Synadyne Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 664 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Synadyne Corp. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC.
Case 15-CA-6035
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
March 14, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On November 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Synadyne Corp.,
Jackson , Mississippi , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
The Administrative Law Judge finds, and we agree, that Green's and
Garner's protests concerning the substitution of a lottery for a paid half-day
holiday on Christmas Eve were connected to complaints made by the
employees at an earlier meeting with Respondent's vice president and
therefore did constitute protected concerted activity . Accordingly, we do not
find it necessary to pass on her alternative conclusion that even if this
connection did not exist the discharges would be unlawful because
Respondent believed that Green and Garner had already engaged in or
might soon thereafter engage in a concerted effort to remedy their grievance
and for this reason discharged them.
In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision , we note that in sec.
11. A, par 2, she inadvertently referred to Poole as Respondent 's president
rather than as its vice president . This minor misstatement does not affect our
conclusion herein
NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was heard at Jackson , Mississippi , on July 13-
16, 1976, inclusive, pursuant to a charge filed on March 10,
1976, and amended on April 9, 1976, and a complaint
issued on May 17, 1976. The issues presented are whether
Respondent (a) threatened employees about union activity,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (the Act); (b) interrogated and
threatened employees about protected concerted activities
and gave employees the impression of surveillance over
such activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (c)
discharged employees Barbara (Bobbie) Adams, Georgia
Williams , Minnie Garner, Gloria Green, and Jeanette
Vaughn because of their protected concerted activities, in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act; and (d) discharged
employee Alice Greenwood because of her union sympa-
thies and/or to discourage union and other protected
concerted activities , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
Respondent and by counsel for the General Counsel (the
General Counsel), I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Mississippi corporation with offices and
place of business located at Jackson, Mississippi , where it is
engaged in the manufacture of wire harnesses and
electrical components . During the 12-month period preced-
ing the issuance of the complaint, a representative period,
Respondent purchased and received goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to
it from points located outside Mississippi . During the same
period, Respondent sold and shipped goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside
Mississippi . I find that, as Respondent concedes, Respon-
dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction over its operations
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The October 1975 Meeting Regarding Alleged
Racial Discrimination and Other Grievances; Alleged
Unlawful Threats, Interrogation, and Impression of
Surveillance
During the period involved herein, Respondent em-
ployed about 220 plant employees, 180 to 200 of whom
were on the day shift. About 60 percent of the plant
employees were black. Although several blacks had the title
228 NLRB No. 93
SYNADYNE CORP. 665
of supervisor, only one black supervisor was on the day
shift.'
About 9:15 a.m. on a day in early October 1975,2 black
employees Williams and Maggie Sparkman organized the
black day-shift employees into a group to protest alleged
racial discrimination by Respondent. After black employee
Joan Laury had said no to the inquiries of black employees
Jeanette Vaughn and then Williams about whether Laury
was going to the meeting, Williams said that if Laury and
another black employee named "Shirley" did not go to the
meeting they were not black or supporting the blacks but
were white instead, and that they were "scared" because
they had a "position," meaning inspectors' jobs. Almost all
the day-shift black employees, about 100 in all, eventually
gathered in the plant directly outside the office of
Company President Poole. Some of the employees knocked
on the door of Poole's office. When Poole opened the door,
employee Charles Mayfield asked Poole to come out, that
the employees had problems they wanted to discuss with
Poole. Poole thereupon walked outside his office to meet
with the group.
Poole, who is white, asked what was wrong and who was
going to be the spokesman for the meeting. Mayfield
replied that the employees had called the meeting because
they felt that black employee Lynda Montique, who had
worked under white Supervisor Shirley McMullen, had
been fired for no reason. The employees also questioned
other recent discharges. Some employees, including Wil-
liams, asserted that McMullen was a supervisor who
particularly discriminated against blacks. Day Plant
Superintendent Mary Gibbons, who is white, asked some
of McMullen's black subordinates whether this was true.
Some said yes and some (including Laury) said no.3
Gibbons said that Montique deserved to be fired. Employ-
ee Williams said that Montique had had a doctor's excuse
for her absence. Poole agreed, but said Gibbons had found
out that after leaving the doctor, Montique had taken
additional time off to buy a car. Williams said that
Respondent was discriminating against the black employ-
ees by requiring all of them to bring in a doctor's excuse
when they were absent for medical reasons, while not
always requiring such excuses from whites. Poole replied
that he did not know about that. Gibbons said that black
employee Laury had been absent without having to bring
in a medical excuse.4
1 However, all but one of the leaders were black Moreover, although no
white employees worked directly under black supervisors , many white
employees were working under black leaders
2 My finding as to the date is based on the testimony of former leader
Alice Norma Coleman and employee Williams. I do not credit the testimony
of Company Vice President H Tate Poole and several other witnesses called
by Respondent that this meeting occurred on November 11. I disbelieve
such testimony for demeanor reasons, and because all these witnesses except
Poole gave the November I I date in response to a leading question on direct
examination or, in the case of Supervisor Sylvia Langford , after inspecting a
suggestive document . The significance of the date will appear infra, sec Ii,
B, 8, b
s Prior to this incident, Vaughn had been driving Laury to work. Shortly
thereafter, Laury went on the night shift for 2 weeks. She credibly testified
that when she returned to the day shift , Vaughn said that she was not going
to pick up Laury any more because she "had been going back and telling
Mary and them things on them ." However, I credit Vaughn 's testimony,
partly corroborated by Laury, that Vaughn dropped Laury as a rider partly
because she was frequently late and thus made the whole carpool late to
Williams told Poole that McMullen had set too high a
production quota on the Murray harness line. Poole replied
that Williams should not really be concerned with that
problem, because she did not work on that line, but that
"the quota that we had given the girls was something less
than their demonstrated past experience, and even then
they were getting less than half of the quota." Employee
Betty Brister said that "she could easily get the quota if she
wanted to but she just didn't want to." Employee Mattie
Wilson said that she thought she was being treated
"unfair." Poole suggested that she find another job.
Williams said that there were more white supervisors
than black supervisors and there was no one with a higher
position that black employees could talk to. Poole said that
the employees could come in and talk to him any time they
wanted to. Williams said that a lot of the black employees
would talk only to blacks and were afraid to talk to him.
Poole asked if the employees would talk to her, and she
said yes. He asked if she had any problem talking to him,
and she said no. Poole said that he would work this
problem out.
Poole mentioned an individual, identified in the record
only as Leroy, who was then the only black supervisor on
the day shift, and further stated that there were black
supervisors on the night shift. Williams said that "Leroy
... will tell us that he doesn't have any authority, that he
is just like us" and that Leroy's department consisted
entirely of blacks. Williams further stated that she felt
Poole was discriminating against blacks because they got
harder jobs than whites and did not get promoted, and that
black employees had to work under white supervisors but
white employees did not have to work under black
supervisors. Poole said that many whites were working
under black leaders . Poole further stated that he had
offered inspecting jobs to Celestine Moore (inferentially,
nee Madison) and Williams, both of whom had rejected
such jobs, and that Ethel Lewis had quit an inspecting job.
Williams said that Lewis had quit that job because, unlike
white employees, she would have to wait for 3 months at
$2.55 an hour before she received an increase to the $2.75
inspector's pay. Williams then asked Lewis why she had
quit her inspecting job. Lewis replied that she had quit that
job because she had to work 3 months before she could get
inspecting pay. Poole replied that he did not know
work. Vaughn testified that she had dropped Laury from the carpool
because she had failed to tell Vaughn about the shift change. I accept
Laury's testimony that she did notify Vaughn, but conclude that Vaughn
either did not hear her or forgot about the notification.
4 My finding that this complaint was made at this meeting is based on
the testimony of former leader Coleman, Vice President Poole, Plant
Superintendent Gibbons, and employee Laury. My finding as to its
substance is based on the testimony of Williams (who, however, attributed
this complaint and Poole's response to a conversation , discussed lnfrq
immediately after the meeting), Coleman, and Laury Coleman did not
relate Poole's response . My finding as to his response is based on Williams'
testimony.
Poole testified that Williams named one white employee who had
allegedly not had a doctor's excuse , and that Supervisor Langford thereupon
produced that employee's excuse . Gibbons gave similar testimony, except
that she said Williams named two employees and Langford produced two
excuses. In view of company witness Langford's failure to corroborate the
foregoing testimony of either Poole or Gibbons, and for demeanor reasons, I
discredit Poole's and Gibbons' testimony in this respect.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anything about her having to wait 3 months before she got
inspecting pay.5 Poole asked Williams whether she wanted
to be a supervisor. She said no, but others wanted to do this
and were not asked. A number of employees complained
about wages, and Poole said that he could not afford to pay
any more, that Respondent's labor rate was already so high
that Respondent was seriously considering whether or not
it could continue operations.6
Toward the end of this meeting, employee Whitlock
remarked that she felt that if the employees had a union,
"everyone could speak their piece without being afraid."
Poole replied, "We don't need a union, because if we get a
union this plant would definitely go bankrupt, because we
don't have any money to support a union . This is my plant
and no one will tell me how to run it. I will run it the way I
want to run it." 7
Five or ten minutes later, Poole called Williams, Moore,
and Lewis into his office. He testified that he selected them
because they had been "most vocal members at the
meeting" and because each worked in a different depart-
ment. Poole said, "What the hell is going on out there? ...
he didn't know, with everybody coming at him at once."
Williams and Lewis related certain alleged instances of
racial discrimination by management. Poole disclaimed
knowledge of most of these events. Poole then said, "Who
the hell was it out there that mentioned a union?"8
Williams untruthfully said that she did not know. Poole
said that "we just is working ourselves . . . if we had a
union then we would have to shut down the whole plant
and nobody would have a job." Moore said, "I don't know
who mentioned a union because I didn't mention a union. I
don't want a union. A union would mean that I would have
to pay union dues and have to strike when I don't want to.,,
Poole said, "We couldn't afford a union anyway," and that
he did not want "anything like that to happen again." He
asked whether they could stop "it" from happening.
Williams said that a lot of people in the plant had
problems, and some people were "scared" to come to him
with their problems. Poole said that no one should be
"scared" to come to him, and that employees should come
to his office when they wanted to. Poole said that he
5 My findings in the last five sentences are based on a composite of
Coleman 's and Adams' testimony, and of credited portions of Poole's and
Williams' testimony For demeanor reasons, I do not credit Williams'
uncorroborated testimony that Gibbons then pronused to pay Lewis $2.75
an hour For demeanor reasons, because of other evidence that Williams
was in fact offered the opportunity to bid for an inspector 's job, and absent
other evidence that she was offered a leader 's job, I do not credit Poole's
testimony that the discussion related to a leader 's job . I do not regard
Coleman 's credited testimony about Poole's equivocal reply as rendered less
credible by Poole's testimony that Lewis had previously told him she wanted
to quit the job because it was too boring (an explanation she might have
regarded as more acceptable to Poole than to Williams ), particularly smce
he testified that he really did not know whether Lewis ' starting and final
rates and the interval between them were the same as those afforded white
employees
6 Up to this point , my findings about what was said at this meeting are
based on a composite of the testimony of claimant Adams, Supervisor
McMullen, and employee Laury, and of credited portions of the testimony
of claimant Williams, former leader Coleman, Vice President Poole, Day
Plant Superintendent Gibbons, Supervisor Langford , and employee Alice
Ruth Whitlock I have attempted to describe the events in a likely sequence,
but in many respects the record fails to show what the sequence was.
7 My findings in this paragraph are based on the testimony of Coleman,
who prior to the hearing had resigned her job as leader and, so far as the
record shows , had no interest in the proceeding . Her testimony in this
needed somebody that he could count on to tell him what
was happening in the plant and see that everyone was
"satisfied," and that he could use Williams , Moore, and
Lewis if they did not "mind ." They replied that they did
not mind . Poole said that after he had made them
monitors , employees could tell them what was going on in
the plant and the monitors could tell him , without (if they
preferred) letting anybody else know that they were talking
to him . Williams and Lewis said that they did not mind his
repeating what they had to say. Poole said that "he did
have employees that come to him and they tells him
things," and that "whatever goes on in the office stays in
the office." 9
Thereafter , Williams told the employees that Poole had
said that he needed someone on each line "so the peoples
can talk to and that they won't have to be going around
spreading rumors ." A couple of weeks after appointing the
monitors , Poole went through the plant and asked them if
they had any "problems ." They said that they did not. On
another occasion , he called them into his office and told
them that certain employees were going to receive wage
increases , without, however, naming them.
In late November 1975 , Williams telephoned John Davis,
a representative of the International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, which filed
the instant charge in March 1976 . A week or two after
Williams' and Adams' December 18 discharge , they met
with Davis for the first time . There is no contention or
evidence that before receiving the charge , Respondent
knew about Williams' or Adams' contacts with the Union.
B. Activities in Connection with Long Holiday
Weekends, Holiday Pay, and Overtime Pay,' Alleged
Unlawful Threats and Interrogation; Allegedly
Unlawful Discharges
1. The Thanksgiving Day weekend
Respondent's plant usually operates Monday through
Friday. However, in 1975 the plant operated on the
Saturday before Thanksgiving and was completely shut
respect is corroborated by claimants Williams and Adams. Poole and
Whitlock both denied that he threatened to close the plant if a union came
in. Poole testified , however, that Respondent was then undergoing some
financial difficulties , and that the thought of a union coming into the plant
at a time when it had financial difficulties would be unsatisfactory to the
plant . Moreover, Whitlock testified that she asked whether a union would
help "our problems," and that Poole replied, "no, he only thought it would
make it worse." Poole testified that he replied "that I didn 't think it would."
Both of them testified that she said she had worked at a plant with a piece
rate system and asked whether Respondent could put in such a system, and
that he replied this was "too expensive" (her version) or "would probably
bankrupt our operation" (his version ). He, but not she, added the detail that
she said her former employer was unionized . For demeanor reasons, I credit
Coleman, Williams, and Adams , and discredit the testimony of Poole and
Whitlock set forth in this footnote.
8 Whitlock had been working for Respondent for less than 2 months.
9 My findings about the discussions at this meeting are based on
Williams' testimony , partly corroborated by company witness Moore.
Lewis, who still works for Respondent, did not testify , nor was her absence
explained . Poole testified that he assigned each of these three "the task of
being spokesperson for the entire group that they were assigned to . . . I just
asked them to be on the lookout for any kind of problems that they needed
to communicate to me and let me know ." Neither Poole nor Moore was
asked what , if anything , was said about unions during this conversation.
SYNADYNE CORP. 667
down the Friday after Thanksgiving as well as on
Thanksgiving itself. The employees who worked that
Saturday were initially paid only straight time for those
hours, even though the Saturday operations meant that
most if not all of them worked more than 40 hours that
week. Such employees, however, received holiday pay for
Thanksgiving. The employees who did not work that
Saturday received no pay for either Thanksgiving or the
Friday after Thanksgiving. Respondent ordinarily gave
holiday pay only to the employees who worked the working
days immediately before and immediately after the
holiday; and for purposes of Thanksgiving 1975 holiday
pay, the Saturday before Thanksgiving was treated as if it
were the first working day after Thanksgiving.
At the hearing, and to some extent in the briefs, both
parties litigated the extent to which this schedule was
proposed by the rank-and-file employees and was voluntar-
ily worked by them. Such issues have little relevance to this
proceeding, except as to credibility matters. In this
connection, I accept the testimony of Supervisors Langford
and McMullen that the proposal originated with some
rank-and-file employees. I also accept the testimony of
Poole, Langford, and McMullen that, initially, Poole
conditioned his agreement to this proposal on unanimous
acceptance by the employees. However, I infer from the
supervisors' coming to Poole with the proposal, and from
the willingness of all three to entertain the possibility that
all of the 180 day-shift employees would agree thereto, that
these three members of management welcomed the
prospect of a 4-day Thanksgiving weekend.10
However, Poole's general credibility is drawn into
question by his testimony regarding subsequent events. It is
undisputed that of the approximately 180 day-shift em-
ployees, only about 97 signed an agreement to work that
Saturday instead of the Friday following Thanksgiving.
Nonetheless, Poole testified on direct examination that a
"couple of days" after Langford and McMullen made this
proposal, "They brought me a list with everyone 's name in
the plant that wanted to substitute the Saturday work for
the Friday after Thanksgiving to be off for 4 days."
Moreover, on cross-examination Poole replied "Right" to
the question, "I think it was your testimony on direct
examination that in order to work Saturdays and have long
weekends it has to be a unanimous decision of everyone in
the plant and everyone in the plant signed this list." When
the General Counsel then pointed out that a significant
number of the employees had not signed any of the eight
documents (G. C. Exh. 3) constituting the list, Poole
testified, contrary to his testimony on direct examination,
that he had not seen the list until after the Thanksgiving
holidays, and that his basis for putting the proposed
schedule in effect was a supervisors' meeting where he
10 On cross -examination , Poole and Gibbons testified that the continu-
ous plant operations effected by the Thanksgiving schedule did not save
Respondent money as compared to shutting down for I day in the middle of
the week However, Poole later explained a proposed like schedule for the
week which included Thursday, January 1, on the ground that during a
holiday people get drunk. Nor did the General Counsel specifically explore
the question of whether management personnel welcomes a 4-day weekend
for personal reasons.
ii Poole testified that to his knowledge, there had never been any signed
asked the supervisors whether they had anyone that
dissented, and the answer was no.11
Each page of this agreement contains the following
typewritten material:
ATTENTION!
SUBSTITUTING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22 FOR FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 28 GETTING PAID FRIDAY , NOVEMBER 28 FOR
SATURDAY NOVEMBER 22NDs WORK, YOU WILL BE OFF
NOVEMBER 27, 28, 29, AND 30. YOU WILL GET PAID
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28 FOR HOURS WORKED SATURDAY
NOVEMBER 22 FOR REGULAR TIME . HOURS WORKED
SATURDAY NOVEMBER 22 WILL BE COMPUTED FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 28.
NO OVERTIME HOURS!
SIGN BELOW:
Williams testified on cross-examination that when
evidencing by her signature her agreement to this arrange-
ment, she signed a blank piece of paper. However, her
signature appears under the foregoing legend.12 In assess-
ing her credibility, I have taken this discrepancy into
consideration. Nonetheless, I credit her testimony that she
signed this document after Supervisor Langford told her
and others on the Ford line that if they "didn't sign the list
[they] wouldn't get paid for Thanksgiving, if [they] didn't
work that Saturday [they] wouldn't get paid for Thanksgiv-
ing." I also credit employee Adams' similar testimony that
when she signed, Langford told her that Poole had said
that in order to get paid for the Thanksgiving holiday, the
employees had to work the preceding Saturday and had to
sign the paper. In so finding, I infer from the underlined
reference to "NO OVERTIME PAY" that Respondent believed
(erroneously) that their signatures effectively waived any
claim to overtime pay they may otherwise have had.
However, I further find (as indicated by the testimony of
employees Johnnie Mae Newsome, Barbara Morea, Laury,
Rosie Paige, and Virginia Hawkins) that Langford did
solicit the signatures of some employees by telling them, as
she implied she told all, that whether to sign was up to
them, and if everyone signed, then Saturday, November 22,
would be worked instead of November 28, the Friday after
Thanksgiving. In finding that different appeals were made
at different times, I note the production problems that
would have resulted if Respondent changed the schedule
and a number of employees refused to work it, and the
morale problems that would have resulted if Respondent
had refused to change the schedule after a number of
employees had opted for the change.
sheets other than those constituting G C. Exh. 3. Moreover, Respondent's
counsel has never tendered any additional signed sheets, even though, when
Poole initially referred to the list, counsel stated, "We will produce that at a
later time." Accordingly, I reject the suggestion of Respondent's counsel at
certain points that employees may have signed additional sheets not
included in G C. Exh. 3 In any event, whether or not G.C Exh. 3 is
complete, Poole changed his testimony after looking at it.
12 I find this to be her signature by comparing it with her signature on
her preheanng affidavit.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Subsequent weekend work
a. Events leading up to Williams' rescinded
discharge
After Thanksgiving 1975, several employees approached
Poole, pointed out that Christmas and New Year's fell on
Thursday that year, and asked Poole whether these
holidays were going to be handled like Thanksgiving.13
About December 1, Poole called the four current monitors
into his office. 14
When Williams came into the office, she saw on Poole's
desk four Xerox copies of a paper referred to herein and in
the record as a "memorandum" which listed December 6,
13, and 20 as possible substitutes for December 26.15 Poole
said that the employees could work any one of these days
to make up for December 26, but he expressed the opinion
that the employees would probably not want to work on
December 20 because they would probably want to do
Christmas shopping on that day, and he circled that date
with a pen on each of the four sheets. Then, he told the
monitors to poll the employees to determine whether, as a
substitute for December 26, they preferred to work on
December 6 or on December 13. He further stated that the
employees could have the Friday after New Year's as a
paid holiday if the employees would agree to work all day
on December 31, rather than only a half day as they had
done previously.16 Thereafter, Williams polled the employ-
ees on her line, who decided to work on December 13.
Williams circled that date in pen on her copy of Poole's
memorandum and gave it to Langford, who said that she
would discuss it with Poole later, that the supervisors were
having a meeting later that day. Respondent tendered no
testimony about the discussion at this supervisors ' meeting.
After this meeting (inferentially), leader Coleman told
the White line employees that they would have to work two
Saturdays to make up for the Friday after Christmas and
the Friday after New Year's, and she was not sure which
Saturdays they were.17 A little later (inferentially), Supervi-
sor Langford told Ford line employee Adams that to get
paid for the Fridays after Christmas and New Year's, the
employees would have to work two Saturdays, and asked
her which Saturdays she wanted to work. Adams said
December 6 and 13.18 Later (inferentially), Langford told
her subordinates (including Williams) that the employees
were to work the 6th and the 13th to make up for the
Fridays after the two holidays, and that if they did not
13 This finding is based on Poole 's testimony. His prehearmg affidavit
attributes this implied request to the monitors . I have considered this
inconsistency in assessing Poole 's credibility . Monitor Williams testified that
she had never made any such request and to her knowledge neither had any
of the other monitors Moore , the only other monitor who testified, was
called by Respondent as a witness but was not asked about this matter.
14 None of the first three monitors whom Poole appointed came from the
assembly department. Poole later appointed assembly department employee
Nadine McGowan to serve as a fourth monitor.
15
As indicated infra, all the witnesses except Poole testified that each of
the monitors obtained a copy of this memorandum as or before they left the
office
is This finding, like most of my findings in this sec . II, B, 2, is based on
Williams' testimony Although Respondent's counsel suggested otherwise at
the hearing, by plain implication Williams' preheanng affidavit refers, in
describing conversations with Langford and Poole , to his promise of a
January 2 paid holiday.
17 This finding is based on employee Green's testimony.
work those days they would not get paid for the holidays.19
Williams said that Poole had said that the employees did
not have to work two Saturdays, that he had said they had
to work only one Saturday and they had picked the 13th.
Langford replied that Williams must have misunderstood
x,20
Williams then said to Poole, "didn't you say that we
didn't have to work but one Saturday, and we picked the
13th?" Poole replied, "Yes." Williams said, "You said you
would give us the Friday after New Year's" if the
employees worked the whole day on December 31. He said,
"Yes, but why is it that the employees don't want to work
the 6th and the 13th?" Williams said that most employees
said they did not mind working the Friday after New
Year's. Poole said that if the employees did not work they
just would not get paid, because during a holiday people
get drunk and the plant was going to be closed the Friday
after New Year's. Williams then told the employees
(inferentially, those on the Ford line) that Poole had said
that if they did not work on a compensatory Saturday they
would not get paid for the postholiday Friday. The
employees all agreed to work only one Saturday and not
get paid for one of the postholiday Fridays. Williams
reported this decision to Ford line leader Farris, admittedly
Respondent's agent.21
About December 5, Langford again told the employees
on the Ford line that they were to work the 6th and the
13th to make up for the holidays. Williams asked, "If we
don't work are we going to get paid?" inferentially, for the
holidays. Langford replied, "No, you are not going to get
paid . . . It's just like working on a Friday." The
employees were confused, and kept saying, "I thought we
didn't have to work but one Saturday." At about this same
time, employee Green told her fellow employees on the
White line (including Garner and Vaughn) that Green
"didn't see how they could let the company take money
from them like they was doing without letting them know
that they didn't approve of it." Green asked Garner and
then Vaughn whether they would prefer to come back to
work on a Friday after Christmas rather than to work
Saturday and not get paid time and a half for it. Garner
said she would prefer not to work on the Friday. Vaughn
said that she did not mind coming back that Friday, but
18 This finding is based on Adams' testimony. For demeanor reasons, I
do not believe Langford's testimony that she did not poll the employees
about the Christmas schedule, that only Williams did so on the Ford line,
and that Langford's connection therewith was limited to one occasion when,
at some employees' request, she tried to explain what was going on.
19 This finding is based on the testimony of Williams and Coleman,
partly corroborated by Newsome.
20 Adams, who overheard this conversation, testified that Langford said,
"No. He changed that. We have to work two Saturdays in order to get paid
for the holidays " While I think that this is what Poole in fact did, I regard as
more probable Williams' testimony, set forth in the text, about what
Langford said.
21 On the first day of the hearing, over Respondent's objection based on
alleged belatedness, the General Counsel was permitted to amend the
complaint to add the allegation that Farris was Respondent's agent. While
the General Counsel denied that Fams was a supervisor, I believe
Respondent's contention otherwise constitutes an admission that Farris was
'an agent
SYNADYNE CORP. 669
added that she knew Green could not get anyone else to go
along with it.22 Also at about the same time, employee
Green told Supervisor Langford that Green did not think it
was right that the employees had to work those two
Saturdays without getting time and a half for them.
Langford said "they were doing it to help the girls so they
wouldn't have to come back to work until the Monday,"
and that Green would have to talk to Poole and Gibbons
about it.23 Later that same day, Green told Langford that
Green would not be able to work on December 6 because
she had some business to take care of. Langford asked
whether she could come in and work until 2 o'clock. Green
replied that she could not, that if she did that she would
just as soon work the whole day.24
The plant did not operate on December 6. Supervisor
McMullen advised her subordinates that they were not
going to work on the 6th, they were going to work on the
13th.25 When Supervisor Langford told her subordinates
on December 5 that they were not going to work on
December 6, Adams (who had opted to work on the 6th
and 13th) asked her why not. Langford replied that she did
not recall the reason.26
On December 12, Langford told the employees to work
the 13th and the 20th to make up for the Fridays after the
holidays. Williams asked whether they would get paid
(inferentially, for the holidays) if they did not work, and
Langford said no, they would not get paid, that it was just
like working on Friday.
The plant operated for 8 hours on Saturday, December
13. In consequence, most of the employees worked more
than 40 hours during the calendar week which ended that
day. However, Respondent initially paid all of them
straight time for all hours worked that week, including
those worked in excess of 40.
About 11:30 a.m. on that Saturday, Williams advised
Supervisor Langford that she was sick and wanted to go
home. Langford told her that if she did not bring a doctor's
excuse, she would not receive holiday pay for Christmas.
Williams replied that she was not sick enough to go to the
doctor. Williams then went to Plant Superintendent
Gibbons, who reiterated Langford's remarks about Wil-
liams' needing a doctor's excuse to obtain pay for
Christmas. Williams then told Gibbons that she wanted her
overtime pay for (inferentially) the Saturday before
Thanksgiving and for the hours she had worked that
morning. Gibbons replied, "You know we agreed that it
was regular time and I'm sorry but I can't help you."
Williams nonetheless left the plant.27 At breaktime on
22 My findings in the last four sentences are based on Green's testimony.
23 My findings in the last two sentences are based on a composite of
Green's and Vaughn's testimony.
24 My findings in the last three sentences are based on Green's
testimony.
25 My findings in this sentence is based on Greenwood's testimony
25 My findings in these two sentences are based on Adams' undenied
testimony
27 My findings in this paragraph are based on the testimony of Langford,
Gibbons, and Williams The alleged significance of this incident to
Respondent's case is discussed infra, fn. 35
28 My findings in the last two sentences are based on the testimony of
Williams and Coleman Coleman initially dated this conversation as having
occurred in October, and then as happening about the third week in
December I have inferred the December 15 date from the Saturday,
December 13, overtime work and Williams' December 15 telephone call
December 15, employee Whitlock told employee Williams
that Whitlock had telephoned the Wage-Hour Administra-
tion of the Department of Labor (herein Wage-Hour) and
had been told that whenever the employees worked more
than 40 hours a week they were supposed to get time and a
half for it. Whitlock told Williams the name of her
informant and how to fmd his name in the telephone
book.28 Later that day, Williams telephoned Wage-Hour,
which confirmed Whitlock's assertion. On December 17,
Williams telephoned Wage-Hour and stated that the
employees had not yet been paid time and a half for the
two Saturdays they had worked. She was advised that she
could file a charge against Respondent. Also on December
17, Adams telephoned Wage-Hour, was advised that the
employees were entitled to time and a half for overtime,
and (in response to Williams' inquiry) told Williams that
Wage-Hour had so advised Adams.
On the following day, December 18, Williams told
Company Agent Farris that Williams had telephoned
Wage-Hour, that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent
had to pay time and a half, that Williams might not want to
work Saturday, that she wanted to know whether she
would get her time and a half, and that she wanted to see
Poole about the matter. Farris said that she would have to
check with Poole and went into his office. Later that day,
Farris said that Poole said Williams would have to work
Saturday in order to get paid for the holiday.29 Williams
said that she might not want to work Saturday, and asked
whether she would still get her time and a half. Farris then
said she would ask Supervisor Langford. Farris reported to
Langford that Williams wanted to talk to Poole about the
preceding Saturday, that she wanted her overtime pay for
it. Langford told Williams that Poole had said that "we
have to work Saturdays in order to get paid for the
holiday." Williams said, "Well, I might not want to work
Saturday. The Saturday that I already worked, you reckon
they going to pay me my time and a half?" Langford
replied that she did not know, and that Williams would
have to talk to Gibbons or Poole.30 Langford reported to
Gibbons that Farris told Langford that Williams had said
several employees on the Ford line were not in agreement
with working Saturday. Also, Langford said, Williams
wanted overtime pay for the preceding Saturday, someone
had called Wage-Hour, and Respondent was going to have
to pay overtime. Gibbons relayed Langford's report to
Poole and identified Williams to him as the employee who
had called Wage-Hour.31
Whitlock was called by Respondent as a witness, but not asked about this
conversation.
29 My finding in this sentence is based on Williams' undenied testimony.
Williams testified that Farris referred to the Christmas holiday I believe
that Williams was mistaken in this respect, and that Farris referred to the
New Year's holiday, either expressly or by implication
30 My findings so far in this paragraph are based on a composite of
Williams', Adams', and Langford's testimony
31 My findings in the preceding three sentences are based on a composite
of Gibbons', Langford's, and Poole's testimony Over Gibbons' denial, I
accept Poole's testimony that she identified Williams as the employee who
had called Wage-Hour I rely on demeanor considerations, on Gibbons'
December 13 conversation with Williams about Saturday overtime pay, on
Langford's reference to Williams in connection with this same matter, and
on Poole's conversation with Williams a few minutes later
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A few minutes later, Poole called Williams into his off ice.
Also present were the other monitors (Moore, Lewis, and
McGowan) and Plant Superintendent Gibbons. Poole said,
"What is this I hear? I'm out of town a few days and I get
back and you done stabbed a damn knife in my back."
Williams asked what he meant by "stab a knife in his
back." Poole said, "you done went down there and called
the damn Wage and Hour Bureau. He . . . tried to be nice
to [the employees], about letting [them] have a long
weekend off and [Williams] knife[d] him in the back like
that." Williams said, "I didn't tell you I called the Wage
and Hour Bureau." He said, "Well, who called them,
then?" Williams replied, "Several people." Gibbons said
that she did not think anyone but Williams called Wage-
Hour, and that Gibbons thought Williams was the only one
"dissatisfied." Williams said that the whole Ford line was
"dissatisfied." Poole said that he was "just not going to
have this," told Gibbons to make out Williams' check, and
said that he should have got rid of her a long time ago.
Poole asked Williams why she had not come to him first.
She replied that she had, that he had told the employees
that they had to work only one Saturday, and that she told
him the "people didn't want to work those two Saturdays."
Poole said, "What is this I hear you are going to call a
meeting in the plant" on company time. Williams denied
that she was going to call a meeting in the plant. Moore
told Poole that when telling him that Williams wanted to
call a meeting, Moore had meant with him, not in the
plant 32 Poole said that he had misunderstood Moore, and
that he was going to tear up Williams' check. Gibbons
suggested that Poole call a meeting of the whole Ford line
to see if anyone else was dissatisfied. Poole said, "Yes, go
tell [Langford] to call a meeting with the Ford line."
b. The alleged December 4 conference; reasons for
section II,B,2,a credibility findings
Except as otherwise indicated, my fmdings in section
II,B,2,a, immediately preceding the instant discussion, are
based on Williams' testimony. Poole testified that, between
his early December meeting with the monitors and
December 4, he learned through discussions with "several
people" in the plant that the employees had decided to
work on December 13 and 20.33 He testified that this
understanding about working the 13th and the 20th was
reached "some time after" the monitors left with the
memorandum and that the monitors did not come back in.
Poole went on to testify, on direct examination, that
"several people" told him that Williams was "telling
everyone to work the 6th as opposed to the 13th and 20th
that we originally agreed to" (emphasis supplied). On
redirect examination, he testified that Williams had been
telling the employees "we are going to work Saturday, the
6th, rather than Saturday, the 13th, or Saturday, the 20th"
(emphasis supplied).34 Also, Poole testified, Supervisor
32 My finding in this sentence is based on Moore's testimony.
33 As discussed infra, Poole denied telling the monitors that the
employees could have the Friday after New Year's as a paid holiday without
having to work on a compensatory Saturday.
3' Poole's testimony at this point provides some corroboration for
Williams' credited testimony that the employees were initially asked to
select only one December Saturday.
15 In view of Poole's testimony in this respect, I reject Respondent's
Langford and (perhaps) leader Farris had reported to him
that Williams had "chang[ed] the dates" on Poole's
memorandum-more specifically, "There were several
dates on the paper that I had originally written. The 20th
was marked out. She had marked it out so that the people
would agree to work the 6th and the 13th and not given the
20th as an option. Only [Williams'] group were confused
about it." 35 Poole denied having himself seen the allegedly
altered memorandum, and did not testify that Gibbons
participated in any report to him regarding the allegedly
altered memorandum. According to Poole, on December 4
he called Williams to his office "and asked her why her line
was confused, and she said that she at that time had
misunderstood what I had said, and I said, `I fmd that hard
to believe since I wrote it down and everyone understood it
but you and you were the one with the note,36 yet you are
the only one that goofed up on which weekends to work.' "
Poole further testified that he "reprimanded her strongly"
for changing the dates on the memorandum, and, in
addition, told her that he "didn't want her spreading any
more rumors, causing any more dissension or calling any
meetings, if she didn't agree to something I expected her to
tell me right there and then, if she did agree to it than I
expected her, in good faith, to carry it out."
However, the foregoing testimony by Poole is contradict-
ed in significant respects by other company witnesses.
Thus, Supervisor Langford, who was not present during
Poole's interview with the monitors but did see Williams'
copy of his memorandum, testified, "In this meeting with
the monitors he had circled, and he had gotten agreement
from them that that was the dates they wanted to work in
substitution, and he circled the 13th and the 20th" (emphasis
supplied). Langford further testified that, on Williams'
copy of the memorandum, the 13th had been marked
through and the 6th circled, and, in effect, that this is what
she reported to Poole (who, as previously noted, testified
that she had told him that the 20th had been marked
through). (Langford further testified, however, that the
employees had been under the impression that they might
have to work the 6th and the 13th rather than the 13th and
the 20th.) Plant Superintendent Gibbons corroborated
Langford and contradicted Poole with respect to whether
the monitors rather than the employees agreed on which
alternative Saturdays could be worked, and the respect in
which Williams allegedly changed the memorandum. More
specifically, Gibbons testified that shortly after Poole gave
the monitors the memorandum, she saw Williams' copy of
the memorandum, that it was white rather than the yellow
color testified to by Poole and Langford, that the 13th and
the 20th were circled on it, that Gibbons showed it to Poole
(who, as previously noted, testified that he never saw it
after giving it to Williams), and that he said, "The 13th and
the 20th are the two Saturdays the monitors and myself
have agreed to work. Now, it's left up to them to poll the
apparent contention that, by leaving early on December 13 without bringing
in a doctor's certificate to substantiate her sickness claim, Williams evinced
a prior desire for personal reasons to exclude the 13th from the employees'
choice (see the text to fn 27, supra)
36 Poole testified that he wrote one copy of the memorandum on a sheet
of yellow paper, and that he gave it to Williams because of her convenient
physical location.
SYNADYNE CORP. 671
employees and find out if that's in agreement to them."
Gibbons further testified that on December 4, Langford
told her that on Williams' memorandum "the 13th had
been marked through and Saturday, the 6th, had been
circled, and [Langford] said that [Williams] said [Poole]
changed it." Thereafter, according to Gibbons, she and
Langford told Poole "that everybody thought it was the 6th
that we were working and not the 13th, and he said no, that
he had not changed anything, that the Saturdays that were
first agreed on were still . . . what we all planned to work,
the 13th and the 20th." Neither Langford nor Gibbons
testified that Farris participated in reporting the allegedly
altered memorandum to him; and Farris' testimony about
the memorandum as Respondent's witness failed to
produce any testimony that Williams had altered it or that
anyone ever alleged that she had.37 Further, although
Poole testified that Gibbons was present during his
December 4 conversation with Williams, Gibbons was not
asked about it.
Poole testified that he prepared only one copy of his
memorandum, that he gave that one copy to Williams, and
that his December 4 reproach to her about causing
confusion regarding Saturday work included the assertion
that her fault was aggravated by the fact that she was the
only monitor who had a copy of the memorandum.
However, monitor Moore, who testified for Respondent,
testified that Poole gave her this paper, that she made
several Xerox copies and put them on his desk, and that
each monitor then took one. The gravamen of Moore's
testimony in this respect is corroborated by Langford's and
Gibbons' testimony that Williams' copy of the memoran-
dum was a duplicate, as Williams herself testified; and by
McMullen's testimony that monitor McGowan had a
duplicate.38
I credit Williams' testimony that the December 4
conversation never occurred. In so finding, I rely on the
inconsistencies between Poole's testimony on the one hand
and Gibbons' and Langford's testimony on the other about
the events which (according to Poole) led up to the
December 4 conversation, the internal inconsistencies in
Poole's own testimony about such events, Gibbons' failure
to testify about the December 4 conversation, the inconsis-
tency between his alleged reproach of Williams and the
credible testimony of all the other witnesses (all company
witnesses but Williams) that all the monitors had copies of
Poole's memorandum, and the witnesses' demeanor 39
Further, I credit Williams' testimony that Poole told the
monitors that if the employees worked a full rather than a
half day on Christmas Eve they would be given the Friday
11 Farris testified that Williams' copy of the memorandum "had the
dates, you know, the 13th and the 21st (sic), the Saturdays that we were
supposed to work to make up for those two days after each holiday"
Supervisor McMullen testified that on monitor McGowan's copy of the
memorandum, Poole had "circled the days that we would be working and
which days we would be swapping out for which days he had written
the dates and he dust circled, like the date we were going to be off for
Christmas he circled the date that we were going to be off for Christmas and
drew a line to the Christmas day "
311 As previously noted, I credit Williams' testimony that the duplicates
were on Poole's desk when she came into the office Langford testified that
copies were made after the monitors left Poole's office, but she admitted that
she did not see them made Moore's testimony suggests that she made the
Xerox copies while at least some of the monitors were in the office
after New Year's with pay; that he wrote December 6, 13,
and 20 on the memorandum; and that he told the monitors
to poll the employees about which one of these three
Saturdays they preferred to work. I discredit Poole's and
Moore's denial of this offer. Also, I discredit the testimony
of Poole, Langford, Gibbons, Moore, and McMullen that
the memorandum called on its face for a selection of two
Saturdays. In so finding, I rely on the internal inconsisten-
cies in Poole's and Langford's testimony about the date
that they understood Williams to have excluded from the
poll; on the inconsistencies in this respect between his
testimony on the one hand and that of Gibbons and
Langford on the other; on the inconsistency between
Gibbons' and Langford's testimony that Williams was
trying improperly to procure the selection of the 6th, and
the undisputed evidence that until just before December 6
Langford was telling the employees that they had to work
that day; and on the witnesses' demeanor. Also, I credit
Williams' denial that she altered the memorandum.
Poole and Gibbons gave testimony to the effect that
during Poole's December 18 meeting with the monitors,
Poole discharged Williams for reasons at least partly
related to her failure to perform her monitorial duty of
telling him about the employees' dissatisfaction with the
holiday work schedule, and that he rescinded that dis-
charge because he decided that perhaps she had been
unable to tell him owing to his trip out of town. However,
in view of (1) Poole's unreliability as to the events relating
to the alleged December 4 conversation and as to other
matters referred to supra, (2) Gibbons' unreliability in
connection with the memorandum issue, (3) the credited
evidence about events immediately following the Decem-
ber 18 conference where Poole discharged Williams and
then rescinded the discharge, and (4) Poole's December 19
description of this conference to Coleman (infra), as to the
December 18 conference, I credit Poole and Gibbons only
to the extent corroborated by Williams and Moore, whose
mutually corroborative versions of this conference I credit
in their entirety.
3. Events leading up to the discharge of Adams
and Williams
a. The December 18 plant meeting
Immediately after rescinding Williams' discharge, Poole
instructed Gibbons and Langford to call a meeting of the
Ford-line employees and the White-line employees at the
Ford assembly line. Poole told the employees that
Respondent had a policy of withholding holiday pay from
However, the record fails to show the order of their appearance, and Moore
clearly testified that the monitors took their copies from Poole's desk before
they left the office.
39 I note, moreover, Poole's assertion in his prehearing affidavit, "The
monitors reported back to me that everyone was in agreement including
Georgia Williams and Bobbie Adams to work on December 13 and
December 20 and I then wrote a memo to that effect confirming the dates to
be worked " This statement conflicted with his hearing denial that the report
about the employees' decision as to the dates came from the monitors, and
his hearing testimony about when he wrote the memorandum and what it
said. While Poole was not asked to explain such conflicts, Respondent's
counsel withdrew his initial objection to the receipt of the affidavit to show
inconsistencies other than those specifically brought out
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anyone with an unexcused absence the day before or the
day after the holiday; that the forthcoming Saturday,
December 20, was to be considered the day after New
Year's for holiday-pay purposes; and that employees who
did not work on December 20 would not receive holiday
pay for New Year's. Poole further said that the employees
had the right to call Wage-Hour but should have checked
with him first, that maybe he could have settled the
overtime/holiday-pay/long-weekend problem without
Wage-Hour. He said that he had tried to be "nice" to the
employees by "letting [them] work the Saturday and be off
the day after the holiday, and look at the thanks I get." He
said that while he had been out of town on business,
someone had "stabbed him in the back" by calling Wage-
Hour. He demanded, "Who the hell called the Wage and
Hour Bureau?40 ... I'm not going to get mad or anything.
You have a right to do whatever you want to do." Adams
said that she had called Wage-Hour. He asked her why.
She said that she felt that it was not right working overtime
and not getting paid for it. Poole said that she had agreed
to it, and she replied that she had not. Poole asked what
Wage-Hour had said. She replied that Wage-Hour had said
that Respondent had to pay the employees overtime for all
work over 40 hours a week. He asked whether Wage-Hour
had told her that Respondent did not have to pay holiday
pay. Adams replied yes. Poole said, "I pay you all holiday
pay while you are laying in the bed. From now on you just
won't get any." Williams asked whether Poole was
threatening the employees that they would not get holiday
pay. Poole replied, "Not threatening you, telling you."
Coleman asked whether, if they did not work on the
designated Saturday, they could get paid just for the
holiday and not for the day after the holiday. Poole said
no. Coleman said that in that event they "didn't have any
other choice but to work." Williams and Green made
similar remarks. Williams further said that the employees
were not going to work without time and a half, that "we
have contacted Wage and Hour and we know what our
rights are." Poole then said that the employees who were
willing to accept Saturday work at straight time rates as a
condition of holiday pay should go back to work, and the
others should stay. Adams, Williams, Green, Vaughn,
Coleman, Sparkman, Calley Evans, Dorothy Walker,
Farris, Gray, Davis, "Daisy," and perhaps one or two
others stayed behind?[ Poole said that he thought they
were all satisfied. Green said that she was not and had so
advised Supervisor Langford. Poole said that the employ-
ees were not going to get time and a half and holiday pay
too.42 He then returned to his office.43
40 My finding that he directly asked this question is based on the credited
testimony of Williams, Adams, Green, Coleman, and Whitlock For
demeanor reasons, I do not credit the testimony of Poole that in effect he
merely inplied this question, or the testimony of Langford that Adams
volunteered this information Poole testified that he used the word "hell."
For demeanor reasons, I credit his testimony in this respect , which is
corroborated by the testimony of Williams , Adams, and to some extent
Green. and discredit the denials of Morea, Moore, Whitlock, and leader
Nita Cox
+i Claimant Garner was absent from the plant that day.
42 My findings in the last two sentences are based on a composite of the
testimony of Green , Williams, and Vaughn For demeanor reasons and in
view of the probabilities of the situation , as to the events when this group of
employees stayed behind. I do not credit the testimony of Adams, Coleman,
b. The discharge of Adams and Williams
After Adams and Williams had returned to their jobs,
Langford and Gibbons discussed with each other whether
the two employees should be terminated. On the basis of
considerations discussed infra, the two supervisors agreed
that both employees should be terminated. They then went
into Poole's office and told Poole that they could not
maintain production if Adams and Williams remained in
Respondent's employ "after they had carried on that sort
of display." Poole testified that he had already made up his
mind that he was giong to discharge them for "disrespect."
According to him, he remarked that "we had had too many
problems with [Adams] and too many problems with
[Williams], and this was the straw that broke the camel's
back." Poole entered on their termination slips "insubordi-
nation" as the reason for their discharge. Gibbons then
went out into the plant, gave Williams and Adams their
final paychecks, and told them that they were being fired
because they were "uncooperative" and "dissatisfied" and
were "troublemakers." 44
Adams then left the plant. Williams, however, asked for
her vacation check. While Gibbons went to the office to get
it, Williams went back into the plant and began to tell some
of the employees what had happened and why Williams
and Adams had been fired. Gibbons called Williams into
the office and told her to stay in there until her vacation
check was made out. Williams said that she did not want to
stay in the office, that she was going back out in the plant
until she got her check. Williams then went back into the
plant. Gibbons went to get quality control manager
Charles Kelly, whom she had previously asked to "stand
by" in case of "trouble" over Williams' termination. When
Gibbons and Kelly approached Williams, she said that
Respondent treated all the blacks unfairly and like slaves,
that she knew her rights and was not going to let
Respondent take the rights of other employees, that
management were "a bunch of White honkies," and that
Gibbons was a "damn bitch." At Gibbons' request, Poole
then joined the group. Williams said that she thought he
was "very unfair." He asked why she felt that way.
Williams said, "because you don't want me talking to none
of the people in the plant because you don't want me to tell
them why you fired me ... you think you [done ] got
everybody out there called the Wage and Hour Bureau but
you haven't." Poole said that he was not worried about it.
Williams said, "You didn't get the girl out there that gave
me the number to call the Wage and Hour Bureau."
Gibbons said, "That's all right. We got you out." Gibbons
gave Williams her check and said Gibbons hoped Williams
Poole, or Gibbons , except to the extent that such testimony corroborates the
findings in the text.
43 My findings as to the remarks made at the December 18 meeting are
based on a composite of credible portions of the testimony of Williams,
Adams, Green, Coleman, Moore, Poole, Gibbons, and Whitlock. Several of
Respondent 's witnesses testified that dunng the December 18 meeting
Adams and Williams made various, allegedly inappropriate hand gestures;
spoke in allegedly unnecessarily loud tones; were inappropriately close to
Poole , interrupted him and fellow employees ; and were rude and
disrespectful toward him. The significance vel non of such testimony is
discussed infra, sec. II,C,2,a.
44 My finding as to the reasons given is based on a composite of the
testimony of Williams and Adams
SYNADYNE CORP. 673
would be "happy." Williams said that Gibbons still had not
paid Williams overtime for the Saturday before Thanksgiv-
ing. Poole said, "Sue me for it." Williams then left the
plant.45
That same day, Supervisor McMullen told employees
Brister and Greenwood, "they found out who called the
Wage and Hour Bureau ... it was Georgia and Bobbie
... and they were fired." 46
After being discharged, Williams and Adams went that
same day to the Wage-Hour office and filed a complaint
against Respondent. The Wage-Hour representative asked
for the names of other employees with knowledge of the
facts. Williams and Adams named Garner, Vaughn, and
Green. On the following day, leader Coleman and four
other leaders (infra, fn. 51) were called to Poole's office.
Poole said that "there was a lot going on out there in the
plant, that he got the leaders so he could help the people
with their problems . . . he didn't fire [Williams] because
she called Wage and Hour. He . . . fired her because she
lied and said she didn't call, but she did . . . when he
called [Williams] in the office in the beginning he had
written out her check and she convinced him that she
didn't call and he tore it up, and then later on, when
[Williams] got outside the office she said she did call, and
he said that he had called [the leaders] in there so we could
get the plant back in order so that we could have the best
working conditions." 47
4. Adams' and Williams' December 19 return to
the plant
On December 19, Adams and Williams returned to the
plant in separate cars to get their overtime pay for the
Saturday before Thanksgiving. They parked in the employ-
ee parking lot, came into the building together through the
employee entrance to the plant (which was the building
entrance nearest to their cars), and entered Respondent's
office through the door from the plant. The employees were
then on breaktime. Adams and Williams did not speak to
any of the employees while thus proceeding to the office.
When they reached the office and explained their errand,
Plant Superintendent Gibbons said that Poole was not
there and no overtime checks could be issued until he
returned. Gibbons invited them to wait, but they said they
would be back later. They then started to leave the office
by the door to the plant, which was the same door by which
they had entered. Gibbons told them to use the front door
to the office, which was used by visitors and by applicants
for employment. However, they both went out through the
45 My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the
testimony of Williams, Poole, Kelly, and Gibbons. Gibbons testified that all
these conversations occurred after Williams got her vacation check, and (in
effect) that the initial dispute related to Williams' route out of the plant
rather than (as Williams testified) to whether she was to stay in the office or
the plant while awaiting her check. However, Poole corroborated Williams'
version, which I credit. Careful inspection of Williams' preheanng affidavit
shows that Williams did not there represent that she gave Gibbons the name
of "Annie Ruth" (i.e., Annie Ruth Whitlock) as the employee who told
Williams the Wage-Hour's telephone number, but that Williams only named
her to the Board representative.
46 This finding is based on Greenwood's testimony. Buster was called by
Respondent as a witness , but was not asked about this conversation. For
demeanor reasons, I discredit McMullen 's denials.
47 My findings about what was said at this conference are based on
door from the office to the plant. Gibbons then requested
the assistance of quality control manager Charles Kelly,
who followed Adams and Williams into the plant.
Adams and Williams started to leave the plant by the
same route they had previously used, which is the natural
route between the plant door to the office and the
employee entrance. This route makes a left turn just before
reaching the assembly area . The employees were still on
break, and some of them, including employee Vaughn,
were sitting on the assembly tables. Vaughn stopped
Adams and Williams and asked why they were there.
Williams told her, whereupon Vaughn observed that the
active employees had not yet received their overtime
checks for that Saturday. During this conversation,
Williams and Adams came into the nearest end of the
assembly area, thereby deviating somewhat from the
natural route to the employee entrance.48 This conversa-
tion occurred in view of but out of earshot of Kelly, who
then came to Adams and Williams and, in a harsh tone,
told them to leave the building by the office door.
Williams, at least, inferred that Kelly said this because he
thought that by telling the employees the reason for the
dischargees' visit, they would alert the active employees to
their overtime rights.
The dischargees started toward the employee entrance,
using the natural route between the office door and the
employee entrance. At a point about halfway along this
route, Kelly jumped in front of them. He stood in the
middle of the aisle with his feet spread apart and his arms
raised (palms forward) to the side and above his shoulders.
Kelly told them to go back through the office door.
Williams asked why they could not go through the
employee entrance. He replied, "You came through the
office door." She said that they had come in through the
employee entrance and preferred to leave by that door. He
said that they were not going back through that door.
Williams asked whether he was trying to keep them from
talking to the employees in the area where most of them
were taking their break, which area the dischargees would
have reached if they had continued to follow the natural
route toward the employee entrance. Kelly repeated that
they were not going out through the employee entrance.
Williams said that they were. Kelly asked an assistant to
call the police. Williams said, "For what? They ain't going
to do nothing but tell us to get out of the plant." Williams
repeatedly tried to sidestep Kelly, and he eventually
Coleman's credited testimony. She identified the four other leaders present
as Dot, Virginia, Ann, and Barbara . She elsewhere identified the leadgirls as
Dorothy Gatlin, Virginia Farris, Ann McLaren, and Barbara Collins.
Although Gatlin and Fams testified for Respondent, the only witness who
testified for Respondent about this conversation was Poole . In view of this
unexplained absence of corroboration, and for demeanor reasons , I do not
credit Poole's testimony that Williams ' discharge was not discussed, and
that the only subjects discussed were a decline in productivity, sabotage of
the molding machines , and how the leaders should treat the production
employees on their lines . I note that Poole's account of Williams' rescinded
discharge conforms generally to Williams' testimony about this event, but
conflicts with Poole 's and Gibbons ' versions.
48 My finding in this sentence is based on a composite of credible
portions of Williams', Gibbons', and Kelly's testimony
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pushed her back and was "fixing to push her again" (but
did not).49 Adams then picked up by the handle a broom
which happened to be in the aisle. Kelly noticed this, and
forced her to release the broom by stepping on the bristle
end.
At this point, a number of the employees started to laugh
and to approach the three. Kelly then told Williams and
Adams to go out the employee entrance if they wanted to,
and opened that door for them. Williams and Adams then
left the plant "kind of laughing." Kelly testified that after
they left, "They then got in the car . . . They drove off, and
as they drove off Mrs. Adams, who was riding, gave an
obscene gesture back toward the plant door ." I credit
Adams' denial of the obscene gesture , in view of Williams'
testimony that they drove off in separate cars and that she
did not see Adams do anything.50
Kelly credibly testified that he is 6 feet tall and, at the
time of this incident, weighed about 145 pounds. Williams
credibly testified that she is 5 feet 5-1/2 inches tall and, at
the time of this incident, weighed 135 pounds. Adams
credibly testified that she is 5 feet 4 inches tall and, at the
time of this incident, weighed 180 pounds. All three of
them appeared to be vigorous people between 20 and 30
years old.
5. The discharge of Alice Greenwood
a. Credited evidence regarding her discharge
Before Adams' discharge, employee Alice Greenwood
rode to and from work with her every day, without,
however, discussing unions. About December 12, Green-
wood telephoned employee Betty Brister and asked her
whether she would like to sign a union card so the
employees could try and get a union.51 Brister replied that
she was not interested.
Respondent's lunch break is between 11:30 a.m. and
noon. Before the lunch break on December 19 Greenwood
had finished her work assignment 52 Supervisor McMullen,
who normally gave out work assignments, and Leader
49 Williams' and Adams' credited testimony to this effect was partly
corroborated by Kelly's admission that he may have had occasion to touch
them.
50 My findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on a composite of
credible portions of the testimony of Kelly, Williams, Adams, Gibbons,
employee Newsome , and Supervisor Ann Turner . For demeanor reasons, I
do not credit (1) Kelly's testimony, dented by Williams , that she raised her
hands as if to hit him , and said , "No White honky is going to lay hands on
me"; (2) Kelly's wholly uncorroborated testimony that she tried to get the
broom from him, (3) Kelly' s testimony , denied by Adams and in effect by
Williams, that Adams suggested to Williams that they leave and Williams
refused; (4) Williams' testimony that Adams picked up the broom to get it
out of the way; (5) Adams' testimony that this was the reason why she
gestured toward the broom , and that she did not touch it; (6) Newsome's
testimony that Adams got by Kelly and "acted like she was going to hit"
Kelly with the broom; (7) Gibbons' testimony that Adams and Williams
"went at" Kelly "pushing like" and that Adams picked up the broom when
Kelly turned to tell his assistant to call the police ; (8) Whitlock's testimony
that Adams went out of the way to get the broom and "swung" it at Kelly;
(9) Turner's testimony that this incident occurred during worktime, that
Kelly never stood in front of Williams and Adams , that Adams "looked like
she was going to hit" Kelly with the broom, and that Kelly took the broom
away from her and threw it aside ; and (10) Turner's and Kelly's testimony
that Kelly told Williams and Adams that they could not leave by the
employee entrance because they were no longer employees . I find Williams'
description and sketch of the plant to be more helpful than Kelly's, whose
absence of detail tends to make it misleading.
Edna Davis, who normally gave out work assignments in
McMullen's absence , were both temporarily absent from
the department. As Greenwood was expected to do under
such circumstances , she looked around for someone else to
help.53 Employee Brister, who was spot taping mirrors on a
Murray harness, said that Greenwood could help her.
Greenwood had done this job on one previous occasion,
but had not been trained on it. As she began to help
Brister, McMullen came up and told Greenwood that she
could not do that. Greenwood asked why not. McMullen
said, "You don't know how." Brister or Greenwood asked
why Greenwood could not learn to do it. Greenwood then
said, "why are you doing us like this, you know that if we
had a union out here you all wouldn't be doing us like this,
maybe one day we will." 54 McMullen then told Green-
wood to spot tape wires, a job which was to be done at
another table and which she had never previously per-
formed. McMullen credibly testified that Greenwood
obeyed McMullen's instructions to proceed to a different
work location. Then, McMullen went upstairs to Plant
Superintendent Gibbons' office.
About 2 or 2-1/2 hours later (that is, no later than 2
p.m.),55 McMullen approached Greenwood with a pad and
pencil and said, "This won't affect your job, you won't lose
your job by [answering] the question ... How do you feel
about a union?" Greenwood displayed reluctance to
answer, whereupon McMullen said, "It won't hurt your
job, so answer truthfully." Greenwood said, "I feel all right
about a union, I feel that if we had a union out here maybe
we wouldn't have to work on Saturdays." 56 McMullen
wrote something down on her pad, and then went up to
Gibbons' office. A half hour or an hour later-that is, no
later than 3 p.m.-57 McMullen called Greenwood and
Brister into Gibbons' office.58
Gibbons said that she would "start with" Greenwood.
According to Greenwood, Gibbons stated that Greenwood
was upsetting Charlene Davis 59 and was not "cramping
wires" right (an operation which Greenwood had first
performed 2 days earlier), and that Gibbons would have to
51 Greenwood did not have any union cards, but she was planning to get
some at a union office if Bnster showed interest.
52 This finding is based on Greenwood' s undenied testimony. Although
Supervisor McMullen testified that Greenwood frequently abandoned jobs
without finishing them, she made no claim that Greenwood's job was
unfinished on this occasion.
53 McMullen corroborated Greenwood's testimony that this is what she
was supposed to do when the supervisor and the leader were both absent.
54 Greenwood testified that her words "doing us like this" referred to
management's practice of constantly observing the employees work.
55 Greenwood testified that this second conversation occurred about 3 or
3.30 p.m. However, I regard as more reliable her testimony that this second
conversation occurred "about two hours , or two and a half hours" after the
morning conversation , which, as noted , occurred no later than 11:30 a.m.
56 The plant sometimes operated on Saturdays where no holiday
weekends were involved During her 2 months in Resondent 's employ,
Greenwood worked every Saturday the plant was open.
57 See supra, fn. 55. Gibbons testified that it "seems like" this discharge
interview occurred after the 2 p.m. break . Greenwood's timecard for that
day was not produced.
58 My findings up to this point are based on testimony by Greenwood
which is denied in significant respects by McMullen and Bnster . My reasons
for discrediting McMullen 's and Brister's testimony in this connection are
summarized infra
59 McMullen testified about an alleged incident involving Davis which,
according to McMullen, occurred on December 8, lI days before
Greenwood's discharge . See infra sec. II,B,8,c.
SYNADYNE CORP. 675
let her go. Still according to Greenwood, as she was going
toward the door, Gibbons told Brister, "I have had you in
my office once before for a warning and this is the last
time. I hate to let you go."80 Gibbons, McMullen, and
Brister all testified for Respondent, but none of them was
asked about what was said after Greenwood left. Gibbons
corroborated Greenwood's testimony that the Davis
incident was mentioned during the conference, said, "I
don't know about clamping wires" (sic); and further
testified that Gibbons said that McMullen "had problems
with [Greenwood's] moving work stations." Also, Gibbons
testified that Greenwood's termination slip said that she
was "insubordinate to a supervisor and leaving her work
station" and, perhaps, mentioned "other problems."
Company witnesses McMullen and Brister were not asked
about any part of this conference, nor did Respondent
produce Greenwood's termination slip. Absent corrobora-
tion for Gibbons' testimony and for demeanor reasons, I
credit Greenwood's testimony regarding what was said at
her termination interview.
Poole testified that on December 19 or 20 (the 20th being
a Saturday, when the plant did not operate) he had a
conversation with Coleman which largely dealt with
Williams. He was not asked the hour when this conversa-
tion occurred. Coleman testified without contradiction that
this conversation occurred on December 19, after the 11:30
to noon lunch break. Coleman further testified that she
believed that this conversation occurred prior to the 2 p.m.
break. However, in view of Poole's testimony that he was
absent from the plant during Williams' December 19 visit
with Adams to the plant to obtain their overtime checks,
which visit occurred during the afternoon break that day, I
conclude that the Poole-Coleman conversation occurred
after the 2 p.m. break, which (inferentially) ended about
2:10 or 2:15 p.m.61 After calling Coleman to his office,
Poole said, "What's going on out there in the plant?"
Coleman asked what he meant. Poole said that Coleman
knew what he meant because she was part of Williams&
.'gang." Coleman said that Williams did not have a gang,
that whatever she did out there was her business, that
Coleman had a mind of her own, and that she did not have
to be involved in any gangs. Poole said, "I should have
gotten rid of [Williams] after the first meeting we had
[about ] the firing of Linda Montique . . . I knew
[Williams] wasn't nothing but a troublemaker and if I
would have gotten rid of her then then all this other mess
wouldn't have come up. . . . Do you know of anyone else
out there that had to do with Wage and Hour that I have
not gotten rid of or anyone else that is a so-called
troublemaker?" Although Coleman had heard Whitlock
refer Williams to Wage-Hour, Coleman said no. Poole said
"he knew damn well he should have gotten rid of
[Williams] in the beginning, because when he called
60 As previously noted, during the October employee meeting Buster had
said that she could easily make the production quota on Murray harnesses
but `just didn' t want to." Poole testified that Brister had been hired under a
Government work incentive program to make "productive members of
society" out of "hard core unemployed." He further testified that as to
employees under this program, Respondent exercised "a great deal of
latitude that the average employer wouldn't . . we did spend a great
deal of time trying to train Betty Buster and change her mind about the way
she looked at things and she is now [July 19761 a good employee."
[Williams] and [Moore] up in the office they did agree to
work those Saturdays." 62 He said that Christmas was
coming up, and "what was Williams' children going to do
now that she don't have a job?" Coleman said that this was
Williams' business. Poole said, "The Wage and Hour man
told me that [Williams] gave him your name." Coleman
said that the Wage-Hour representative told her that
Vaughn had given him her name.63 Poole said, "The Wage
and Hour man told me I would have to hire Adams and
Williams back because they were fired because of Wage
and Hour. Before I hire them back I'll close the plant down
and no one will have a job . . . I'm going to get rid of all of
[Williams'] gang. If you are in it I will have to get rid of you
I want a plant where everybody can work together
without any confusion." Poole said that he had heard that
Williams had engaged in certain spiteful conduct, of a
personal nature, against white Supervisor Langford 64
Coleman said that Williams would not take revenge like
that. Poole said that Williams "really hates White folks."
Coleman, who is black, said, "It is not that she hates White
folks, she just speaks what comes into her mind." Poole
said, "You should have been out there to hear some of the
stuff that [Williams] was saying to me and Mary Gibbons
... She is really sick. I feel sorry for her." Poole said, "I
heard you had something to do with it." Coleman said,
"From whom?," but Poole refused to tell her. Poole asked
whether Coleman would ever see Williams. Coleman
replied, "probably," whereupon Poole said, "You don't
have to mention what went on in this office."
Then, Gibbons walked in and said, "I got rid of them."
Poole held up two fingers and said, "Both of them?"
Gibbons said, "No, just one, the other one convinced me
that she didn't have anything to do with it." Gibbons then
left. Poole said to Coleman, "I might as well tell you, I got
rid of another one, I'm going to get rid of them all, I'm
going to get rid of all the troublemakers if that means firing
everybody, this is my plant and I'll run it the way I want to
run it." Coleman then returned to her production line. One
of the employees on that line told Coleman that Gibbons
had called Greenwood and Brister up in the office and
Greenwood was fired but Brister was not.
b. Reasons for credibility findings
My findings as to the contents of the Poole-Coleman
conversation are based on Coleman's testimony. Respon-
dent contends that she is not a believable witness because,
inter alia, she included Garner's name when identifying 7
of the approximately 12 employees who remained behind
at the December 18 plant meeting, whereas Garner testified
that she was not at the plant that day. I regard this error as
too trivial to reflect on Coleman's credibility generally. Nor
did I regard as significant the failure of Vaughn or any
other witness to corroborate Coleman's testimony that
61 Adams and Williams both credibly testified that during their visit
Gibbons explained that Poole was not there because of automobile
difficulties. Williams credibly testified that Gibbons said Poole was in
Brandon. Poole hves in Brandon , which is about 10 miles from Jackson.
62 As previously noted, Poole testimonially denied that the monitors had
there reached such an agreement
63 As previously noted , Vaughn's name had been given by Williams and
Adams.
64 There is no evidence that Williams in fact did so
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during a discussion involving the 10 to 20 employees on the
White line, Vaughn as well as others expressed agreement
with certain remarks made there . I do not regard Cole-
man's erroneous testimony that Garner, Green, and
Vaughn were discharged immediately after rather than
several days after this conversation , which occurrence is
undisputed, as reflecting on Coleman 's veracity. I have
described and will describe a number of other respects in
which Gibbons and Poole gave untruthful testimony. For
this reason , and after considering the demeanor and
relative interest of the witnesses, I credit Coleman's
testimony about this conversation . I discredit Gibbons'
testimony that she did not "recall" interrupting a Coleman-
Poole conference and did not "remember" saying that she
had got two of them or something like that . Nor do I credit
Poole's testimony that his interview with Coleman con-
cerned his efforts to find out whether Coleman was
engaged in black militant activities (including activities on
behalf of the "Republic of New Africa") against Respon-
dent.65 While selected portions of Greenwood's and
Coleman 's testimonial estimates regarding the hour of
particular events indicate that the Coleman-Poole conver-
sation ended before Greenwood's discharge, Respondent
neither produced Greenwood's timecard for that day, nor
asked Gibbons, McMullen, or Brister the hour of Green-
wood's discharge, nor asked Poole the hour of his
conversation with Coleman.
Further, neither Plant Superintendent Gibbons, nor
Supervisor McMullen , nor employee Brister (all of them
called by Respondent as witnesses) was asked what
occurred in the office immediately after Greenwood was
discharged and left, even though Coleman's credited
testimony strongly suggests that management then decided
not to include Brister in the discharge action after
ascertaining that she did not actively participate in the
union activity. Accordingly, and after considering the
witnesses ' demeanor, I credit Greenwood's testimony set
forth supra, section II,B,5,a, and discredit McMullen's and
Brister's demals . In this connection , I note that after
authenticating a purported December 8 warning slip
directed to Greenwood (see infra section II ,B,8,c), McMul-
len initially testified that the spot-taping incident and
Greenwood's discharge that same day also occurred on
December 8, rather than (as they in fact did) on December
19.
c. Greenwood's alleged post-discharge telephone calls
to Gibbons
That evening , Greenwood telephoned Gibbons, asserted
that Greenwood did twice as much work as Brister (see fn.
60), and asked why Greenwood had been discharged and
Brister had not. Gibbons replied that this was none of
Greenwood's business 66
Gibbons testified that about a half hour later, Green-
wood again telephoned and asked whether she was going
65 Poole corroborated Coleman's credited testimony that he said that he
was sorry for Williams, and that he should have fired her when she called
the first meeting.
es Gibbons testified that Greenwood asked why she had been fired, and
Gibbons said she did not have enough time to go over the reasons again For
demeanor reasons. I credit Greenwood
to get her overtime for the Saturday before Thanksgiving
and for December 13. According to Gibbons, she told
Greenwood to come to the plant "tomorrow" and Respon-
dent would make out her check. "Tomorrow" was a
Saturday, when the plant was closed . I credit Greenwood's
denial that she called Gibbons a second time that evening.
Gibbons further testified that over a period of 2 or 3
months after Greenwood 's discharge , Gibbons received a
number of anonymous telephone calls, from someone
whose voice Gibbons testimonially identified as Green-
wood's, stating, "If you don't fire Joan Laury we are going
to kill you." Greenwood testified that she did not know
Laury, who, although called by Respondent as a witness,
was not asked about Greenwood . Greenwood testified
without contradiction that Gibbons was unable to recog-
nize Greenwood's voice when she telephoned about the
reasons for her discharge . Moreover , Greenwood's voice is
not particularly distinctive , Gibbons testified that her
anonymous caller never identified ' herself as Greenwood,
and Gibbons supervised about 180 employees , mostly
women . I credit Greenwood 's denial that she made these
anonymous telephone calls.
6. The discharge of Garner , Green, and Vaughn
About December 22, Plant Superintendent Gibbons
summoned employee Vaughn to the office by intercom. In
the office, Vaughn was interviewed by Wage -Hour repre-
sentative Galbrieth . After being fired , Williams and Adams
had given Vaughn's name to Wage -Hour . Before Williams'
and Adams' discharge, these three employees and employ-
ee Garner had frequently eaten lunch together at the plant.
Also, about December 22 , Supervisor Langford an-
nounced to her subordinates that instead of receiving a full
day's pay for a half day's work on Christmas Eve, as
Respondent had previously promised, the employees would
all be paid a half day's pay and there would be a Christmas
Eve drawing, with one first prize of $100, two prizes of $50
each, and four prizes of $25 each . Langford attributed the
change to the fact that the employees were to be given
overtime for Saturday, December 13 . Green said that since
they were only getting paid for a half day on Christmas
Eve, she would rather work the whole day . Employee
Garner then said , "The money that you all are auctioning
off is the money you are supposed to be paying us for the
full day like you promised ." 87 Employee Green expressed
agreement with Garner . Langford thereupon went to
Gibbons' office.
Later, Langford gave Poole the names of Green and
Garner ; said that one had remarked to the other that the
lottery prizes were not a gift from Respondent, but
represented money "stolen" or "taken" (Poole was not sure
of the exact wording) from the employees ; and further said
that the other employee had agreed . Thereafter, on
December 22 or 23, Poole called Green and Garner to his
office . Gibbons and Langford were also present. Poole
67 The quotation is from Coleman's testimony . Green's version was,
"[Garner] asked [Langford ] if they wasn't taking our overtime money .. .
and giving it away in a hat." Garner's version was, "this was probably the
money that we were supposed to receive for the other half of the day we
didn't work" Unlike Respondent , I do not regard these variations as
significant.
SYNADYNE CORP. 677
asked Green and Garner if they were happy there. Garner
said "that it wasn't a matter of being happy or not, that
[she] wasn't dissatisfied with the working conditions
there." Green said that she was satisfied now that she had
been paid time and a half for working over 40 hours. She
said that if he were a businessman, why did he not know
that he had to pay the employees overtime for working
over 40 hours. He said that he did not know. Garner asked
why Williams and Adams had been fired. Poole replied
that Williams "has been leading up to getting fired for a
long time, that she had harassed the girls, had harassed a
girl to the point where she fainted," and that Adams had
"upset a girl named Rosie" to the point where she cried
and had to leave work. (Inferentially, Poole was referring
to Newsome and Rosie Paige, see infra section II,B,8,a-b.)
Garner asked why the employees were not getting paid for
a whole day on Christmas Eve. He replied that he had
spent so much money so far on holiday pay that he could
not afford it. Garner asked if he were dissatisfied with her
and Green's work. He said that he had no way of knowing
unless he asked Gibbons or Langford. Langford said that
she was not dissatisfied with the work of either Garner or
Green, Poole said that he was not going to ask Garner,
Green, or anyone else in the plant how to run his business,
and if they did not like what was going on they should find
jobs elsewhere. Garner inquired if he was politely asking
them to quit. He replied no, that if he wanted them to quit
he would have had their checks waiting for them.
Then, Poole asked Garner whether she had said that the
money that he was giving away when he pulled the names
out of the hat was probably the money the employees
should have received for the rest of Christmas Eve. Garner
said yes. Poole said that he was tired of being blamed for
pulling a whole lot of things, and that whenever Garner or
Green had something like this to say that she should say it
to the supervisor or to him, not to the other employees.
Gibbons said that he had asked the employees to work on
Saturday because some of them had requested it. Poole
said that Williams had caused a "whole lot of confusion" in
the plant by calling Wage-Hour68
The foregoing conversation occurred on December 22 or
(more likely) 23. The first working day after Christmas was
December 29. About an hour after the beginning of work
on that day, Green, Garner, and Vaughn were called to
Gibbons' office. Langford was also present. Gibbons said
that for several weeks the three of them had seemed to be
unhappy there, that they had caused "dissension" in the
plant, that they had caused the other workers to get upset,
and that for this reason she was going to have to let them
go. Vaughn said that if the employees were dissatisfied with
their work, "it is up to us to quit, not for [Gibbons] to fire
us." Vaughn said that Respondent was finng them because
ex My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of Green's
and Garner's credible testimony Poole, Langford, and Gibbons all testfied
that Poole reproached the employees for their "attitude", Poole and
Langford specifically included the remark about the lottery. Poole and
Gibbons did not corroborate Langford's testimony that the discussion was
mostly about production quality. Langford did not corroborate Poole's and
Gibbons' testimony that the employees' productivity was mentioned
Langford gave no, and Gibbons gave little, corroboration for Poole's
testimony that the employees' alleged failure to accept instructions readily
was mentioned Langford gave no, and Gibbons gave limited, corroboration
for Poole's testimony that he threatened to terminate these employees if
of "something else," and asked what could have happened
between Christmas Eve and that Monday for Respondent
to be "firing us about." Green observed that Gibbons
could have told of the discharge reasons at the Christmas
week meeting in Poole's office, when Langford had said
that she had no complaints about Garner's and Green's
work. Green asked whether their discharge had anything to
do with the employees' work, and Langford replied no, that
their work was "okay." Vaughn asked whether she was not
a good worker, and Gibbons said, "Yes, you are a good
worker. It's not because of your work." Vaughn asked what
gave management the idea that she was unhappy working
there. Gibbons replied that if she was not unhappy there
she would not have stopped employee Laury from riding
with her. Vaughn replied that this matter was none of
Gibbons' business (see fn. 3).69
7. -Respondent's payment of Saturday overtime
Upon being advised by Wage-Hour representative
Galbreith that Respondent had violated the law by failing
to pay employees overtime for the Saturdays they worked
in lieu of the Fridays after Thanksgiving and Christmas,
Poole assured Galbrieth that Respondent would pay any
overtime that was due. Respondent did in fact make
overtime payments totaling about $3,000. Poole testified
that in late 1975 and early 1976, Respondent was in
financial difficulties.
8. Evidence bearing on Respondent's explanations
for the discharges and on the dischargees'
reinstatement rights
a. Williams
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel
asserted that Williams was discharged partly because she
engaged in employee "harassment." Langford, Gibbons,
and Poole testified that Williams' discharge was agreed on
by them jointly. Only Gibbons testimonially referred to
"harassment" as a reason . Gibbons testified that she had
received complaints about Williams' "harassment" from
employee Newsome. Gibbons did not testify about what
these complaints were or when she received them. New-
some credibly testified that "not too long" before Williams'
discharge, Williams came to her on two or three occasions
to ask Newsome to pay for some Tupperware which
Newsome had ordered from employee Vatrice Carroll but
had told Carroll she would not pay for without inspecting it
first. Newsome credibly testified that this incident "upset"
her and led her to believe that Williams was a "trouble-
maker," but Newsome's testimony indicates that her
annoyance was largely directed at Carroll. There is no
their attitude and performance did not improve. As described infra, both
Garner and Green were terminated no more than 3 working days later. I
credit Garner's specific and Green's implied denial that their production
quality or productivity was mentioned, as well as their implied denial that
their talking, failure to accept instructions, or work habits were mentioned.
69 My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of Green's,
Garner's, and Vaughn's credible testimony. Langford was not asked about
this conversation. Gibbons merely testified that she told them that they were
being let go "because of excessive talking, poor productivity and bad quality
parts " For demeanor reasons, I credit the employees
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence about when, if ever, Newsome reported this
incident to management.
In November 1975, Supervisor Langford gave Newsome
a written warning that she was not doing her work
"suitable." Then, Langford, Gibbons, and Poole began to
stand by Newsome while she was working . During this
same period, Adams and another employee came to
Newsome separately and said that Williams had said that
Supervisor Langford was watching her, and that if
Newsome did not speed up her work Langford was going
to fire her. Newsome reported to Farris, her leader, that
Williams had kept telling her "over and over again" that
members of management "were constantly timing and
watching [Newsome] because she was so slow" and that
she was afraid she was going to be fired. Farris credibly
testified that she herself was not "really" watching and
timing Newsome but was trying to get her to work faster. A
couple of days after receiving her written warning, while
Newsome was working, she espied Langford, who may or
may not have been watching Newsome at that moment.
Newsome, who was visibly pregnant at the time, began to
weep and then fainted. After Newsome fainted, Williams
came up to find out what was wrong with her. When
Newsome revived, Langford told her that she was not
going to be fired "because all of us had a chance."
Newsome testimonially attributed her fainting fit to
"pressure on me by people coming and telling me,
constantly telling me that [Langford] was going to fire
me." 70
At the time of Williams' discharge, she had been in
Respondent's employ for more than a year. Poole testified
that she did her work well. About 4 months before her
discharge, she was considered for, but expressed lack of
interest in, a promotion to an inspector 's job. Poole
testified that he had reprimanded Williams on one
occasion, but he did not relate when this occurred or the
reason therefor.
b. Adams
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel
asserted that Adams was discharged partly because she
engaged in "harassment" of employees . Counsel later
indicated the further allegation that she was discharged
partly because of slow work. Langford, Gibbons, and
Poole testified that Adams' discharge was agreed on by
them jointly. Gibbons testified that Adams was discharged
partly because of "harassment." Both Gibbons and
Langford testified that Adams was discharged partly for
poor work habits.
Gibbons testified that Adams had "harassed" Sandra
Brandon, Rosie Paige, and Barbara Morea. Gibbons did
not testify what or when she was told about this
"harassment." Adams credibly denied having had harsh
words with Brandon (who did not testify) and Paige.
70 My findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on a composite of
the testimony of Adams, Newsome, and Farris Williams and Langford were
not asked about this incident
71 The credible evidence shows that about 4 days after Adams' discharge,
Poole told several other employees that she had been discharged because
she "upset a girl named Rosie " to a point where she cned and had to leave
Langford testified that she had given Adams "three
different warnings." Langford testified that the "first
warning" she gave Adams was given on October 13, 1975.
This document is a printed form with the printed heading
"Employee Warning Notice," and was received in evidence
as Respondent's Exhibit 2. No entry appears after the
printed entries, "1st Notice," "2nd Notice," or "Nature of
Violation." Under "Remarks," Langford wrote, "Was
moved to the White Motors line because of slow work on
Ford line. Maybe it will help her improve." Langford
further testified that in late October, she gave Adams a
"second warning." This document, received in evidence as
Respondent's Exhibit 3, contains the handwritten date
"Oct.," a check mark before the entry "1st warning," a
check mark before the printed entry "Conduct" (under
Nature of Violation), and the following entry, in Lang-
ford's handwriting, under Remarks: "Reprimanded for
disturbing fellow employees & excessive talking." Langford
testified that Paige came to her one day in late October
"almost in tears" and asked to be moved because Adams
was calling her names and keeping her upset so that Paige
could not do her work. Langford further testified that Paige
said that Adams had called her a "White honkey" and a
"tattletale." According to Langford, she told Paige she was
needed where she was, but that Langford would talk to
Adams.71 Paige testified that Adams or Williams about a
month before their discharge had told her that she loved
"White honkies," but did not otherwise corroborate
Langford's testimony. Adams credibly denied having any
run-ins, problems, or harsh words with Paige. Langford did
not explain what "employees," other than Paige, Lang-
ford's "Remarks" referred to. Langford went on to testify
that immediately after the meeting at which Linda
Montique's discharge was discussed, Langford filled out a
warning slip, received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit
4, which is dated November 11. The printed entries "2nd
notice" and "conduct" are checked, and the following
entry appears in Langford's handwriting: "Reprimanded
for disturbing fellow employees." 72 Langford testified that
after the meeting in question, she found employee Morea
crying in the bathroom, and that Langford then found out
(inferentially, from Morea) that Adams had accused Morea
of thinking that she was "too good" to attend the meeting,
and had called her a "White honkey." Morea substantially
corroborated Langford's testimony about the date and
substance of this incident, except that Morea did not testify
that Adams called her a "White honkey," and testified that
Morea told Langford about the incident before, and not
after, going to the bathroom and starting to cry. Morea
further credibly testified, "I get my feelings hurt real easy."
Langford did not testify what "employees," other than
Morea, the "November 1 I" warning slip referred to.
The warning slip forms used by Respondent do not
contain any blank for acknowledgment by the employee,
nor does Respondent follow the practice of giving the
employee a copy or having employee sign the forms. Both
work. Poole gave no other particulars, and there is no evidence that any
remarks by Adams ever led Paige to leave work.
72 The document also bears the entry, "Mary Watch this! How long do
we put up with this." The record fails to show who made this entry, which I
therefore excluded when receiving the exhibit.
SYNADYNE CORP.
Gibbons and Langford, however, testified that as a matter
of practice, an employee is orally advised of each occasion
on which a warning slip is inserted in that individual's
personnel folder. Langford testified in terms that in
allegedly threatening Adams with further discipline if she
did not leave her fellow employees alone, Langford orally
advised Adams of the two warning slips relating to this
matter, and at least implied that she had also told Adams
about the remaining slip in connection with Adams'
transfer from the Ford to the White line. Adams testified
that she had never been told that there were written
warning slips in her personnel file.
As to this conflict in the testimony, I credit Adams. Thus,
Respondent's Exhibit 4 is dated November 11, whereas the
credited testimony establishes that the meeting which
occasioned the Morea incident occurred in October.
Moreover, although both Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4
allege that Adams disturbed fellow "employees," Langford
named only one employee in connection with each slip.
Further, employee Paige only partially corroborated
Langford's testimony in connection with Respondent's
Exhibit 3. Also, although Langford characterized Respon-
dent's Exhibit 2 as a warning slip and testified that it was
issued prior to Respondent's Exhibit 3, the latter is marked
as a first warning and the subsequently dated Respondent's
Exhibit 4 is marked as a second warning. Furthermore, to
describe the substance of Respondent's Exhibit 2 as a
"warning" somewhat stretches the meaning of that word.
For these reasons, and after considering the demeanor of
the witnesses, I credit Adams' testimony that she was never
told that there were warning slips in her file, and discredit
Langford's contrary testimony. Moreover, I conclude that
Respondents Exhibits 3 and 4 were not prepared on the
dates they bear and do not constitute good-faith efforts to
summarize incidents as Langford believed they occurred.
Also, in view of my findings as to the warning-slip matter
and demeanor considerations, I do not credit (1) Lang-
ford's testimony that Adams was moved in October from
the Ford line to the White line in an effort to get her to
speed up her work; (2) Langford's largely uncorroborated
testimony about the alleged Paige incident; or (3) Lang-
ford's uncorroborated testimony that Adams had been
"gotten onto several times" about being a slow worker, and
that "several of the girls," whom Langford did not name,
had complained to Langford about Adams' almost going to
sleep on the job. Rather, I credit Adams' testimony that she
had been transferred to the White line because she was
needed to cramp some wires and not because of poor work
performance (testimony partly corroborated by Langford's
testimony that Adams was transferred back to the Ford
line about 2 weeks later) and had never received a warning
for poor work performance, misconduct, or harassing
employees.73 Further, I credit Adams' testimony that to her
knowledge Paige never complained to anyone about
Adams' harassing her. In this connection, I note that Paige,
who was called by Respondent as a witness, did not testify
that she complained to management about Adams.
Although Adams denied having had any "harsh words"
with Morea, for demeanor reasons I credit Morea's
73 In this connection , I note the testimony of employee Green, which I
believe was given in good faith , that to her knowledge Adams was a fast
679
testimony about the substance (although not the date) of
their conversation following the Montique meeting. I also
accept Morea's testimony that she told Langford about
that conversation, notwithstanding some inconsistency
between Morea's and Langford's accounts of the report.
For demeanor reasons, to the extent Morea and Langford
are inconsistent as to this matter I credit Morea.
c. Greenwood
McMullen credibly testified that on three occasions she
orally reproved Greenwood for excessive talking during
working hours. McMullen dated the last such incident as
about a month and a half after Greenwood's October 20,
1975, hire-that is, early December 1975. There is no
evidence that these incidents were referred to in her
December 19 discharge interview.
McMullen further testified that on December 8, 1975, 11
days before Greenwood's discharge, Greenwood was
"working with" employee Charlene Davis, and, in reliance
on a complaint by Davis, McMullen orally reprimanded
Greenwood for repeatedly throwing uncounted harnesses
into a box after Davis had counted the number of
harnesses in the box. McMullen testified that Greenwood's
action in this respect caused Davis to have to count the
harnesses again, but did not testify that Greenwood was
then supposed to be at a different work station. McMullen
further testified that on the day after this incident, she
prepared for Greenwood's personnel folder the following
memorandum:
Alice Greenwood caused confusion and ill feelings on
December 8, 1975, with another employee. She was
dropping harnesses into a box that had already been
counted, and had been asked several times to refrain
from doing so. When it was brought to my attention I
indicated that we needed one girl packing and counting
and to remain where I placed her.
On several occasions I have had to talk to Alice about
leaving her work station to laugh and talk with other
workers. [Emphasis supplied.]
In view of the inconsistencies between McMullen's
testimonial account of the incident and the italicized
portions of the alleged memorandum, and after considering
the witnesses' demeanor, I discredit McMullen's testimony
that Greenwood frequently moved to another job before
finishing her assigned job, McMullen's version of the Davis
incident, and McMullen's testimony that she prepared the
alleged memorandum on the day after the alleged incident
in a good-faith attempt to relate what happened. Rather, I
credit Greenwood's denial that she had difficulties with
Davis, ever moved to a new job before finishing her
assigned job, or was ever warned about shifting around to
different positions on the line without being assigned those
positions.
Superintendent Gibbons testified that on the day that
and before Greenwood was fired, McMullen reported to
Gibbons that Greenwood had left her work station and
started spot taping on a Murray harness, McMullen had
worker. Green had worked with Adams for 2 weeks, and Green's testimony
in this connection was solicited by Respondent's counsel.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told her to "go back to her original station," and
Greenwood made a "real smart comment" by asking
whether she was not good enough to tape the Murray
harness. McMullen did not testify that Greenwood im-
properly left her job station that day, or relate what
McMullen told Gibbons that day, and there is no credible
evidence that this incident was mentioned during Green-
wood's discharge interview. Accordingly, and after consid-
ering Gibbons' demeanor, I discredit her testimony in this
respect.
d. Garner, Green, and Vaughn
Respondent's counsel stated at the outset of the hearing
that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were discharged for
excessive talking during production, poor production, poor
work habits (whose nature was never specified), and
suspected sabotage. Supervisor Langford testified that they
were discharged for excessive talking, low production, and
poor quality work. She further testified that Vaughn was
suspected of sabotage, and by implication that Garner was
likewise suspect, but in effect denied any such suspicion of
Green.
As to some of the allegedly suspected sabotage, the
record shows that from time to time between October and
December 1975, Respondent found in the barrels where its
molding compound was stored, and also in the containers
for the compound which were attached to the molding
machines, screws and other items which likely did not get
there accidentally, which caused the molding machines to
break down, and which could have seriously damaged
them. Many employees in the plant could have put these
foreign items into the molding compound. In late Novem-
ber or early December, Poole called the molding depart-
ment together and offered a $100 reward to anyone who
would tell him who was putting these items in the molding
compound and why. So far as the record shows, this reward
was never claimed. Poole and Gibbons testified that
nobody had ever been seen putting such items into the
molding compound. There is no evidence that Garner,
Green, or Vaughn was ever told that she was suspected of
putting foreign material into the molding compound. Poole
testified that he suspected the existence of a group effort to
sabotage Respondent's machinery, in view of reports that
he had received about alleged "Black supremacy type
meetings" conducted at Williams' home or in which
Williams played an active part. Poole did not testify that he
suspected Williams of sabotage, or that he suspected that
74 Nor is there any evidence that any of these four employees in fact
participated in these alleged meetings.
71 However, Poole's preheanng affidavit states that Garner and Green
"were responsible for the incorrect connections of the harness because they
were the only employees assigned to the task "
76 Both Poole and Gibbons testified that when an employee's job ran
out, he was transferred to a different job Neither witness was asked how
often such a transfer occurred . For demeanor reasons, I do not credit them
to the extent their testimony implies that such transfers were infrequent.
77 My findings in the last two sentences are based on Green 's testimony,
which I credit for demeanor reasons. I do not credit Langford 's testimony
that Green "plugged in miscellaneous harnesses," or Poole's testimony that
Green plugged in Deutsch and Packard connectors on the White line, to the
extent that such testimony by Langford and Poole impliedly excludes
Green 's performance of the other work she credibly testified about. Nor do I
credit Langford 's denial that Green worked on the Ford line.
such meetings were attended by Garner, Green, or
Vaughn.74 Poole testified that between late October and
December 1975, the molding machines were down 20
percent of the time, and that as of the time of the July 1976
hearing the machines were down 2 percent of the time. In
November and December 1975, foreign material was found
in the molding compound almost every day, and some-
times two or three barrels would have to be cleaned in a
day. Between the December 29, 1975, discharges of
Garner, Green, and Vaughn and the July 1976 hearing,
such material was found in the compound on one occasion.
As to the other acts of alleged sabotage, Poole testified
that on December 17 White Motors showed him several
examples of miswired harnesses . Poole initially testified,
"The people that were plugging them in were either
obviously not paying attention to their work or they were
plugging them in wrong on purpose." Later, he testified
that in his opinion, all the miswired harnesses which he
then saw were the subject of sabotage. Poole testified that
other employees on the same shift as Garner, Green, and
Vaughn did the same work; that Gamer and Green were
not the only employees that were assigned to the task of
connecting harnesses; 75 and that it was impossible to
determine which individual employees had wired any
particular harness . Gibbons and a number of employee
witnesses credibly testified that the employees did not use
identification symbols on any of their work to identify it.
Williams, Garner, Adams, Green, and Greenwood all
testified that the employees frequently moved between
different jobs, sometimes every day. I credit their testimony
in this respect 76
During the month before Green's December 29 termina-
tion, she spent most of her time adding molding compound
to and otherwise operating the molding machines , none of
which broke down while she was operating them. She also
checked "Noryls" on the Ford line, and taped wires and
plugged sockets on the White line.77 Vaughn at one time
worked on the Ford line, but at the time of her discharge
she worked on the White line, where she spent most if not
all of her time plugging in a particular type of large
harness.78 Garner checked wires on the Ford line and, after
Vaughn had plugged harnesses on the White line, added
wires thereto and taped them. Garner performed this last
operation with employee Morea during about 10 days in
December 1975.79 In November 1976, Langford told
Gibbons "how good Garner had caught on to . . . putting
the big harness together." 80
78 My findings in this sentence are based on the credited testimony of
Langford, Gibbons, and Poole. I discredit Vaughn 's testimony that during
December 1975 she spent most of her time putting braided numbers on
wires, in view of Coleman 's failure to corroborate Vaughn 's testimony,
denied by Langford , that when Vaughn was not plugging harnesses,
Coleman did it However , I do not credit Langford 's testimony , denied by
Poole, that Vaughn was the only employee who plugged in this type of
harness.
79 My findings in these two sentences are based on Garner's testimony
and on credible portions of Langford 's and Poole's testimony . I do not
credit Langford 's denial that Garner was then performing work on the Ford
line, or Poole's testimony that Garner and Morea plugged in Deutsch and
Packard connectors on the White line. Morea testified for Respondent, but
was not asked about this matter.
80 My finding in this sentence is based on Coleman 's undemed
testimony.
SYNADYNE CORP.
There is no evidence that Green, Garner, or Vaughn was
ever told that she was suspected of deliberately miswiring
harnesses . Nor is there any evidence that management ever
told any rank-and-file employee that deliberate miswirmg
was suspected. During November and December 1975, the
reject rate on the White line was 15 to 20 percent. At the
time of the July 1976 hearing, it was about 2-1/2 percent.
Poole testified that the quality problems "began to go away
shortly after we moved some girls , removed some girls, and
placed another supervisor over there," the new supervisor
being added to the White line in late January 1976.81
Respondent has a quality control department which
performs visual checks on White products on a sample
basis.
There is no credible evidence that Green, Garner, or
Vaughn was ever individually reproved for the quantity or
quality of her work. Coleman, who was then leader on the
White line, credibly testified that she never had any
problems with their work, attitude, or production; knew no
supervisors who had any problems with them; and was
never aware of any merchandise that was returned because
of their work on it.82 About December 18, Langford and
Gibbons held a meeting of all the White-line employees,
told them about White's rejection of Respondent's harness-
es, asked the employees to improve the quality of their
work, and said that Respondent might lose White's
business if they did not. Poole testified that Respondent's
midyear statement taken at the end of October, together
with the final figures available in mid-November, showed a
serious financial loss which was attributable partly to an
"extremely high rate of rejects" by the White Motor
Company.83 His testimony in this respect was corroborated
by Plant Superintendent Gibbons. Poole further testified
that between late September and December 29 (when
Garner, Green, and Vaughn were discharged), he made
two or three trips to White Motors' headquarters to discuss
the problem of the rejected harnesses . The last of these
occurred on December 17, 12 days before their discharge.
Langford testified that in late November or early
December, she and Gibbons "discussed that [Garner,
Green, and Vaughn ] were working on a lot of the parts that
were being rejected and I was having a lot of talking and
unrest going on in that department where I was not getting
full cooperation and I felt that had a lot to do with our
quality problems." In view of Gibbons' failure to corrobo-
rate Langford's testimony in this respect, and for demeanor
reasons , I disbelieve such testimony.
Poole testified that Langford had constantly complained
to him about the productivity of Green and Garner and
had reported to him that on several occasions Langford
reprimanded Green, Garner, and Vaughn for excessive
talking which interfered with the quantity and quality of
81 The White line had previously been under a supervisor (Langford)
who also supervised the Ford line.
82 Poole credibly testified , however, that many of the nuswired harnesses
were rewired by White Motors at Respondent's expense.
83 He further testified that some rejects were by Allis Chalmers . There is
no contention or evidence that Garner, Green, or Vaughn worked on such
products.
84 Although the complaint does not allege that such conduct violated the
Act, the General Counsel's brief so contends , and I am satisfied that this
issue was fully litigated . To this extent, I grant the General Counsel's
motion, after all parties had rested, to conform the pleadings to the proof.
681
their production. Respondent did not forbid employees to
talk while they were at work, but did forbid excessive
talking. On one occasion, which date does not appear,
Green and Garner were among seven or eight employees
who were warned about excessive talking. On another
occasion, Langford reproved Green and Garner individu-
ally for excessive talking. On another occasion during
working hours on December 24, Gibbons drew Langford's
attention to the fact that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were
gathered around the sleeving pot, which was not their work
location, and talking to the two relatively new employees
who were supposed to be working there but were not in
fact doing so. Gibbons told Langford to reprove all of
them, and to draw the attention of Garner, Green, and
Vaughn to their duty to set a good example for new
employees. Langford did so. In view of the limited number
of occasions on which these employees were reproved for
excessive talking, the absence of credible evidence that
they were ever individually reproved for the quantity or
quality of their production, and Langford's failure to
provide any substantial corroboration for Poole 's testimo-
ny about her alleged reports to him, I discredit such
testimony by Poole.
Supervisor Turner testified that in December 1975, when
she was a leader in the taping department, Vaughn and
Garner (who both worked on the White line) were slacking
up a little bit on their work. However, in view of her
admittedly limited opportunity to observe their work and
her unpersuasive demeanor, I give no weight to her
testimony in this respect.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The alleged unfair labor practices other than
the discharges
In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (a) when
company Vice President Poole told the assembled employ-
ees, in October 1975, that if the plant were unionized it
would go bankrupt; (b) when Poole asked three employees
in his office, later that same day, the identity of the
employee who had mentioned unions during the earlier
meeting; 84 (c) when Poole also told these three employees
that if the plant were unionized it would shut down; (d)
when Poole asked employee Williams on December 18 who
had called Wage-Hour about the overtime matter; 85 (e)
when Poole put the same question to the assembled
employees later that same day; (f) when Supervisor
McMullen asked employee Greenwood on December 19
how she felt about a union; (g) when Poole asked Leader
Coleman that same day whether she had participated in
85 While Poole may then have believed that only Williams had called
Wage-Hour, relevant Board precedent indicates that such a contact by only
one employee constitutes activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. Alleluia
Cushion Co., Inc, 221 NLRB 999 (1975). In any event, as the General
Counsel points out in her brief, Poole's question admittedly arose from his
resentment of Williams' decision to voice the employees' complaint to
Wage-Hour rather than first relaying it to Respondent in her capacity as an
employer-selected spokesman for the employees. However, the employer-
devised monitor system did not affect Williams' statutory right to select
Wage-Hour as a means of remedying the employees' grievances about
overtime pay.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Williams' Wage-Hour contacts; (h) when Poole asked
Coleman that same day whether she knew the identity of
any undischarged employees who had anything to do with
the Wage-Hour contacts; and (i) when Poole told Coleman
on December 19 that he was going to discharge any such
employees and other "troublemakers." In finding that
Respondent violated the Act by interrogating employees
about union and other protected concerted activity, I note
that Respondent discharged certain employees because of
such activity; that Respondent's interrogation of Coleman
was accompanied by threats of discharge; that Coleman's
reply was untruthful and Williams' replies untruthful or
evasive; that no legitimate purpose appears for such
inquiries; and that most of such inquiries were made by
Respondent's vice president, who had total responsibility
for all Respondent's operations except for sales and public
relations.
Respondent contends that Poole's remarks to Coleman
were not unlawful because Coleman was then allegedly a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Respondent's
180-employee day shift was under the overall supervision
of Day Plant Superintendent Gibbons, who was admittedly
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Gibbons had a
conventional private office. Directly under Gibbons were
about six individuals with the job title of "supervisor,"
whose status as supervisors within the meaning of the Act
appears to be unchallenged. During 1975 most of these
"supervisors" supervised only one production line, but
Supervisor Langford supervised two, totaling about 40
employees. A "leader" directly responsible to the "supervi-
sor" was attached to each production line. "Leaders"
received an hourly rate less than "supervisors" but more
than ordinary production workers. Poole testified that
"leaders" are "on the same level" as "inspectors," who are
admittedly nonsupervisory.
During the December 1975 period material here, the
"leaders" under Supervisor Langford were Coleman, who
was attached to the White line of 10 to 20 employees, and
Farris, who was attached to the Ford lme.86 Coleman was
then receiving $1.75 an hour, 35 cents more than admitted-
ly rank-and-file employees on the White line. She wore
jeans to work and had nothing resembling a private office.
Langford wore better clothing to work than did Coleman
and had a booth-type office on the Ford line. The harness
assembly work performed on the White line consisted of
plugging numbered wires into correspondingly numbered
connector holes, in accordance with a diagram, and adding
and taping wires . Coleman was more experienced at this
work than the other White-line personnel.
Coleman was a leader for at least 7 months. She credibly
testified that as a leader, she saw to it that when Supervisor
86 As noted supra, fn. 81, in late January 1976, the White line, including
Coleman, was removed from Supervisor Langford's jurisdiction and became
the sole responsibility of a newly created "supervisor," Shirley Bagwell
Bagwell had worked at the plant longer than Coleman , but possessed less
experience than she on White -line products . On the basis of Coleman's
testimony, which for demeanor reasons I credit in this connection in
preference to Gibbons' and Poole's testimony where not corroborative of
Coleman, I find that in March 1976 Gibbons told her that Bagwell felt
Coleman was slacking on the job and that Coleman should help her more
because Bagwell did not know much about the White line At about the
same time that the White line was assigned to Bagwell, all the leaders,
including Coleman, received a 10-cent wage increase.
Langford was not around, the employees had work to do
and that they worked. She further credibly testified that the
employees did whatever she instructed them to do. In
addition, she credibly testified that when she was promoted
to a leader, Gibbons told her that her job was to help the
supervisor, to make sure that everybody was busy, to find
work for employees who had nothing to do, and to help
them work. Coleman also credibly testified that she had the
authority to correct employees who were not performing
their work properly.
Gibbons credibly testified that if a leader sees something
"wrong" in the department "she can call a girl down for it."
Gibbons also testified that a leader has the "right" to
recommend a raise for an employee on her line, but did not
testify how much, if any, weight is given to such a
recommendation. Supervisor Langford credibly testified
that Coleman may have told an employee "to quit talking
or something like that," but had never recommended or
effected any hiring, firing, or "excessive discipline."
Coleman credibly testified without contradiction that she
had never fired anyone, hired anyone, suspended anyone,
laid anyone off, recalled anyone, promoted anyone,
rewarded anyone, recommended that any of these things
be done, disciplined anyone, or adjusted any employee
grievance. She further credibly testified without contradic-
tion that she never helped decide who should get raises,87
never received any employee requests for time off, never
reported people who came in late, and was never called to
the telephone when an employee wanted to advise that he
was going to be late. Coleman credibly testified to a belief
that she had the same duties as the other leaders.
Poole and Gibbons testified that leaders had and
exercised the power to discipline, to discharge, and
effectively to recommend promotions or discipline. Poole
testified, without giving dates, that Leaders Farris, McLar-
en, and Al Johnson88 were consulted when promotions
were made, that "several times" they recommended
promotions or discipline, that Al Johnson (who is male)
had fired one employee, and that "at least three or four
times" the "leader girls" had fired and disciplined employ-
ees. Gibbons testified, without giving a date, that on one
occasion Leader McLaren said that she was "through
trying to work with" employee Oliver, that McLaren made
the "suggestion" that Oliver be fired, and "we took what
she had told us, and knowing the problems we had had in
the past, we did follow [McLaren's] suggestion." 89 Gib-
bons gave no other particular instance regarding the
leaders' exercise of power with respect to discharge. Of the
leaders to whom Gibbons and Poole attributed the exercise
of supervisory powers, only Farris testified about this
matter. She credibly testified that she had "never actually
87 Langford credibly testified that when a "raise problem" came up, she
asked Leaders Coleman and Farris for their opinion about the best workers
on their respective lines. There is no testimony that the leaders were told
why their opinion was being solicited, or as to the weight, if any, that
Respondent eventually gave thereto
88 There is no evidence that Johnson was a leader in December 1975, or
as to when he became a leader.
89 Coleman testified that on an undisclosed date before her late May
1976 resignation, she heard that McLaren had something to do with the
discharge of her aunt , who worked under her. Coleman was not sure
whether McLaren was a "supervisor" by that time. The record fails to
disclose whether Oliver was McLaren 's aunt.
SYNADYNE CORP. 683
had anybody discharged, but when some girl wouldn't be
doing her work or for any other reason I would go to
[Langford] and we would discuss it and [Langford] would
take it from there." Farris further credibly testified that she
sometimes "disciplined" people, namely, "To go and ask
them, you know, tell them to speed up a little bit or quit
talking or something like that, just things like that." Farris'
testimony in this last respect was corroborated by Cole-
man. Poole credibly testified that on one occasion in
December 1975 he told Leader Collins that she should
"push" harder.
Poole testified that at least once a month while Coleman
was a leader, he held a "supervisor and leader meeting,"
where "we discussed their responsibilities many times,"
and also discussed "quality problems, discipline matters,
productivity, performance and some cases actual profit-
ability of the company." Poole testified that during these
meetings , he explained to Coleman her responsibilities as a
leader. Coleman testified that she had never attended any
regular management meetings . Poole's testimony about
such meetings is wholly uncorroborated, although Respon-
dent called Supervisors Langford and McMullen and
Leaders Farris and Gatlin as witnesses90 In view of the
absence of such corroboration, and after considering the
witnesses ' demeanor, I credit Coleman in this respect.
Accordingly, I credit her otherwise undenied testimony
that prior to March 1976 she was never told that she could
on her own authority fire, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
or reward employees, or adjust employee grievances, or
that she could effectively recommend such action. Further,
I credit her undenied testimony that in late March 1976
(after the filing of the charges herein, and the day after a
visit by company attorney Milani with Poole, Gibbons, and
all the "supervisors"), Poole called a meeting with the
leaders; said that "Mr. Milani had told him that the leaders
had more authority than he had been giving them and that
he didn't know anything about"; and further said that the
leaders had authority to "fire right on the spot."91
Moreover, in view of this undenied and credible testimony,
I infer that Poole's and Gibbons' testimony about specific
incidents involving the exercise of at least arguably
supervisory authority by Farris, McLaren, and Johnson all
occurred after this March 1976 meeting. In this connection,
I note Farris' testimony at the July 1976 hearing that her
present job was "supervisor," although in December 1975
she was a "leadgirl." 92
In short, Coleman's only supervisory power even argu-
ably shown by the credible testimony is the authority
90 Indeed, although Poole testified that Respondent's profitability was
sometimes discussed at these alleged meetings , Supervisor McMullen
testified that she did not know about Respondents' December 1975 financial
problems; "I mean I'm a supervisor All I do is they tell me what has to go
and I do my best to get it out ... I'm not in any of the finance part .. I
don't know whether Respondent was then in financial difficulties."
91
At the July 1976 hearing, Poole testified that the December 1975
leaders "have now moved to supervisory positions."
92 In view of Farris' testimony in this respect, and for demeanor reasons,
I do not credit Supervisor Langford's testimony that, in effect, at all relevant
times Farris had "the same responsibility that I do . . [s ]he has the same
authority that I have in correcting the girls" and used this authority.
93 The cases cited in Respondent's brief do not call for a different result.
The maintenance foreman in Davco, Inc, 172 NLRB 1791, 1801-02 (1968),
was in sole charge of his department, had the power to hire, had and
exercised the power to fire, gave daily notes to his superior about his
responsibly to direct the employees on the White line.
However, Section 2(11)'s definition of the term "supervi-
sor" encompasses only "the supervisor vested with genuine
management prerogatives," and does not extend to
"strawbosses , leadmen , setup men and other minor
supervisory employees." N.L.RB. v. Bell Aerospace Compa-
ny, Division of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 279-283 (1974).
See also, Howard Johnson Company, 174 NLRB 1217,
1221-22 (1969). I conclude that Coleman's December 1975
authority with respect to the White line did not reach the
level of responsible direction, but, rather, was merely that
of the typical "leadman" or "strawboss." Accordingly, I
conclude that during her December 1975 conversation with
Poole, she was an employee within the meaning of the Act.
House of Mosaics, Inc., Subsidiary of Thomas Industries,
Inc., 215 NLRB 704 (1974) (ALJD,III,B); Harmon Indus-
tries, Inc., 226 NLRB 432 (1976).93
Paragraph 6(bXi) of the complaint alleges that Respon-
dent violated the Act on December 17, 1975, by "creat[ing]
the impression of surveillance of employee concerted
activity by accusing certain employees of participating in
protected concerted activities." However, the evidence
shows that before Poole "accused" Williams of getting in
touch with Wage-Hour, she revealed her Wage-Hour
contact to Leader Farris (whom the General Counsel
contends and Respondent admits to be Respondent's
agent), and asked to see Poole. Farris then said that she
would check with Poole and Supervisor Langford, and
both Farris and Langford told Williams that they would
talk and had talked to Poole about overtime and related
matters. The General Counsel's brief alleges that Poole
"attempt[ed] to engage in surveillance of the [protected]
activities of plant employees" through the monitor pro-
gram. I do not regard this contention as fairly encompassed
by the pleadings.94 In any event I regard this allegation as
unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, notwith-
standing Poole's action, just before establishing the
monitor program, in threatening to shut down the plant if it
were unionized and in attempting to find out the identity of
the employee who had favorably mentioned a union. The
employee meeting which undisputedly led to the monitors'
appointment revealed the existence of and was mostly
directed to various employee complaints about wages and
working conditions, at least some of which complaints
Poole had never heard of before. There is no evidence that
after appointing the monitors, Respondent ever specifically
or impliedly asked them about the existence of protected
concerted activity, that the monitors ever reported such
subordinates' work , gave his subordinates permission to leave early,
initialled their timecards when they were late, assigned them work,
reproached them when their production was down , and on one occasion lent
one of his subordinates to another supervisor. The assistant store managers
in Red & White Super Markets, 172 NLRB 1841 (enfd. in part and remanded
in part 415 F.2d 125 (CA. 3, 1969), decision on remand 179 NLRB 831
(1969)), were in sole charge of their respective stores for long hours each
week, during which periods they assigned and reassigned work and granted
time off. The "wanderer" pressman in Stratford Lithographers, Inc., 168
NLRB 469, 472, enfd. 423 F.2d 1219 (C A. 2, 1970), was held out to the
employees by the supervisory senior pressman over the pressmen as the
person to listen to in the former's absence, issued orders which his
subordinates obeyed, and, when on the night shift, was in sole charge of that
shift and decided when it should leave.
94 To this extent , I deny the General Counsel 's motion, after all parties
had rested , to conform the pleadings to the proof
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activity to management, or that the monitors thought that
management wanted them to report such information. In
view of such evidence, I regard as a natural and sufficient
explanation for Poole's selection of three black employee
representatives or monitors Poole's testimony, which I
therefore credit, that "The monitor system was simply a
means to provide an exhaust outlet for any type of
employee problems that had not reached me. I did not ask
anyone to spy on anybody or anything like that . . . [the
meeting earlier that day] caused me to set up the monitor
system to prevent any such meeting from ever happening
again . Theoretically, as [Williams] explained to me, that
meeting was held because the people were afraid to come
talk to me, they had to come en masse." Poole's repeated
assurances that the monitors' reports would be kept secret,
while consistent with the General Counsel's contention
that the monitors were being asked to report their fellow
employees' protected activity, are equally consistent with a
desire to assuage employee fears of reprisals from supervi-
sors whose actions might be complained of. Accordingly, I
shall dismiss paragraph 6(b)(i) of the complaint.
2. The allegedly unlawful discharges
a. Williams and Adams
Instead of operating on the Fridays after Thanksgiving
and Christmas 1975, Respondent's plant operated on
Saturday, November 22, and Saturday, December 13. In
consequence of this schedule, most of the employees
worked for 48 hours during each of the weeks ending on
these particular Saturdays, but they were paid only
straight-time rates. On December 15, employee Whitlock
told employee Williams that Wage-Hour had said that the
employees were entitled to time and a half for all hours
worked per week in excess of 40, and told Williams what
Wage-Hour personnel to call about the matter. On
December 15 and 17, Williams did call Wage-Hour, which
confirmed Whitlock's assertion and told Williams that she
could file a charge against Respondent if it did not pay
time and a half for those two Saturdays. Also on December
17, Adams called Wage-Hour, was advised that Respon-
dent had to pay time and a half for those two Saturdays,
and (in response to Williams' inquiry) told Williams that
Wage-Hour had so advised Adams. On the following day,
December 18, Williams advised Company Agent Farris
and/or Supervisor Langford that Williams had telephoned
Wage-Hour, that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent
had to pay time and a half, that Williams might not want to
work Saturday, that she wanted to know whether she
would get time and a half if she worked Saturday, and that
she wanted her overtime pay for the Saturday she had
already worked. Later that day, Gibbons relayed to Poole a
report from Langford that Williams had said that several
employees on the Ford line were not in agreement with
working Saturday, Williams wanted overtime pay for the
preceding Saturday and had called Wage-Hour, and
Respondent was going to have to pay overtime.
Poole was admittedly "upset" when he found out that
Williams had called Wage-Hour, and "angry" that she had
gone there without first coming to him about the overtime
matter. A few minutes after learning about Williams'
contact with Wage-Hour, Poole called her to his office and
said that she had "stabbed a damn knife in [his] back" by
calling the "damn" Wage and Hour Bureau after he had
tried to be "nice" to the employees about letting them have
a long weekend off. Williams said that "several people"
had called Wage-Hour. However, Gibbons said that she
thought Williams was the only employee who had called
Wage-Hour and the only one who was "dissatisfied."
Williams said that the whole Ford line was "dissatisfied."
Poole told Gibbons to make out Williams' check, but
relented upon learning that Williams had not wanted to
call another plant meeting among the employees generally
about the Saturday-work situation , but instead had wanted
a meeting with him. However, Poole did call a meeting
with the Ford-line and White-line employees in order to
find out whether anyone else was "dissatisfied."
Poole told the assembled employees that those who
called Wage-Hour should have checked with him first, and
said that he had tried to be "nice" to the employees by
arranging for a long holiday weekend "and look at the
thanks I get." He said that while he was out of town
someone had "stabbed him in the back" by calling Wage-
Hour, and demanded to know "Who the hell" it was.
Adams said that she had, that she had not agreed to work
overtime without getting paid for it, and that Wage-Hour
had said that Respondent had to pay the employees
overtime for all work over 40 hours a week. Poole replied
that Respondent was going to stop paying holiday pay.
Williams and others stated that they were dissatisfied with
Poole's statement that they could not receive holiday pay
unless they worked the designated Saturday at straight-
time rates. Moreover, when Poole said that those who were
willing to accept this arrangement should go back to work,
a number of employees, including Williams and Adams,
stayed only to be told that if they got holiday pay, they
were not going to get time and, a half for the relevant
Saturday. Immediately thereafter, Langford recommended
to Gibbons that Adams and Williams be discharged
because of, inter alia, "the continual unrest and dissatisfac-
tion." 95 Then, Langford and Gibbons approached Poole
and recommended that he discharge Adams and Williams
for various reasons discussed infra, "and especially after
the scene that was caused in the plant." Poole testified that
he had already decided to discharge them for "disrespect,"
that "this was the straw that broke the camel's back."
Respondent discharged them a few minutes later, giving as
the stated reasons "insubordination" and that they were
"uncooperative," "dissatisfied," and "troublemakers."
When Williams then told Poole that he had not discharged
everyone who called Wage-Hour, or the employee who
gave her Wage-Hour's telephone number, Gibbons replied,
"That's all right. We got you out."
On the following day, Poole told the assembled leaders,
including Coleman, that he had fired Williams, not because
she called Wage-Hour, but because she had untruthfully
denied doing so. Later that day, Poole told Coleman that
Williams "wasn't nothing but a troublemaker," and that if
95 This finding is based on Langford's testimony
SYNADYNE CORP. 685
he had got rid of her after the Montique meeting "then all
this other mess wouldn't have come up . . . Do you know
of anyone else out there that had to do with Wage and
Hour that I have not gotten rid of or anyone else that is a
so-called troublemaker? . . . The Wage and Hour man told
me I would have to hire Adams and Williams back because
they were fired because of Wage and Hour. Before I hire
them back I'll close the plant down and no one will have a
job . . . I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers." In
consequence of the employees' contacts with Wage-Hour,
Respondent eventually made $3,000 in overtime payments,
at a time when Respondent was in serious financial
trouble.
The foregoing evidence, including the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses , creates a strong prima facie case
that Adams and Williams were discharged partly because
of their participation in the employees' contacts with
Wage-Hour.96 As Respondent does not appear to dispute,
such contacts constituted activity protected by Section 7 of
the Act 97 Such evidence also strongly points to the
conclusion that Williams was discharged partly because of
her participation in the presentation of grievances at the
Montique meeting. Respondent does not appear to dispute
that such activity was likewise protected by Section 7.98
Accordingly, their discharges violated the Act even
assuming they were also motivated by lawful considera-
tions.99
Langford testified that immediately after the December
18 meeting, she recommended to Gibbons that Williams be
discharged partly because "some of [her] work habits have
been bad." Gibbons did not corroborate this testimony by
Langford about their conversation. Poole testified that
Williams did her work well and, as noted, about 4 months
before her discharge, Respondent had offered to consider
her for a promotion. Langford did not describe Williams'
allegedly poor work habits, and there is no evidence that
she had any. I discredit Langford's testimony that she
recommended Williams' discharge for poor work habits
and conclude that such a consideration played no part in
her discharge.
Gibbons testified that immediately after the December
18 meeting, Langford recommended that Williams be
discharged partly because she had been "harassing employ-
ees." Gibbons' testimony suggests that her and Langford's
discharge recommendation to Poole included a similar
assertion. Neither Langford nor Poole so testified. Al-
though Gibbons testified that employee Newsome had
complained about "harassment" by Williams, Gibbons did
not describe the nature of such complaint or complaints,
and Williams' conduct does not appear particularly
blameworthy in the only Newsome-Williams incident of
which management's predischarge awareness was
96 However, in so finding, I do not rely on Greenwood's credited
testimony that McMullen said, "they found out who called the Wage and
Hour Bureau . . it was Georgia and Bobbie . . . and they were fired."
Although a supervisor over the assembly area, McMullen was not shown to
have any authority with respect to the Ford line, where Williams and Adams
worked. See rule 801(d)(2XC) and (D) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Because no contention is made that McMullen's statement constituted an
unfair labor practice in itself, I need not and do not consider that issue.
97 G V R, Inc., 201 NLRB 147 (1973); While's Gas & Appliance, Inc., 202
NLRB 494 (1973); see also Alleluia Cushion, supra, 221 NLRB 999.
98 Webster Men's Wear, A Subsidiary of Beck Industries, Inc., 222 NLRB
1262 (1976), (ALJD)
shown.100 I discredit Gibbons' testimony that alleged
harassment by Williams was mentioned during the Gib-
bons-Langford-Poole conversation about her discharge,
and conclude that such alleged harassment played no part
in the decision to discharge her.
Langford and Gibbons both testified that immediately
after the December 18 meeting, Langford recommended
Adams' discharge because of her poor work habits, and
that they mentioned this to Poole in recommending her
discharge.101 Poole did not corroborate their testimony in
this respect. As found supra, there is no credible evidence
that Adams had poor work habits. I discredit Langford's
and Gibbons' testimony that Adams' work habits were
mentioned during the Gibbons-Langford-Poole conversa-
tion about her discharge, and conclude that she was not
discharged in whole or in part because of her work habits.
Respondent's counsel asserted at the outset of the
hearing that Adams was discharged partly because she
engaged in harassment of employees. Gibbons' testimony
implies, at least, that this assertion was included (without
amplification) in her and Langford's discharge recommen-
dation to Poole, but there is no other evidence that such
harassment was mentioned during the Gibbons-Adams-
Poole conversations which preceded Adams' discharge. As
found supra, before Adams' discharge, Langford was aware
of certain reproaches which Adams had directed to
employee Morea. However, there is no evidence that
Gibbons knew about this incident. Moreover, as previously
found, Langford falsely testified that the Morea incident
was reflected in a warning slip form which was not
prepared on the date it bears. I discredit Gibbons' implied
testimony that harassment by Adams was mentioned in the
discharge recommendation to Poole, and find that such
alleged harassment played no part in the decision to
discharge her.
Poole, Gibbons, and Langford all testified, in substance,
that Adams and Williams were discharged partly because
of what they did during the December 18 plant meeting. I
credit such testimony but find, contrary to Respondent,
that Adams' and Williams' conduct at that meeting was
itself protected by Section 7 of the Act. A purpose of
Respondent in calling the meeting was to find out whether
the employees were dissatisfied about the holiday pay,
holiday schedule, overtime matter. At the meeting, a
number of the employees, including Adams and Williams,
expressed dissatisfaction with respect to Respondent's
announced policy regarding holiday and overtime pay. As
Respondent does not appear to question, it could not
99 Dilene Answering Service, Inc., 222 NLRB 462 (1976); Sweeney &
Company, Inc., v N.LRB., 437 F.2d 1127, 1133 (CA. 5, 1971); Hugh H.
Wilson Corporation v. N LRB., 414 F.2d 1345, 1353, fn. 17 (C.A. 5, 1969),
cert. denied 397 U.S. 935 (1970).
100 Williams' alleged statements that Newsome should speed up to avoid
being fired were relayed to her by other employees , and there is no evidence
that such remarks were made for any purpose other than to help Newsome
keep her job. Moreover , Newsome's extreme reaction may have been due
partly to her visible pregnancy.
101 Gibbons' version included allegations of "constant talking."
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lawfully have discharged the employees for voicing their
joint protests with respect to these matters.102
Respondent contends , however, that during this meeting
Adams and Williams engaged in misconduct sufficient to
render their participation therein unprotected. The credible
evidence shows that Williams and Adams stood somewhat
closer to him than is customary in normal social or
business conversations , 103 that they glared at him ,104 that
they spoke louder than anyone else there (although not
loud enough to be understood 8 feet away),105 that Adams
on one occasion shook her finger at him,106 that Williams
made disgusted gestures by raising her hands a little above
her sides with her palms upward,107 and that they
occasionally interrupted some of the other 30-odd employ-
ees present, or Poole himself.108 Also, Poole credibly
testified that Williams and Adams "would not accept
anything that I said"-conduct which he characterized as
"threatening."
However, where, as here, employees are concertedly
presenting their grievances to management, an activity
protected by Section 7 of the Act, they do not forfeit such
protection by failing to display toward management the
same degree of respect normally expected from employees
in connection with the master-servant relationship . Rather,
the employee's right to engage in concerted activity may
permit some leeway for impulsive behavior which must be
balanced against the employer's right to maintain order
and respect.109 The facts of this particular case balance in
the employees' favor. I note, in this connection, that the
employee grievances voiced during this meeting flowed to a
significant extent from Respondent's breach (known to
Adams and Williams) of the Fair Labor Standards Act in
connection with overtime pay for Saturday work; and that
just before the meeting Williams had been the victim of a
rescinded discharge motivated at least in part by her
contacts with Wage-Hour.
For the foregoing reasons, I fmd that Respondent
discharged Adams and Williams at least in part because of
their protected concerted activity and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
b. Garner, Green, and Vaughn
Early in December, employee Green suggested to her
fellow employees on the White line that they should
complain to Respondent about working Saturdays in lieu
of postholiday Fridays without getting paid overtime for
162 Webster Men's Wear, supra, 222 NLRB 1262.
103 This finding is based on a composite of credible portions of the
testimony of Poole , Gibbons, Langford , and Newsome.
104 This finding is based on credible portions of Poole 's testimony.
105 This finding is based on a composite of credible portions of the
testimony of Morea , Langford, Gibbons, and Williams . For demeanor
reasons, I do not credit Poole's testimony that Adams and Williams were
"yelling and screaming ," or talking like a drill sergeant to a recruit. Also for
demeanor reasons, I do not credit Fams' and Cox's testimony that Adams
and Williams were "hollering."
106 This finding is based on credible portions of the testimony of Poole,
Farris, Gibbons, and Langford
101 This finding is based on credible portions of the testimony of
Newsome and Williams , to some extent corroborated by Poole 's testimony
that Williams was "waving her arms." For demeanor reasons, I do not credit
the testimony of Farris, Gibbons, Langford , or Turner that Williams shook
her finger at Poole
108 This finding is based on the testimony of Moore and to some extent
the Saturdays. Green also asked Garner and then Vaughn
whether they would prefer to work the Friday after
Christmas rather than to work Saturday without getting
overtime rates . Garner said that she did not want to work
that Friday; Vaughn said that she did not mind coming
back that Friday but knew that Green could not get
anyone else to go along with it.
There is no evidence that Respondent knew about the
foregoing conversations . However, a few days later, Green
told Supervisor Langford that the employees should not
have to work two Saturdays without getting time and a half
for them. Langford replied that this was being done to
"help the girls" get a long weekend, and referred Green to
Gibbons and Poole. About 2 weeks later, during the
employees' December 18 meeting with Poole, Green and
Vaughn evinced objections to Poole' s statement that the
employees who got holiday pay would not be paid overtime
for the Saturdays worked in lieu of the postholiday
Fridays. Poole testified that during this meeting Vaughn
was "more vocal" than most of the other employees.
After being discharged because of contacts with Wage-
Hour and participation with Green and Vaughn (among
others) in the employees' December 18 protests of
Respondent's overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday schedule
policy, Williams and Adams told Wage-Hour that Garner,
Vaughn, and Green had knowledge of the facts regarding
Williams' and Adams' overtime complaints. On the
following day, when Williams and Adams returned to the
plant for their overtime checks, Williams related their
errand to Vaughn, who commented that the active
employees had not yet received their overtime checks.
There is no evidence that Respondent actually knew that
Wage-Hour had been referred to Garner and Green. Nor
did Supervisor Kelly overhear the Williams-Vaughn con-
versation, although he did see it and participated in
management's efforts to prevent Adams and Williams from
remaining in the plant area and, therefore, from discussing
with the active employees the grievances which Adams and
Williams had been discharged for concertedly pressing.
However, later that day, Coleman told Poole that Vaughn
had referred the Wage-Hour investigator to Coleman.
During that same conversation, Poole commented, "Do
you know of anyone else out there that had to do with
Wage and Hour that I have not gotten rid of or anyone else
that is a so-called troublemaker? . . . I'm going to get rid
of all the troublemakers." About 3 days later, Gibbons
Mores and Poole. However , in view of the credited testimony about the
parties to and the extent of discussions during the meeting , and for
dismeanor reasons, I do not credit either Poole's testimony that the
interruptions of fellow employees were so frequent as to preclude any
"meaningful dialogue" with anyone else, or Morea 's testimony that Adams
and Williams interrupted him "Every time he went to say something."
109 Webster Men's Wear, supra, 222 NLRB 1262 (ALJD); Crown Central
Petroleum Corporation v. NL.R.B., 430 F.2d 724, 729-731 (C.A. 5, 1970);
Sears, Roebuck and Co., 224 NLRB 558 (1976) ("an employee's right to the
protection of Section 8(a)(l) when engaging in concerted activities does not
depend on his doing it in a way which does not offend his employer"). In
view of these differing standards, I attach little weight to the testimony of
Plant Manager Gibbons (who, admittedly, could not hear the conversation)
that Adams and Williams were "rude"; or to leader Cox's opinion that their
conduct merited discharge . Farris credibly testified that while Adams and
Williams were talking to Poole , "somebody" said "Isn't that awful?"
However, the record fails to show what person , statements, or conduct
"somebody" regarded as "awful."
SYNADYNE CORP. 687
used the plant intercom to summon Vaughn to the office,
where she was interviewed by a Wage -Hour representative.
Also about December 22 or 23, Supervisor Langford
announced that because the employees were to be given
overtime pay for Saturday, December 13, the employees
would not receive a full day's pay for a half-day' s work on
Christmas Eve, as Respondent had previously promised.
Instead , Langford said , the employees would all be paid a
half-day's pay and seven of them would receive lottery
prizes of $25 to $100, totaling $300 . Green said that she
would rather work all day Christmas Eve and receive a full
day's pay. Garner said , "The money that you are
auctioning off is the money you are supposed to be paying
us for the full day like you promised." Employee Green
expressed agreement with Garner . Later Langford gave
Poole the names of Green and Garner , said that one had
remarked to the other that the lottery prizes were not a gift
from Respondent , but represented money "stolen" or
"taken" from the employees ; and further reported that the
other had agreed.
Thereafter, Poole called Garner and Green to his office
and asked if they were "happy" at the plant . Garner said
that she was not dissatisfied . Green said that she was
satisfied now that she had been paid time and a half for
working over 40 hours , and reproached him for not
knowing, as a businessman, that he had to pay employees
overtime for working over 40 hours a week . Garner asked
why the employees were not getting paid for a whole day
on Christmas Eve. He replied that he had spent so much
money so far on holiday pay that he could not afford it. In
response to questions by Garner, Langford said that she
was not dissatisfied with the work of either Garner or
Green , and Poole said that he did not want them to quit
and if he wanted them to quit he would discharge them.
Then, Poole asked Garner whether she had said that the
lottery money was probably the money the employees
should have received for the rest of Christmas Eve. When
Garner replied yes, Poole said that whenever Garner or
Green had something like this to say that she should say it
to the supervisor or to him, not to the other employees.
Poole further said that Williams had caused a "whole lot of
confusion" in the plant by calling Wage-Hour.
Early in the morning of the first working day after
Christmas , and no more than 3 working days after this
conference , Gibbons discharged Vaughn , Garner, and
Green on the stated ground that they seemed to be
unhappy in the plant , had caused "dissension" there, and
had upset other workers . Langford said that their discharge
had nothing to do with their work , that their work was
"okay," and Gibbons said that Vaughn was a "good
worker."
The foregoing evidence indicates , at least prima facie,
that Vaughn was discharged at least in part because of her
contacts with Wage-Hour and her participation in the
employees ' joint expression at the December 18 meeting of
their dissatisfaction with Respondent 's holiday pay, holi-
day schedule , overtime policy. Further , the foregoing
evidence indicates , at least prima facie, that Green was
discharged partly because of her participation in that
meeting, and that she and Garner were discharged at least
in part because of Garner's criticism, and Green's agree-
ment therewith, of Respondent's action in substituting the
Christmas Eve lottery for Christmas Eve pay.
Respondent does not appear to contend, nor would such
a contention have merit, that it could lawfully discharge
employees for contacts with Wage-Hour and for urging
grievances at the December 18 meeting (see supra, fns. 97,
102). However, Respondent contends that it could lawfully
discharge Green and Garner for their remarks about the
lottery, on the ground that so far as the record shows, such
statements were not made "with the object of initiating or
preparing for any group action in the interests of the
employees. There is no indication that [Garner], by making
the statement, intended, suggested, contemplated, or even
referred to any group action." Rather, Respondent con-
tends, Garner's "statement can only be classified as
individual griping or complaining," and Green's "mere
agreement with Mrs. Garner's statement could not possibly
constitute protected concerted activity." Respondent relies
on N.L.R.B. v. Buddies Supermarkets, Inc., 481 F.2d 714,
717-720 (C.A. 5, 1973), and N.L.R.B. v. The Office Towel
Supply Company, Incorporated, 201 F.2d 838, 840-841 (C.A.
2, 1953).
I note, however, that the company policy about which
Green and Garner were complaining on December 22 and
23-namely, the substitution of a lottery for a paid half-
day holiday on Christmas Eve-had the same express
purpose and was quite similar to the policy which Poole
announced and the employees (including Green) concert-
edly protested at the December 18 meeting-namely, the
abolition of paid holidays to make up for the preholiday
Saturday overtime expenses faced by Respondent in
consequence of the protected activity which Williams,
Adams, and others had begun on December 15. The events
thus leading up to Garner's and Green's complaints lead
me to conclude that such complaints in fact "had some
relation to group action in the interest of the employees"
within the meaning of Buddies Supermarkets, supra at 718.
In any event, even assuming that the statutory protection
afforded such prior activity does not extend to Garner's
and Green's related subsequent conduct, the discharges
were nevertheless unlawful if the "lottery" conversation led
Respondent to believe that Green and Garner had already
engaged or might soon thereafter engage in a concerted
effort to remedy this grievance, and for this reason decided
to discharge them.110 I conclude that Poole in fact drew
such an inference and discharged them at least partly for
that reason. Thus, during the preceding 3 months a large
number of the employees had engaged in a substantial
amount of protected concerted activity relating to, inter
alia, holiday pay, work schedules on holiday and preholi-
day weeks, and overtime pay for Saturdays worked in lieu
of postholiday Fridays. Such concerted activity not only
had consumed a significant amount of paid working time,
but also was expected to (and in fact did) cost Respondent
a good deal of money from overtime pay, at a time when
Respondent was in financial difficulties. The Christmas
Eve payment scheme criticized by Garner and Green was
110 N. L. R B v. The Hertz Corporation, 449 F 2d 711, 714-715 (C.A. 5,
1971); N. L R B v. Signal Oil and Gas Co., 390 F .2d 338, 342-343 (C A. 9,
1968), cited with approval in Buddies Supermarket , supra at 720, fn. 17.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
part of Respondent 's solution to the financial loss from the
overtime claim which the employees (including Green and
Vaughn) had jointly pressed at the meeting with Poole 11
days before the discharge of Garner, Green, and Vaughn.
Moreover, Green had complained to Supervisor Langford
early in December about working Saturdays without
overtime pay and, a few days before the discharge, Green
reproached Poole for his ignorance of Respondent's
overtime obligations. Furthermore, during the conference
Poole reproached Green for voicing her complaints to
fellow employees rather than to supervision (although
Langford had also been present at the time ). Also, during
the Green-Garner-Poole conference about December 23,
Garner's inquiry about Adams' and Williams' discharge
gave Poole at least some reason to suspect Garner's
postdischarge contacts with them ; while Poole's comment
later in that conversation about the "confusion" caused by
Williams ' Wage-Hour contacts indicates that he was
associating such "confusion" with the complaints just
voiced by Garner and Green.
I cannot accept Respondent's contention that Vaughn,
Green , and Garner were discharged because Respondent
believed that they had sabotaged machinery and deliber-
ately miswired harnesses'1' If Poole had really believed
them guilty of such serious misconduct, he would almost
certainly have discharged them as soon as he reached such
a conclusion. However, Poole did not discharge these
employees until 12 days after White Motors told him about
the miswired harnesses . Moreover , these three employees
had no more opportunity than many others to put foreign
material into the molding compound, and Respondent had
no way of knowing which employees were responsible for
the miswired harnesses.
Furthermore , other evidence militates against not only
Respondent 's sabotage contention , but also Respondent's
further contention that these employees were discharged
partly for poor production quantity and quality. Thus, it is
uncontradicted that less than 2 months before the discharg-
es, Langford made favorable comments to Gibbons about
Garner's work. Moreover, the credible evidence shows that
about December 23 Langford said she was not dissatisfied
with the quality of Garner's and Green's work; and that
during the discharge interview, Langford said that the work
of all three was "okay," and Gibbons that Vaughn was a
good worker. Nor is there any credible evidence that any of
the three was ever reproved for the quantity and quality of
her work.
As to Respondent's contention that these three employ-
ees were discharged partly for excessive talking , the record
shows that Green and Garner were reprimanded once as
individuals, once with five or six others, and once with
three others including Vaughn . I see no reason to suppose
that Green and Garner were reprimanded unusually often
for such conduct.112 Aside from the sleeving-pot incident,
there is no credible evidence that Vaughn was ever
reproved for excessive talking. As to these three employees'
iii Poole 's testimony imphes that he thought that Garner , Green, and
Vaughn were saboteurs because he thought they were engaging in "Black
supremacy" activities with Williams . During the December 19 conference
with Coleman , Poole had said that in addition to finng Williams because of
her Wage-Hour contacts and her "troublemaker" activity at the Linda
Montique grievance meeting, he was also going to get rid of Williams'
conversation around the sleeving pot when they should
have been working, Respondent's initial reaction was
limited to an oral reproof; there is no credible evidence
that the incident was mentioned during the discharge
interview; and particularly in view of the manifest
untruthfulness of Respondent 's claim that these three
employees were discharged partly for suspected sabotage, I
conclude that the sleeving-pot incident played little or no
part in the discharge decision.
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Respondent
discharged Vaughn, Green, and Garner because of Re-
spondent's knowledge or belief that they had engaged or
expectation that they would engage in protected concerted
activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
c. Greenwood
Poole testified that in October and November 1975,
Respondent was undergoing financial difficulties and the
thought of a union coming into the plant at a time when it
had financial difficulties would be unsatisfactory to the
plant. Gibbons testified that during December the plant
was experiencing serious financial difficulties ; that Re-
spondent would have had a difficult economic time if a
union had then attempted to organize the plant; and that if
Respondent knew specific employees who advocated a
union, Respondent would not have been happy about this
and, indeed, would have been concerned about it. In
October 1975, Poole told employees that if the plant were
unionized, it would go bankrupt and close down. Poole
also tried, unsuccessfully, to find out the identity of the
employee at the Montique meeting who had favorably
mentioned a union.
Some weeks later, on the morning of December 19,
employee Greenwood expressed dissatisfaction to Supervi-
sor McMullen over being denied the opportunity to learn
certain work, and said, "if we had a union out here you all
wouldn't be doing us like this [meaning, constantly
observing the employees work], maybe one day we will."
Also present during this conversation was employee
Brister, whom Greenwood had unsuccessfully asked, a few
days earlier, to sign a union card. Upon hearing Green-
wood's comment, McMullen went to Gibbons' office.
Later that day, McMullen approached Greenwood with a
pad and pencil and asked her how she felt about a union,
to which Greenwood replied, "I feel all right about a union,
I feel that if we had a union out here maybe we wouldn't
have to work on Saturdays."
Later that same day, McMullen called Greenwood and
Brister into Gibbons' office. Gibbons said that she would
"start with" Greenwood. Gibbons discharged Greenwood
on the stated grounds that she was upsetting employee
Davis (an unfounded accusation which McMullen later
tried to support by a false memorandum) and was not
"cramping wires" right (an operation which Greenwood
had first performed 2 days earlier). As Greenwood was
"gang." Taken together, the evidence in this footnote provides at least some
support for the inference that Green , Garner, and Vaughn were discharged
for suspected complicity in the protected concerted activities for which
Williams had been discharged 11 days earlier.
112 At the time of the discharges , Garner had worked for Respondent for
about 6 months and Green about 3 months.
SYNADYNE CORP.
going toward the door, Gibbons told Brister, "I have had
you in my office once before for a warning and this is the
last time . I hate to let you go." Company witnesses
Gibbons, McMullen, and Brister were not asked about the
conversation in the office after Greenwood left. Brister had
previously told Poole that she could easily make the
production quota on Murray harnesses but "just didn't
want to." Brister was still in Respondent's employ at the
time of the July 1976 hearing.
After this conference broke up, Gibbons walked into
Poole's office and said, "I got rid of them." Poole held up
two fingers and said, "Both of them?" Gibbons said, "No,
just one, the other one convinced me that she didn't have
anything to do with it." After Gibbons left, Poole said to
leader Coleman, who was then in his office, "I got rid of
another one, I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers if
that means firing everybody, this is my plant and I'll run it
the way I want to run it."
The foregoing evidence compellingly points to the
conclusion, which I draw, that Respondent discharged
Greenwood to discourage union activity, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by threatening to close the plant if it were unionized, by
interrogating employees about the identity of employees
who were engaging in union and other protected concerted
activity, by interrogating an employee about her union
sympathies, and by threatening to discharge employees
because of their protected concerted activities.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by discharging Georgia Williams, Barbara Adams, Minnie
Garner, Gloria Green, and Jeanette Vaughn.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging employee Alice Greenwood to
discourage union activity.
5. The foregoing constitute unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, created the impression of surveillance of employee
concerted activity, or attempted to engage in such
surveillance.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated the Act in
certain respects, I shall recommend that it be required to
cease and desist and desist therefrom. The record shows
that Respondent discharged five employees because they
engaged or were expected to engage in protected concerted
activity, discharged a sixth to discourage union activity,
and evinced an intent to engage in unfair labor practices in
the future by threatening to discharge employees for
protected concerted activities and to close the plant if it
113 Summer Hill Nursing Home, 222 NLRB 433, 446, fn. 68 (1976); Baker
Machine & Gear, Inc., 220 NLRB 194 (1975); Blue Jeans Corporation and
Whitevdle Manufacturing Company, et al, 170 NLRB 1425 (1968); Santa Fe
689
were unionized . Such unfair labor practices lead me to
anticipate that, unless restrained, Respondent will engage
in continuing and varying infringements of its employees'
Section 7 rights. Accordingly, I shall recommend that
Respondent be required to cease and desist from infringing
on employees' rights in any other manner. N.L.RB. v.
Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 437-439, 1941;
NLRB. v. East Texas Pulp & Paper Company, 346 F.2d
686, 689-690 (C.A. 5, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. Southern Trans-
port, Inc., 343 F.2d 558, 560-561 (C.A. 8, 1965); SKRL Die
Casting, Inc., 222 NLRB 85 (1976); Brom Machine and
Foundry Co., 222 NLRB 74 (1976); Highland House
Nursing Center, Inc., 222 NLRB 134 (1976).
After her discharge , Garner enlisted in the Armed
Services of the United States, where she was serving at the
time of the July 1976 hearing. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that Respondent be required, upon application
by her within 30 days after her discharge from the Armed
Forces, to offer her reinstatement to her former or a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges. I shall further
recommend that Respondent be required to make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to the amount she would normally
have earned as wages during the period (1) between the
date of her discharge by Respondent and the date of her
enlistment, and (2) between a date 5 days after her timely
application for reinstatement and the date of offer of
reinstatement by Respondent; less her net earnings during
this period. The Federbush Co., Inc., 34 NLRB 539, 565
(1941). 1 shall also recommend that Respondent be
required to offer Williams, Adams, Vaughn, Green, and
Greenwood, respectively, immediate reinstatement to the
job from which each was unlawfully discharged, or, in the
event such job no longer exists , a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against her, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which she would have earned, but for
her discharge, from the date of her discharge to the date of
a valid offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during
this period. Backpay as to all six of these employees is to be
computed in the manner described in F W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
I do not agree with Respondent that because of
Williams' and Adams' conduct, to order their reinstate-
ment and backpay would not effectuate the policies of the
Act. Respondent relies largely on Williams' conduct on
December 18, after being twice unlawfully discharged that
same day, and on the December 19 conduct of both
women the day after their unlawful discharge. However,
their conduct on both occasions assumes less significance
in view of Respondent's prior provocative action in
unlawfully discharging them.113 Furthermore, the Decem-
ber 19 incident flowed from much the same sources as the
Drilling Company, 171 NLRB 161, 161-162, enfd. in this respect 416 F.2d
725, 733 (C.A 9, 1969); Carlisle Paper Box Company, 168 NLRB 706, 722-
723, enfd. 398 F.2d I (C A. 3, 1968).
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unlawful December 18 discharges. Thus, Williams believed
(at least reasonably, and, I think, correctly as well) that
management wanted her and Adams to leave the building
by the office door rather than the plant door in order to
prevent them from again alerting the active employees,
who were then on break, to their own overtime pay rights. I
infer that Williams' reluctance to obey these instructions
by management was at least partly due to her belief that
this order was motivated by a continued desire by
Respondent to avoid compliance with obligations imposed
by the Wage-Hour law; conclude that such a belief by
Williams provided at least some justification for her
insistence on following the dischargees' prior route; and
further conclude that Adams' decision to follow Williams'
lead is subject to essentially the same considerations as
Williams' conduct. Further, I infer that the incident which
precipitated Kelly's action in jumping in front of the two
women was Williams' conversation with employee Vaughn,
which occurred during breaktime but involved another
employee who had previously joined Williams' and Adams'
concerted protected protests against Respondent's unlaw-
ful overtime policy; and I conclude that Kelly's motive,
therefore, provided some justification for the dischargees'
refusal to retreat. Further, in view of Adams' credible
testimony that Kelly pushed Williams (and "was fixing" to
push her again) before Adams reached for the broom, I
find that such pushing provided some justification for her
picking up the broom because "I felt threatened toward
Charles Kelly ... the way he was acting and the way he
was talking and the way that he pushed on [Williams] .. .
[he] acted like he was going to jump on us." Also, because
the employees who were watching the incident reacted with
laughter, and because Charles Kelly was 8 inches taller
than Barbara Adams, I infer that Adams intended to use
the broom only if it later turned out that she needed to
ward Kelly off physically, and that she did not intend or
appear to intend to use it against him as an aggressive
weapon. Finally, because the dischargees' visit had a
legitimate purpose, because Respondent did not evince a
particularly likely response to the dischargees' initial and
persisted-in decision to leave through the plant door,
because their only conversation with any employee during
either trip through the plant was initiated by the employee,
and because the dischargees chose to make their visit at an
hour when (as they must have known) the employees
would be on break, I reject Respondent's contention that
the dischargees' conduct on this occasion flowed from a
premeditated determination to disrupt the plant's opera-
tions and stage a confrontation with management . Rather,
I credit Adams' denial that she was trying to "pick a fight"
that day.
In resisting a reinstatement order as to Williams and
Adams Respondent relies on two incidents (the incident
where Newsome fainted, and the incident where Morea
cried) on which Respondent has also unsuccessfully relied
as motivating the discharges of Williams and Adams,
respectively (see supra, sec. II,B,8a and b,C,2,a). Respon-
dent also relies on employee Paige's testimony (which I
credit as to Williams, who did not deny it, but have
discredited in view of Adams' denial) that about a month
before being discharged, Williams or Adams, who are both
black, said that Paige, who is also black, "love[d] White
honkies ." Further , Respondent relies on the testimonial
opinion of rank-and-file employee Paige that Williams was
a "peace breaker" because she kept on telling other
employees on the job what to do, "which was no concern of
hers," and got people confused. Also, Respondent relies on
several incidents where Adams (who repeatedly told Paige
that she would be fired if she did not speed up) told Paige
to slow down because she was working too fast, that she
should not work herself to death for the white folks. In
addition, Respondent points to white employee Morea's
credited testimony that on several occasions Adams called
her a "white honky." While I do not condone such
conduct, I regard it as insufficient to erase Respondent's
obligation to remedy its discharge of two employees, in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, because of,
inter alia, their efforts to remedy Respondent's breach of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and (as to Williams)
Respondent's alleged discrimination against black employ-
I shall also require Respondent to post appropriate
notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
Order:
ORDER 115
The Respondent, Synadyne Corp., Jackson, Mississippi,
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to close its plant if it is unionized.
(b) Interrogating employees about their union sympa-
thies, or about the identity of employees who are engaging
in union and other protected concerted activity, in a
manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees because of their
protected concerted activities.
(d) Discharging employees because they have engaged in
or are expected to engage in protected concerted activities.
(e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees to discourage union activities.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
114 Respondent also points to black employee Laury 's testimony that
Williams said that she had turned down an offer of an inspector 'sjob, asked
Laury if she would take it (to which Laury replied yes, if she got the offer),
and said that there would be "trouble in the plant" if the job were given to
Mary Rogers, who is white. Williams did not say why there would be trouble
in the plant , nor, so far as the record shows, did she say who would cause it.
I regard this incident as having no bearing on Williams' reinstatement
rights. The documentary evidence that Williams was considered for an
inspector 's job in late August leads me to conclude that this Laury-Williams
conversation must have occurred much earlier than the mid-November date
testified to by Laury.
115 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
SYNADYNE CORP. 691
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to employees Barbara
Adams, Georgia Williams, Gloria Green, Jeanette Vaughn,
and Alice Greenwood and make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of their discharge, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Offer reinstatement to Minnie Garner, upon her
timely application following her discharge from the Armed
Forces of the United States , and make her whole for any
loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful
discharge, in the manner set forth in that section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary or useful to analyze the amount of backpay
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Jackson, Mississippi,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 116
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
The complaint is dismissed to the extent it alleges
violations not previously found.
116 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if it is
unionized.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees questions about
their union sympathies, or about the identity of
employees who are engaging in union and other
protected concerted activity, in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, and coercion.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
because of their protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they
engaged in or are expected to engage in protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees to discourage union activities.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to the
following employees, and make them whole, with
interest, for loss of pay resulting from their discharge:
Barbara ("Bobbie") Adams
Georgia Williams
Gloria Green
Jeanette Vaughn
Alice Greenwood
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Minne Garner, upon
her timely application following her discharge from the
Armed Forces of the United States, and make her
whole, with interest, for loss of pay resulting from her
discharge.
The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the
following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection
To refrain from any such activities.
Our employees are free to exercise any or all of these
rights.
Our employees are also free to refrain from any or all of
such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of these
rights.
SYNADYNE CORP.