Stuart F. Cooper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 142 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
incidental thereto.' Nevertheless, our colleagues conclude that the
truckdrivers lack a separate community of interest and have a "pre-
dominant community of interest" with the production and mainte-
nance employees in the employerwide unit. How our colleagues reach
this conclusion is difficult to comprehend. It seems clear to us that
an employee's "predominant community of interest" is simply, and
quite naturally, a reflection of his "predominant" duties and responsi-
bilities. Here the truckdrivers' "predominant" duties and responsi-
bilities revolve around the driving of trucks and not the process of
manufacturing paper boxes. The drivers' "predominant community
of interest" lies, therefore, with one another and not with other em-
ployees who work in the Employer's plant.
Furthermore, we do not find persuasive the factors enumerated and
relied upon by our colleagues to support their conclusion that the
truckdrivers "lact separate interests." Some of the factors, for ex-
ample, wages, "benefits," and seniority, are the same for all employees
perhaps only because the truckdrivers have not yet had separate
representation. The other factors cited by our colleagues are clearly
overshadowed by one salient fact-these drivers spend more than 50
percent of their working time performing the duties of a truckdriver.
As the Board said in Painesville Works, General Chemical Division,
Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1784, "where the
aggergate time spent on [driving, loading, and unloading] prepon-
derates over time spent in other duties, we will accord to the drivers
the right to separate representation."
We would therefore follow precedent and direct a severance
election.
8 Our colleagues have stated that the two employees classified as truckdrivers spend
"little more than 50 percent of their time " and "about half of their time" performing
truckdriving duties . They further state that the truckdrivers have "regular and fre-
quent" interchange with other employees , and that the truckdrivers spend a "substantial"
portion of their time working with , and performing the same functions as the production
and shipping employees we do not believe the record supports our colleagues in this
respect.
Mr. Kirkpatrick , the Employer's president , was asked only whether the truckdriver's
duties required more than 50 percent of their worktime , and he answered "that's right."
Such an answer does not mean " little more than 50 percent" or "about half " The record
also indicates that "The truckdrivers are used primarily as truckdrivers ," and that only
"occasionally ," " in their spare time ," and "only when their truck driving duties fall down
somewhat," are they ever given nontruckdriving duties to perform Such occasional assign-
ments do not , in our view , constitute the "regular and frequent " interchange which our
colleagues have found.
Stuart F. Cooper Co . and Bookbinders and Bindery Women's
Local No. 63-63A. Case No. 91-CA-4135. March 7, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued
an Order Closing Hearing and Dismissing Complaint, which is at-
136 NLRB No. 8.
STUART F. COOPER CO. 143
tached hereto, in which he granted the Respondent's motion, made at
the close of the General Counsel's "case in chief," to dismiss the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed requests for review of the Trial Examiner's order, and briefs in
support thereof, and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the
aforesaid order. By unpublished order dated April 27, 1961, the
Board' remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for further
hearing to complete the trial of the issues involved therein with direc-
tion to the Trial Examiner to prepare and serve upon the parties an
Intermediate Report upon the evidence received. Thereafter, on
August 15, 1961, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs, and the Respondent filed a brief and a reply brief in support
of the report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with modifications noted herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by its disciplinary layoff of House
and Towne, or Section 8(a) (1) by Bucknall's reprimands to em-
ployees. Our reasons are as follows :
On July 6, 1960, the Union began an organizing campaign at Re-
spondent's printing and engraving plant. Prior thereto, there had
been recurrent friction and excessive talking among employees in the
bindery of the plant which, as Respondent viewed it, required ad-
monishment by Foreman Cornell. After the organizing drive com-
menced, tension in the bindery increased between two groups, the
prounion group which included House and Towne, and the antiunion
group. Dissension and bickering ensued which interfered with pro-
duction. This led Cornell to report the dissension to Plant Manager
Bucknall. Bucknall requested advice from Forbis, who acts as agent
in securing personnel for members of the association to which Re-
spondent belongs. Forbis advised Bucknall to talk to the employees
individually to try to ascertain what problems they had and what
their dissatisfaction stemmed from. Although Bucknall did so, ap-
parently friction between the two groups continued, leading Bucknall
1 Member Brown did not participate in consideration of the order of the Trial Examiner.
Accordingly , he does not participate in the Decision and Order herein.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to ask Forbis to address the employees. Forbis first spoke to the bind-
ery employees in the plant on July 22, 1960, telling them that the
friction and dissension would have to cease. Because it did not cease,
Forbis was asked to give a second talk to bindery employees, which
he did on July 28, 1960. In this talk, Forbis said that if the dissension
and friction did not stop, he was going to have to come back and do
something about it.2 On the morning of August 15, 1960, House
approached another bindery employee at the drinking fountain, gave
her a union handbill, and asked her to read it during the lunch hour.
During the lunch hour that day, House, in the presence of other em-
ployees, pushed a union handbill across the table toward employee
Newlove, one of the antiunion group, who replied hysterically.
Shortly after the end of the lunch period, Bucknall told House that
she had been warned not to cause trouble and not to continue doing so.
On August 18, 1960, the antiunion group of five employees went to
the office of Mrs. Cooper, the owner of Respondent's business, and
told her and Bucknall that they were being heckled by House and
Towne about joining the Union and if Respondent did not do some-
thing to improve working conditions, they would have to quit. Buck-
nall again called Forbis for advice and was told that he should give
House and Towne a layoff so that Respondent could show it was seri-
ous about stopping the bickering and dissension among the bindery
employees. Thereafter, on August 18, Bucknall told the two em-
ployees who were the aggressors in causing the interference with pro-
duction that the Respondent had "definite evidence that you two girls
have been fomenting trouble among the other people in the bindery
and because of your activities you were causingtrouble and unpleas-
antness among them." Bucknall also told them that they knew this
was against company policy and laid them off for 41/2 days.
As to the disciplinary layoffs, the Trial Examiner found, in effect,
that the Respondent's motivation was to restore harmony and not
to discriminate against Towne and House for antiunion considera-
tions. He also reasoned similarly as to the reprimands.
We are not unmindful that the right of employees to distribute
union literature, or to solicit union memberships, should not be lightly
circumscribed. However, we view the foregoing facts not as the ordi-
nary situation where organizational activities may cause some irrita-
tion to employees, or unrest in a plant, but as one establishing special
circumstances justifying the action taken to maintain discipline and
production 3
2 With respect to the remarks attributed to Forbis by House and Towne, about j oining a
union somewhere else, we adopt only the Trial Examiner 's finding that they were not in
fact made by Forbis.
8 As stated by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S.
105, 113, "No restriction may be placed on the employees ' right to discuss self-organization
among themselves , unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to
maintain production or discipline."
STUART F. COOPER CO. 145
In view of all the foregoing, including the absence of credible evi-
dence that the Respondent had violated the Act in any other respect,
the patient efforts of the Respondent to deal in an even-handed
manner with the bickering and dissension which were interfering with
production, the fact that the bickering and dissension persisted despite
such efforts, and resulted in five employees of the antiunion faction
threatening to quit if the Respondent did not do something to improve
working conditions, the fact that House and Towne were aggressors
in creating the dissension and bickering, and the limited nature of
the discipline imposed upon Towne and House who were fomenting
the dissension and bickering, we agree that the Respondent's conduct
in reprimanding Towne and House and in laying them off was not
motivated by antiunion considerations but was for cause. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
ORDER CLOSING HEARING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This matter was adjourned indefinitely on November 10, 1960 . Respondent's
motion to dismiss the entire complaint was taken under submission at that time.
The hearing is ordered closed as of this date.
Upon the basis of a review of the transcript and the memorandums of the parties,
Respondent 's motion to dismiss the entire complaint is granted , because the record
does not contain adequate proof to establish any violations 'of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was litigated in Los Angeles, California , on November 9 and 10,
1960, and on June 15 , 1961 .1 The questions presented include whether Margaret
House and Betty Towne were discriminatorily given layoffs for a period of 41/a days
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , herein called the Act . Also in issue is whether Stuart F. Cooper Co.,
herein called Respondent , unlawfully threatened and interrogated its employees
and promised them wage increases during a union organizational campaign in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1).
Upon consideration of briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent , the record
as a whole , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. NATURE OF THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS ; JURISDICTION OF TAE BOARD
Stuart F . Cooper Co ., herein called Respondent , is engaged in Los Angeles,
California , in the printing and engraving business , and at all times material herein
has been a California corporation . It annually ships products from California in an
amount valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to points located outside the State of
California, and is an employer engaged in commerce and affecting commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bookbinders and Bindery Women's Local No. 63-63A, herein called the Union,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
1 Following the hearing on November 10, 1960 , an order dismissing the complaint in its
entirety was issued by the Trial Examiner . On April 27, 1961, an order was issued by
the Board remanding the proceeding to take further evidence and for the purpose of
having an Intermediate Report issued.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
Margaret House and Betty Towne were allegedly given discriminatory layoffs on
August 18, 1960. They were employed as bindery employees of Respondent. The
bindery department includes in its working complement about 12 females and the
male foreman, Stanley Cornell. These employees assemble engraved or printed
paper material prior to its being shipped to the ultimate consumer. Their work
involves counting and gathering in numerical sequence documents or other paper
products. Prior to the events here involved, there have been recurrent episodes
of friction and excessive talking while at work among the employees which required
the periodic admonishment by the bindery foreman, Stanley Cornell, in order to
restore a more efficient working atmosphere.
On July 6, 1960, Betty Towne inquired of Cornell why certain vacation benefits
were not available to the employees. Cornell suggested that she check with the
Union, which she did. After visiting the union office, Betty Towne is depicted by
the record as becoming a union adherent because of an anticipation of an increase
in vacation and sick leave benefits in the event the bindery were organized by the
Union. Margaret House, the other alleged discriminatee, also became interested
as well as three other female bindery employees. There was also a group of five
bindery employees who were opposed to the idea of supporting the Union and to-
wards having the prounion employees persist in their organizational campaign. Betty
Towne explained the situation in her testimony with reference to the friction after
July 6, 1960, when the first attempt to organize the bindery employees commenced.
Well, it was just a little more obvious and more severe. I mean we have
had little spats where it would last a day or so, but this time, it just lasted
indefinitely.
Q. The union was the subject matter which caused the break or the compo-
sition of the group?
A. Yes, sir.
Foreman Cornell after July 6 made unsuccessful efforts to restore harmony and
reduce bickering among the bindery employees. He reported to Bucknall, the plant
manager, that he was unsuccessful and that hostility among the two groups was
hampering production in the bindery department. Bucknall then called Andrew
Forbis, who acts as an agent in securing personnel for members of the Printers
Industries Association of which Respondent is a member and also acts as industrial
relations advisor. Forbis advised Bucknall to talk to the girls individually and to
try to find out what complaints were breeding the hostility and bickering. During
these talks Bucknall in some instances stated to the employees he was aware that
the girls had been to the Union prefatory to stating he was interested in finding out
about their complaints. Various improvements in working conditions were sug-
gested by the bindery employees as a result of Bucknall's inquiries.
However, the friction among the bindery employees continued unabated. Buck-
nail called Forbis again and Forbis said that he would come out and talk to the
girls and that maybe an outside party would be of some help in reducing the
hostility in the bindery. Forbis first talked with the bindery employees at a meeting
on July 22, 1960, telling them, among other things, that the friction and dissension
would have to cease.2 Because it did not stop after this July 22 address by Forbis
to the bindery employees, he was again called back by Bucknall, and on July 28
again advised the employees in the bindery department that the dissension and
bickering would have to cease or something would have to be done about it .3
On August 15, 1960, Margaret House during the morning solicited one of the
other bindery employees to read some union literature during the lunch hour. In
2 Whether or not Forbis made any unlawful threats at these talks to the bindery em-
ployees will be discussed below as well as the question of a promise of an unlawful wage
increase made to the employees in the engraving plant of Respondent
3 Bucknall in his testimony fixed the dates of the talks by Forbis on July 22 and 28
These dates are adopted as being the most probably correct. Towne's positiveness at
fixing the date of the second talk before July 11 is regarded as indicative of the un-
reliable nature of many aspects of her testimony inasmuch as the sequence of events
makes the second talk before July 11 highly unlikely. The testimony of Margaret House
has Bucknall talking to the girls individually within a day or two after July 6, and there
was at least a week's interval before Forbis first talked to the employees and a week or
a week and a half between his first and second talk which would bring the date of Forbis'
second talk , according to House, at least up until July 22.
i
STUART F. COOPER CO. 147
Respondent 's bindery during the lunch hour, in the presence of Betty Towne and
other employees, she pushed some union literature at an employee named Gertrude
Newlove, whom Margaret House had known for several years. This action by
House created a hysterical outburst on the part of Newlove. House describes New-
love's reaction as follows:
She really got into a stormy panic and she really refused and started in to get
hysterical . . . gestures, and she screamed at me and said nasty things.
Shortly after noon hour, Bucknall came up to House and, according to House, ad-
monished her about her part in causing the trouble with Newlove.4
On August 18, 1960, approximately 3 days after this incident involving House and
Newlove, a group of five employees went into the office of Mrs. Cooper, the owner
of Respondent's enterprise, and in the company of Bucknall advised Mrs. Cooper
that working conditions had become so unpleasant that they were going to quit
unless something was done to improve their working conditions, with particular ref-
erence to the manner in which the prounion group was treating them.
The tenor of the report of these employees is set forth in Bucknall's credited
testimony:
A. Well, a few days after this incident-I believe it was the 18th of August-
Mrs. Cooper called me on the phone and asked me to come to her office.
When I came in, I found five of the girls from our bindery sitting in a semi-
circle around her desk. She said, "Mr. Bucknall, these girls have come to me
in a group and they have told me that the tension and the unpleasantness in our
bindery has gotten so bad that unless we can do something to improve the
situation, they are all going to quit."
She said, "They have talked to Mr. Cornell about it and they have talked
to you about it and neither one of you have done anything to improve the
condition, so now they have come to me."
Q. Did you question these girls?
A. Yes, I did.
This, of course, was a very serious thing to us. These girls had been with
us for many years-all of them. They were all competent workers. They were
all girls whose work and association we valued, and they represented a good
portion-perhaps nearly 50 percent of our work force; and the prospect of
having all five of them leave because of the unpleasant relationships with the
other people in the department was about as serious a thing as I ever had con-
front me.
So I questioned the girls individually. They said that they were constantly
being heckled specifically and particularly by two girls, Betty Towne and Mar-
garet House; that they had insisted on talking to them about joining the union
on company time; that they had given them union literature on company time;
that they had been most unpleasant in their relationship; that when one of them
would meet going down the aisle in the plant, that they had refused to step
aside and they would have to walk around them; that when these two girls and
the other girls that took their regular breaks with them were taking their breaks,
that they stand and stare at the girls that were working and make remarks to
each other and then laugh and, of course, they assumed that they were talking
about them and this made them very self-conscious.
Stella Reyes said that Betty Towne, in her presence and close proximity to
her, had spoken relative to Stella in very foul language in a loud voice and she
was sure it had been purposely done so she would hear it.
They said that under -these conditions they just felt they would rather look for
other jobs than work in a place that had this constant unpleasantness around
them.
Q. Now, was it reported to you that these were the only two girls that were
favorable to the union?
A. No. They reported that there were several of the girls that were favor-
able to the union. In fact they reported that one of the girls in the bindery had
been a union member for a number of years, but they were not the ones that
were causing any trouble; that these two girls were the ones that were causing
the trouble and bitterness in the bindery department.
4 The testimony relative to this conversation will be set forth more fully below as the
General Counsel apparently contends statements violative of the Act were made by
Bucknall.
641796-63-vol. 136--11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER: Which two girls?
The WITNESS: Margaret House and Betty Towne.
Q. (By Mr. WELCH.) Now, did the five girls that were present in Mrs.
Cooper's office demand that you take any action with particular respect to
disciplining or discharging any of these two girls, Towne and House?
A. No, they did not.
Q. What did they ask you to do?
A. They said that unless we could do something to improve the working
conditions, to make it more pleasant for them to work, that they would have to
quit.
Q. Is that about all that was said in this meeting?
A. Yes. I then talked to the girls and told them how much we valued their
services with us, that they were all good girls; we didn't want to lose any of
them; that we were doing everything that we knew how to do to try to improve
the relationships and that I hoped that they would be willing to give us a little
more time and see if we won't be able to get a little better atmosphere.
The bitter atmosphere in the bindery as related by Bucknall was confirmed in
both the testimony of Towne and House, and the record leaves no doubt that the
topic of the Union created a bitter hostility among the supporters of the Union and
the ones who were opposed to it.
After the employees left Mrs. Cooper's office, Bucknall again called Forbis and
sought his advice and it was suggested that he give the two individuals principally
responsible for the hostility and dissension a layoff, so that Respondent would demon-
strate that it was serious about having the bindery employees not being continually
engaged in bickering and dissension.
House and Towne were each given a 41/2-day layoff on August 18, 1960, and on
their return continued to work for Respondent.
B. Discussion and concluding findings
The issues as framed by the complaint and answer are set forth in summary form,
as follows:
1. Respondent through Bucknall in July 1960 unlawfully interrogated employees.
2. Respondent in August 1960 through Bucknall reprimanded employees be-
cause of their participation in protected activities.
3. Respondent in July 1960 through Andrew Forbis threatened employees with
discharge if they talked about the Union.5
4. Respondent granted wage increases to its employees during an organizational
campaign to deter its employees from participating in protected activities.
5. On August 18, 1960, Respondent gave Margaret House and Betty Towne lay-
offs because they had assisted in or engaged in concerted activities.
The evidence relating to alleged unlawful statements is contained in the testi-
mony of House, Towne, and Bucknall.6 The portions of the testimony of House
and Towne that the General Counsel contends establish unlawful conduct are pre-
sumably included in his brief. These extracts of testimony along with two additional
statements by Towne attributing certain comments to Bucknall will be examined to
determine whether they are susceptible of establishing violations of the Act.
5 The complaint originally contained an allegation that Cornell unlawfully promised a
wage increase on August 1, 1960. Respondent's motion to strike this allegation from the
complaint was unopposed and was granted.
61 find the testimony of House and Towne to be unreliable in relating the statements
of Bucknall and Forbis. For example, House attributes to both Bucknall and Forbis
statements having them use the term, "corruption" in characterizing conduct tinder
criticism. It Is apparent from the record that this term was one peculiarly used by House.
The testimony of Margaret House that she did not know Gertrude Newlove was one of
the girls opposed to the Union is rejected as completely implausible. She attempted to
give union literature to Newlove on or about August 15, 1960, after the Union had been a
constant source of discussion and dissension among the 12 bindery employees and after
House, according to her testimony, was aware of the fact that the bindery had been split
Into two hostile groups since shortly after July 6, 1960.
Towne first testified that after Forbis talked to the bindery employees the friction and
quarreling did not continue. She later testified that she did not continue to talk to. the
other employees during working time and then she conceded that she might have. She
testified concerning the hysterical outburst of Newlove which would contradict her previous
assertion that the friction did not continue after the talk given by Forbis. Her later testi-
mony, which was noted above, Indicated that after July 6, 1960, when the union activity
commenced , the friction just lasted indefinitely.
STUART F. COOPER CO. 149
1. Interrogation
House testified that Bucknall, a few days after July 6, asked her if she knew
how this thing got started. Bucknall credibly denied that he made this inquiry.
However, even if the version of House be credited, it would still be equivocal and
would not indicate whether Bucknall was referring to the union organization or the
discontent among the employees. It is reasonably likely Bucknall knew that the
union organization got started through Towne's visit to the union office after Fore-
man Cornell suggested it and thus it would seem to be unlikely that Bucknall was
interrogating House as to something that he probably already knew, but rather the
interrogation was aimed at the reason for the starting of the discontent.
Although not mentioned in the brief of the General Counsel, on cross-examination
Towne testified that Bucknall asked her for the names of any employees who had
been talking to the Union. This is the least equivocal of the statements which the
General Counsel contends violate the Act. The probabilities are that the reason that
the General Counsel or Counsel for the Charging Party did not develop this evidence
on direct examination was because Bucknall had not made the inquiry. Towne's
testimony is rejected also because the alleged inquiry by Bucknall is inconsistent with
his other conduct and statements and his denial of Towne's testimony on this point
is credited.
Bucknall's inquiries from the bindery employees about complaints in connection
with working conditions made against the background of some known union activity
are not here unlawful.? The evidence is consistent with the proposition that such
inquiries were understood by the employees to be aimed at reducing their dis-
content which was made manifest by the hostility that pervaded the working force.
It has not been established here that these inquiries reasonably tended to inter-
fere with any rights guaranteed by the Act. The continued organizational attempts
during working hours and the absence in the record of antiunion bias attributable to
Respondent confirm this finding.
2. The alleged unlawful reprimand of employees
The version given by House of Bucknall's talk with her about the Newlove
incident is as follows:
Well, he says that-He told me, "Margaret House," he says-In fact, he
called me a different name which was a pet name. He says, "Sweetie, I am sorry
that you made this corruption."
* * *
He says, "You shouldn't," he says, "you shouldn't make a corruption like
this. You shouldn't talk union in my shop, or in this shop," and he said-
Let's see. What did he say? I know. He said, "How many times does a
girl have to tell you that she did not want to have anything to do with this sort
of thing?" I said, "She didn't even tell me once," because I didn't even
approach this girl. I said, "If she had of, I would never had done anything or
asked her anything. She didn't say, so l pulled it back before she even touched
it," and I said-
And so, he told me he says, "Now, don't ever do a thing like this again and
don't talk union in this shop," and he says, "Talk about more pleasanter things,
such as the weather," and he says, "Now, do we understand each other?" and I
says, "Yes." He made it very firm. So, I says, "Yes, I do understand." 8
There is no evidence in this record that the Respondent had any antiunion bias
or was even opposed to union organization. As Towne acknowledged at one point
in her testimony, the friction caused by the topic of unionism lasted indefinitely and
did not have a short duration as in the case of previous hostility among the bindery
employees. Under these circumstances, the right of the employees to assist a labor
organization must in all reason be balanced with the employer's right to maintain
favorable working conditions even though here it involved telling employees to refrain
from union organization on the premises of Respondent.
7 See Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591, where the Board stated with reference to
interrogation, " . . The test Is whether under all the circumstances, the Interrogation
reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act "
8 Bucknall denies that he told House not to talk union in the shop. Whether he used
the specific words attributed to him by House is dubious However, there is no doubt in
the context of events that he was in effect telling I-louse not to create unpleasantness by
urging the Union on people who were opposed to It.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 18, 1960, when Towne and House were given a layoff, Towne testi-
fied that Bucknall told them that "he had definite proof they were talking union in
the shop which was against their standards but they had never told us beforehand
not to talk union in the shop." House testified that Bucknall told them that "he
had definite proof that they were talking union in the shop during lunch and work-
ing hours and that was the reason for the layoffs."
Bucknall's version of his conversation with House after the Newlove incident
was that she had been warned not to cause trouble and not to continue so doing.
When he advised Towne and House of their layoffs, according to his testimony, he
stated he had definite evidence that the girls had been fomenting trouble and that
their activities were causing continuing trouble and unpleasantness.
Here again Bucknall's testimony is credited. The basic question presented is not
whether there was a violation of a rule against advocating the Union during working
time or on the employer's premises during the lunch hour. The question presented
by this record is whether Respondent had a right to take steps to-restore harmony
among its employees where the subject of union organization was causing an atmos-
phere incompatible with good working conditions, and it is found that in these
circumstances the Act does not deprive Respondent of its right to preserve reasonable
working conditions in its plant.
Apparently the General Counsel places some importance on the testimony of
House that when she was given her layoff, Bucknall told her he had evidence that
she was talking Union during the lunch hour. Due to the fact that House had
received a reprimand from Bucknall only 3 days before for causing the Newlove
outbust during the lunch hour, it would seem extremely implausible that Bucknall
would make a stilted reiteration that he had evidence that House was talking Union
on the lunch hour.
Bucknall's credited version eliminates any question of the reprimand being due
to a violation of a "no-solicitation rule" but is aimed at the persistency of House
and Towne in pressing their views with respect to the Union to the point of having
half of the Respondent's employees indicate their intention of leaving if the unpleas-
ant atmosphere continued. Bucknall's version is as follows:
I said, "Girls, we have definite evidence that you two girls have been fomenting
trouble among the other people in the bindery and because of your activities
you were causing trouble and unpleasantness among them."
3. The alleged threats
Towne testified at the second meeting Forbis told the girls that if the dissension
and bickering did not stop that he would "find out who was at the bottom of it and
call them on the carpet and see that the trouble makers lost their jobs."
Bucknall's credited version was that Forbis said that if the dissension and friction
did not stop, he was going to have to come back and do something about it. House
did not recall any threats of any type made by Forbis, and Towne's testimony did not
associate the alleged threat to fire someone with any union activity. Since House
could not recall Forbis making threats of any kind in either of the talks he gave
(Towne attended only the second), it seems likely that Towne's version of this
alleged statement by Forbis was a product of her imagination.
Towne also testified that Forbis at this meeting with the employees told them,
.. if we wanted to join the Union, to keep quiet about it; to join a union shop
somewhere .. " The testimony of House was substantially the same, except that
she added Forbis told the employees, ". . . that it was their legal right to join the
Union but then, we should leave and go to a union shop ... " Since Forbis was
addressing the body of employees after the people who were advocating the Union
persisted in producing bickering and dissension by their continued advocacy of the
Union in the face of the unwillingness of approximately half the employees to
accept it, I find that in these circumstances the statement attributed to Forbis about
joining a union shop somewhere else is not a statement that would reasonably tend
to interfere with the rights guaranteed employees by the Act. I find that Forbis was
simply telling the employees that since the topic of the Union was the cause of the
bickering and dissension that if they wanted to insist on having a union that they
should go to a place where this bickering and dissension would not be produced by
advocating the Union.
4. The alleged unlawful wage increases
The General Counsel called witnesses Josephine Vega and Angela Sambrano to
testify in support of the General Counsel's claim that Respondent had promised a
wage increase to its employees during its organizational campaign . Both were
STUART F. COOPER CO. 151
employed in the engraving plant of Respondent located in the different geographical
area of Los Angeles.9 Both of them stated in their testimony that Forbis invited
complaints from their employees concerning working conditions. Neither of them
indicated in their testimony whether or not they had joined the Union and neither of
them indicated that Forbis made any mention of the Union in his talk to the engrav-
ing department employees.
Vega recalled, among other things, that Forbis mentioned that they were going to
get a raise after the foreman had announced the increase in the morning before
Forbis' talk, and Sambrano recalled Forbis' mentioning that the employees were
going to get a raise, as well as asking them if they were dissatisfied or satisfied with
their work. Sambrano's testimony also seems to indicate that the raise she received
in July was one that she was due to get in any event, although this impression is
based upon equivocal testimony.
Boyd Mitchell, an International representative for the Union, testified that the
Union held a meeting with the employees from Respondent's engraving department
in July or early August 1960 19 I find that the General Counsel has not established
by any adequate measure of proof that Respondent had notice of any union activity
in its engraving plant. Consequently, the record cannot support a finding that the
granting of the wage increase or the announcement of it, whether by Forbis as the
complaint alleges or by the foreman also as the record shows, constitutes a violation
of the Act. This finding is fortified by the record reflecting Forbis' telling the bindery
employees they had a right to join the Union but to stop their bickering, whereas
in the case of engraving employees no mention was made of the Union when Forbis
invited suggestions or complaints from the female employees in the engraving plant.
Towne's testimony that Bucknall told her to see him before she joined the Union
and that Bucknall would try to improve things is not cited in the General Counsel's
brief as an unlawful promise of benefit. In any event, for reasons noted elsewhere
herein, Towne's testimony is rejected and Bucknall's denial is credited.
5. The alleged discriminatory layoffs
As indicated in the events set forth above, the layoffs of Towne and House on
August 18, 1960, were triggered by the announcement of five employees to Bucknall
and Mrs. Cooper that they would leave unless working conditions were made more
pleasant and that Towne and House were the two individuals who were causing the
most friction and hard feelings.
The question in connection with the layoffs is what was the real motivation of
Respondent. Without reiterating in detail all of the facts set forth in this record, or
above, generally it is found that Respondent showed no antiunion bias; that it had
advised its employees, including House and Towne, that they had a right to join a
union; and that under the circumstances here present it had a reasonable basis to
believe that the conduct of House and Towne merited a lawful discharge. In view
of the fact that it chose, instead, to give them each a 41/2-day layoff, the conviction
is buttressed that the real motivation of Respondent was an aim to restore harmony
in its bindery and not to unlawfully discriminate with respect to the employment of
House and Towne because they were attempting to assist the Union.
Accordingly, it is found that the record does not support by adequate proof a
finding that House and Towne were given layoffs for discriminatory reasons or that
Respondent engaged in any conduct proscribed by the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not violated Section 8 ( a) (1) or (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record it is recommended that the
complaint against Respondent be dismissed in its entirety.
'The General Counsel in his original complaint, although using the wrong address,
made it clear that his charging allegations were aimed at only one plant of Respondent,
that is , the one where the bindery employees were located An amendment of the com-
plaint was made during the course of the hearing which broadened the possible scope of
the charging allegations of the complaint so as to include employees other than those in
the bindery department.
"Respondent's motion to strike the testimony of Mitchell and other motions made by
Respondent are denied.