Strongcraft Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

STRONGCRAFT PRODUCTS, INC. 775
tially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date
of such discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period. Such loss of pay shall be computed in accordance
with the formula adopted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
We shall also order Respondent to make available to the Board, upon request,
payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amounts due as back pay.
Because of Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in
the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat.
In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section
7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of
the Act, we shall order Respondent to cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the amended Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, we
make the following:
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. All television service department employees working in and out of Respondent's
warehouse, Miami, Florida, including radio and television technicians and apprentices,
stock clerks, and the cabinet worker, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union was, on December 3, 1951, and at all times since has been, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing at all times since on or about December 19, 1951, to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Walter
A. Fredericks, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Text of Proposed Order omitted from publication. ]
STRONGCRAFT PRODUCTS, INC. and METAL TRADES COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. Case No. 21-CA-1745. November 4,1954
Decision and Order
On March 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
110 NLRB No. 121.
'776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made at the hearing and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Re-
spondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case.
However, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the merits, as we
shall not assert jurisdiction over this case for the following reasons:
Strongcraft Products, Inc., is a California corporation engaged at
Los Angeles in the manufacture of wire baskets, display racks, and
novelties. In 1953, it manufactured products valued at about $160,000.
Of this amount, $25,519 was shipped to customers out-of-State.
In view of the fact that out-of-State shipments are less than the
'$50,000 minimum required now for the assertion of jurisdiction on the
basis of direct outflow, we find that the business of Strongcraft Prod-
ucts, Inc. has insufficient impact upon commerce to warrant our as-
sertion of jurisdiction over this case.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Jonesboro Gratin Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Metal Trades Council of Southern California, herein
called the Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board issued
a complaint dated August 26, 1953, and amended February 2, 1954, against Strong-
craft Products, Inc., Los Angeles, California, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
In respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, in substance alleges
that from about June 1, 1953, and thereafter the Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in respect to eights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act by seeking to discover who among them was a member of the Union, was in
sympathy with the Union, and was organizing the Union. It is further alleged that
on July 15, 1953, the Respondent discharged Pearl R. Stanton and Betty J. Schroeder
because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union and because they
engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as defined in Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent's answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices and asserts
that Stanton and Schroeder were told at the time of their discharge that they would
be reemployed when they were ready, willing, and able to work full time.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
in Los Angeles, California, on February 8, 1954. All parties were represented,
participated in the hearing, were afforded opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Opportunity was
afforded for the filing of briefs. None has been received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
STRONGCRAFT PRODUCTS, INC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
777
The Respondent is a California corporation engaged in Los Angeles in the manu-
facture of wire baskets, display racks, and novelties. In 1953 the Respondent manu-
factured goods and products valued at about $160,000, of which goods and products
valued at $25,519.52 was shipped from Los Angeles to States other than the State
of California.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondenc.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In February 1953 the Respondent established an afternoon shift at its plant under
Foreman Chester Schuessler, operating from 3:30 p. in. to about midnight. There-
after, and at all times material to this proceeding , the plant operated on a two shift
basis, 6 days a week. On April 26 Pearl Stanton was hired as a welder. According
to Stanton , Respondent 's secretary , Bernard Hall , during the employment interview,
said that employees were expected to work 40 hours a week and might work an addi-
tional 8 hours on Saturday if they wished. Betty Schroeder, who was hired on May
23, testified to a similar conversation with Hall on the occasion of her employment.
Shortly after May 23, Schroeder and Stanton, who were acquainted, discussed the
desirability of having a union organization among the employees . Stanton arranged
for a meeting with a representative of the Union. Two organizing meetings were
thereafter held at Stanton 's home. Schroeder attended neither . Stanton, she testi-
fied, secured the signatures of 5 or 6 employees to application cards. Schroeder
testified that she assisted in this effort. In early June the Union filed a petition for
certification and thereafter a consent-election agreement was executed. About the
middle of June, after the Union's petition had been filed, Respondent's president,
Llewellyn Jones , according to Schroeder , during the course of a conversation men-
tioned, after Schroeder had said that she thought a union was a very good thing, that
the Respondent was going to work out a plan for a bonus arrangement for employees
or might contribute to insurance coverage and give them pay for holidays. A few
days before the election which took place on July 15, Jones, according to Stanton,
called her to his office and spoke to her first about some work records. The con-
versation turned to the Union and Jones asked Stanton what she thought about it.
Stanton answered that she thought it "a very fine thing." Jones then remarked that
she had not indicated on her application for employment any interest m a union.
According to Stanton, Jones appeared to have the application before him and when
Stanton said that she belonged to the Union said , "Well I will just write it down."
On the same occasion , still according to Stanton, Jones said that the Respondent
planned to give holiday pay and had other plans of a beneficial nature for employees
if the Union did not win the election.
Both Schroeder and Stanton conceded that they did not work on Saturday with
any regularity , each asserting that she was not required to do so. Stanton testified
that during the period of her employment she remained away from work about 4 or
5 working days. Schroeder admitted that she had taken a number of days off during
the period of her employment and that in the week ending July 4 worked only 1 day.
Both denied that anyone in Respondent 's management ever criticized them in any
fashion for their absences.
On July 14, prior to the hour when her shift was scheduled to begin, Stanton tele-
phoned Hall, she testified , to say that she wanted the evening off. Hall consented
and Stanton did not appear for work. Schroeder, too, did not report for her shift,
but about 9 o'clock that evening telephoned her foreman , Schuessler , to say that she
was suffering from a headache and was unable to work. Early in the morning of
July 15, the date of the election, Hall telephoned Stanton and Schroeder and told
each that she was discharged because of failure to work regularly. Later in the day
Stanton and Schroeder, together, came to the plant to receive their checks. They
met and conversed with Jones ; the substance of the conversation- appears in the record
in versions varying with the relator. Jones testified that he spoke only to Schroeder
but that Stanton was within hearing distance ; that Schroeder said she might ask Jones
to be reemployed; and that Jones told her "that would be all right if she wanted to
come back to work as long as she assured me that she would put in a full week's
work." Schroeder testified that he said , "if I was sincere and came in again, I could
come back there for a job again" and, turning to Stanton, "That goes for you too."
Stanton testified on direct examination , "I did hear him say to her and to me that
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any time we wanted to come back in, we could do so . . . that if we would be on
good behavior that we could come back in and that was when he said to me, `That
means you to.' " On cross-examination Stanton denied that a return to employment
was conditioned upon working a full week but then answered as follows:
Q. He said, "If you will put in a full week's work, you can have your job
back." He said that, didn't he?
A. Not to me.
Q. Who did he say that to?
A. Betty, and then he said, "That goes for you too, Pearl."
The last question set forth assumes as a fact ( not then in evidence ) that Jones said
Schroeder and Stanton could return to work if they would agree to work a full week.
Considering Stanton's earlier denial that such a condition was mentioned I am in some
doubt that she intended by her last answer to admit that it was. At least it is evident
that some hope of future employment was held out to Schroeder and Stanton if they
were "sincere" or "would be on good behavior."
Beyond question neither Schroeder nor Stanton worked all the shifts that Re-
spondent desired them to. Jones testified that all welders were required to work
a 48-hour week; that Stanton never did so and that Schroeder may have no more
than once or twice. On one occasion, Jones asked Schroeder why she had been re-
cently absent. Schroeder answered that she had been ill.
Hall testified that when he hired Stanton and Schroeder, he told each of them that
wage increases would come automatically to those who consistently put in a 40-hour
week. No mention of penalty by way of discipline was made for failure to work
the scheduled hours. On the morning of July 15, according to Hall, Jones said that
he was very much disappointed in the amount of production on the evening shift
for the previous day and directed Hall to discharge Stanton and Schroeder because
of their unsatisfactory employment records.
Foreman Schuessler, who has been a member of another union for several years,
who was on friendly terms with both Stanton and Schroeder, and who no longer is
employed by the Respondent, testified that employees were expected to work a
40-hour week, but that Saturday work was optional. Schuessler testified that he
frequently complained to Hall or Jones that employees were working irregularly
and on each occasion was told not to worry about it. Schuessler was aware that
Stanton and Schroeder were interested in the Union 's organizing campaign and on
one occasion met the union organizer at Stanton 's house. He had, however, no hand
in the discharges and there is reason to suppose that he never reported his informa-
tion concernine the union activity of the two women to Hall or Jones. According
to Schuessler , President Jones asked him shortly before the election to name the
ringleaders in the Union and those who were passing application cards about the
plant. Schuessler said that he did not know. Jones then asked if some girl named
Winifred was the chief protagonist and, when Schuessler answered that she was not,
inquired if Stanton or Schroeder was. Schuessler said that he did not know because
he had not talked to them about it. Jones said, still according to Schuessler, that
he would never permit the Union to get in the plant; that he would close the doors
rather than have that happen; and that the Respondent planned for a bonus and paid
holidays if the Union did not win the election. On the afternoon of July 14, accord-
ing to Schuessler , either Hall or Jones told him at the beginning of the shift that
Stanton had telephoned that she would not be in. Schuessler recalled that Schroeder
telephoned him in the evening and that he gave her permission to remain off work.
The sense of Schuessler 's testimony on this point is, however , that there was little
else that he could do as the shift was more than half over and there was no way that
he could compel Schroeder to come to work. Schuessler said that neither Hall nor
Jones made any complaint or comment to him about the lack of production accom-
plished on the night of July 14. According to Schuessler, Schroeder and Stanton
were satisfactory workers.
The evidence satisfactorily establishes what one would conclude in any event, that
the Respondent desired its employees to work steadily . But it is also clear that until
July 15 not even a threat of discipline was uttered to Stanton or Schroeder in that
connection. On the basis of this record one cannot say with any certainty that either
of them was persistently absent or that their work records in respect to attendance
was better or worse than the general run of Respondent 's employees . It seems
probable that the Respondent is in possession of payroll data which would clear that
point but they were not produced . Schuessler 's testimony that his complaints about
absenteeism were brushed off by Hall and Jones is not specifically denied however,
Jones testified credibly that in the spring of 1953 another employee, Sam Ward, was
discharged because he was undependable . One of Ward 's faults was persistent ab-
STRONGCRAFT PRODUCTS, INC. 779
sence from work. Schuessler's testimony concerning the threat by Jones that the
.plant would be closed if the Union came in, is undenied as is the testimony of
Schuessler, Schroeder, and Stanton that Jones said that the institution of a bonus
plan, paid holidays, and other benefits depended upon the rejection of the Union.
Jones testified that he directed the discharges, but did not say that it was because of
low production on the shift from which they were absent. Schuessler's testimony
-that no mention of short production was made to him, stands undenied. Crediting
the undenied testimony of Schuessler, Schroeder, and Stanton, I find that the Re-
spondent threatened to close the plant if the Union was successful in organizing the
employees and said that bonus and holiday benefits would be given to the employees
in the event that the Union was rejected. Obviously, the Respondent sincerely de-
sired that the Union fail in its objective.
Were Stanton and Schroeder discharged because their continued employment,
.and consequent eligibility to vote in the representation election, threatened to bring
about the selection of a bargaining representative, or were they terminated because
they did not satisfy their employer's requirements concerning attendance? I am
convinced that the latter explanation is the one which the evidence establishes. Hall,
unprotestingly so far as the record reveals, gave Stanton permission to be absent
on July 14. Jones never testified that production on the shift from which Stanton
.and Schroeder were absent gave him concern. But Jones was aware that Stanton
and Schroeder favored the Union and had sought to learn if they were not the
leaders in the movement toward organization. Jones had threatened to Schuessler
,that the plant would be closed in the event of union success and had promised
-benefits to employees if the Union's campaign failed. If Stanton and Schroeder
became ineligible to vote the number of votes for the Union in the election about
to be conducted would be lessened. The fact that both had worked somewhat
irregularly gave color to the reason offered for the discharges. True, Jones on the
same day encouraged them to believe that they might be rehired but they remained
discharged. I do not interpret the conversation which occurred when Stanton and
Schroeder received their checks as being an offer immediately to rescind the dis-
charges in exchange for a promise to work steadily but rather a suggestion that their
applications at some time in the future would be favorably considered if they then
wanted to work more regularly. Such an offer is not inconsistent with Respondent's
purpose to defeat the Union. Once the election was in the past, the opportunity
for Stanton or Schroeder again to arouse prounion sentiment would be lessened.
Another election could have been postponed for a year.
I find that by inquiring of Foreman Schuessler as to the identity of union sup-
porters, thus engaging in surveillance of the protected activity of its employees; by
inquiring of Stanton how she felt about the Union; and by suggesting that bonus
plans, paid holidays, or payment of insurance premiums for employees would be
undertaken by the Respondent in the event that the employees rejected the Union,
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated and is violating
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
By the discharge of Stanton and Schroeder because they were members and sup-
porters of the Union and in furtherance of a design to insure the defeat of the Union
in the election, the Respondent discouraged membership in, activity in behalf of,
and support for the Union and thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Pearl Stanton and Betty Schroeder, it will be recommended
that the Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the discrimination by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount
she would have earned from July 15, 1953, to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during that period. The computation shall be made on a
quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, 291-294. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect
upon the back-pay liability for any other such period. It will also be recommended
that the Respondent make available to the Board upon request, payroll and other
records to facilitate the checking of back pay.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in surveillance over the protected
activities of its employees, has unlawfully interrogated an employee, and has prom-
ised them benefits should they refrain from seeking representation by the Union,
it will be -recommended that the Respondent be required to cease and desist from
such conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Metal Trades Council of Southern California is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By engaging in surveillance over the protected activities of its employees and
by promising them benefits should they refrain from seeking union representation and
by discharging Stanton and Schroeder, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Pearl R.
Stanton and Betty J. Schroeder, thus discouraging membership in, activity in behalf
of, and support for the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
VENETIAN BLIND WORKERS' UNION LOCAL No. 2565, AFFILIATED WITH
THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,.
AFL and VIOLA DODD . Case No. 20-CB-73. November 4, 1954
Supplemental Decision and Order
On February 23, 1954, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued
his Supplemental Intermediate Report, finding that the total net back
pay due Viola Dodd from the Respondent was $2,536.65, as set forth
in the copy of the Supplemental Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner'
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed..
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the excep-
tions and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
110 NLRB No. 117.