Simley Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 391 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

SIMLEY CORPORATION
Simley Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW. Cases 25-CA-7989
and 25-RC-6325
November 10, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On December 28, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions and a brief in
support thereof and a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy so that interest is to be computed
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977),' and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Simley Corporation, Angola, Indiana, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
modified herein:
1. Add as paragraphs 1(d) and l(e) the following,
relettering the present paragraph l(d) as l(f).
"(d) Coercing its employees by asking them to
withdraw their union authorization cards.
"(e) Interrogating employees about voting in the
election and promising them that they will enhance
the likelihood of recall if they vote in the election."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I see, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to include in his
recommended Order remedial paragraphs relating to two 8(a)(l) violations
which he found. We correct the recommended Order accordingly.
233 NLRB No. 68
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), or any other union, by laying
off, discharging, or otherwise discriminating
against our employees because of their union or
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employee con-
cerning that individual's union activity in a
manner constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the
closing of our business if a majority become
members of, or assist, a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coerce our employees by asking
them to withdraw their union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their voting in the election nor promise them that
they will increase the likelihood of recall if they
vote in the election.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named Union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
WE WILL offer to the following employees
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges.
Brenda K. Barnes
Yvonne Boik
Paula R. Bolding
Diana L. Boyer
Joice Boyer
Donna Brown
Linda M. Clifton
Phyllis R. Davenport
Jeanine Ellert
Claudia Farmer Musser
Penny Gaskill
Sharon Gulick
Dawn Martin
Cindy Morrow
Velda Munger
Donna Ringler
Brenda Walter
Nancy Walter
WE WILL make whole the above-named em-
ployees, against whom we have discriminated, for
any loss they may have suffered because of our
discrimination, by payment to each of them a sum
391
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of money equal to the amount that she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of such
discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, or placement on a preferential list, as the
case may be, less her net earnings during said
period, with interest thereon.
SIMLEY CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Administrative Law Judge: This is a
consolidated proceeding involving allegations that the
above-named Employer engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and also involving
challenges to the eligibility of certain voters in an election
held pursuant to a petition filed by the above-named
Union in Case 25-RC-6325.
The unfair labor practice allegations are set forth in a
complaint issued in Case 25-CA-7989 on July 15, 1976. By
order dated August 20, 1976, the Regional Director for
Region 25 consolidated the complaint case with the above-
numbered representation matter and directed a hearing. In
its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain
facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied
all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor
practices.
The hearing on these consolidated matters was held on
October 5, 1976, in Angola, Indiana. At the hearing all
parties were represented. All were given full opportunity to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs.
Oral argument was waived. On November 15, 1976, the
Union submitted a memorandum, and on November 22,
1976, the General Counsel and the Respondent submitted
briefs.'
Case 25-CA-7989
Upon the entire record herein, and from my observation
of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Indiana corporation, with its sole
office and place of business in Angola, Indiana, is engaged
in the retail mail order business. During the year prior to
issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the
Respondent had gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
During that same period, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, the Respondent purchased and re-
ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Indiana. On the
foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and it is now
found, that Simley Corporation is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and are hereby
corrected.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent concedes, and it is now found, that the
Union (also known herein as UAW) is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Marvin Finn is the president and sole owner of the stock
in the Respondent corporation. The Company, founded in
1961, originally had a plant at Pleasant Lake, Indiana.
About 1965, it constructed a new building in Angola, about
6 miles from Pleasant Lake, and since that time the
Respondent has conducted its mail order operations from
the latter location. From this headquarters the Respondent
sends out advertising circulars in great volume to customer
prospects throughout the United States who are urged to
take advantage of the Company's latest offer. Its merchan-
dise consists of women's apparel, and, according to
President Finn, during the recent past it has concentrated
on the sale of panty hose, printed bikini panties, printed
knee-high stockings, and pullover sweaters. Its mass
mailings are sent out at third-class bulk postage rates and
range in size from a few hundred thousand letters to well
over a million.
Allan Overgaard, secretary-treasurer of the Company, is
also the plant manager and in charge of production.
Directly under him is Norma Lanning, an employee of
some 15 years' experience who acts as a supervisor on a
plantwide basis. At the time in question the Respondent
had an employee complement of about 65, most of whom
were women. According to Overgaard, about eight or nine
employees work in the IBM Department which handles the
address lists, the computer work, and related operations.
About 10 employees work in the Bulk Rate Department
where they take the orders after they have been filled, sort
them by zip codes, and tie them up in zip code bundles.
The rest of the employees work in what is known as the
REG Department and are concerned with opening the mail
and filling the customers' orders.
The Union began an organizational campaign among the
Respondent's employees on or about May 19, 1976.2 On
May 24, the Respondent laid off 18 employees. On May 28,
the Union filed a representation petition in Case 25-RC-
6325, which ultimately resulted in the holding of a secret-
ballot election on July 9. Late in August the Respondent
recalled 12 of those who had been laid off the preceding
May.
The General Counsel alleges that the- Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act both by its layoff
of the 18 employees in May and by its failure to recall all of
these employees in August. All of these allegations are
denied by the Respondent in their entirety.
B. The Facts
On the afternoon of May 19, a Wednesday, several
employees gathered at the home of employee Paula
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are for the year 1976.
392
SIMLEY CORPORATION
Bolding where they met Dick Zellers, a UAW representa-
tive, and Naomi Hoote, president of a UAW local at a
nearby plant. Present, in addition to Bolding and the
organizers, were employees Cindy Morrow and Claudia
Farmer. The employees decided to initiate an organization-
al campaign among their coworkers and those present
signed authorization cards. The following day, a Thursday,
these three employees were joined by Yvonne Boik, a
coworker who also signed a card. Thereafter, employees
Bolding, Morrow, Musser,3 and Boik embarked on a
determined effort to enroll as many of their colleagues as
possible in the UAW. In so doing, they launched a door-to-
door solicitation of their coworkers, which was conducted
that afternoon and on Saturday. They also agreed that on
the following Monday morning they would hold a
breakfast meeting at the home of employee Clara Rinehart,
one of their recruits.
The regular reporting time for the plant work force was
7:30 a.m. Shortly after 7 a.m., on May 24, and subsequent
to their meeting at Rinehart's home, the five above-named
employees arrived at the plant parking lot where they
engaged in a determined solicitation of all their arriving
coworkers whom they had not previously contacted and
from whom they sought to secure signed authorizations
before the plant opened.
Immediately after 7:30 a.m. and at the start of the shift,
Vice President Overgaard called the entire work force
together and announced a layoff of 18 employees. Included
in this number were Bolding, Boik, Morrow and Musser.
Bolding and Boik testified that when Overgaard read the
list of those being laid off he called out their names and
that of Musser more loudly than the others whom he
enumerated. 4 Overgaard told the assembled group that the
reduction was dictated by economic conditions, and that,
although all the employees on the layoff list were good
workers, he would have to let them go.5 Several of the
employees testified that Overgaard told them that he
"wouldn't put his head on the chopping block [as to]
whether he would call [them] back." 6 Overgaard conceded
that he may have made the foregoing comment. He also
testified that he could not recall having told the employees
that they had any prospect of being recalled.
It was not unusual for the Respondent's employees to
experience a layoff. One month before there had been a
reduction in force and about a dozen employees had been
let go. In January a number of others were laid off and
subsequently recalled. In 1975 a substantial number of
employees had been laid off in March and had not been
recalled until December. The employees on the layoff list
for May 24 were selected on the basis of their seniority and
were, in fact, the least senior of all those on the payroll.
On the morning of May 24, after Overgaard had
announced the layoff, Supervisor Norma Lanning stated to
3 At this time Musser was known as Claudia Farmer, her maiden name.
She subsequently married and at the time of the hearing was known as
Claudia Farmer Musser.
4 Morrow corroborated the testimony of Bolding and Boik in this
connection. However, she also testified that Overgaard did not emphasize
her name when he reached it on his list.
5 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Boik and Morrow.
Overgaard did not contradict their testimony and, when on the stand.
conceded that he might have made this statement.
several of the employees who were engaged in opening the
mail that she had noticed the soliciting in progress on the
parking lot. She then asked the employees present as to
what had been going on out there. Some of those present
gave noncommittal answers and professed no knowledge of
what she was asking about. Lanning herself testified that
after a short pause employee Joice Oberlin told her "I think
they are trying to start a union." Lanning conceded that
when Oberlin made this statement she herself immediately
commented "Oh, God, no, he will close the doors."
Employee Clara Rinehart, who was present, testified that
she heard Lanning say "If he [President Finn] gets a union
in, you know he will close his doors." Employee Mary Ann
Rinehart testified that Lanning also said that at one time
"the girls in Pleasant Lake [the Respondent's former
plantsite] were thinking about forming a union, and he
[Finn] said he would close the doors." Lanning did not
deny or contradict the comments which the Rineharts
attributed to her.7 Since the latter were credible witnesses,
it is now found that the supervisor made substantially the
remarks to which they testified.
According to Lanning, shortly after she had commented
to the employees as to what President Finn might do if a
union organized the plant, she went to his office and told
him what she had said. Lanning testified that Finn
admonished her for the remarks and ordered that she make
a retraction. Sometime later that day, Lanning did tell
several of the employees that she had been reprimanded for
her comments that morning and that Mr. Finn had
directed that she tell them that he would not move out of
Angola. Other witnesses corroborated Lanning's testimony
to the effect that she made a retraction. However, Lanning
conceded that she did not know whether, in telling the
employees about Finn's having admonished her, she had
spoken to all of the same people to whom she had made the
original statement about closing the plant.
About II a.m. that morning, President Finn told the
employees he had an announcement to make, whereupon
he told them that he had heard that a union had begun an
organizational campaign and that he knew that a number
of the girls had signed authorization cards. Employee Mary
Rinehart testified that Finn told them "The ones who have
signed the cards, I would like for them to withdraw
[them]." A short while later, however, he came out of his
office again and this time he told them "Girls, I would like
to rephrase what I said ... I would like you to think about
withdrawing your cards." s This testimony was corrobo-
rated by that of employee Clara Rinehart. The latter
further testified that later that day employee Kathy
Johnson asked that Rinehart give her back the authoriza-
tion card which she had signed a few days earlier because
"she was scared." 9 The testimony of the Rineharts was
credible and it was undenied by Mr Finn when he was on
6 The quotation is from the credible testimony of employee Linda
Clifton.
I Lanning conceded that she may have mentioned the Respondent's
expenence at Pleasant Lake. She acknowledged "I may have... I can't say
I did not," and went on to state that at the time she was too upset to
remember clearly what she had said.
I The quotations in this paragraph are from the credible testimony of
employee Mary Ann Rinehart.
9 The quotation is from Clara Rinehart's credible testimony.
393
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the stand. For these reasons, it is now found that their
testimony as to this incident is a substantially accurate
account of what occurred.
Brenda Barnes, one of the employees laid off on May 24,
testified that she had had several conversations with
Overgaard both prior to and subsequent to the election.
According to Barnes, on July 6, she happened to meet
Overgaard at a shopping center and on the following day
he telephoned her. Barnes testified that the plant manager
asked whether she planned to vote and when she answered
in the negative and explained that she was fearful that if
she did so she would lose her job, Overgaard told her "Why
don't you come in and vote ... then maybe you will get
your job back." According to Barnes, after the plant
manager made this comment she promised that she would
vote. The election was held on July 9, a Friday. Barnes
testified that on the following Monday, Overgaard tele-
phoned her home and asked her how she had voted.
According to Barnes, when she hesitated to answer this
question, Overgaard told her "Well, one or another way, I
am going to find out what you voted," and she then
acknowledged that she had voted for, the Union. Before
concluding the conversation, Barnes asked whether she
would get her job back and Overgaard's response was
"probably, maybe." When a substantial number of the laid
off employees were recalled the following month, Barnes
was not among them. Overgaard generally denied that he
had promised anyone in layoff status that she would
enhance her recall opportunities by voting in the election
and he denied that he had made such a statement as Barnes
attributed to him. However, he did not deny having
interrogated Barnes as to how she had voted in the
election. Overgaard's denial that he had promised this
employee that her prospects of recall would be increased if
she voted in the election was delivered in a very halting and
hesitant fashion. It was most unpersuasive. In its brief, the
Respondent acknowledges that Barnes and Overgaard had
a number of conversations during the period in question,
but it contends that much of Barnes' testimony was
incredible. That, however, is not my conclusion, after
having seen and heard these two witnesses while they were
on the stand. It is now found that as to this issue, Barnes'
testimony was the more plausible.
C. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations; Findings and
Conclusions With Respect Thereto
In its brief, the Respondent contends that Supervisor
Lanning's discussion with the employees on the morning of
May 24, her questions as to their activity in the parking lot,
and her comment about the likelihood of plant closure
were harmless and not violative of the Act. Contrary to this
position of the Respondent, Lanning's remark that the
advent of a union would cause Finn to close the plant, even
though subsequently retracted, inherently tended to inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce the employees in the exercise
of their rights under the Act. Freeport Marble & Tile Co.,
Inc., 153 NLRB 810, 817 (1965). It is now found that the
threat of a shutdown which she uttered, as well as her
interrogation of the employees regarding their protected
concerted activity on the morning of May 24, constituted
violations of Section 8(a)(l) by the Respondent.
President Finn's statement to the employees on May 24
when he told them "The ones who have signed the cards, I
would like them to withdraw it," even though modified
shortly thereafter when he told the girls what he meant was
that he would like for them to "think about withdrawing
your cards," was also violative of Section 8(a)(1). Notwith-
standing his revision of the original request it obviously
had a coercive effect on some of the employees, as witness
the testimony that shortly thereafter employee Kathy
Johnson asked Clara Rinehart to give back her authoriza-
tion card because she "was scared." President Finn's
original statement to the employees on this occasion must
be, and is, held to have been interference, restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the Act.
Finally, the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act when Plant Manager Overgaard promised
employee Barnes that she would enhance the likelihood of
her recall if she voted in the election, and likewise violated
that same section of the Act when, on July 12, Overgaard
questioned Barnes as to how she had cast her ballot in the
Board-conducted election that was held the preceding
Friday. N.LR.B. v. The Copps Corporation, 458 F.2d 1227,
1228 (C.A. 7, 1972); N.LR.B. v. Midwest Hanger Co. and
Liberty Engineering Corp., 474 F.2d 1155, 1161 (C.A. 8,
1973).
D. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations; Findings and
Conclusions with Respect Thereto
The General Counsel contends that the layoff of the 18
employees on the morning of May 24 was a discriminatory
act, taken by President Finn to discourage the employees
from joining the Union. This is denied by the Respondent,
according to whom the layoff was dictated solely by
economic considerations.
The Respondent's business is to some extent seasonal
and the summer months are, characteristically, less
productive of mail orders than any other time of the year.
Customarily, the Respondent has handled the problem
posed by a decline in business during this period, by either
(1) placing a few employees on layoff status, or (2) working
shorter hours and taking advantage of the lull created by
numerous employees going on vacation, as well as
encouraging as many as possible of the work force to take
the entire summer off. From the evidence in the record, it is
clear that by mid-May the Respondent had chosen the
latter method of retrenchment as the summer decline
approached. On Wednesday, May 19, Thursday, May 20,
and Friday, May 21 the plant worked only half days and
on Saturday, May 22, it was closed. On Sunday, May 23, it
was closed. On Friday, May 21, Overgaard, at Finn's
direction, announced to all the employees that the time had
come for them to sign up for their vacations and that any
who wanted to take a leave of absence for the entire
summer should see him. A sign-up sheet was posted in the
plant and no deadline was set for the employees to register
their preferences. These facts, as to which there is no
dispute, all indicated that the Respondent would follow the
second course of action described above.
Nevertheless, Finn testified that on Saturday, May 22, he
decided to impose a massive layoff on the following
394
SIMLEY CORPORATION
Monday morning, with a reduction of 18 employees, or
almost 30 percent of the work force.' 0 Finn testified that he
arrived at this decision after checking the flow of responses
to the Respondent's most recent mailing. According to
Finn,
We [presumably Finn and Overgaard] went to work on
Saturday and we looked at the mail . . . and it was
crystal clear. . . although we had only about a week's
mailing, that this mailing was not going to do the job.
The record does not support Finn's testimony to the
effect that the results of the latest mailing were crystal clear
by May 22. This mailing had been sent out at the Postal
Service's third-class bulk rate between May 10 and 13 to
275,000 of what Finn described as the Respondent's best
customers. Clara Rinehart, a veteran employee who had
been working for the Respondent since 1972, credibly
testified that in her experience, it usually took at least 2 to 3
weeks to determine the size of the response to any of these
solicitations. Rinehart's testimony was corroborated by the
data which the Respondent produced at the hearing. Thus,
Finn testified that the May 10 to 13 mailing was limited to
two new products, printed bikini panties and printed knee-
high stockings. Although Finn claimed to have made his
projection on May 22 that the May 10 to 13 mailing would
be unsuccessful, the data which the Respondent itself
produced demonstrates that the results of this mailing were
not available at that time. Thus, Respondent's Exhibit I
shows that for the week of May 17-21, there was only a
marginal increase of around 250 orders for the bikinis from
the week before (from 9,253 to 9,510), while printed knee
highs displayed a decrease of almost 1,800 (from 14,343 to
12,527). Not until after Finn purportedly made his decision
did the results manifestly start to arrive. From May 22 to
May 30, the orders for printed panties increased by 1,400
over the preceding week (from 9,510 to 10,927). And an
increase in orders for the printed knee highs did not come
until the next week, May 31-June 4 (from 10,655 to
13,859). Consequently, from the Respondent's own data it
is apparent that there were no measurable returns from the
May 10 to 13 mailing until the week of May 31-June 4. All
of which corroborates Rinehart's testimony to the effect
that it takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to be able to predict the
success of a mailing.
The experience which the Respondent had with its
mailings in March further reinforces this conclusion. The
Respondent made several mailings that month, starting on
March 10. The data on Respondent's Exhibit I discloses
that there was no increase in total orders until the week of
March 20-26. During the first 10 days after this mailing
began there was an actual decrease in total orders (from
49,493 to 48,631). There was no increase in the volume of
orders until the week March 20-26, when the total was
74,242 (in contrast with 48,631 for the preceding week).
The Respondent then hired 12 additional employees to
supplement the work force after the returns began coming
in, but 10 of this number were not hired until March 29 and
thereafter, or a full 19 days after the mailing started on
March 10. Obviously, during that period, the Respondent
did not feel justified in adding any new personnel until
after almost 3 weeks had elapsed from the time of the
initial mailing.
All of this data would indicate that normally at least 2
full weeks, and more likely 3, must pass before the
Respondent can make a projection as to the success or
failure of its latest postal solicitation. Consequently, it
seems highly improbable that any returns of the May 10 to
13 mailing were available to President Finn on Saturday,
May 22, let alone enough that would permit him to project
the results of that solicitation and enable him to conclude,
as he testified, that by that date it was "crystal clear" the
May 10 to 13 mailing would be unsuccessful and compel a
drastic reduction in the work force.
At the hearing, Finn testified that management had been
considering a layoff for 2 weeks prior to his decision on
May 22. This testimony, however, was in conflict with that
of Overgaard, the plant manager in charge of production
and personnel. According to Overgaard, he had no serious
discussion with Finn regarding a layoff until May 22. Finn
acknowledged that he made his decision to layoff the 18
employees on the latter date without consulting the
vacation sign-up roster that he had directed Overgaard to
establish. Only the day before, acting pursuant to Finn's
orders, Overgaard announced to an entire assembly of the
employees that they could then begin signing up for their
vacations during the summer and that the Company would
be happy to accommodate those who desired to take a
leave of absence for the entire 3 months. Since no deadline
was fixed for the employees to register their vacation
preferences, it seems unlikely that, under normal circum-
stances, the plant management would suddenly decide on a
massive layoff the next day without waiting for the leave
and vacation data to accumulate and be available for
measuring the need and extent of any reduction.
In its brief the Respondent asserts, correctly, that the
General Counsel has the burden of proving discrimination,
and that the Respondent does not have the burden of
establishing the contrary. Indiana Metal Products Corpora-
tion v. N.L.R.B., 202 F.2d 613, 616 (C.A. 7, 1953); N.LR.B.
v. Soft Water Laundry, Inc., 346 F.2d 930, 936 (C.A. 5,
1965). Moreover, the burden of proof never shifts from the
General Counsel and the Respondent does not have the
burden of proving that it discharged or laid off an
employee for the reason which it asserts. As was said by a
court of appeals in an early case, so long as the provisions
of the Act are not violated, an employer may discharge an
employee for "a good reason, a poor reason, or no reason
at all." Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co. v. N.L R.B., 138
F.2d 86, 90 (C.A. 3, 1943), cert. denied 321 U.S. 778 (1943).
And, recently, the Board stated "the National Labor
Relations Act does not require that an employer act wisely,
or even reasonably; only, whether reasonable or unreason-
able, that it not act discriminatorily." Paramount Metal &
Finishing Co., Inc., and Paramount Plating Co., Inc., 225
NLRB 464, 465 (1976). At the same time it is also true that
an employer does not ordinarily discharge or layoff an
employee for "no reason at all," and that support for a
0' As of May 22, the Respondent had 64 employees.
395
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finding of unlawful motivation "is augmented [when] the
explanation of the [layoff] offered by the respondent [does]
not stand up under scrutiny." N.L.R.B. v. Bird Machine
Company, 161 F.2d 589, 592 (C.A. 1, 1947).
From May 20, employees Boik, Bolding, Morrow, and
Musser, accompanied on Saturday, May 22, by employee
Clara Rinehart, were engaged in an extensive door-to-door
solicitation of their coworkers to join the Union. Knowl-
edge of such activity by the Respondent's management
before Monday, May 24, can be inferred from the small
size of the plant, the fact that Angola is a small town,'I and
the extensive nature of the contacts which the prounion
group made with their fellow employees over a 4-day
period. t2 Moreover, Overgaard acknowledged that as of
May 24 he knew that some of the employees were
interested in getting a union into the plant and that he had
heard rumors about organizational activity before that
time.13 Earlier herein, it was found that on the morning of
the layoff and after the five above-named employees
engaged in open solicitation on the plant parking lot,
Supervisor Lanning unlawfully interrogated some of the
employees about their activity and later that morning
President Finn unlawfully suggested to the employees that
they withdraw any authorization cards which they had
signed. Also, Lanning's first reaction upon hearing about
the employee organizational activity was to declare, that if
a union was organizing, Finn would "close the doors."
Lanning had been with the Respondent's organization
since 1961, and had experienced a previous unionization
attempt at the Pleasant Lake plant. It is significant that
although she testified that Finn had never told her that he
would close the Angola plant if a union organized the
employees, she herself believed that he would do so. Thus,
she testified "I felt that if anything like this happened, he
would [close the plant], I don't know why. That's just the
way I feel." This testimony, from a supervisor with 15
years' experience in the Respondent's organization and as
one who had witnessed an unsuccessful organizational
campaign at the other plant, sheds further light on Finn's
motivation in the layoff. From the above congeries of facts
it is now found that before the Respondent's management
made the decision to lay off 18 employees on May 24, Finn
had knowledge of the organizational campaign which Boik,
Bolding, Morrow, Musser, and Rinehart had been con-
ducting.
The record establishes that the May 24 layoff was
unprecedented in many respects. (1) It was the largest 1-
day severance of employment that ever occurred at the
plant. The next largest layoff occurred on April 27. At that
time, however, only 12 employees were laid off. (2) The
layoff on May 24 was unmatched in its abruptness in view
II Marlindale-Hubbell Lawi Direclory. 1976 edition, vol. 1I, p. 743. lists the
population of Angola. Indiana. at 5.117.
12 "It was not an unreasonable inference that in a small plant in a
relatively small community news of the intense union organizational dnve
came quickly to the attention of the plant officers." Angwell Curtain
Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 192 F.2d 899, 903 (C.A. 7, 1951). See also,
N.L.R.B, v. Sutherland Lumber Company, Inc., 452 F.2d 67. 69. (C.A. 7.
1971): N.L.R.B. v. Abingdon Nursing Center, 80 LRRM 3232, 68 LC Para.
12, 890(C.A. 7, 1971).
3a Thus, on this issue, when asked whether he knew by May 24 that some
employees were interested in the Union, Overgaard answered in the
affirmative and added "I was asked it I had heard rumors to that effect by
of the total orders that were being received and the fact
that a mailing had just gone out.14 (3) In contrast with the
prelayoff situation that prevailed in prior years, several
employees testified that before May 24 there were no
rumors circulating in the plant that a layoff was immi-
nent. t 5 (4) Finally, in a number of ways, the layoff on May
24 was handled in a significantly different fashion from
prior reductions of the work force. Thus, previous layoffs
were made at the end of the workday, or, at least, in the
latter part of the afternoon. On May 24, Overgaard made
the announcement at the start of the shift on a Monday
morning. Moreover, all of those laid off were paid for a full
day. This, too, had never been done before. Further, in the
past the announcements had always been made by
summoning the affected employees to the plant office
where they were told, in comparative privacy, of the
decision to put them on layoff status. In contrast, on May
24, Overgaard read the names of the 18 employees before
an assembly of the entire work force. Finally, at the time
Overgaard made the announcement of the layoff he made
no promises as to when, if ever, any of the 18 would be
recalled. This was a clear departure from past practice.
Employee Laura Rothrock testified, credibly and without
contradiction, that when Overgaard laid off her and 11
coworkers on April 27 he told them they would be recalled
in August and asked that they leave their telephone
numbers with him to facilitate their recall. This was done
notwithstanding the fact that at that time most of the 12
employees involved had only 3 weeks' experience in the
plant.
As found earlier herein, Respondent's explanation for its
decision to layoff the 18 employees on May 24 was
implausible and lends credence to the General Counsel's
contention that the asserted reason for the layoff was a
pretext whereby the Respondent sought to cloak a
stratagem for eliminating the Union's support at the very
outset of the organizational campaign. Similarly incredible
was another explanation advanced by the Respondent for
laying off more employees than at any time in the past and
when the incoming orders were climbing, rather than
declining. Thus, President Finn testified that, in part, the
reason for the layoff was increased labor costs and labor
inefficiencies. On the other hand, upon cross-examination,
Finn conceded that no raises had been given the employees
during the period from 1975 to 1976. Apart from Finn's
bald assertion, the Respondent offered no corroborative
testimony or any documentary evidence that labor costs
had risen.
Late in August the Respondent recalled 12 of the 18
employees whom it had laid off on May 24. On September
15, it advertised in the local newspaper for female help and
Mr. Finn. And that is all I knew for a definite, and of course, rumors we had
heard before previously. "(Emphasis supplied. )
14 On cross-examination Finn acknowledged that in prior years he
waited until total orders were much lower before resorting to a layoff. This
admission is borne out by the Respondent's records. Thus, on April 15,
1975, with weekly total orders in the 40,000's. the Respondent still retained
60 employees. Only when the orders fell to the mid and low 30,000's did it
layoff nine employees on April 29. 1975. In contrast with that background.
on May 24, the Respondent cut its employee complement by 18 even though
the weekly total of its orders were in the 40,000's the week before and rose to
as much as 44,000 within 2 weeks.
II See the credible testimony of Joice Boyer and Yvonne Boik.
396
SIMLEY CORPORATION
during the period from September 23 to 29, it hired 12 new
employees.
In letters dated August 27 the Respondent notified
Yvonne Boik, Diana L. Boyer, Joice Boyer, and Donna
Ringler that they could return to work. These four
apparently had status as permanent employees since their
seniority went back to October 1974. The other 14
employees, who were laid off on May 24 and all of whom
had been hired in February, were described as "temporary-
trial" employees. President Finn testified that because of
the unfair labor practice charges which had been filed 16 he
devised what he described as an objective callback system
based on "work ability" and "absenteeism" for ascertain-
ing which of the employees should be reemployed. Finn
testified that originally, and until he assembled the data for
his "objective" system for recall, he had not planned on
reemploying many of those who had been laid off in May.
According to the plant president, even before his callback
system was established, Overgaard knew who the good
workers were and who were not.
Of the 14 "temporary-trial" employees, 6 were never
recalled. These were Brenda K. Barnes, Paula Bolding,
Linda Clifton, Cindy Morrow, Velda Munger, and Brenda
Walter. An examination of the basis the Respondent used
in determining to eliminate these employees demonstrates
that its purportedly objective method was, in fact, highly
subjective. As to the consideration which Finn gave to
absenteeism, he admittedly did not take into account
whether an employee's absentee record included those days
when the employee was excused. This was notwithstanding
the fact that, in practice, the Respondent required that an
employee's absence from work could only be excused for
cause. Both Morrow and Barnes testified, credibly and
without contradiction, that all of their absences were
excused by the Respondent and that they were never
criticized when at work for their absences, or for any other
reason. On Finn's chart, however, Barnes is listed as being
absent 35.8 percent of the time and Morrow as being
absent 11.4 percent of the time. As a result, on Finn's
rating scale they received the lowest possible score for their
attendance. Barnes, of course, was the employee whom
Plant Manager Ov'rgaard urged to vote in the election,
purportedly because it would help her chance of recall. As
found earlier herein, after the election, Overgaard engaged
in unlawful interrogation of this employee and ascertained
that Barnes had voted for the Union.
As to the work ability that Finn used on his callback
rating scale the points allotted to each employee were
based on the individual's reputed average at filling orders
and the opinions of two supervisors. Reliance on the latter,
of course, in itself belies the asserted "objectivity" of the
rating scales. In selecting the employee's celerity at order
filling as a criterion of the individual's skill, the Respon-
dent ignored the fact that, according to Finn's own
testimony, each of the employees was also engaged in
opening mail, sorting orders, processing orders and
preparing the mail, or a total of five different operations.
"1 The onginal charge was filed on May 28 and an amended charge was
filed on July 14.
17 After the effects of its unfair labor practices have been eliminated. the
Respondent will, of course, he free, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to drop
The data used as to the employee's speed at order filling
had been compiled in May by the individuals themselves
and with little supervision. Employee Bolding credibly
testified that dunng that period she was told by Supervisor
Lanning not to worry as to whether she was keeping her
order filling record with exactitude because it was not a
matter of any importance. Employee Morrow credibly
testified that during that same period Lanning told her that
the acceptable speed at order filling was 100 orders in 45
minutes, or 133 orders per hour. On the rating scale which
Finn devised, however, the acceptable rate was raised to
143 to 150 per hour, in contrast with the standard that
Lanning described to Morrow as acceptable. Bolding and
Clifton credibly testified that they were never criticized for
their work by any of the management. Of the six who were
not recalled, there was no evidence that Barnes, Bolding,
Clifton, Morrow, or Munger were ever criticized about
their work. Employee Walter acknowledged that at one
time she was reprimanded for being too slow. On Finn's
callback rating scale, however, Walter was eliminated not
because of her work record, but because of absenteeism.
Concluding Findings
Earlier herein, it was found that before deciding on the
layoff of May 24, the Respondent was aware that the
employees were engaged in organizational activity. In the
light of the unpersuasive reasons given by the Respondent
for effectuating the largest layoff in its history only 5 days
after the onset of the Union's campaign, and, differently
from all previous layoffs, announcing the reduction at the
start of a work shift, in front of all the assembled
employees, with emphasis on the names of the most active
union adherents and with no mention of recall, although
only I month earlier 12 employees who were laid off were
assured of recall in August, and in view of the 8(a)(I)
violations by Supervisor Lanning and President Finn later
that morning, it is now found that the primary motivation
for this precipitate action by the Respondent was discrimi-
natory and a violation of Section 8(aX3). Furthermore, in
view of the discriminatory layoff on May 24, as well as the
action of Plant Manager Overgaard on the eve of the July
election in urging employee Barnes to vote by promising
that it would enhance her prospects of reemployment and
thereafter unlawfully interrogating her as to how she voted,
along with the very subjective bases on which the
Respondent devised a recall system that eliminated six of
the employees from consideration for reemployment in
August at a time when the others were brought back to
work, it is now found that to remedy the effects of the
discriminatory layoff of May 24, the Respondent must
offer immediate reinstatement and backpay to all of the 18
employees whom it unlawfully laid off on that date. 7
any of those employees who fail to adhere to the company work standards.
Such action may be taken, however, only after there has been full
compliance with the remedial order that will be recommended later herein.
397
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case 25-RC-6325
The Challenged Ballots
The election in Case 25-RC-6325 was conducted on July
9.18 Out of approximately 39 eligible voters, 16 cast valid
votes for, and 18 cast valid votes against, the petitioning
Union. There were 23 challenged ballots and no void
ballots. After a preliminary investigation, the Regional
Director concluded that since the eligibility of 18 of the
challenged voters depends on whether they were discrimi-
natorily laid off or discharged, an issue in the unfair labor
practice case, the hearing on the aforesaid challenges
should be consolidated for hearing on the allegations of the
complaint in Case 25-CA-7989. An order consolidating
the cases was issued on August 20. The findings as to the
challenges, based on the testimony developed at the
hearing, are set forth below.
I. The eligibility of the alleged discriminatees in
Case 25-CA-7989
The Board agent conducting the election challenged the
ballots of Brenda K. Barnes, Yvonne Boik, Paula R.
Bolding, Diana L. Boyer, Joice Boyer, Donna Brown,
Linda M. Clifton, Phyllis R. Davenport, Jeanine Ellert,
Claudia Farmer Musser, Penny Gaskill, Sharon Gulick,
Dawn Martin, Cindy Morrow, Velda Munger, Donna
Ringler, Jill Stewart, and Brenda Walter, because their
names did not appear on the eligibility list supplied by the
Employer. Presently, the Employer contends that none of
the above-named were employed during the payroll period
critical for establishing eligibility and on the day of the
election and that, therefore, none of them are eligible to
vote. The Petitioner contends that all were discriminatorily
terminated or laid off by the Employer, and that their
ballots should be opened and counted.
As found earlier herein, 17 of the above named 19 were
discriminatorily laid off on May 24. But for the Respon-
dent's unfair labor practices, presumptively, they would
have been at work during the time of the election.
Consequently, it is now found that all of the above-named
except Jill Stewart were eligible to vote on July 9, and that
their ballots should be opened and counted.
2. Margie Grandin, Norma Noragon, and Betty
Simpson
The ballots of the above named were challenged by the
Petitioner's observer on the ground that they were
supervisors. This was denied by the Employer.
At the hearing, Grandin, Noragon, and Simpson testi-
fied. Grandin credibly testified that she works as a
keypunch operator and as backup to run the computer
under the supervision of Janet Shawver. She is paid $2.80
an hour, the same rate as other employees engaged in
keypunch work. Noragon is a keypunch operator who
earns the same wage as all the others who are engaged in
that work. For over 5 years she worked in what is known in
'8 The petition was filed on May 28.
19 At the hearing, the General Counsel conceded that Jill Stewart had
been laid off in 'April, and that she was not an unfair labor practice
the plant as the "mixie" room where undelivered packages
with incorrect addresses are sorted out and remailed. As a
result of her background in that section, employees in the
"mixie" room sometimes ask for her help in deciphering
illegible addresses. However, she now does keypunch work
full time and under the supervision of Janet Shawver.
Simpson works as a mail opener and sometimes works on
order filling.
All of the above named credibly testified that they have
no authority to hire, fire, assign work, or exercise any other
indicia of supervision. Consequently, it is now found that
Grandin, Noragon, and Simpson were eligible to vote and
that their ballots should be opened and counted.
3. Sharon Prentice and Judy Simpson
The ballots of Prentice and Simpson were challenged by
the Petitioner on the ground that both work as office
clericals, a job classification that is excluded from the
appropriate bargaining unit stipulated to by the parties.
The Employer maintains that both are complaint depart-
ment employees, a job classification that is included in the
unit.
At the hearing, Prentice credibly testified that she
handles complaints in the complaint department and that
she sends out form letters in response to the customers'
complaints. She does no typing. She also keeps a running
account of the money that is received each day and reports
the total amount to Overgaard.
Simpson credibly testified that most of her time is spent
answering complaints in the complaint department. She
also handles "shorts," a plant characterization for an order
in which the customer fails to remit the proper amount. In
the latter instance, Simpson uses a form letter to apprise
the customer of the amount of the shortage and to request
that the appropriate amount be forwarded. Simpson,
however, does no typing. She also answers the telephone
for all incoming calls to the plant. She spends one day out
of every 2 weeks on the preparation of payroll checks for
all the employees in the plant except the stockboys. After
calculating the time and wages to be credited to each
employee, she fills out their checks, but does not sign them.
The latter function is performed by Plant Manager
Overgaard.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is now found that
both Prentice and Simpson are employees in the complaint
department. As such, they are members of the appropriate
unit and their ballots should be opened and counted.
Having found that Brenda K. Barnes, Yvonne Boik,
Paula R. Bolding, Diana L. Boyer, Joice Boyer, Donna
Brown, Linda M. Clifton, Phyllis R. Davenport, Jeanine
Ellert, Claudia Farmer Musser, Penny Gaskill, Sharon
Gulick, Dawn Martin, Cindy Morrow, Velda Munger,
Donna Ringler, Brenda Walter, Margie Grandin, Norma
Noragon, Betty Simpson, Sharon Prentice, and Judy
Simpson were eligible to vote in the election on July 9, it
will be recommended that Case 25-RC-6325 be remanded
to the Regional Director for Region 25, for the purpose of
opening and counting the ballots of the aforesaid employ-
discriminatee. He thereupon moved to delete her name from the complaint
and this motion was granted.
398
SIMLEY CORPORATION
ees. Thereafter the Regional Director will issue a revised
tally of the ballots and take whatever other action is
indicated by the results of that tally.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, and is
engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily laying off 18 of its employees on
May 24, 1976, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily
laid off 18 employees on May 24. Whereas the Respondent
may have been economically justified in laying off some of
its employees during that month and thereafter, and some
of the discriminatorily laid off employees might have been
affected by such a nondiscriminatory reduction of person-
nel, the record furnishes no basis for determining when
such a layoff might have occurred or the order in which
any of the employees might have been laid off. Under these
circumstances, it will be recommended that the Respon-
dent be ordered to offer to the employees who were
unlawfully laid off in May 20 and who have not been
recalled for employment immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and, in the event that there is insufficient work
for all such employees, to dismiss, if necessary, all persons
who were newly hired after the discriminatory layoffs in
May. If there is not then sufficient work for the remaining
employees and those to be offered reinstatement, all
available positions shall be distributed among them
20 The names of these employees were:
Brenda K. Barnes
Yvonne Boik
Paula R. Bolding
Diana L. Boyer
Joice Boyer
Donna Brown
Linda Clifton
Phyllis R. Davenport
Jeanine Ellert
Claudia Farmer Musser
Penny Gaskill
Sharon Gulick
Dawn Martin
Cindy Morrow
Velda Munger
Donna Ringler
Brenda Walter
Nancy Walter
21 On August 27, the Respondent sent letters offering reemployment to
the following: Boik, Diana L. Boyer, Joice Boyer, Brown, Davenport, Ellert,
Gaskill, Gulick, Martin. Musser. Ringler, and Nancy Walter. President Finn
testified that the Company had no response from Boik. Ellert. or Walter,
without discrimination against any employee because of
union activities, in accordance with a system of seniority or
other nondiscriminatory basis. The Respondent shall place
those employees, if any, for whom no employment is
available after such distribution, on a preferential list, with
priority in accordance with a system of seniority or other
nondiscriminatory basis, and thereafter offer them rein-
statement as such employment becomes available and
before other persons are hired for such work.21
It will also be recommended that the Respondent be
ordered to make whole the above-named employees for
any losses they may have suffered because of the Respon-
dent's discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount that she normally would
have earned as wages from May 24 to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, or placement on a preferential list, as the
case may be, less her net earnings during such period, the
backpay to be computed in accordance with the formula
approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon computed in the manner and
amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, 717-721 (1962). It will also be recommended
that the said Respondent be required to preserve and make
available to the Board, or its agents, upon request, payroll
and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay
due.
Since "a discriminatory discharge of an employee . . .
goes to the very heart of the Act" (N.LRB. v. Entwistle
Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941),
it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7.
Upon the foregoing findings, conclusions, and the entire
record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is
issued the following recommended:
ORDER 22
The Respondent, Simley Corporation, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Laying off, discharging, or otherwise discriminating
against any employee in regard to her hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment,
because of activity on behalf of, or membership in,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
and that Musser returned, but at her request was immediately placed on
pregnancy leave. According to Finn, all others who were offered reemploy-
ment returned to work shortly after August 27.
No evidence was taken as to whether these reinstatements were to
substantially equivalent employment. That, of course, is a matter that can be
disposed of at the compliance stage of this proceeding. In the event that it is
evident at that time that the offers of reemployment were sufficient, backpay
will be tolled as to the last named employees as of the date when each
returned to work, or declined the Respondent's offer.
22 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
399
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or
any other labor organization.
(b) Interrogating any employee concerning that individu-
al's union activity in a manner constituting a violation of
Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
(c) Threatening its employees with loss of jobs or closing
its business if a majority became members of, or assist, a
labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Brenda K. Barnes, Yvonne Boik, Paula R.
Bolding, Diana L. Boyer, Joice Boyer, Donna Brown,
Linda M. Clifton, Phyllis R. Davenport, Jeanine Ellert,
Claudia Farmer Musser, Penny Gaskill, Sharon Gulick,
Dawn Martin, Cindy Morrow, Velda Munger, Donna
Ringler, Brenda Walter, and Nancy Walter, immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section
of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
23 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading, "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary, or appropriate, to analyze the amount of
backpay due.
(c) Post at its office in Angola, Indiana, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 23 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 25-RC-6325 be
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 25 for the
purpose of opening and counting the ballots of Brenda K.
Barnes, Yvonne Boik, Paula R. Bolding, Diana L. Boyer,
Joice Boyer, Donna Brown, Linda M. Clifton, Phyllis R.
Davenport, Jeanine Ellert, Claudia Farmer Musser, Penny
Gaskill, Sharon Gullick, Dawn Martin, Cindy Morrow,
Velda Munger, Donna Ringler, Brenda Walter, Margie
Grandin, Norma Noragon, Betty Simpson, Sharon Pren-
tice, and Judy Simpson. Thereafter the Regional Director
will issue a revised tally of the ballots and take whatever
other action is indicated by the results of that tally.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
400