Slaughter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Slaughter Company and International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
Case 16-CA-3124
June 21, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On March 26, 1968, Trial Examiner Horace
Ruckel issued his Decision in the above -entitled
case , finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are con-
sistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found, inter alia , that the
revised work schedule which the Respondent put
into effect on September 29, 1967, reducing the
workweek of the eight employees in the assembly
department and the stock clerk from a 40-hour to a
16-hour and 24-hour workweek, respectively, was
discriminatorily motivated and a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. He further found
that the offer on November 13 to certain striking
employees in the assembly department to place
them back on a normal workweek, and at the same
time announcing that the remaining assemblers and
the stock clerk were being laid off, was a further in-
dication of the Respondent's illegal conduct, and
was also violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act. The Trial Examiner held that in view of the
Respondent 's union animus its economic explana-
tion was implausible , noting that this was the first
reduction of hours and layoff during its entire 3
years of the Oklahoma operation, that the job
changes came at a time when a union organiza-
tional campaign was in progress , and that the bulk
of the employees affected were union adherents.
While we agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent unquestionably had union animus, as is
clearly shown by the independent Section 8(a)(1)
violations in July as found by the Trial Examiner
and which we are herein adopting,' on the record
as a whole we are unable to agree, for the reasons
discussed below, that the Respondent's actions in
September and November were illegally motivated.
The Respondent manufactures both standard and
custom electrical testing equipment for sale to vari-
ous electrical manufacturers . Since its relocation
from Ohio to Ardmore, Oklahoma, 3 years ago,
both its sales and labor force have increased. Prior
to September 1967, the Respondent never had a
reduction in its work force nor a reduction in the
length of the workweek.
The Union began the organization of the Respon-
dent's production and maintenance employees dur-
ing the first week of July 1967. The record supports
the Trial Examiner's finding that the bulk of the
union adherents among the Respondent 's approxi-
mately 15 production and maintenance employees
were 6 of the 8 females who comprised the as-
sembly department (Amyx, Call, Glover, Graham,
Harris, and Pierce) and the stock clerk (Bryant).
The Respondent's attempts, on July 11, following
the Union's first meeting , to discourage "outside"
organization and to encourage the employees to
form "their own committee" are accurately
detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision. Signifi-
cantly, the reduction in the hours for the assembly
department and the stock clerk took place about 3
weeks after the election on September 7, 1967,2
and about 2-1/2 months after the Respondent's un-
successful attempts to encourage an "inside" union.
The uncontraditcted testimony of Respondent's
President Slaughter was that the level of production
of the Company was determined by the ratio of in-
ventory to average monthly sales . Slaughter ex-
plained that when the ratio was below 1.5 this in-
dicated that there were shortages of materials, and.
that this would entail difficulty "in keeping produc-
tion going ," and that when the ratio exceeded 2.0
this was interpreted to mean that too much money
' Since in our opinion the record is unclear as to the manner of Respon-
dent 's illegal interrogation of its employees concerning their union activity,
we make no finding in regard thereto
The vote was seven for , and six against, the Union , and two challenged
ballots The record does not indicate the disposition of the challenged bal-
lots, nor does it appear that either party filed objections to the conduct af-
fecting the election.
172 NLRB No. 18
SLAUGHTER COMPANY 61
was tied up in inventory and indicated the possibili-
ty of a financial squeeze. Thus, the record shows
that in the first 4 months of 1966 the ratio of inven-
tory to average sales was low and Slaughter testified
that on the basis of this and his forecast that sales
would increase in 1967, two additional assembly
employees and a stock clerk were hired . However,
by the end of April 1967 the ratio began to rise and
was up to 2.20 at the end of June and continued to
rise through September to 2.58. The record further
shows that Respondent became concerned near the
end of August and discussions were held as to how
it should meet the situation. Of particular concern
was the fact that sales of the standard electrical
testing equipment, on which assembly department
employees and the stock clerk concentrated, had
declined and some assembly employees had to be
assigned to other work. The testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses Amyx and Glover was that
more finished manufactured products were on hand
at the end of September than they had ever seen.
Keaney, Respondent's secretary and production
assistant, also testified regarding the excessive
product inventories.
Near the end of September, Slaughter testified, a
decision was made to reduce the production
schedule , and in anticipation that the situation was
temporary it was decided to reduce the workweek
"to avoid the expense of laying people off and then
having to retrain them at a later date." Slaughter
further testified that the reduced hours were ar-
rived at by determining the number of man-hours it
needed to maintain the production of custom
equipment without adding to the inventory of stan-
dard units. As noted above, the nine employees in-
volved in the September 29 reduction in hours
primarily worked on standard units.
The Trial Examiner, in reaching his finding of
discriminatory conduct,, concluded that only the
above nine production employees "involuntarily"
suffered a loss in hours of work. However, it is clear
from the record, and indeed from the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, that the level of production in
other departments involved in producing inven-
toried goods was similarly reduced. Thus, during
September the hours worked by draftsmen were
reduced by approximately 60 hours a week. This
was accomplished by not replacing a draftsman
who quit, and by reducing the workweek of the
other two draftsmen, both of whom entered college
but continued to work on a part-time basis.
Similarly, in the case of the two testers, one of the
testers entered college and worked thereafter only
on a part-time basis. The stock clerk was reduced
from a 5-day week to a 3-day week. The record
supports the Respondent's contention that the sheet
metal man, clerk janitor, and office employees
were not cut back because the reduction in the
production of standard units did not greatly affect
their work.
On September 29 when the Respondent an-
nounced the reduction in hours of the assembly de-
partment employees and the stock clerk, six of the
assembly employees and the stock clerk refused to
accept the reduction, went on strike, and picketed
the plant. Two of the assembly department em-
ployees continued working. On November 13, the
Respondent wrote all the employees that business
had not improved and that since there were no
prospects for increased production in the im-
mediate future it decided that the "fair method"
was to offer full-time work to some of the assembly
department employees on the basis of seniority and
lay off the others. The strikers refused this offer
and notified the Respondent that they would return
when the strike was over. Slaughter testified that in
November when the offer was made there was an
excessive inventory of standard items, but orders
for custom units required additional production
work.
The General Counsel did not contest the validity
of the Respondent's use of the ratio of sales to in-
ventory records described above as a business in-
dicator, and the authenticity of the data introduced
by the Respondent in support of its business deci-
sions was not rebutted.
Although we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the Respondent had an economic basis to reduce
hours as early as April 1967, we are unable to agree
with him that by waiting to do so until September it
indicated a discriminatory motive. In our opinion,
uncontroverted testimony of Respondent's wit-
nesses and the uncontested economic data in-
troduced in support thereof indicated legitimate
business reasons unrelated to union activity for
Respondent's actions. It is clear that Respondent's
inventories of standard equipment were excessive,
that the decision to reduce hours was made only
after this condition continued for several months,
and that the employees affected were primarily in-
volved in the production of equipment which added
to the surplus. We further find that the record sup-
ports the Respondent's contention that when it of-
fered full-time work to certain of the assembly de-
partment employees and decided to lay off the
others that excessive inventories of standard equip-
ment had not been greatly reduced and that there
was no showing of the possibility of increased sales
of this equipment in the near future. We conclude,
therefore, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that con-
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sidering the record as a whole the General Counsel
has failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the reduction in hours or the layoffs
were discriminatorily motivated. Accordingly, we
reverse the Trial Examiner 's findings in this regard
and dismiss the allegations that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Slaughter Company, Ardmore, Oklahoma, its of-
ficers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order the following: t"by
reducing the hours of employment, laying them
off."
2. Delete from paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order the following: "by
terrogating its employees concerning their union
activity or threatening them with reprisals because
of such activity."
3. Delete paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c) from the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and
redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly.
4. Delete from the first idented paragraph of the
notice the following: ", by discharging, laying off,
or reducing the hours of employment, of any of our
employees."
5. Delete the second and sixth indented para-
graphs of the notice.
•' In view of our determination herein , we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the General Counsel 's motion to amend complaint to allege that the
strike , in which certain of the Respondent's employees engaged after their
hours of employment were reduced , was caused by the unfair labor prac-
tices of the Respondent
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: Pursuant
to a charge filed on October 6, 1967, by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board , herein called the Board , acting through its
Regional Director for Region 16 (Fort Worth, Tex-
as), on November 20, 1967, issued a complaint of
unfair labor practices against Slaughter Company,
herein called the Respondent.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, al-
leges in substance that Respondent, through certain
of its officers, supervisors, and agents, created the
impression of surveillance of meetings and other
activities of the Union, threatened employees with
reprisals because of their union activities, urged
employees to establish an "employee committee"
in lieu of the Union, and on or about October 2,
1967, reduced the workweek of employees because
they joined or assisted the Union, all in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et
seq.), herein called the Act. Respondent filed an
answer denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to due notice, I conducted a hearing at
Ardmore, Oklahoma, on December 13, 1967, at
which the parties were represented by Counsel.' At
the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived
oral argument but thereafter filed timely briefs.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation
of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Oklahoma corporation having
its principal place of business at Ardmore,
Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of electrical testing equipment. During the year
prior to the issuance of the complaint, Respondent
manufactured and sold at its Ardmore plant goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which
were shipped from said plant to States other than
the State of Oklahoma. The complaint alleges and
Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting em-
ployees of Respondent to membership.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , Restraint , and Coercion
1. Background
The Union began the organization of Respon-
dent's employees during the first week in July 1967.
The first meeting was held on July 10, attended by
10 employees and James Witchel, a representative
of the Union in charge of organizing Respondent's
' At the hearing , G C Exh. 3 was marked for identification but through
inadvertence was not marked as received. It is herewith received.
SLAUGHTER COMPANY
employees. Various ones signed union authoriza-
tion cards. A Board election was held on Sep-
tember 7.2
Richard Couchman is employed as a draftsman.
Though not a supervisor, he is alleged in the com-
plaint to be an agent of Respondent . He attended
the organization meeting of July 10. About a half
hour after the close of the meeting Couchman's car
was observed parked in front of the home of Elmer
Slaughter, Respondent's president. Couchman's
testimony is that he and Gordon McDonald, super-
visor of the shop area, went to Slaughter's home to
resume some painting in which they had been en-
gaged, and that he did not discuss with Slaughter
the Union or the union meeting he had just come
from.
On the following day McDonald gathered the
employees together in a meeting which Slaughter
addressed. Slaughter began by saying that he un-
derstood that they had had a meeting the night be-
fore, that he was sorry they were asking for "out-
side " help, suggested that they form "their own
committee" to bring their problems to him, and
that if they were unhappy in their jobs they could
quit and go to General Dynamics plant where a
union had recently been recognized as a bargaining
agent , and he would give them good recommenda-
tions . He emphasized that during the 3 years since
the plant began production there had never been a
layoff.
The above account is based upon the testimony
of Amyx and Dorothy Glover, and is uncon-
tradicted.
Later that day, following the meeting and
Slaughter's suggestion that a committee be formed,
Couchman prepared a questionnaire in the follow-
ing form:
YES NO DO YOU THINK AN EMPLOYEES
COMMITTEE COULD BE EFFECTIVE
IN SOLVING PROBLEMS AT
SLAUGHTER COMPANY?
YES NO ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FORMING
SUCH A COMMITTEE ON TRIAL
BASIS ?
COMMENTS:
SIGNED
2 There were 15 employees in the unit The vote was seven for the Union,
six against , and two challenged ballots
63
Couchman had LaVonne Martin, Respondent's
office manager, type this questionnaire and
Couchman struck off a number of copies on
Respondent's reproducing machine. These he dis-
tributed to the employees that afternoon after the
coffeebreak while they were gathered in a group on
the shop floor. A discussion then took place con-
cerning the relative advantages of the Union and an
employee committee, which, according to
Couchman's own uncontradicted testimony, lasted
for about an hour and a half until the 5 o'clock
quitting bell. It is not contraverted that during this
entire time no work was performed, and no super-
visor was present, McDonald, the shop foreman,
having left the shop upon the appearance of
Couchman with the questionnaires. The un-
disputed, credited, testimony of Amyx is that never
before during the 3 years Respondent had operated
its Ardmore plant had the shop floor been without
supervision.
Amyx's further credited testimony is that twice
during the hour-and-a-half period when the em-
ployees were discussing the Union and the forma-
tion of a committee, Richard Kearney, Respon-
dent's secretary and Slaughter's production
assistant, came onto the shop floor where he ob-
served the employees not working, said nothing to
them, and left. Kearney did not deny these visits to
the shop, testifying merely that he did not recall
them. I credit Amyx's testimony in this regard, and
find that Kearney, as well as McDonald, was aware
of Couchman's activities and sanctioned them.
According to Couchman, when he collected the
questionnaires only one or two had been filled out,
so, concluding that the employees favored the
Union rather than a committee, the project of
forming a committee was dropped. Not, however,
Respondent's opposition to the Union. On August
21, 2 weeks before the election, according to the
uncontradicted testimony of Steve Brodie, who is in
the sign and advertising business, he made on
Respondent's order 24 buttons bearing variously
the following legends : "NO," "I AIN'T," "NO
UNION, STRIKES, DUES," and "VOTE NO.
STAY FREE." The buttons were worn in the plant
by those employees opposed to the Union, consist-
ing largely of office force and supervisory em-
ployees, and including President Slaughter, Secreta-
ry Kearney, and Office Manager Martin.
Martin, on or about the day before the election,
according to the testimony of Jo Call, an employee
active in the Union, telephoned her at home and,
after some general conversation about the Union,
told her that her car had been seen at union
meetings. Martin , while admitting that she
telephoned Call and that the two had occasionally
discussed the Union, testified that she did not recall
saying to Call that her car had been seen at union
meetings . I credit Call's testimony as to this in-
cident in preference to Martin's qualified denial,
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
and I find that Martin 's statement was calculated to
create an impression of surveillance.
B. Discriminatory Reduction in the Hours of Work
On September 29, Respondent drew up a revised
work schedule and posted it on the plant bulletin
board. The new schedule affected the eight girls
employed as assemblers in the assembly department
and Bryant, the stock clerk. It did not affect other
production employees , namely, a sheet metal man,
two testers ( inspectors ) and a shipping clerk. Nor
were two draftsmen and the office help affected.
The result of the revised work schedule was to
reduce the workweek of the eight assemblers from
40 hours to 16 hours, the equivalent of 2 days, and
that of the stock clerk to 24 hours, or 3 days. Seven
of the nine employees affected by the reduction in
hours had been active in the union campaign, and
were so known to be by Respondent. The other
two, Godsie and Wilson, were opposed to the
Union and wore antiunion buttons in the plant. The
credited, uncontradicted testimony of Amyx is that
about the time of the September 7 election, Mc-
Donald told Amyx that Godsie would be leaving
Respondent's employ in about a month, and that
Wilson herself had told her that she would be
quitting shortly . Neither Godsie nor Wilson's name
is included in the complaint and neither was called
as a witness . I conclude that although Godsie and
Wilson, the only two assemblers opposed to the
Union, were included in the reduction of hours,
Respondent knew that they would in any event be
leaving shortly.
Respondent defends this reduction in working
hours on the ground of economic necessity , that is
to its overstocking of finished and semifinished
electrical units . President Slaughter 's testimony is
that Respondent endeavors to keep its ratio of in-
ventory to average monthly sales within a range of
1.5 to 2.0, that if it runs below 1.5 difficulty is
caused in keeping production going , and that if it
exceeds 2.0 Respondent is deemed to have too
much inventory on hand for the volume of sales.
Slaughter testified that he believed there would be
an increase in sales during the last half of 1967, and
planned accordingly . In April the ratio exceeded
2.0 for the first time when it reached 2.17, falling
back to 1.92 in May. At the end of June it was up
again , this time to 2.2 . By the end of July the ratio
was still unfavorable, and still worse by the end of
August. September was worse than August and at
the end of that month the ratio was up to 2.58. At
this point , Slaughter testified, he decided that
something had to be done and the question was
"whether it would be better to lay off some people
and keep the others on a full week , or-to cut the
hours equally" of all assembly employees. He de-
cided on the latter course, and arrived at a 2-day
week for the assembly employees which would be
I ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enough time in which to assemble certain special
units which had to be built to order.
The first question which presents itself is why,
when Respondent adopted the alternative of
"cutting the hours equally ," it selected the eight as-
semblers, plus the stock clerk , as the group whose
hours were to be cut equally rather than the
production employees as a whole , which would
have included two production draftsmen, the two
testers ( inspectors ), the sheet metal man, and a
combination shipping clerk and janitor , or, for that
matter the office clerical employees. As to the
draftsmen Respondent contends that their total
hours were "cut back" from 120 hours per week to
55 or 60. It appears, however, according to
Slaughter 's testimony that this was not a cutback,
but that a third draftsman had quit earlier in Sep-
tember and his place was not filled. The other two
had not been hired as regular full-time employees,
but were students who returned to school as an-
ticipated when hired, but continued to work on a
part-time basis. As for the two testers, who had
together been working a total of 80 hours per
week , one of them was not a regular employee but
a school boy who returned to school but continued
to work 16 hours a week during his spare time. The
other tester continued to work 40 hours, thus
reducing the total hours in testing from 80 hours
per week to 60 hours a week. As to the sheet metal
man and the shipping clerk-janitor they were kept
at a full 40-hour week, the first because "there was
enough work " for him to do so , and the second
"because of the nature of his duties."
It thus appears that the only production em-
ployees who involuntarily suffered a loss in hours of
work were the eight assemblers and the stock clerk.
The assemblers lost 24 hours per week each, and
the stock clerk, 16. Of this group of nine em-
ployees, six assemblers and the stock clerk were
precisely the active members of the Union whom
Respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to per-
suade to form an "inside" committee instead of
joining the Union; the remaining two assemblers
were soon due to leave Respondent's employ, and
Respondent knew it.
I am not convinced that the reasons advanced by
Respondent for reducing the hours of employment
are the real reasons . From Slaughter's own
testimony it is clear that the Respondent continued
production without any reduction in hours from
April through September, although admittedly dur-
ing that period the ratio of inventory to sales was
beyond the 1.5 to 2.00 figure which Respondent as-
sertedly attempted to maintain . Slaughter's
testimony that he simply was mistaken in expecting
the stock-sales ratio to improve each month, I do
not accept as a plausible explanation. The fact is
that from April through September the ratio was
unfavorable, but the hours were not shortened and
that no reduction was made until after the Union
had appeared and made progress in organizing the
SLAUGHTER COMPANY
employees. This reduction in the workweek was the
only reduction made during the entire 3-year
operation of Respondent's plant in Ardmore.
When Respondent announced the reduction in
hours of the nine assembly girls, Bobby Amyx, Jo
Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har-
ris, and Shirley Pierce, the seven girls who were ac-
tive in Union, along with Ronny Bryant, the stock
clerk, refused to accept the reduction and went on
strike and picketed the plant. The two remaining
assembly girls, both of whom wore antiunion
badges, continued working for a brief period until,
as has been stated, they left for personal reasons as
they had been planning to do for some time.
On November 13, Slaughter wrote all the em-
ployees that business had not improved as expected
and, as the fair thing to do, offered Amyx, Glover,
Harris, and Wilson work on the basis of a regular
40-hour week beginning November 20, at the same
time announcing that the remaining assemblers and
the stock clerk were therewith laid off. Slaughter's
letter reads as follows on this point:
... The necessary level of assembly operations
will be depressed for some time to come.
Under these circumstances it now appears that
the fair method will be to return the senior as-
sembly employees to a full 40 hour week and
to layoff the other assembly employees.
Amyx, Glover, Harris, and Bryant by telegram re-
jected this offer, stating that they would return to
their jobs when the strike was over. Whereupon,
Slaughter wrote Call, Graham, and Pierce offering
them work on a 40-hour basis, as "the fair thing to
do." Call, Graham, and Pierce telegraphed back
stating that they, too, would come back when the
strike was over.
It seems apparent that the "fair thing to do" was
calculated to split the ranks of the strikers by offer-
ing some of them restoration of a 40-hour week,
and prescribing for the rest of them a layoff in
place of the 16-hour week which had caused the
strike in the first place. Respondent's divisive tac-
tics, as revealed by its letter to the strikers, fortify
my conclusion that the reduction of hours was, in
the first instance as well as in its subsequent muta-
tion, discriminatory and in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with Respon-
dent's operations described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
65
1. The Respondent is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminatorily reducing the workweek of
Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, Dorothy
Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Harris, and Shirley
Pierce, and subsequently by laying them off, the
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By (a) creating an impression of surveillance
of meetings of the Union, (b) suggesting in the con-
text of an antiunion speech that those employees
who were unhappy in their jobs could quit and
work elsewhere, (c) urging employees to form an
employee committee in lieu of becoming members
of the Union, (d) permitting the use of its plant
floor during working hours for the purpose of form-
ing an employee committee, (e) printing and circu-
lating among employees a ballot calling upon them
to express a choice between the Union and a com-
mittee, and providing for the signature of em-
ployees thereon, and (f) by interrogating employees
as to their union affiliations, Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Because Respondent discriminatorily reduced the
workweek of Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call,
Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Grahman, Vera Harris,
and Shirley Pierce, it will be recommended that the
Respondent offer them immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions and work schedules, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges. It will be recommended that the Respon-
dent make each whole for any loss of earning he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him by payment of a sum of money equal to
that which he normally would have earned as wages
from date of the discrimination to the date of the
Respondent's offer, less net earnings , if any, during
this period. The backpay shall be computed on a
quarterly basis prescribed by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, approved in
N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company, 344 U.S.
354-126 O-LT - 73 - Pt. 1 - 6
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344, and shall include interest at 6 percent per
annum as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, approved in Philip
Carey Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 331
F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S.
888.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record
in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by reducing the hours of em-
ployment, laying them off, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their
union activity or threatening them with reprisals
because of such activity; creating an impression of
surveillance of union meetings ; suggesting that em-
ployees who are not happy in their jobs can quit
and work elsewhere; urging employees to form a
committee in lieu of becoming members of the
Union, and permitting the use of its plant floor dur-
ing working hours for this purpose; printing and cir-
culating among employees ballots expressing a
choice between a committee and the Union.
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, including the above-
named labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other concerted actitities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo
Call, DorothyGlover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har-
ris, and Shirley Pierce immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent
positions and hours of work without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo
Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har-
ris, and Shirley Pierce for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them by payment to them of a sum of
money equal to the amount they normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the dis-
crimination against them to the date of Respon-
dent's offer of reinstatement, in the manner set
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board and its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ments records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records relevant or necessary to
the determination of backpay due to the reinstate-
ment and related rights provided under the terms of
this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Ardmore, Oklahoma, co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 16, after being duly
signed by Respondent's 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 Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.4
3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In-
ternational Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO , or any other
labor organization , by discharging , laying off,
or reducing the hours of employment of any of
our employees . Nor will we discourage mem-
bership in said Union or any other labor or-
ganization by discriminating against any of our
employees in regard to their hire , tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of their
employment.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em-
ployees concerning their union activities, sym-
SLAUGHTER COMPANY
pathies, and desires, or those of other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of sur-
veillance of union activities.
WE WILL NOT urge employees to form a
committee instead of joining or assisting Inter-
national Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or encourage
or assist them in any way in doing so, or poll
employees as to their union sentiments.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant,
Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham,
Vera Harris, and Shirley Pierce immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL also pay them whatever loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of their
reduction in hours and layoff with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
67
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
the above-named International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
SLAUGHTER COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.