Simpon Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

SIMPSON EL.ECTRIC COMPANY
Simpson Electric Company, a Division of American
Gage & Machine Company, Inc. and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
117, AFL-CIO and Herman McGrath.' Cases
13-CA-17727, 13-CA-17728, 13-CA-17750,
13-CA-17766, and 13-CA-17751
June 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELL O AND TRUESDALE
On November 19, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions3 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
1. The General Counsel has excepted, inter alia,
to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to find
that Naomi Laue was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and that certain statements
made by her violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
We find merit to this exception.
The record establishes that Laue, as a group
leader, was responsible for evaluating probationary
employees after they worked 30 days for Respond-
ent. In this capacity, Laue reviewed the report she
prepared with the affected employee, and a super-
visor merely signed the evaluation and followed
Laue's recommendation. In addition to evaluating
employees, Laue, like other group leaders, was re-
sponsible for assigning work to employees within
her department. Inasmuch as Laue assigned work
I On November 24. 1978. McGrath requested to withdraw the charges
previously filed by him, On November 29, the Regional Director for
Region 13 granted McGrath's request and partially dismissed the consoli-
dated complaint
2 The General Counsel and Respondent have excepted to certain credi-
bility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's
established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of
the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect
Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd, 118 F2d
3162 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing his findings.
' The Administrative Law Judge in his Conclusion of Law h itadvert-
ently stated that Respondent's threats of plant removal or closure as a
penalty for unionization violalted Sec X(aH5) rather thian, as we find. Sec
8(a)(I) of the Act.
to employees, prepared evaluations of employees'
job performances, and effectively recommended ac-
tions to be taken on the basis of these evaluations,
we find that Laue was a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Having so
found, we further find, on the basis of employee
Cindy Foster's uncontradicted testimony, that
Laue's statement to Foster that the plant would
close and employees would lose their jobs if the
Union won the election violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
The General Counsel has also excepted to the
Administrative Law Judge's failure to find that a
statement by Supervisor Lorraine Ermel to fellow
Supervisor Herman McGrath was unlawful. The
Administrative Law Judge found that, in a discus-
sion of the results of a Board-conducted election in
which the Union received a majority of the votes
cast, Ermel said to McGrath that "if he thougnt
she was hard to get along with before, just wait
and see." The Administrative Law Judge found
that this statement was not unlawful because it was
made by one supervisor to another. However, in
making this finding, the Administrative Law Judge
apparently ignored McGrath's uncontradicted testi-
mony that employees were present when Ermel
made her remark. Accordingly, as Ermel's state-
ment had a tendency to coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act,
we find that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The complaint alleged that Respondent discri-
minatorily enforced an existing no-smoking rule to
deter employees' union activity. The Administra-
tive Law Judge discussed and made factual find-
ings on the circumstances surrounding the alleged
change in enforcement of the rule, but failed to
make any specific findings as to the merits of this
complaint allegation.
As found by the Administrative Law Judge, Su-
pervisor Glenn Olofson testified without contradic-
tion that a rule to the effect that only one employ-
ee from a line could use the washroom to smoke at
any one time had been promulgated in 1973 or
1974 and had been periodically enforced when
smoking in the washrooms got "out of hand."
Olofson also testified without contradiction that he
enforced the rule at least once a month. Other wit-
nesses testified to incidents of enforcement of the
rule, including Olofson's enforcement of the rule
on June 9, 1979. On the basis of the evidence ad-
duced regarding the rule, we find that the General
Counsel has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the rule was discriminatorily en-
forced, and we shall therefore dismiss this allega-
tion of the complaint.
250 NLRB No. 35
309
DECISIONS OF NA-IONAL LABOR RELATIONS 1O(ARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Simpson Electric Company, a Division of Ameri-
can Gage & Machine Company, Inc., Elgin, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified below:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c), and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Threatening employees with reprisals for
supporting the Union or engaging in union activi-
ties."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Post at its plant in Elgin, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked 'Appendix.' 12 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges vio-
lations of the Act not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our
employees concerning their union membership
or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
plant removal or closure or other reprisals for
supporting the Union or engaging in union ac-
tivities or for engaging in protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT create among our employees
the impression that we are engaging in surveil-
lance of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise wage increases or
additional benefits if our employees refrain
from engaging in union activity or if the
Union is unsuccessful in organizing our em-
ployees.
WE WILl. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, A DI-
VISION OF AMERICAN GAGE & MA-
CHINE COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Chicago, Illinois, on December 4, 5, 6,
and 7, 1978. The order consolidating complaint and
notice of hearing' alleging violations of Section 8(a)(I)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed, by Simpson Electric Company, a Division of Ameri-
can Gage & Machine Company, Inc., Respondent herein,
issued on August 16, 1978.2 An amendment to the com-
plaint issued on November 17. At the hearing counsel for
the General Counsel made a motion to further amend the
complaint by including two additional allegations. Said
motion was granted. The two paragraphs allege that Re-
spondent's supervisor, Naomi Laue, threatened employ-
ees with plant closure, and that Respondent's supervisor,
Lorraine Ermel, threatened to impose more onerous
working conditions on employees for engaging in union
activities. Counsel for the General Counsel's additional
motion to strike the allegation of supervisory status per-
taining to Walter Kungman (sometimes referred to as
Kunzman) was granted.
The issues to be resolved are:
1. Whether International Brotherhood of Electric
Workers, Local 117, AFL-CIO, the Union herein, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. Whether Eugene Long was discharged in violation
of the Act, or was he a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act and thus not afforded the protection of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. Whether Ruby Poe was discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. Whether Bonnie Texley (Hawks) 3 was discharged
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. Whether the change in lunch hours constituted a
violation of the Act.
6. Whether Respondent unlawfully promulgated or
discriminatorily enforced a no-smoking rule in an effort
to discourage union activity.
On November 24, 1978, Herman McGralh requested to withdraw the
charges previously filed by him On November 29. the Regional Director
for Region 13 issued ail "Order Severing Cases. Granting Request To
Withdraw Charge, and Partially Dismissing Colnsolidated Complaint"
All dates are in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
Hawks' name wa, changed il Tcxley when she was married on
August 4
310
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMP'ANY
7. Whether Respondent changed the parts ordering
procedure in order to isolate union organizers from other
employees.
8. Whether Respondent promulgated a discriminatory
no-solicitation rule in violation of the Act.
9. Whether supervisors interrogated, threatened, or
promised benefits to employees in violation of Section
8 (a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation and
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is engaged at its Elgin, Illinois, plant
(herein called the facility) in the manufacture, design,
and sale of electrical meters and testing equipment.
During the past calendar year, a representative period,
Respondent in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations purchased and received at the facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000, which goods were shipped
to this facility directly from points outside the State of
Illinois.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
I1. THE I ABOR ORGANIZATION
Donald L. Mahoney, International representative for
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, tes-
tified without contradiction that his organization's re-
sponsibility is to organize workers so that they can bar-
gain collectively with employers and reach agreement on
wages, hours, and conditions of employment and also
obtain the right to grieve problems. With respect to
Local 117, Mahoney testified that it is I of the 1,600,
local unions affiliated with the IBEW. Its jurisdiction in-
cludes McHenry County and most of Kane County in
the State of Illinois. Within this jurisdiction, the Local
represents approximately 750 workers employed by util-
ity, electrical, manufacturing, and contracting businesses.
Based on the foregoing I find that International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 117, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Eugene Long
It is undisputed that Respondent had knowledge that
Long was one of the leading union adherents who was
discharged after being warned by management that as a
supervisor he must cease engaging in union organization-
al activities. The General Counsel contends that Long
was not, and had never been, a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. The General Counsel argues alterna-
tively that even if Long is found to be a supervisor his
discharge still violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act because
"it was intended by the Respondent to have a chilling
effect on the union activities of other employees." The
parties stipulated that Long was not discharged because
he refused to engage in acti\ity which itself would have
been an unfair labor practice.
Long was hired on July 6, 1976, as a senior electronics
technician. As such, his duties consisted of repairing digi-
tal test equipment and special equipment in repair depart-
ment 212. The organizational drive among Respondent's
employees commenced during the early part of June
1978. Long was promoted to the position of principal
service technician in late April or early May. He wxas in
this position when he was discharged on June 20. Long's
predecessor, a principal service technician. was L.arry
Threewit.
Respondent's factory service manager, Glenn Olofson.
testified with respect to the table of organization. Long's
counterpart was Lorraine Ermel. supervisor of tester
analog meter repairs; and principal service technician of
digital and special products, a position held by Herman
McGrath until November.
Olofson testified as to the duties and responsibilities of
Long at the time of his termination. These responsibil-
ities and duties included daily supervision of employees.
assigning work, interviewing job applicants, training em-
ployees, hiring, firing, setting priorities in the sequence
of emergency work, and totaling and compiling daily
labor and attendance cards and weekly production re-
ports. According to Olofson, parallel duties and responsi-
bilities were possessed by McGrath, Ermel, and
Threewit, Long's predecessor.
Kevin Foster testified inter alia, that McGrath, Ermel,
and Threewit possessed the supervisory authority in de-
partment 212. Furthermore, Foster, who had been a
senior electronics technician, testified that Threewit as-
signed him jobs, moved him from place to place in the
department as needed. had the ability to excuse absences
or tardiness, and interviewed him for employment. He
stated that he had been employed for over a week before
he had even met Olofson. Between the time that
Threewit left department 212 and Long was appointed to
the position, Olofson performed the duties of the job.
Sometime during the first part of April, Threewit de-
cided he would accept a transfer into Respondent's clngi-
neering department. He recommended to Olofsoii that
Long, a lead service technician, be promoted o:
Threewit's job. Thereafter, around the middle of April,
Olofson talked to Long and told him that he would like
him to become principal technician and take over
Threewit's job, performing the same duties that Threewit
had been performing, which consisted of daily supervi-
sion of the digital and special products area. Olofson also
advised Long that he would not receive a pay increase
until he passed his probationary period.
On May 19, Olofson called a meeting in the break-
room of all supervisors. Those in attendance at the meet-
ing were Long, Narutis, Smith, Ermel, and McGrath. He
read to them bulletins announcing Long's promotion to
the principal technician, and that Long would be their
immediate supervisor. He also referred to the promotions
of Hajzl and Munson to lead technicians. Olofson tild
each of the five individuals that they were the supervi-
sors in charge of their areas and that he, Olofson,. would
undertake the position of acting foreman. Long and
I I
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Munson testified that Olofson stated that he (Olofson)
would continue to handle all administrative and supervi-
sory responsibilities in the repair area.
According to Ermel's testimony Olofson detailed the
responsibilities of the supervisors: they were to be in
charge of work coming into the area and work going
out, take care of backlog sheets for the particular area,
the training of new employees, the hiring of new em-
ployees, and recommendations for discharge. She testi-
fied further that in the last week of May she heard Long
remark that he was going to run a "tight ship" with re-
spect to breaks, smoking, and drinking coffee. Further-
more, she observed Long giving verbal warnings to em-
ployees.
Olofson testified that during the latter part of April or
the first part of May, 4 he had Long come into his office
to get Long's comments and recommendations on hiring
an individual who was handicapped. Long interviewed
the individual and he and Olofson agreed that the appli-
cant should not be hired because he could not perform
the job.
On a second occasion in the latter part of May or
early June, Olofson and Long interviewed an applicant
after he had finished an advanced written test. Long told
Olofson that it was apparent the applicant scored low on
his advanced test and accordingly did not qualify for a
senior technician job. The applicant was not hired. Long
refused to sign the back of the application where it states
"interviewed by." Olofson advised Long that this was
something that was part of his duties as the principal
technician. Long said he had never done it before. Olof-
son stated to Long that this was part of interviewing and
that when things would come up like that (things he had
not done before), he, Olofson, would be showing Long
how to perform the function so that when he felt com-
fortable he could perform said functions by himself,
without Olofson's aid. Long stated to Olofson that
Threewit and McGrath did not perform that function.
Olofson replied that Threewit interviewed and filled out
the application form and McGrath had done the same
thing several times during any given week. Long stated
that the Company was trying to set him up, and Olofson
stated that was not the case, he had no way of knowing
that an applicant would be there that day, and he was
attempting to show Long how to fill out the application
form because it was part of his job. Long admits to the
two interviews and that he refused to sign the back of
the application.
Olofson testified that Long had a disagreement with
employee Linda Rice regarding a work assignment.
Long was of the opinion that Rice had gone behind his
back to Olofson and Long questioned Olofson regarding
his authority to direct the job assignment of Rice. Olof-
son did not overrule Long but he advised him that he
would learn to handle people as he got experience on the
job, that he would have to work around personalities of
individuals and be tactful with difficult people.
4 Union Dclivity commenced in early June.
B. The Discharge of Ruby Poe
Poe did not appear to testify during the General Coun-
sel's case-in-chief, but she did appear to testify after Re-
spondent put in its defense.
Poe testified that on June 8, the day she signed a union
card, Eva Lord, a supervisor, asked her if she signed a
card, to which she responded affirmatively.
The next day, on June 9, according to Poe, Lord
called her over for a minute and stated, "I hear you
signed a union card." Poe responded, yes, that she had,
and inquired of Lord who had told her. According to
the testimony Lord responded, "You know you are in
trouble." Lord allegedly stated she did not want the
Union in her department looking down her back or her
employees' backs. Poe stated that she knew she was in
trouble for signing it but she had signed. Poe testified
further that on that same day, right after lunch, she and
a girl went downstairs to take parts to inspection and the
girl wanted to sign a card. They both went downstairs to
an individual, got a card from him, and the girl filled it
out and gave it back to the man. According to Poe when
she and the girl started back upstairs they met Lord who
asked the girl how did she get the card, to which the girl
allegedly replied that Poe had gotten it for her. Poe testi-
fied on cross-examination that the girl "gave it back to
the guy." Therefore Poe admitted that when she and the
girl were going upstairs the girl did not have the signed
card in her hand.
Lord testified that no such conversations ever took
place with Poe nor did she interrogate or discuss the
Union with any employees.
Lord, Joan Faircloth, quality control inspector, and
Naomi Laue, group leader, testified prior to when Poe
took the stand to testify. The parties stipulated as to
what the additional testimony of these Respondent wit-
nesses would have been had they been called back to the
stand.
Faircloth, who is in the unit, and who readily admitted
having signed a union card, testified that for the last
month prior to her discharge Poe's work had been
"going down, down." She testified further that she had
to reject 100 percent of Poe's work, sending it back to
her. Poe admitted that she was forced to rework all of
her rejects on June 9, and they were still turned back to
her rejected in full later that day. Both Faircloth and
Laue testified that they spoke to Poe and to her supervi-
sor, Lord, on a number of occasions between March and
June about Poe's poor quality of work.
Poe testified that she was fired by Lord after being
asked to sign a piece of paper which revealed that all of
her work products were rejects. According to Poe she
read the paper and signed it.
In Poe's testimony she denied that there were ever
complaints about her work from the time she first started
working in Lord's department in March to the time of
her discharge on June 9.
C. The Discharge of Bonnie Texley
Texley was hired in February and terminated on June
20. She worked in department Ill under the supervision
of Eva Lord.
312
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY
Texley and counsel for the General Counsel attribute
the following conversation as the reason for her dis-
charge.
At approximately 2 p.m., breaktime, on June 20,
Texley testified that she was at her work station. Also
present were Raymond Wood, Walter Kunzman, Alice
Thurnau, a group leader, and inspector Joan Faircloth.
Texley testified, "As we were leaving for break Ray-
mond Wood said to me very loudly, he says, the only
way we are ever going to get decent money here, is if
we get a union in. Right, Bonnie? . . . "And I respond-
ed, 'Right.' and I said it very loudly." Counsel for the
General Counsel inquired of Texley what if anything
happened when she made the remark. She testified,
"Well, both Alice and Joan looked surprised, especially
Joan. Her eyes widened, and she looked very shocked, at
what 1 said."
In the affidavit that Texley furnished to the National
Labor Relations Board agent, she stated that Millie Beh-
rens was the individual who overheard the conversation.
She did not recall either Kunzman, Thurnau, or Fair-
cloth being present during this conversation. On cross-
examination she testified that naming Millie Behrens was
an error; she did not remember Joan Faircloth's name
and Kunzman's presence slipped her mind.
Thurnau denied that she ever heard Texley express an
opinion about the Union or that she ever discussed the
union activities of any employees with Lord. Texley tes-
tified that at 3:15 p.m. as she was filling out her timecard
Eva Lord told her to come with Lord to Lord's desk.
Lord handed her a reprimand sheet, told her to read it
and sign it, return her badge the next day and receive
her final check. The reprimand sheet reflects that Tex-
ley's attendance ability and attitude were below average.
There is an attachment reflecting Texley's attendance
record and the reprimand report contains, inter alia, the
comment that her attitude had not improved with time.
Laue, a group leader, testified that Texley had a "very
bad" attitude. She testified that "when you would tell
her to do something and stand there and watch her she
would perform the function, but when you walked away
she would do it the way she wanted and you would get
a 'snippy' answer from her or she would shrug her
shoulders." According to Laue's testimony Texley spent
an inordinate amount of time combing and teasing her
hair. Then she would spend time going over to get hot
water for her bouillon cubes or iced tea. She made var-
ious trips to the restroom and Laue testified on one occa-
sion she found Texley jogging in place in the restroom.
She had a favorite chair and, according to Laue, threw a
tantrum if the chair was not where she left it the night
before. Furthermore, she had to be aided in finding the
chair or she would not work. This witness testified that
"half of the time you did not know whether Texley was
awake or sleeping." She would stare out of the window
5 or 10 minutes at a time. By then she would return to
the restroom either "for duties or jogging." She would
return from the restroom, need her lipstick, powder, and
comb, and comb her hair again. Laue testified further
that she would send Texley downstairs and tell her to do
10 bundles of wires, bring them back, and solder them.
She would do one bundle and then would return upstairs
with the one bundle and her chair which she also carried
up and down the stairs.
Laue testified that she complained about Texley to
Texley's foreman, Kunzman. Thurnau testified similarly
to Laue and in addition that Texley refused to perform
her work in the proper manner. She gave examples that
Texley had not completely inspected and trimmed her
work and did not work on the molding machine pursu-
ant to instructions. Thurnau testified further that some
days Texley would take off early because of illness or
something else and that five or six times she quit a half
hour before quitting time to do whatever she pleased.
"Whatever she pleased" meant that she spent time in the
lavatory or would sit there and do nothing. Thurnau tes-
tified to a conversation she had with Eva Lord the latter
part of May, with respect to Texley's work habits. She
testified that she had warned Texley on several occasions
that she had to work a full 8 hours and spend less time
looking out of the window. According to her testimony
Texley's response was to shrug her shoulders.
Thurnau testified that on June 20 she told Texley to
stay on the job until it was completed in the room where
she was supposed to do it. Texley had gone downstairs
with a thousand leads to complete. Thurnau testified that
she did a hundred, brought them upstairs with her chair
and her belongings, and was going to finish the next op-
eration on them, but was told to go back down and com-
plete the thousand and then come up. Thurnau recalled
that Texley returned upstairs on two occasions. On the
second occasion Thurnau told Texley to stay downstairs
with the job until it was completed. Later that morning
Thurnau went to Lord and told her that she, Thurnau,
did not feel it was worthwhile to try to do anything
more with Texley because she would not carry out
orders. Lord responded that Texley was wasting time by
carrying the leads and her chair back and forth. Thurnau
told Lord that she felt she had done everything she
could, and recommended that Texley be terminated.
Lord responded that she would "write up" the papers.
Faircloth also complained to Eva Lord about Texley's
work. Faircloth testified that Texley refused to cut off
excess plastic when she was running the molding ma-
chine, and Texley stated that if she, Faircloth, wanted to
do it she would have to get another person there to do
it. Faircloth complained to Lord about this. This incident
according to her testimony occurred sometime near the
end of May. Faircloth testified further regarding Tex-
ley's reluctance to run the molding machine and her
angry reactions at this assignment.
Lord testified that she talked to Texley a few times in
May, toward the latter part of May, regarding Texley's
attendance. According to Lord, Texley had problems
with a sick child and Lord advised her that she was
hired to be a full-time employee, that the Company had
to get production out, and that she, Texley, should be
there every day to work.
Texley testified she was excused for all of her absences
and that she received incentive bonuses. The record re-
flects that during her employment with Respondent she
did in fact earn incentive bonuses for 3 weeks, 2 of those
I1I
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
weeks being for the period ending April 23 and 30, the
other week for the period ending May 28.
Employee Cindy Foster testified that they were not
penalized for excessive absenteeism. On cross-examina-
tion Foster admitted she was disciplined for tardiness and
that she was terminated by Eva Lord for failure to call
in.
Texley's attendance record reflects that she was absent
on June 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19. Apparently June 17 and
18 was a weekend. Lord claimed that Texley had re-
quested an absence of several days, not an entire week,
to obtain a divorce. Thurnau, Laue, and Faircloth cor-
roborated Lord concerning Texley's attitude and attend-
ance. Texley testified that she advised Lord on three oc-
casions and Thurnau on two occasions that she needed
to take a 5-day period off for her divorce. Lord denied
this, testifying that Texley on one occasion asked for
only 2 days off. Thurnau testified that Texley told her
that she (Texley) had told Eva Lord she was requesting
2 days off.
D. The Change in Lunch Hours
The evidence reflects that 700 people are employed at
Respondent's premises and, of these, there are 600 Simp-
son employees and 100 employees of other employers af-
filiated with Katy Industries, an affiliated parent corpora-
tion. There is a cafeteria on the premises with a number
of vending machines, range ovens, 18 tables, and 72
chairs.
Prior to June 9, the majority of Respondent's and its
affiliate's employees shared a 30-minute lunch, from 12
noon to 12:30 p.m. Charles Coon, Respondent's director
of employee relations, testified that employees had been
complaining to supervisory personnel about the time
they had to spend waiting in lines at the cafeteria vend-
ing machines during their lunch period. He testified that
he received approximately 25 complaints through super-
visors or directly from employees before making the
change in the lunch period. Coon did not document the
complaints nor did he remember specifically which su-
pervisors complained. According to the testimony em-
ployees had to wait as long as 15 minutes in lines before
they could even sit down and begin their lunch.
Hazel Denner, a supervisor, testified that she too had
received a number of complaints from employees in her
area and that she communicated these complaints to
Coon. She testified that she told Coon that lunch was
half over before the employees got the chance to eat,
that they were losing half their time waiting in line.
Benner testified that complaints had been brought to her
attention since the beginning of 1978. According to her
testimony there would be days when the cafeteria would
not be as crowded as on other days.
Coon testified that he decided to work on the change
in lunch hours in May 1978, at which time he prepared a
comparative study of the total plant population for June
1977, and May 1978, on a department-by-department
basis. During this period Respondent was making its reg-
ular change in summer working hours, setting the work
schedule for most production employees from the regu-
lar 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift to the summer schedule of 7
a.m. to 3:30 p.m., effective May 15. The change in work-
ing hours resulted in employees working on staggered
shifts, with some reporting at 7 a.m. and others reporting
at 8 a.m. Therefore Respondent takes the position this
was the propitious time to stagger the lunch hours.
Coon's study of the population of the plant reveals nu-
merous calculations wherein, according to the testimony,
management could determine how best to divide the var-
ious departments into scheduled lunch hours.
Coon testified that on May 29 he showed his study to
Jerry Goldberger, Respondent's president. After approv-
ing the study Goldberger instructed Coon to prepare a
notice announcing a change in the lunch period. Coon
commenced to prepare this notice immediately thereaf-
ter. On June 5, Coon and Goldberger met again and
Goldberger reviewed and approved the notice prepared
by Coon. Coon testified that before he had an opportuni-
ty to post this notice the union activities began in the
cafeteria on June 6. Later that day, Coon and Gold-
berger decided to postpone posting the notice until they
could meet with Warren Furst on June 8. Furst is the
secretary and general counsel of Katy Industries. Ac-
cording to Coon, he, Goldberger,and Furst discussed the
posting of the notice in the context of the union activi-
ties. Furst allegedly made the comment that there could
be problems, but in view of the fact that this was some-
thing that they had in the workings, there was no reason
they should not go forward with it on a business-as-usual
basis. Accordingly, on June 9, Coon posted the notice.
Coon stated that he did not get back to Goldberger with
the proposed notice until June 5 because he was engaged
in other business matters. Coon testified that on the
morning of June 6 after the notice had been xeroxed, but
before it had been distributed, he removed one of the xe-
roxed copies for his own files and noted on the bottom
of that sheet "posted 6/6/78, All Boards." This quote is
noted on the exhibit captioned "Notice to all Simpson
Employees." According to Coon, before posting the
notice, he had walked into the cafeteria at noon, on June
6, for his milk and had seen the union activity in prog-
ress.
E. The No-Smoking Rule
Employee Kevin Foster testified that, on June 9, Olof-
son told him and Butch Underwood that only one em-
ployee could smoke in the breakroom at a time.
Long testified that the rule was flexible although if one
wanted to smoke it had to be done in the breakroom.
Long testified further that a number of women were al-
lowed to smoke in the breakroom at the same time.
Karen Long testified that she had seen four women
smoking in the breakroom at the same time and that no
one had ever been previously warned about the smoking.
Olofson testified that a smoking rule was instituted
either in 1973 or 1974, and it had been periodically en-
forced when smoking in the washroom would get out of
hand. According to Olofson he enforced the rule at least
once a month. The rule was that only one employee
from a line could use the washroom at one time to
smoke. There are approximately six lines in the depart-
ment.
314
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY
Long testified that the number of employees standing
in the washroom smoking would get out of hand from
time to time. Ermel also testified that Long spoke to her
about tightening down on breaks and smoking in the
area.5
Olofson admitted that he had advised Foster and Un-
derwood of the smoking rule in early June and stated
that he reminded them that the rule is that there should
be only one person from an area in the washroom smok-
ing at a time. Olofson also testified that he mentioned the
rule to three women who were in the smoking room at
the same time, but, when reminded that two of the indi-
viduals had been moved from their original work areas
as a result of training and thus were not from the same
line, he apologized and told them he was sorry that he
had forgotten they were from different lines.
F. Change in the Parts Ordering Procedure
Long, who worked in the repair department, testified
that prior to June 9 when he needed parts from the
stockroom he would get a requisition slip from the parts
sales office, Olofson would sign it, and then Long would
go down to the parts control stockroom or to the main
stockroom to pick up the part. Munson testified that as a
lead technician who also worked in the repair depart-
ment, if he required a part immediately he would get the
number, go to the parts sales area of the repair depart-
ment, check the catalogs, and if the part was available,
he would obtain a requisition and have it signed. If the
part was in the parts control stockroom, one of the indi-
viduals who works in the area would take the requisition
down and put it in the window where it would be filled
within a day or two. Munson testified that if the part
was in the parts sales stockroom he would usually take
the requisition downstairs to that stockroom and have it
filled immediately.
Olofson testified regarding a supervisors' meeting held
the first or second week in June, preparatory to the in-
ventory to be taken on July 1. According to Olofson, at
the meeting he and the supervisors discussed complaints
from the stockrooms and tightening up procedures on se-
curing inventory. Respondent was having difficulty with
part shortages and it was decided that Etta Ranson
would get the parts on a rush basis with special requests
at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. everyday. Technicians who needed
parts were required to document their needs on a form
hanging on the side of the filing cabinets where Ranson
would pick up their requests.
Long testified that prior to June, and the beginning of
any union activity, when he discussed becoming a princi-
pal technician with Olofson, Olofson mentioned that the
job would entail his running for parts for the other tech-
nicians, because there were too many people off the floor
at any given time. Long further testified that the reason
Olofson gave him for not being able to go into the parts
sales office was because there were too many technicians
going there interrupting work. Munson testified that the
reason for the change was to eliminate confusion and
streamline the operation. Long also testified that from
s Apparently the rule also w'as that employees could not smoke at their
benches in the work area
time to time, in the prior 2 years of his employment, he
had heard members of management discussing the fact
that there was too much time spent running to get parts,
and the time should be cut down.
G. The No-Solicitation Rule
Employee Paul Neylon testified that he told Supervi-
sor Benner after the commencement of union activities,
that he was going to be a union representative in the de-
partment. Benner admits this and testified further that
she told Neylon he was only supposed to be engaging in
union activities at breaktime and at noon.
Neylon also testified that on two occasions near the
end of June, and again in the middle of July, Benner told
him that people were complaining because he was walk-
ing around talking too much and that he was going to
have to stop or she was going to do something about it.
She said that he would have to cut out the amount of
talking and walking around because he was not turning
out enough work in a day. According to Neylon, lat-er
that same day she came back and said that he was going
to have to limit the amount (of talking) he did because
although he was making the required amount of work in
a day, he just should not sit any one place for too long a
time to attract someone's attention.
Benner testified that she did not consider it unaccepta-
bWe behavior for employees to pass the time of day and
greet each other as they were walking past, but that she
warned Neylon because of the length of time he was
talking to employees and disturbing them. Benner testi-
fied further that prior to the commencement of any
union activities she had occasion to tell Neylon to get
back to his machine, that he was talking too much and
wandering around too much. According to Benner,
Neylon responded that, as long as he was making his 8
hours' work, she should not bother with it.
Neylon also admitted the existence of a company rule
and that Benner advised him there was such a rule.
There is no time reference in regard to this inquiry.
Neylon testified that in the past he observed solicita-
tions during working hours for employees who were ill,
or for deaths in a family. No specifics were testified to.
Dorothy Rutkowski, an employee, testified that at the
time she was hired she was told that there was a rule
against excessive talking in the plant. Rutkowski, a wit-
ness called by the General Counsel, also testified that
there were rules on the bulletin board which made refer-
ence to unnecessary and unauthorized waste of time such
as loitering in toilets, taking too frequent breaks, and
horseplay. She also testified that, on or about July 24,
her supervisor, Ermel, found her in the bathroom and
said that she and another individual who was present had
to stop going to the bathroom so much. Rutkowski
stated that Ermel said Glen (Olofson), her supervisor,
was going to be on her back if they kept going down
there so much. Ermel allegedly stated that they were
spending too much time in the bathroom and not getting
their work done.
315
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. Alleged Threats, Interrogation, and Promises of
Benefits
1. Hazel Benner
Neylon, on direct examination, testified that, around
June 7, Benner asked him and several of his co-workers
if they had signed union cards. He testified that earlier in
the day an employee had asked Benner if she had signed
a card and that Benner's questioning occurred sometime
later that day. When confronted with his affidavit on
cross-examination, Neylon remembered that there was
one occasion when he and several employees were stand-
ing together and employee Helen Cos asked Benner if
she signed a card and Benner responded negatively. Ac-
cording to Neylon, Benner turned to him and three
women-Helen, Jenny, and Linda-and asked them if
they had signed cards. Benner denied ever asking any
employee whether or not he or she had signed a card.
She did not recall whether any employee asked her if
she had signed a card.
Neylon testified about another conversation with
Benner on July 24. According to Neylon, Benner, in the
presence of employees Dietzler and Linda Morgan, told
Neylon that she had been to the Company's lawyer the
day before, and he stated that the employees did not
want the raises. Benner allegedly told employees that she
did not know why they had gone and told "on her for
giving us raises." Neylon later in his testimony stated
that this occurred in the beginning of August.
Mary Fries testified that on June 12, while at her ma-
chine, Benner approached her and stated that when the
Union got in she would not be late, she would be there
on time or be terminated. This allegedly occurred on a
morning when Fries had arrived late for work.
Fries also testified that on June 24 or 25, in the pres-
ence of Linda and Jenny, Benner told her she would not
be able to eat rolls when the Union got in.
Fries testified that Benner told the employees that the
reason the lunch hours were changed was because man-
agement did not want the people to talk about the
Union. This statement allegedly was made according to
Fries, around the last of August or first of September to
everyone in the entire department.
Fries testified that she told the Board agent who inves-
tigated the case that she had not gotten wage increases in
2 or 3 years. At the hearing she testified that she had
gotten raises in January and August. She then changed
her mind and denied the August wage increase.
Benner denied telling any employees that if the Union
came in they would no longer be allowed to eat or drink
at their work area, and she further denied that she told
employees if a union came in hours would be cut. She
further denied any statement that employees would no
longer be able to use the washroom except during break
periods, if the Union came in, and that employees could
no longer come in late, if the Union came into the plant.
Benner stated specifically that she told employees the
lunch hour was going to be changed because they, the
employees, had asked for more time and that by stagger-
ing the lunch hours they would be able to get into the
lunchroom more quickly.
The complaint alleges that Benner told employees
there would be a reduction in jobs and hours and the re-
location of the plant to Japan as a result of union activi-
ties. There was no testimony to this effect.
Neylon testified that on July 26 he had a conversation
with Benner in the presence of Jenny Dietzler and Linda
Morgan. According to his testimony Benner stated that
Respondent was going to change the bonus system into a
group system; everyone would make over their hours
and it would be put into a pool and at the end of the
month all the money would be shared among the people
in the group. He further testified that Benner stated it
was being changed because the Union was going to
change it when it came in. On cross-examination Neylon
testified that he overheard this conversation while stand-
ing outside the door of the ladies' room. Neylon also tes-
tified that he did not hear the entire conversation be-
tween Benner and the other women.
Benner testified regarding a conversation with employ-
ees who raised the bonus question. According to Benrer
the Union was not mentioned during the discussion about
the bonus or incentive system.
2. Lorraine Ermel
Rutkowski testified that while she was wearing a
union button Ermel came to her and asked what she
thought the Union could do for her. She said she
thought she could get better benefits, for example, hospi-
talization and dental, and that her pay would be more.
Ermel asked her what made her think so, what proof did
she have? Rutkowski responded that she did not know.
Rutkowski testified that during the same conversation
Ermel made reference to dues paying the salaries of
IBEW representatives.
Ermel denied ever raising the question of the Union
with employees but testified that she often responded to
their inquiries. According to Ermel employees chose to
share their opinions with her. Ermel testified that she
said to employees, "Do you really think you want to
belong to a union? Do you really think you are going to
be happy being a union member?" According to Ermel
she responded that in her opinion and strictly her opin-
ion she felt that if the Union did not come in things
would be better, perhaps employees would get more
money but she just punched the clock like they did. She
testified that she had told employees she preferred not to
be a member of the Union, she preferred to be an indi-
vidual.
Louise Fulton testified that Ermel told her if the
Union did not get in the Company would take that into
consideration and probably pay better and give better
benefits. Ermel also allegedly made reference to the
eventuality of a strike and, who was going to pay for
rent and food? Furthermore, according to Fulton, Ermel
commented that the union dues would be enormous and
they would go to pay people like Fred, for his Cadillac
and vacation.
Ermel denied ever promising benefits to employees.
316
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY
Fulton testified that on August 20 Ermel came up to
her and asked her if she had been at the hearings 6 that
were in progress around that time, because she had been
absent I day from work.
McGrath, a supervisor, testified with reference to the
amendment adding paragraph V(ee) to the complaint.
Said allegation was added in the initial stages of the
hearing. According to McGrath, he and Ermel were dis-
cussing the results of the first election. ' According to his
testimony Ermel said something to the effect that if he
thought she was hard to get along with before, "just
wait and see." No other witnesses were called to testify
to this conversation although McGrath stated that em-
ployees were present in the area.
3. Peter Narutis
Rutkowski testified that during the last week of June
she had a conversation with Narutis. Narutis and an indi-
vidual whose first name was Arlene were discussing
money and how much they were going to get from the
Union. According to Rutkowski, Narutis started figuring
out something on a piece of paper, came up with the
sum, and made the statement, "You know we are going
to have to work a lot harder for that union. We are
going to have kind of like rates you know to keep up to
make that money. We aren't capable of bringing that
much money for us to be paid that."
Rutkowski was asked on direct examination if she re-
called what Narutis and she discussed, Her response was
"I can't, you know, give the words. It was about the
Union and we were like arguing back and forth. He was
saying that, you know, it was going to be too hard for us
to work underneath the Union. I mean-I don't know. It
was mostly about the Union. just arguing back and forth
about the things. You know, about the pay and all that."
Rutkowski was then asked if he stated what he meant by
being too "hard." Her response was "to keep up with the
work, to bring in the money to pay us that money, you
know. We would have to do so much more like meters,
to get out so many more meters for us to get that 5-1/4.
He was talking about that, working harder."
On cross-examination she was asked why she went to
the Labor Board complaining about Narutis' statement.
She answered that they were talking about the Union
which they should not be doing. She testified that "they"
apparently meaning management were telling people
negative things about the Union which she did not think
was right because management had its faults.
4, Robert Dinello
Ronald Fehrman testified that on July 24, he went to
Dinello and requested a raise. Dinello allegedly respond-
ed that the Company was not giving any raises because
of the union organizing activities but that the Company
might come up with some money if the Union were de-
feated.
" Apparently, the representation hearing was being conducted during
this timeframe.
I The Union received a majority of the votes cast
Approximately a month later Fehrman received a 6-
cent-an-hour raise, which he understood to be a merit in-
crease.
On August 24, Fehrman attended a union meeting. At
the meeting he made statements that certain employees
of Respondent had not received a wage increase in 2
years. Fehrman testified that on the next day, August 25,
Dinello asked him about the union meeting that occurred
the night before and Fehrman told Dinello that he had
attended. Dinello told him that that was all right and
then stated he heard that Fehrman had made a statement
that he had not had a raise in 4 years. Fehrman told Din-
ello that was a lie that he had never made such a state-
ment. What he had said was that he had gone as long as
2 years without a raise and other people had been in the
same circumstances.
Fehrman testified that when the Union was first trying
to organize the plant he asked Dinello his opinion of
what might happen. Dinello responded that he did not
know for sure but that Wallace8 could possibly move the
Company to Japan and have production done the.'e.
Fehrman told Dinello it would cost several million dol-
lars to do something like that, to which Dinello allegedly
responded, "What's a few million dollars to Wallace
Carrol?" According to Fehrman this conversation could
have occurred on August 28. Dinello also commented
that Wallace Carrol would not buckle under to the
Union. Dinello did not testify.
5. Naomi Laue
Cindy Foster testified that Laue stated to her in the
presence of other employees that "the Union will cause
the plant to close down," to this effect, that somebody
will lose, you know, people will be losing their jobs.
Laue did not testify regarding the alleged statement at-
tributed to her. She testified only regarding the discharge
of Texley.
I. Conclusion and Analysis
I. The discharge of Eugene Long
Long occupied the position of principal service techni-
cian for less than 2 months. Therefore he did not have
occasion to perform each and evey job duty or exercise
responsibility and authority in all areas. Olofson testified,
giving specific examples, of how he was still attempting
to teach Long how to perform certain functions.
The evidence reflects that, although Long's tenure in
the position was of short duration, he had occasion to
assign work to employees, direct their work, hire indi-
viduals, interview individuals, recommend against hiring
individuals, give warnings, and review probationary em-
ployees.
Although Long punched a clock and was paid over-
time like rank-and-file employees, the record reflects that
all supervisors were required to do the same and re-
ceived overtime. Long's rate of pay, after he passed his
probationary period, was $40 a week more than the
salary of a senior technician. Olofson testified that Long
x Wallace Carrml, president of Kalts Indutries
317
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as a principal technician earned $30 to $35 a week more
than a lead technician. Olofson testified further that a
principal technician enjoys no fringe benefits different
from rank-and-file technicians.
The evidence relating to supervisory indicia convinces
me that Long was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. Moreover, he perceived himself as a supervisors
and the employees regarded him as such.
There is no evidence constituting a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l), and there is no showing that Respondent's
conduct in discharging Long chilled unionism among
rank-and-file employees for their union activity. The
posted notice, in my opinion, would tend to allay their
fears. (See G.C. Exh 5.) Furthermore, there is no evi-
dence that Long was discharged because he refused to
commit unfair labor practices at Respondent's behest.
In my opinion the record supports the finding that
Long was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
and was terminated by Respondent after being warned to
cease his union activities. Farm Stores, Inc., F. S. No. 2.
Inc., and F. S. No. 4, Inc., 131 NLRB 1068 (1961); Na-
tional Industrial Constructors, Inc., 225 NLRB 672 (1976).
Accordingly, I will recommend that the 8(a)(l) and (3)
allegations relating to Eugene Long be dismissed.
2. The discharge of Ruby Poe
Poe testified that her supervisor, Lord, asked her
about signing the union card on June 8. Poe allegedly re-
sponded affirmatively and inquired of Lord who had
told her.
Poe testified further that early the next morning Lord
told her she had "heard" that Poe had signed a union
card. Poe allegedly responded affirmatively and inquired
of Lord who had told her. Lord allegedly responded,
"You know you are in trouble." Poe's testimony does
not even make any sense, and I do not believe it. Lord
testified that no such conversations ever took place. I
credit Lord's testimony in this regard.
Faircloth, a prounion employee, testified that she had
to reject 100 percent of Poe's work on June 9, and Poe
admitted that she was forced to rework all of her rejects.
Even after being reworked, the product was again reject-
ed in full later that day. Faircloth and Laue both testified
they spoke to Poe and to her supervisor, Lord, on a
number of occasions between March and June with re-
spect to Poe's poor quality of work.
Poe denied that there were complaints about her
work.
Based on my personal observations I conclude that
Faircloth and Laue had a sincere regard for the truth
and made an honest effort to be factually accurate. I
therefore credit them in all respects. I conclude that Poe,
who was a reluctant witness, was unreliable and attempt-
ed to gear her testimony to making a case. I therefore
discredit Poe and find that she was discharged for the
reasons advanced by Respondent.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of these
8(a)(1) and (3) allegations.
D There was a tendency on his part at Ihe hearing to minimize his au-
thority.
3. The discharge of Bonnie Texley
The Respondent called Lord, Thurnau, Laue, and
Faircloth to testify specifically with respect to Texley's
poor ability, attendance, and attitude. Earlier I discussed
the credibility of Faircloth and Laue, and as I am just as
convinced as to their veracity vis-a-vis Texley, I also
completely credit Thurnau.
Counsel for the General Counsel theorizes that Texley
was terminated immediately after engaging in a conver-
sation with employees in which she voiced prounion sen-
timents. Thurnau, whom I credit, denies that she heard
Texley express any opinion about the Union to other em-
ployees. In view of the fact that I credit Thurnau, I
never reach the issue as to whether or not she is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act. Assuming, ar-
guendo, that Thurnau is a supervisor, I would reach the
same conclusion; i.e., that Respondent had ample reasons
for discharging Texley, a short-term employee, said rea-
sons not being pretextual. With respect to this June 20
conversation, assuming, arguendo, it occurred, Raymond
Wood is the individual who expressed prounion senti-
ments and that a union would be the only way to get
decent wages, whereas Texley merely answered in agree-
ment. The record reflects that Wood is still in Respond-
ent's employ.
I find that the record supports Texley's poor attitude,
attendance, and ability, and that she was terminated on
June 20 after being given warnings, when she failed to
follow instructions given to her on that date. According-
ly I will recommend dismissal of these 8(a)(l) and (3) al-
legations.
4. Change in lunch hours
The evidence reveals that Respondent's intention to
change the lunch hours was in the hopper, prior to any
union activity. It is equally clear in my opinion that Re-
spondent was not motivated to change the lunch hours
in an effort to frustrate union activities or isolate custom-
er service technicians from other employees.
The weight of the evidence convinces me that there
were problems with crowded conditions at the machines
in the lunchroom. Although Long and Foster testified
that the lunchroom was not crowded, Foster testified
that he, Long, and most of the technicians did not even
eat in the lunchroom. I believe, further, that what preci-
pitated the change in lunch hours was not the union ac-
tivity but rather the change in hours and shifts which co-
incided with the change in the lunch hour.
Counsel for the General Counsel adduced testimony
from two individuals in an attempt to show that excep-
tions to the lunch hours were granted to certain employ-
ees. I credit Respondent's witnesses who explained cer-
tain omissions which were an oversight and a mistake,
and I am cognizant of the fact that there were some 600
employees involved.
I therefore conclude that the plan to change the lunch
hour was in progress prior to any union activity and thus
not a violation of the Act. Accordingly, I will recom-
mend dismissal of this allegation.
318
SIMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY
5. Change in the parts ordering procedure
The testimony, including the testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses, convinces me that the motivation
for changing the procedure for ordering parts was not to
discourage union activity. Rather, I conclude that there
was a history of periodically enforcing the rule regarding
ordering parts, there were too many people off the floor
procuring parts, work was being interrupted by the pro-
curement of parts on an individual basis, and there was a
pattern of complaints on the part of management and
stockroom employees when parts procurement would
get out of hand. Moreover, there were difficulties with
part shortages, and the meeting regarding some sem-
blance of organization in ordering parts was held pre-
paratory to the semiannual inventory.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of this alle-
gation.
6. The no-solicitation rule
Neylon, a witness for the General Counsel, admitted
being reprimanded on several occasions, prior to union
activity, for excessive talking and loitering during work-
ing hours. Benner, whom I consider an honest and reli-
able witness, credibly testified that she had on occasion
told Neylon to get back to his machine, that he was talk-
ing and wandering around too much.
There is no disputing the fact that a company rule had
been in existence prior to any union organizational ef-
forts, and as a matter of fact Rutkowski testified that she
was made aware of such a rule at the time she was hired,
on May 8.
There is also credible evidence in the record that en-
forcement of the rule against spending too much time
fraternizing or loitering, would become lax. From time
to time supervisors would find individuals either alone or
together in the restroom, and admonish them and send
them back to their machines.
In conclusion it is my opinion that the General Coun-
sel has not met his burden of proof in establishing that
enforcement of what has been characterized in the com-
plaint as a no-solicitation rule was motivated by any
union considerations.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of this alle-
gation.
7. Alleged threats, interrogation, and promises of
benefits
a. Hazel Benner
Benner, an admitted supervisor, was foreman of the
magnet line and machine shop. She impressed me as
being a frank and forthright witness entitled to full cre-
dence. Benner testified with detailed specificity with no
significant variance in her testimony on cross-examina-
tion. She was articulate but not glib. Two witnesses,
Mary Fries and Paul Neylon, ascribed certain conduct
and statements to Benner which has been detailed supra.
Benner denied certain statements alleged as 8(a)(1) viola-
tions and in some cases explained the context in which
conversations occurred. I credit Benner in every respect.
Fries and Neylon impressed me as unreliable witnesses
with little regard for the truth. I found Neylon's recol-
lection to be atrocious, and Fries herself stated that her
memory was "no good." I am persuaded that they fabri-
cated their testimony and I discredit them completely.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of all 8(a)(1)
allegations relating to Benner.
b. Lorraine Ermel
Ermel is a supervisor of meter repair and training of
meter persons.
Rutkowski, who left Respondent's employ approxi-
mately I month prior to the hearing in this case ascribed
instances of interrogation to Ermel. I credit Rutkowski
and reject Respondent's defense that Ermel's questions
were merely rhetorical devices. I therefore conclude that
Ermel engaged in interrogation which is violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I also find that Ermel's statements to Rutkowski were
promises of benefit if the Union were rejected, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Louise Fulton testified that she was interrogated con-
cerning her attendance at the Board's representation
hearing. I credit Fulton as to this incident. I find this to
be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, because Ermel
was not merely asking why an employee had been absent
but specifically asked if Fulton had been to the hearing.
Counsel for the General Counsel alleges that Ermel, in
her conversation with Supervisor McGrath, threatened
to impose more onerous working conditions on employ-
ees for engaging in union activities. This was a conversa-
tion between two supervisors, Ermel and McGrath and
as such is not violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
I do consider this comment relevant, however, as illu-
minating Ermel's antiunion disposition.
I conclude that Ermel's warnings to employees about
not talking too much or going to the bathroom so often
were not linked to any union activity.
c. Peter Narutis
Rutkowski testified imputing certain statements to
Narutis. In context, I am of the opinion that statements
by Narutis did not constitute unlawful threats. Rutkows-
ki's testimony in this regard was extremely confusing. I
am not certain as to what Narutis is alleged to have said.
In my opinion Narutis who was making calculations on a
piece of paper when he spoke to Rutkowski, was engag-
ing in free speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.
Furthermore, Rutkowski's recollection of this conversa-
tion was very poor. I will recommend dismissal of the
allegations relating to Narutis.
d. Robert Dinello
Ronald Fehrman testified as to three instances of un-
lawful conduct by Dinello. Fehrman is ciedited in all re-
spects in view of the fact that Respondent failed to call
Dinello as a witness.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Dinello threat-
ened employees with plant closure in the event of union-
ization, created the impression of surveillance. and prom-
ised wage increases if union activities were unsuccessful.
319
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
e. Naomi Laue
The weight of the credible evidence convinces me that
Laue is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act;
rather, she is a group leader acting as a conduit. Lord is
Cindy Foster's supervisor. Foster testified as to Laue's
statement that the Union would cause the plant to close
down. The record is clear that Lord gives instructions
and orders to Laue. It is also equally clear that when
Laue had problems with Texley she went to her foreman
Kunzman, to complain about Texley's performance. The
record indicates that one of Laue's primary functions is
to check out the work of other employees to see if it is
done properly. Although the record is not fully devel-
oped in this regard, the evidence reveals that Laue does
not have the authority to fire employees or effectively
recommend firing, and there is nothing in the record to
indicate that she had the power to hire employees.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of this alle-
gation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercive interrogation of employees, Respondent
has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By promising an increase in wages and additional
benefits if the Union were unsuccessful in organizing Re-
spondent's employees, Respondent has committed unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By creating the impression of surveillance, Respond-
ent has committed unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
6. By threatening plant removal or closure as a penalty
for unionization, Respondent has committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent did not discharge Ruby Poe, Bonnie
Texley, or Eugene Long in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
9. Respondent did not engage in any other violations
of the Act not specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section IO(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER '
The Respondent, Simpson Electric Company, a Divi-
sion of American Gage and Machine Company, Inc.,
Elgin, Illinois, it officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union membership and/or activities.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure or re-
moval for engaging in union and/or concerted activities.
(c) Creating the impression that it is engaging in sur-
veillance of its employees' union activities.
(d) Promising an increase in wages and additional
benefits if the Union was unsuccessful in organizing Re-
spondent's employees.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. '
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Elgin, Illinois, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by an authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
l0 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
I In view of the size of the unit and the somewhat limited nature of
the violations, I find that the broad injunctive order is not warranted in
this case.
'2 In the event that this order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
Stales Court of Appeals, the woards in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United Slates Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
320