, over a period of several hours, Florez tried a number of times to reach
Geyer by telephone at the latter's Montclair home, calling as late as about 2 a.m.,
New Jersey time, but could get no answer . Florez and his companions then de-
cided to wire Geyer, and Florez sent him a telegram that night, addressed to the
Bloomfield office, stating , in substance , that he had done as Geyer had requested,
and that the "answer [was] positively no."
Early the next day, September 18, soon after his arrival at the plant , Boreen tele-
phoned the Bloomfield office to talk to Geyer , but as the latter was absent , he spoke
to the Company's personnel manager, George Sterris , and asked him if he had "any
inkling what was taking place out here." Sterris replied that Geyer "had informed
him that a group of employees had called him [ Geyer], and that he [Sterris , appar-
ently ] knew there was a situation out here." Sterris said that Geyer would call
Boreen later.
About 8 o'clock that morning ( 11 a.m. in Bloomfield ), not having had a response
to the wire, Florez endeavored to reach Geyer at the Bloomfield office by telephone;
was told that Geyer was not in; was connected with Sterris ; and then turned the
phone over to Murphy. The latter asked Sterris whether he was "aware of what was
going on at the Fullerton plant," and Sterris replied that he had spoken to Boreen
and "was aware of something," but wished details since Boreen had "not given him
too much information." As with Geyer, Murphy said that he did not feel free to do
so. In reply to a query by Sterris why the matter had not previously been brought to
his attention , Murphy said that "we were somewhat afraid to do so, and . . . felt
that it should be handled through the proper channels." After some repetition of
matters previously covered in the conversation , Sterris said that Geyer was occupied
with a luncheon but would attend to the situation as soon as he could; and Murphy
said that "we would be at the motel."
About a half later, Florez called Sterris again and gave him the phone and room
number where he and his companions could be reached at the motel.
That morning, also, shortly after 8 o'clock, Shibla, Bushay, and Weber came to the
Fullerton plant together and, as Boreen testified , asked for their "personal belong-
ings." Boreen , who had previously that morning collected various belongings of each
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 35
woman , and had placed them in an envelope identified with her name, gave them
their respective envelopes.5
Taking their belongings , the three women , in accordance with prior arrangements
they had made with Florez and his companions , proceeded to the motel for a meet-
ing with the three men , arriving there shortly after Murphy's talk with Sterris. The
women reported what had taken place at the plant, also telling the men that upon
their arrival there they had found the plant entrance locked. ( Boreen had admitted
them upon their knock.)
The six decided at the motel to drive to the Union's headquarters to talk to repre-
sentatives of the organization , and, on the way, stopped briefly in front of the Com-
pany's plant to see whether its street door was locked. Florez left the car to look at
the door . Finding it ajar, neither he nor any of the others entered , but proceeded
instead to the Union's headquarters .6
About 10 or 10:30 a.m . Florez telephoned Boreen from the Union 's office and in-
quired about the job status of Murphy , Bronsart , and himself , and Boreen replied
that they had "walked off" and had "quit." Florez said that they had had "per-
mission to leave" (an allusion , apparently , to the protracted absence the previous
afternoon), and that Boreen was aware of that . Boreen denied that such permission
had been given , asserting that he had allowed 1 hour for the lunch period; that "you
walked off"; and that "you are through ." Florez stated that he did not recall that
any time limit had been set , and after some repetitive remarks, the discussion ended 7
On the morning of September 19, the six came to the office of a Los Angeles law
firm that has had occasion to perform services for the Union , and conferred there
with an economist, Irving Helbling, who is employed by the firm . The six had not
5 Shibla pictures Boreen as meeting the women at the entrance to the "general office" with
their belongings and extending the envelopes to them. The matter is of no moment, but I
think it more likely that the women, as Boreen testified, asked for their belongings, and
that he then gave them the envelopes. Bushay testified that she and the other women went
to the office to pick up their belongings, but Shibla gave equivocal testimony as to the rea-
son for her visit, stating that she "firmly had the belief . . . that Mr. Geyer or some of the
representatives of the company [from the East, according to the sense of her testimony]
would be there to talk to us " But she undoubtedly knew that Geyei was in New Jersey
the night before, and how she could "firmly believe" that either Geyer or another repre-
sentative of the Company would come to Fullerton so soon after does not plausibly appear
6 The reason for the interest in the door does not appear Perhaps the group wished to
find out if they had succeeded in shutting down the plant by their absence from work If
that is so , the action tends to support the General Counsel's position that the cessation of
work by the group was a strike. The results here do not hinge on their purpose in check-
ing the door , and I make no finding as to the purpose.
7 From Boreen ' s account of the conversation , he appears to have construed Florez' job
status inquiry as a request for reemployment . I think it unlikely that Florez made such a
request Murphy had spoken to Sterris only a short time before and had been told that
Gever would look into the Fullerton situation , and it is evident that the group was await-
ing further word about the matter . In that context , it does not plausibly appear that
Florez would apply for reemployment at that point. While Florez did not state the pur-
pose of his inquiry in his testimony , it is reasonable to believe that he wished a clarifica-
tion of the job status of Murphy, Bronsart , and himself from Boreeu because the women
had reported that upon their arrival at the plant they had found that Boreen had previ-
ously collected their personal belongings and placed them in earmarked envelopes-an
action signifying that the women no longer worked there . I also think it unlikely that
Florez , as Boreen testified , upon being told that the employees had quit, remarked, "In
other words , you have fired us?" It will be noted that the query whether the employees
had been "fired" is not quite responsive to Boreen 's immediately preceding statement that
they had quit In making findings as to the course of the conversation, I have taken into
account the fact that Florez quotes himself, in effect, as telling Boreen that the latter
had given permission for the employees ' protracted absence on September 17. Although
Boreen, as I have found , did place a limitation on that day 's lunch period , it may be that
Florez did not hear him or misunderstood him and read into Boreen' s condonation of the
protracted absence of September 16, and the extensive use of working time for the grievance
discussions , an acquiescence in the absence of September 17. Whether or not that is so, I
am persuaded , for the reasons stated, that Florez' account of the telephone conversation is
closer to the facts than Boreen 's, and have based findings as to the discussion on Florez'
relevant testimony.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heard from Geyer, and they had a discussion of their situation with Helbling. He
canvassed with them what the Union would do if it represented them; suggested that
they offer to return to work; and telephoned Boreen on their behalf.
Identifying himself to Boreen, he told the latter that the six had come to his office
with a view to having a charge filed with the Board on their behalf; and that they
wished to return to work, and were "ready and willing" to do so "that day or the first
available time." Boreen replied that he could not reemploy them because they had
quit. After some additional talk of no significance here, Helbling stated that he
would proceed to file the charge, and with that the conversation ended .8
None of the six has returned to work since the telephone conversation of Septem-
ber 19, nor has the Company offered any of them reinstatement since then.
B. Discussion of the issues; concluding findings
The major question here is whether the Respondent has unlawfully denied em-
ployment to Murphy, Bronsart, Weber, Bushay, and Shibla. (It may be assumed
that Florez is not included in the complaint's allegations of discrimination because
he was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.) The General Counsel main-
tains that the five employees went on "strike" on the afternoon of September 17, and
were discharged and subsequently denied reinstatement because they engaged in
activities protected by the Act. The Respondent, on the other hand, denying any
discriminatory motive, contends that they quit.
In its brief, the Respondent, stressing the amount of time Boreen spent in discussing
the employees' grievances, views what it terms his "patience and tolerance" as negat-
ing the existence of a discriminatory attitude. Boreen was no doubt unusually per-
missive in allowing much of the working time of himself and almost the entire staff
over a period of 11/2 days to be used in fruitless discussion, not to mention his failure
to reprimand Florez and his five lunch companions of September 16 for absenting
themselves from work, without leave, for some 2 or 3 hours that day. However, in
the perspective of the whole record, one could argue, with at least equal logic, that
the underlying aim of the "patience and tolerance" was to hold the grievances, which
included criticisms of Boreen's management, to the level of local discussion in the
plant, with a view to adjustment or, possibly, dissipation of the complaints with the
passage of time, without involvement of Boreen's superiors in Bloomfield Signifi-
cantly, in that connection, he took a coercive stance as soon as he learned that the
employees had sought representation advice from a union, in effect telling them that
the management in Bloomfield would not tolerate their union activity, and threaten-
ing them with discharge because of it.
No doubt the five employees and Florez-especially the latter-engaged in odd
behavior also. One is hard put to it to understand why Florez should have per-
sisted in trying to reach Geyer by long distance telephone as late as 2 a.m., Geyer's
time. Nor can one perceive any moral justification, putting aside the employees'
legal right to abstain from work in support of their economic alms, for their greatly
excessive "lunch periods" on September 16 and 17, even if it be assumed that some,
at least, did not hear Boreen impose any time limitation on the second day (after all,
the regular period was 45 minutes), and inferred from the permissive attitude dis-
played by Boreen during the extended discussions that he would react similarly to
the absences (as, in fact, he did to that of September 16). Be that as it may, the
Respondent denies that it discharged the employees, whether for execessive absence
or any other reason, asserting, instead, that they quit, and it is thus actually not a
material issue in this case whether the absence on September 17 prior to the decision
not to enter the plant was a concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act (as
the General Counsel argues in his brief). To that, one may add that the rights
guaranteed employees by Section 7 are not confined to the apt and the reasonable,
and with that in mind, one may proceed to a consideration of the material issue
whether by withholding their services following the meeting at Bushay's house, the
five employees engaged in a strike, a concerted activity protected by Section 7, and
were, for that reason or their union activity, or for both reasons, denied employment
by the Company; or whether they quit their jobs.
In that regard, the fact that one or more of Vander Heide's companions told him
on the afternoon of September 17 that they would not return to work, or that he
conveyed that information to Boreen, by no means establishes the Respondent's posi-
8 There is no significant conflict between Helbling's and Boreen's respective accounts of
the conversation. I have based findings, however, on that of Helbling because it appears to
me to be more credibly detailed than Boreen's For example, it is quite likely that Helbling
alluded to the plan to file a charge, yet Boreen makes no reference to the matter.
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 37
tion . According to Vander Heide at one point, by the way, the women said nothing
on the subject,9 but putting that aside, to regard what one or another of the em-
ployees told Vander Heide as definitive of their intentions , and of what they actu-
ally did, is to ignore major features of the record. Whether because of limited
powers of communication (a particular handicap, perhaps, in talking to Vander
Heide because English is not his native tongue and he has difficulty with it), or for
some other reason, it is evident that neither Florez nor any of the others made Vander
Heide fully privy to their intentions . Indeed, these were somewhat inchoate at the
time, involving a plan to communicate directly with the Bloomfield office, with what-
ever uncertainty in results such a plan would entail.
The nature of the employees' action in withholding their services is best deter-
mined by a consideration of the sequence of events. As matters stood on the after-
noon of September 17, the grievance discussions with Boreen had been fruitless; he
had rejected repeated requests by them that he ask Geyer to come to Fullerton; he
had, on the previous day, voiced a threat of discharge for union activity to Florez
and those associated with him; and by the time the group in question returned to the
plant parking lot from Bushay's home, they felt that it was useless to return to work
until they could "get something concrete," and decided not to enter the plant pend-
ing an effort by them "to make contact with the head office in Bloomfield." Clearly,
this was not a decision to sever the employment relation; on the contrary, it was a
decision to try to improve it by withholding services and attempting to secure the
intervention of the Bloomfield management . In short, it was a decision to strike,
however the matter was phrased to Vander Heide.
Boreen , to be sure, had good reason to conclude from what Vander Heide told
him that Florez and the other five had quit, but, actually, the top management of
the Company, in the person of Geyer, was put on notice but a few hours later that
such was not the case, albeit Florez told Geyer before transferring the phone to
Murphy that the Fullerton "situation . was such that we could not longer .. .
stay on." This, it should be borne in mind, was coupled to requests, first by Florez
and then by Murphy, that Geyer come to Fullerton, Murphy telling Geyer "that the
situation was such that I felt that it required his presence." These statements, taken
together, were but another way of telling Geyer that the employees would not re-
turn to work unless and until he came out to Fullerton and attended to the "situa-
tion" there; and amounted, by clear implication, to a position that the employees
would return to work if Geyer did so. Significantly, too, there is nothing in Geyer's
remarks to indicate that be regarded the employees as having permanently severed
their ties with the Company. His emphasis, rather, was on continuity of operations
by the employees, with assurances that there would be no reprisals against them.
This approach is a familiar feature of negotiations to end a strike, and, in essence,
what the employees and Geyer were doing was engaging in negotiations, the former
seeking Geyer's personal intervention in the affairs of the Fullerton plant as a means
of resolving their grievances, and Geyer attempting to persuade them to resume their
work and remain at it until he had had an opportunity to look into the situation.
Such negotiations were, by implication, an affirmation of a continuing employment
relationship rather than a recognition of its end.
Nor did the relationship end with the "positively no" of the wire, for the telegram
was but a part of the negotiations. Geyer had requested Murphy to ask the other
employees if they would return to work until he could come to Fullerton; Murphy
had promised to do so and to give Geyer an answer; and the wire was the reply.
Read in the light of the prior discussion, what it said, in effect, was that the em-
ployees would not resume work pending Geyer's arrival, a position consistent with a
conclusion that the employees were on strike.
The fact is that neither the employees nor the Bloomfield management regarded
the telegram as the end of the affair, as events on the morning of September 18 make
clear . Florez and his companions at the motel were expecting a reply to the wire,
and not receiving one, called the Bloomfield office to verify its receipt. The plain
implication of the call, and of Murphy's conversation with Sterns, is that the em-
ployees were hopeful that the wire would bring a reply from Geyer that he would
come to Fullerton. In fact, Sterns assured Murphy that Geyer would "handle or see
to the situation as soon as" he could; and Florez went so far as to call Sterns again a
half hour later to give the latter his room and telephone number at the motel, obvi-
6 Vander Heide, who has some difficulty with English, contradicted himself, testifying
initially that Bushay and Weber said that they would no longer work for the Company, but
stating later that "the women say nothing "
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ously doing so to avoid a failure of communication and to facilitate early attention
by Geyer to their problems. These telephone discussions are no portrayal of a
severed employment relationship, but, rather, of a continuing one.
That image is not changed by the fact that the women came to the plant for their
personal belongings that morning. This, like other facts in the case, should be ex-
amined in the light of the total record, for its meaning can be one thing when con-
sidered in isolation and another when viewed in the context of other facts and cir-
cumstances. The fact that Weber came for her eyeglasses illustrates the point, for,
obviously, a person may have as much need for such an article in the status of a
striker as in any other. Shibla and Bushay came, respectively, for a secretarial
handbook and a lunch kit, articles that could prove useful to a person in need of
work, whether because of a strike (especially a protracted one) or joblessness be-
cause of resignation from a position. Moreover, it is well to bear in mind that the
employees had good reason to fear discharge for union activity at Boreen's hands
since he had threatened them with such dismissal. Against that background, the action
of the women in calling for their things is as consistent with a conclusion that they
were on strike and feared discharge because of it as with an inference that they came
for their belongings because they had quit. Significantly, too, after collecting their
belongings, the women went with Murphy, Bronsart, and Florez to the Union's office,
a fact which suggests a continuing interest in their employment status.1°
It would be a mistake, also, to base a conclusion that the women had quit on the
fact that when Florez called Boreen on the morning of September 18 he inquired only
about the job status of Murphy, Bronsart, and himself. He gave no reason in his
testimony for thus limiting his inquiry, but it is not unlikely that he did so because
the women had found upon arrival at the plant earlier that morning that Boreen had
collected their belongings, an action that would reasonably induce a belief (whether
mistaken or not is beside the point) that Boreen had discharged the women. Such a
belief would be particularly warranted in the light of Boreen's prior remarks to the
effect that the employees were subject to discharge for engaging in union activity, and
it is little wonder that Florez called to inquire about the job status of the men.
In evaluating the purpose of the women in calling for their belongings, it is im-
portant to bear in mind that they, like the three men, decided not to enter the plant
upon their return from Bushay's home, in furtherance of the demands they had made
upon Boreen; that Murphy and Florez spoke for the women, as well as for them-
selves and Bronsart, in their dealings with Geyer and Sterris; and that the course
Murphy and Florez took with the Bloomfield management evidences a continuing
interest by all the employees in their jobs, and an aim to improve them from their
standpoint.
Weighing the whole record, I find that the employees in question here decided not
to return to work on the afternoon of September 17, and thereafter withheld their
services, in order to "get something concrete" from the Company in response to their
grievances, and as a means of inducing Geyer to come to Fullerton to investigate their
grievances; that by thus withholding their services, the employees did not sever their
employment relationship with the Company, but engaged in a strike for economic
ends; and that the strike was an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act."
10 Shibla's statement to Florez on the night of September 17 that the women would not
return to work so long as Boreen, Ledbetter, and Fleck worked at the plant did not mean
that the women had quit. On the contrary, this position (which, by the way, was not
communicated to the management, as is evident from the conversations Murphy and Florez
had with Geyer and Sterris) evidences a continuing interest by the women in their jobs,
for the statement was another way of saying that the women would resume work upon
compliance with the condition that Boreen, Ledbetter, and Fleck be removed. The reason
for the objection to Ledbetter and Fleck does not appear, but the position regarding Boreen
is understandable from the employees' standpoint if one bears in mind that at least some of
the grievances included criticism of Boreen's handling of terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and that he had threatened the employees with discharge for engaging in union
activity
311 am not in accord with a position taken by the Respondent in its brief that the "de-
mand" that Geyer come to Fullerton "is unlawful and does not fall within protected con-
certed activities under the Act." The request was an implementation of the employees'
efforts to achieve concrete results from their grievances, and it was no more unlawful or
unprotected to strike in support of the "demand" than in support of the grievances. Nor
do I agree with a claim by the Respondent that the employees "demanded" that Boreen be
"terminated as a condition for their going back to work." ShIbla made such a statement
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 39
The Respondent makes no claim that it replaced the five employees under con-
sideration here prior to their offer, through Helbling, to return to work, and it is evi-
dent, and I find, that up to that point no replacements had been hired. Thus under
well-established doctrine, even if it be assumed that Boreen's threat was not a causa-
tive factor in the strike, and the activity was an economic, and not an unfair labor
practice, strike, the employees were entitled, as a result of Helbling's offer, to re-
instatement to their respective former, or substantially equivalent, positions, and the
Company's refusal to reinstate them was an abridgement of their Section 7 rights and
violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.12
But, in addition, the evidence leads me to conclude that the Company had an anti-
union motive for the refusal to reinstate the employees. There was good warrant for
a belief by Boreen on the afternoon of September 17, following Vander Heide's re-
turn to the plant, that Florez and the others had quit, for they did not enter the plant,
and Vander Heide as much as told Boreen that they had quit. But the fact is that
Boreen was mistaken in his belief, and that the Company was in effect put on notice
but a few hours later, as a result of the conversation between Murphy and Geyer,
that the employees had a continuing interest in their jobs and were withholding their
services in order to induce Geyer to come to Fullerton. Boreen, it will be recalled,
spoke to Sterris early the following morning, and Sterris told him that he had heard
from Geyer that "a group of employees had called him." It is reasonable to believe
that Sterris told Boreen what the employees were seeking, but whether that is so or
not, and whatever Boreen believed as to the status of the employees up to the point
when Florez called him on the morning of September 18, the evidence establishes
that Florez told him on that occasion, in substance, that the employees had not quit.
In the light of Boreen's knowledge that the employees had spoken to Geyer the night
before, and of Florez' denial, one would think that Boreen would, at the very least,
entertain some doubt that the employees had abandoned their jobs; yet he persisted
in that position with Helbling, refusing to reinstate them on the ground that they
had quit.
Thus the question arises why the Company should take a position so far removed
from Geyer's efforts on the night of September 17 to persuade the employees to re-
sume work pending his arrival; and from Sterris' assurance to Murphy on the morn-
ing of September 18 (the very morning Boreen spoke to Sterris, although the record
does not establish which conversation came first) that Geyer would look into the
situation as soon as he could.
The answer is supplied by reasonable inference from the whole record. There is
good reason to believe that unionization of the Fullerton employees was a matter of
much concern to the Company. Boreen said as much when he reacted to the news
that the employees had sought representation advice from a union with remarks to
the effect that the Company would not tolerate union activity, and that the employees
were subject to discharge because of it. Geyer, it is clear, did not know of the activity
at the time he spoke to Murphy and Florez on the night of September 17, for, as is
evident from the tenor of Boreen's telephone conversation with Sterris, Boreen did
not communicate with the Bloomfield management regarding any problem with the
Fullerton employees until he put in a call for Geyer, and spoke to Sterris, on the morn-
ing of September 18. To be sure, there is no evidence that Boreen told either Sterris
to Floret , but it is evident from the discussions Murphy and Florez had with Geyer and
Sterris that no such demand was made of the management . Plainly, a good case can be
made for the view that a concerted demand for dismissal of a supervisor who threatened
employees with discharge for union activity is protected by Section 7, but I see no need to
pass on the matter as such a demand was not made , albeit the three women decided at
one point or another not to return to work so long as Boreen and the two salesmen were
employed at the Fullerton branch In that connection , I note that Joanna Cotton Mills
Co v. N.L R B., 176 F 2d 749 (C.A. 4), cited by the Respondent , is distinguishable on its
facts. Basically, what the court held was that it was not unlawful to discharge an em-
ployee for circulating among other employees a petition demanding the dismissal of a
supervisor , since the petition was rooted in personal resentment of the supervisor and was
thus not for the "mutual aid or protection of employees " Here, in contrast , apart from
the fact that the Company claims it did not discharge the employees , the basic aim of the
latter was to secure improvement in their terms and conditions of employment , and the
strike was clearly intended for their "mutual aid or protection ," and was thus the exercise
of a right guaranteed by Section 7.
12 N L R B. v. Mackay Radio d Tclepraph Co , 304 U S. 333.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or Geyer (who returned his call later on the morning of September 18) 13 that the
employees had shown an interest in union representation, but there is a significant
contrast between Geyer's efforts on the night of September 17 to persuade the em-
ployees to return to work and the position Boreen took, following his conversation
with Sterris, first with Florez, notwithstanding the latter's denial that the employees
had quit, and then, on the following day, with Helbling. Significantly enough, as of
the time the employees went to Helbling's office, they had not heard from Geyer
(nor, so far as appears, have they done so since then), despite Sterris' assurance to
Murphy that Geyer would "handle or see to the situation " as soon as he could, in a
context that reasonably led the employees to believe that Geyer would soon com-
municate with them at the motel.
The sum of the matter is that the evidence warrants an inference that at some point
between Geyer's talk with Murphy on the night of September 17 and the rejection of
Helbling's' offer on the morning of September 19, the Company, notwithstanding the
clear indications given to Geyer and Sterris by the employees of their continuing in-
terest in their jobs, decided to take the position that the employees had abandoned
their jobs, to that end seizing upon the fact that the employees had absented them-
selves from work; and that it did so as a means of terminating the employees in ques-
tion because they had manifested an interest in union representation by seeking advice
about it from a labor organization. Boreen's rejection of Helbling's request for the
employees' reinstatement was as much as to discharge them because they had engaged
in a strike and had evinced an interest in union representation.
For the reasons stated, I find that by discharging, and refusing to reinstate, Gary C.
Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay, the Com-
pany discriminated against them to discourage membership in a labor organization,
thus violating Section 8(a) (3) of the Act; and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the statute.14 I also find that the Company abridged
Section 7 rights of the employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1), as a result of
Boreen's remarks on September 16 to the effect that the Company would not toler-
ate union activity by the employees and that they were subject to discharge for
engaging in it.
IV. THE ' EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As it has been found that the Company discharged, and refused to reinstate, Gary
C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay on
September 19, 1963, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recom-
mend that the Company offer each such individual immediate and full reinstatement
is According to Boreen, Geyer called him about 10.30 or 11 a.m. Pacific coast time, and
asked "what the situation was," and Boreen told him of "six employees walking out, leav-
ing and quitting," and that he "was hiring new people to replace them." To this, Boreen
testified, Geyer's reply was that Boreen should "keep the business going," and that he
would "be out later next month." Thus it would appear from Boreen's testimony that he
gave Geyer no details of the grievances and said nothing about the employees' interest in
union representation; and that Geyer, in turn, said nothing about his conversation with
Murphy and Florez the night before One may doubt, to say the least, that the conversa-
tion was so limited. In the nature of things, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of
Boreen 's account of his private conversation with Geyer through any objective evidence.
14 Contrary to the Respondent in its brief, it matters not that the employees did not
identify the labor organization by name in informing Boreen of their activity, nor is it of
any moment that Helbling did not mention the organization to Boreen, or say that he rep-
resented it, in expressing the employees' offer to return to work. I note, also, that in view
of the conclusions reached, I deem it unnecessary to decide whether Boreen's threat of
reprisal was a factor in the strike , making it an unfair labor practice strike, as well as
one for economic ends.
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 41
to his (or her) former, or a substantially equivalent, position,15 without prejudice to
his (or her) seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him (or her) whole for
any loss of pay he (or she) may have suffered by reason of his (or her) discharge by
payment to such individual of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages such
individual would have earned, but for the said discharge, between the date of the
discharge and the date of a proper offer of reinstatement to such person, as aforesaid,
together with interest thereon, as provided below; and that the said loss of pay, plus
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, be computed in accordance with the
formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties
hereto are expressly referred.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is, and has been at all material times, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Each of the five individuals against whom the Company discriminated, as found
above, has been, at all material times, an employee of the said Company within the
meaning of said Section 2(3) of the Act.
3. The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By discharging, and refusing to reinstate, the five employees, as found above,
the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Company has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Scientific Glass Apparatus Co.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of the employees of its business establish-
ment at Fullerton, California, in Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen &
Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by dis-
charging, or otherwise denying employment to, any such employees, or in any other
manner discriminating against any such employees in regard to hire, tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any manner threatening or otherwise informing any of its employees of its
establishment in Fullerton, California, that any of them will be discharged, or are
subject to discharge, if they join, or engage in any activity in, with, or or behalf of,
any labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of
its establishment in Fullerton, California, in the right to self-organization; to form,
join, or assist any 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; or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.16
16In accordance with the Board 's past interpretation , the expression "former , or a sub-
stantially equivalent , position " is intended to mean "former position wherever possible, but
if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent position "
The Chase National Bank of the City of New Yoik , San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch, 65
NLRB 827
36 The scope of the restraints set forth above is justified , I find , by the nature and extent
of the violations found. See N.LR.B. v. Entwistle Mfg Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (CA. 4) ; May
Department Stores v. N L.R.B., 326 U.S 376; and Bethlehem Steel Company v N.L R B.,
120 F. 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.).
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, it will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Gary C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and
Esther Bushay immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former, or sub-
stantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make each of them whole in the manner and according to the
method set forth in section V, above, entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve until compliance with any order for reinstatement or backpay made
by the National Labor Relations Board in this proceeding is effectuated, and make
available to the said Board and its agents, upon request, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records relevant to a determination of the amount of backpay due, and
to reinstatement and related rights provided in any such order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in Fullerton, California,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted there, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall,
after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the Company, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said
Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.17
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of
this decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.18
It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this decision the Respondent notify the said Regional Director that it will
comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
17 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the said notice. In the additional event that the Board's Order is
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 "
18 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d)
thereof thereof 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
therewith."
APPENDIX A
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 of any of our employees of our business
establishment at Fullerton, California, in Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other
labor organization, by discharging, or otherwise denying employment to, any
such employees, or in any other manner discriminating against any such em-
ployees in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the said Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten or otherwise inform any of our em-
ployees of our establishment in Fullerton, California, that any of them will be
discharged, or are subject to discharge, if they join, or engage in any activity in,
with, or on behalf of, any labor organization
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
of our establishment in Fullerton, California, in the right to self-organization; to
form, join, or assist in any 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; or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. 43
WE WILL offer Gary C. Bronsart , John R . Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla,
and Esther Bushay immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former,
or substantially equivalent , positions , without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges , and reimburse them for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the fact that we discriminated against them.
SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By--------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, 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.
Information regarding provisions of this notice or compliance with its terms may
be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204.
Roadway Express, Inc. and Charles Dalton
Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. and Charles
Dalton . Cases Nos. 7-CA-4429 and 7-CB-1142. December 14,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 8, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had
not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set
forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief,
and both Respondents filed briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only to the extent that they are consistent herewith.
Respondent Union, Local 299, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., rep-
resents employees at the Taylor, Michigan, facility operated by Re-
150 NLRB No. 14.