Technitrol, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1234 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Technitrol , Inc. and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC. Case I1-CA-3513
March t8, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
2. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces
On October 3, 1968, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Technitrol, Inc., Durham, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
'Chairman McCulloch , while concurring in his colleagues ' adoption of
the Trial Examiner ' s findings and conclusions in other respects , would,
contrary to the Trial Examiner , also find that the Respondent violated Sec
8(aX3) by its discharge of employee Joan Stephenson
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner This proceeding,
brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136), herein called
the Act, was heard at Durham, North Carolina, April 22
and 23, 1968, pursuant to due notice The complaint,
issued by the Regional Director for Region 11
(Winston-Salem, North Carolina), on behalf of the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board
(herein called the General Counsel and the Board), on
February 29, 1968, on the basis of charges filed January
5, 1968, by the captioned Union (herein called the Union
or the Charging Party), alleged that Technitrol, Inc , the
Respondent herein, had engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
discharging its employees Joan Stephenson, Shirley
Brumfield, Violet Lumley, and Betty Porterfield because
of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, and by engaging in certain other specified acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion in connection with the
rights guaranteed its employees in Section 7 of the Act.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material the Respondent has been a
Pennsylvania corporation maintaining an office and place
of business in Durham, North Carolina, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of components for the
computer and electronics industry During a representative
12-month period, Respondent sells and ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of North Carolina and during a similar period
purchases directly from outside the State of North
Carolina goods valued in excess of $50,000 At all times
material Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, at all times material, has been
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
174 NLRB No. 186
TECHNITROL, INC. 1235
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction
Respondent operates plants at both Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina During 1967
a profit-sharing program was in effect at both plants
covering both salaried and hourly rated employees By
letter dated October 2, 1967 (all dates are in 1967 unless
otherwise noted), which was not released until about
October 20 to the Durham employees, Respondent
announced that the profit-sharing program was to be
discontinued for the hourly rated employees and that the
last two checks for the 1967 participation would be
distributed in December 1967 and June 1968 - which was
in accordance with past practice. So far as the record
shows this precipitated a campaign by the IUE to
organize the Durham plant That union already
represented the employees in the Philadelphia plant
B. The Union Activity
On October 25 a union meeting was held at the home
of employee Lucy Wiggins. Some 95 employees attended
including Violet Lumley and Betty Jean Porterfield, both
of whom signed a letter "asking for a union
representative. . ." Three days later another union
meeting was held at the Jack Tar Hotel in Durham at
which the Union's field representative, Joseph Williams,
and the State president of the AFL-CIO, Millard Barbee,
were present This meeting was attended by some 60
employees including Lumley and Porterfield and also
Shirley Brumfield. These three employees all signed union
authorization cards at this meeting and took with them a
supply of cards with which they became active in soliciting
card signers at the plant.'
At a union meeting held on November 5, Lumley and
Brumfield became members of the Union's organizing
committee and were given buttons about the size of a
silver dollar to wear which read "IUE Volunteer
Organizer" They both wore these buttons at work
continuously thereafter.' Apparently Porterfield did not
attend the November 5 meeting but the following day a
fellow employee gave her one of the volunteer organizer
buttons which she immediately began wearing.
In addition to the volunteer organizer buttons the
Union also made available smaller buttons with such
messages as "Join IUE" and "Vote IUE" as well as
bumper stickers and matches advertising the IUE.
Brumfield took a supply of this material, some of which
she used herself,' distributing the remainder to other
employees.
Brumfield made it a practice of wearing one of the
smaller union buttons together with her volunteer
organizer button. This gave rise, according to her
undenied and credited testimony, of a query from Phillips
if she was trying "to out-badge the other girls"
Brumfield's reply was to ask him "what was the matter . .
was he jealous because he didn't have one to wear" In
his testimony Phillips admitted the comment claiming that
'Lumley got 5 cards signed , Porterfield got "approximately 15" signed,
and Brumfield took "20 to 25 cards" and directed her solicitation efforts in
the plant right up to December 18 , the day that she was discharged
'During the campaign some 45 or 50 other employees also wore such
bottons
'She attached bumper stickers to both front and rear bumpers of the car
in which she drove back and forth to work She also gave union matches
to Willard Phillips, manager of the equipment division
it was made in jest.
On October 31, according to Porterfield's testimony,
corroborated by Brumfield, she and Brumfield along with
some other employees including a Frances Parish were at
the back door of the plant at the end of a shift soliciting
card signatures While they were thus engaged Plant
Manager John Harris and Gerald L Kapico, head of the
components division, were observing them. About this
occasion Porterfield testified as follows:
They [Harris and Kapico] were walking repeatedly
by the sidewalk where we were getting cards signed,
and they all of a sudden disappeared. Evidently they
went in a door, maybe in the shipping department, and
we were standing out there looking at the cards and
they walked down the steps -
*
Mr. Harris walked up and said, "Hi." We said,
"Hi" and we turned our back, and he stepped in
between us as if to take the cards out of Miss Parish's
hands.
* * * * *
he reached over as if to get the cards out of her
hands.
I grabbed the cards and ran to her car
* * * * *
We [next] drove over to the shipping department, the
other side of the building, there was a girl on night shift
was going to sign a card, and we hadn't got that card,
so we drove over there to pick it up, and Ted Opyr, one
of the supervisors, went over and asked the girl if he
could see the card. And she said, "What card?" And at
that point, he just turned around and walked off.
* * * * *
[At that point] Jerry [Kapico] walked up to the car
and he said, "Look girls, I know what you are doing.
You are getting union cards signed "
Frances said, "Yes, we are, but we are on our own
time It is after 4 o'clock."
And he said, "I know you are on your own time, but
you are on our property, the company premises."
And she said, "Well, had you rather we would leave
after we get off work?" And he said, "Yes, I had "
When asked on direct examination if he had seen "Mrs.
Porterfield and some other employees signing up cards in
the parking lot" Kapico answered, "As far as . seeing
someone sign a card, no, sir." He was then asked
specifically if he recalled anything concerning the instance
about which Porterfield had testified. This question he
answered as follows.
I recall one particular time where I had to go out
into the parking lot to start dispersing the people that
had come off shift before the other people could get
into the parking lot We had quite a problem there, at
that particular time This was involving approximately
250 employees, and we didn't have adequate parking
spaces for both the day shift and night shift to come
into the parking lot at the same time. So it was brought
to my attention that there was some straggling, which
had never occurred previously, straggling of people in
the parking lot from the day shift Knowing of the
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
congestion that could be caused by cars coming and
going, I did go out, and I did ask the girls if they
wouldn't mind leaving the parking lot when they got off
work.
In his further testimony Kapico denied ever telling "any
employees that they couldn't engage in card signing or
card solicitation on company property or their own time"
and denied interfering in any way with such action As for
his supervisors' conduct in this connection he testified
I informed my supervisors who were a little upset
over girls within their sections that had these cards and
were signing in the lunchroom area, and I told the
foreman then that as long as they are on their own
time, during their breaks and their lunch period, before
work or after work, they are never to interfere with the
signing of these cards
In his testimony Harris also claimed to have instructed
"everybody in supervision" not to interfere with
employees engaged in card solicitation "as long as they
were doing it on their own time." About the Porterfield
incident, he testified as follows
I went to the back door where Mr Kapico was
observing the flow of traffic in the parking lot in the
back and there were two of the girls at the base of the
steps Mrs. Porterfield was one of them '
* * * * *
I went down the steps and as I approached the two
of them they were facing each other with something in
between them. As I walked up I said, "Hi" and they
flushed like quail, one grabbing the cards from the
other, and they both hurried off to a car, and it wasn't
until then that I realized what they had between their
hands . and it struck me as being humorous that
they would feel guilty and run off this way
Harris also testifiid that he raised his hand when he said
"Hi" to the card solicitors but denied that he made any
attempt to grab the cards out of their hands. He further
testified that he had seen employees in the lunchroom and
other places who he "assumed were soliciting [union]
members" but that he never did see anybody sign a card
I credit the General Counsel's evidence on this matter
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
former employee Elizabeth Cribb, on December 15, she
and Violet Lumley in company with Union Organizer
Williams were handbilling at the plant while Harris,
Kapico, and a couple of other management people stood
in the office window watching them.
According to Brumfield's undenied and credited
testimony Phillips and her supervisor, King, on at least
one occasion, stood and watched her and others getting
cards signed on the parking lot And on another occasion
in the second week of November, Supervisor Oliver
Cherry saw her sign up employee Lou McPhail in the
lunchroom Brumfield also testified credibly that on
November 20, she attended the representation hearing in
Winston-Salem as a union witness and that Harris and
James Funkhauser, corporate director of personnel, were
present
According to Porterfield's undenied and credited
testimony, sometime after November 6 she and Supervisor
Ray Adcock had a conversation at her worktable about
'He further testified that at the time of Porterfield ' s discharge he did not
recall this incident until Porterfield reminded him of it in her exit
interview
the Union She asked Adcock if he didn't believe in
fighting for what he believed in He said, "Well, if that's
what you believe in, 0 K "
C Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
Elizabeth Cribb testified that on November 6, she was
present when Ed Tyler, component quality control head,
had a conversation with girls on the second shift
One of the girls asked Mr. Tyler about profit
sharing, if we would get our profit sharing if the union
came in, and he said no, we would not, that the girls
that were eligible for it would lose out whether they
were for the union or against the union And the
conversation went on about profit sharing, and then he
asked us if we realized that the company could be
located in Puerto Rico or Mexico
* * * *
You see, the reason they moved to North Carolina
was because the help was well qualified and the wages
were lower, and that's when he said the plant could
have been located in Mexico or Puerto Rico
* * * * *
He said the plant might close down and move to
Mexico or Puerto Rico.
Charlotte James, a current employee, testified that
early in December Tyler had gone to the matrix testing
department accompanied by Harris where "some of the
girls apparently asked him about the profit sharing " She
heard Tyler "tell the girls that if the union came in, they
would not get their profit sharing, but if it did not, they
would get their profit sharing " She did not hear Harris
say anything on this occasion
Tyler did not testify In his testimony Harris, although
not alluding to James' testimony, admitted that he had
indicated to employees that there might "be some doubt
about whether or not they would get the succeeding profit
sharing checks." He also denied that he had ever told the
employees "that they definitely would not" get their
profit-sharing checks if the Union came in. I credit Cribb
and James in the foregoing testimony
According to Cribb's further testimony, on November
7, Harris conducted a meeting with the girls of the second
shift At this meeting the question was asked if the Union
came in would the employees get their profit-sharing
checks? Harris' answer was, "No, ma'am "
Cribb also testified about a meeting of the second shift
girls on November 20 in the lunchroom conducted by
Respondent's Treasurer McDermit and attended by Harris
and Respondent's President Eichert. About what
McDermit said on this occasion, she testified as follows
He started with the plea that the girls give him a
couple of more years, give Technitrol a couple more
years to get on their feet, that it was a new plant and
that they had "growing pains," and he was talking
about the strike in Philadelphia and he asked us if we
realized that more people had lost their jobs since the
union came in in Philadelphia than they had in the
history of the plant.
This stands undenied in the record and I credit it.
According to Cribb's further testimony, McDermit also
conducted another meeting of about half the second shift
girls on December 26 in the lunchroom. Eichert was
present again as was Corporate Director of Personnel
Funkhauser On this occasion McDermit told the
TECHNITROL, INC.
employees that the reason Respondent had "moved to the
Research Triangle' was because the governor of North
Carolina had promised them that they would never be
bothered with a union, and . before the union would
boss them around, they would shut the plant down and
move to Mexico or Puerto Rico " The testimony about
moving the plant to Mexico or Puerto Rico stands
undenied and is credited.6
According to Violet Lumley's testimony, on November
6 she attended, with a group of her coworkers, one of
several meetings being conducted by Kapico Present at
the time were supervisors Adcock, Dwayne House, and
Max Sauls. Harris appeared later on About what was
said at this meeting Lumley testified as follows-
. he talked to us about how the percentages was
being evaluated and later on in the discussion, some of
the girls got to asking him questions, and it got into a
union discussion
* * *
. one particular thing I remember about that meeting
was I asked Mr Kapico a direct question I asked him
if he didn't believe in fighting for what he thought was
right, and he said, "Yes, I do " And I told him, "Well,
I thought that this was right and that was one thing I
was going to do, to fight for what I though was right."
*
I thought the Union was what we needed
* * * * *
I don't remember what his statement was to that. I also
told him, I pointed to the button that I had on,
Volunteer Organizer, and I said, "You can fire me for
that."
And he looked directly at the button and he said, "I
can't fire you as long as you wear that button."
And I said, "Well you maybe can't for union activities,
but you can find some other reason."
he said, "We aren ' t going to do that."
* * * *
He talked to us about the profit sharing and it was
mentioned several times.
He mentioned several times that if the union came in,
we would not get our profit sharing
Louise F Cates, a current employee, testified that on
November 7 Kapico told Cates, who was at her work with
a group of 4 or 5 other girls, that if the Union came in
they "would not get any profit sharing, but if the Union
did not come in that [they] would get it." He also told her
(1) that the Respondent "would not negotiate with a union
'Roughly the Chapel Hill, Durham area
'Neither McDermit nor Eichert testified and there was no showing that
the" were unavailable as witnesses Although Funkhauser testified his only
denial of the foregoing was that McDermit did not say anything about the
reason for the move to the Research Triangle
1237
because he called the union a third party, because they
didn't want to and didn't have to", (2) that if the Union
came in they would move the plant, and (3) that if the
Union came in the employees "would be put on
standards"' that would lust about double the work they
would have to do As to how this conversation got started,
Cates testified as follows
Well, I• was going back to my working area when Sue
said that we were doing the union's dirty work for
them, and I said, "We are not doing anybody's dirty
work."
And Jerry said, "Oh, yes, you are " And so then -
that's when I was going back on - he said, "Well, I
can prove it by Mr Adcock."
And that's how the conversation got started
According to Cates, Kapico did not say that he was
talking about the standard in effect at the Philadelphia
plant but only said that they "would be put on standards
if the union came in" and would have more work to do.
During the same week in which the foregoing
conversation took place, according to Porterfield's
testimony, Kapico told another group of employees "that
they could move the plant somewhere else if the union
bargaining agent came in." He also told them about the
Philadelphia plant being on standards and said that the
Durham plant "would be put on standards, too, if the
union came in." He also said that the employees would
not get their profit-sharing payments if the Union came in
On November 29, according to Brumfield's testimony,
one of the three girls on her wire wrapping table called
her supervisor, Jack King, over and asked him something
about the profit-sharing program. King said he did not
know the answer but would find out and left them
apparently for that purpose Impatient during King's
absence, the girl called Tyler over and was talking to him
about the profit sharing matter when Kapico came over
She then addressed herself to Kapico about the matter
and he informed her that the employees would not get the
profit-sharing payments if the Union came in
Kapico admitted in his direct testimony that during the
months of November and December he discussed the
subject of the Durham plant going on standards He
indicated to employees that standards would be higher
than the production requirements of the RHE system
being used in the Durham plant According to Kapico's
testimony the subject came up as a result of a question
coming from the employees indicating that they "would
like to have standards." He claims to have replied to
them, "Yes, and we ourselves would like to have
standards, but I don't particularly care for standards
because the standards are set on a time study basis "
On cross-examination he denied that the employees had
indicated a desire to be put on standards and testified that
they asked about them only after he had first brought the
subject up.
Except for this testimony of Kapico, there was no
denial by him of the comments attributed to him in the
'Standards , or standard rates, were in use in Respondent's WE
unionized Philadelphia plant Such rates are based upon industrial
engineering time and motion studies and , according to Kapico, are "always
quite a bit higher than the RHE levels" that were in effect in the
Durham plant The term RHE stands for " reasonable hourly expectancy "
Such rates are apparently based on the average production of a group of
employees regardless of their proficiencies
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foregoing testimony of Lumley, Cates, and Brumfield -
all of which I credit.
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
former employee Annie Walton, on November 17, she and
her supervisor, Jose Perez, had a conversation about the
Union at her work station as follows.
He was talking about the union, and I said, "Jose, how
do you feel about it?"
And he said, "Well, I am a supervisor and I can't say
either way," and he said, "If the girls keep on, they are
going to move the plant to Puerto Rico or Mexico,
where they can get cheap wages."
According to Walton's further testimony, on November
8, Plant Manager Harris told a group of girls in the
matrix section that "they would not get their profit
sharing checks if the union came into the plant " She
further testified that on November 14, in a more formal
setting when Harris had called the matrix section together,
he made a similar statement.
Brumfield testified that on November 17 Harris called
a meeting of employees in what they called the old section
of the building and, reading from a paper, said "that he
did not want the IUE or any other union in that plant,
that they would do everything they could to keep it out,$
and if the union came [the employees], would not get any
more and would possibly get less."
In his testimony Harris admitted that he "probably"
told employees "that the union might cause them to have
less by way of benefits rather than more" explaining that
he "most likely indicated that they would be negotiated "
He also admitted telling employees in speeches or groups
that there might "be some doubt about whether or not
they would get the succeeding profit sharing checks," but
denied saying that they definitely would not receive the
payments. On the basis of this evidence I credit the above
testimony of Walton and Brumfield except that I find that
Harris did say he would use lawful means in opposing the
Union.
Walton testified that-in a speech given by Funkhauser
in the lunchroom on November 17, at which Harris and
McDermit were present, Funkhauser told the employees
that he was a new man in the Company and if they would
give him time "he try to straighten the company out";
that "he did not want a union in the plant and he would
do everything he could to keep the union out of
Technitrol."'
Funkhauser testified that-he has responsibility for labor
relations in both the Philadelphia and the Durham plants,
and that from November I to the end of the year he was
in the Durham plant 2 or 3 days a week "to ascertain
what some of the problems were, why the ' people were
requesting . . . a union representative. " and to try to
defeat the Union if an 'election was ordered He also
admitted that his purpose in coming to Durham was "to
find out what the weak spots were that the Union could
take advantage of and plug them up...."
Funkhauser testified that in the Philadelphia plant the
Union "had negotiated profit sharing for their unit out for
the entire year of 1967" - even that part which had
already accrued. About his comments concerning the
status of the Durham plant's profit sharing, he testified as
'On cross-examination Brumfield admitted that Harris had said he
"would use all lawful and proper means that the company could to keep
the union out "
'In his testimony Funkhauser stated that he had told the employees on
numerous occasions that he would do everything he could "legally and
lawfully to defeat" the Union in an election I credit Funkhauser here
follows:'
When the question was asked "Will we receive our
profit sharing checks9" I said, "As far as I know you
will,, but I can't guarantee it. If the bargaining unit
comes in, it may be a subject of negotiation. They may
want to give that up for something else I wish I could
guarantee it, but I can't."
But at no time did I state point blank that they would
not receive it In fact, their December payment that was
due then for the first half earnings of 1967, 1 personally
gave out to the people in the Durham facility.
It was a point of doubt in my mind that they might
want to give that up in lieu of other benefits, and 1 so
stated, because of our experience in Philadelphia.
According to his further testimony "to the best of [his]
knowledge" no one in supervision had at Durham made
any flat statement to the employees that they would not
get their accrued profit-sharing checks. Indeed, he had
"instructed them otherwise" - i.e., to tell them that the
Union might want to "negotiate [profit sharing] out in
lieu of other benefits" and that the Company could not
guarantee it at that point. When asked if he had been
present when Durham supervisors had talked about this
subject with employees he indicated that he had - "both
corporate level supervisory personnel and local
management " At first he could not recall a specific
instance to relate but then recalled "one occasion with the
second shift personnel in which Mr. Harris did answer a
question in a manner ... as . . . described "
8(a)(1) Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing credited testimony I
conclude and find that Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by the following conduct:
1. The repeated assurances of various of Respondent's
supervisors that the employees would not get their
profit-sharing checks if the Union came in.10
2. The several threats that the plant would, could, or
might be moved if the Union came in "
3. Kapico's remarks to Cates and several other
coworkers on November 7, that Respondent would not
negotiate with the Union.
4 Kapico's remarks on the same foregoing occasion
and on at least one other occasion that if the Union came
in the plant would be put on standards thus increasing the
workload.
D Discrimination
I Lumley
Lumley worked for Respondent from June 20, 1966, to
November 16, 1967, when she was discharged About her
"About this subject , even if Funkhauser had said to the employees what
he testified he told them and had heard Harris on one occasion also speak
in a like vein to them (which did not appear from Harris' testimony), it
would not counter or balance the numerous other undenied occasions
revealed in this record that other supervisors as well as Harris on other
occasions had spoken about the loss of the profit -sharing checks without
any-qualifications whatsoever other than the advent of the Union
"Whether voiced as a certainty or as a possibility, the coercive and
illegal effect of the remarks was there
TECHNITROL, INC. 1239
discharge and the circumstances surrounding it, Lumley
testified as follows
Well, that morning Tony walked by, our group leader,
and I asked him, I said, "Tony, will you tell Mr.
Adcock that Judy Wall and I would like to have our
percentages for Tuesday and Wednesday" - I believe it
was it was for two days.
And he said, "Well, I'll have to ask Mr. Adcock.""
And when he went over and talked to Mr Adcock - I
assume, I didn't see him talking to him and I didn't
hear what he said - but he came back and he said that
he would have to give them to us by the week from now
on.
And so when he told me that, I said, "Well, Tony,
would you go tell Mr Adcock I'd like to talk to him."
* * * *
He went back over to where Mr. Adcock was, stayed a
few minutes, and Tony Fisher, Mr. Adcock and Grant
Moore came back to where I was working. And Mr.
Adcock walked up to the table and stood directly
behind me, and I told him, I said, "Mr Adcock, you
promised Judy and I that you would give us our
percentages by the day" and before I could say
anything else to him he jumped on me and he said,
"Polly, I am an old man, but nobody can call me an
old man "
And I said, "Mr Adcock, who said that?"
And he said, "Tony came over and said you told him to
tell old man Adcock to come over to you."
And I told him, I looked directly at Tony, and I said,
"Well, Mr Adcock, I will have to call Tony a liar,
because I didn't say it "
*
So he told me then, "I can write you out a pink slip
and pay you off now," and I didn't say anything else,
and he turned around to walk off and took a couple of
steps or so, and turned back around to me and said,
"Polly, are you calling Tony a liar?"
And I said, "Yes, sir, I am." And he left and he went
over to his desk or somewhere
* * *
a few minutes later, maybe five minutes or so, we
went on break, and instead of going to the lunch area
like I usually did on breaks, I went to the restroom
because I was pretty upset, and I stayed in the restroom
"According to Lumley ' s credited testimony Adcock and House had
talked to her and Wall on November 8, about their production
percentages The two employees said they would make every effort to
improve and were required to sign statements acknowledging their low
production and in effect making commitments to bring it up within 2
weeks Lumley said that she would sign the warning but that she wanted a
copy of it She was told that she couldn't have a copy of it but that there
would be a copy in her personnel file Lumley replied , "Well, there had
better be because you may need it " As part of the transaction Adcock
promised to give the two employees their production averages on a daily
basis rather than weekly basis as was the practice This he had done for a
few days prior to November 16
during the break. Charlotte James came in there and
Judy Wall came and brought me a coca cola, and I
asked Judy while I was in there if she would go out and
ask Mr Adcock if he would let me go home.
Because I was upset and I just felt - and I do have a
temper, and I was trying very hard to control it,
because I respect Mr. Adcock.
Well, she went out and told him, and he sent her back,
sent me my lunch and my time card, and told her to tell
me that he wanted to talk to me before I left
I told Judy to go back and tell him that I would talk to
him but that I was upset and I didn't know whether I
could come back out there to the working area or not,
so she went over and told him and came back and told
me that Mr. Adcock said he would meet me at the time
clock
*
He told me as I walked up to the timeclock," he said,
"Polly, I want you to come back here with me. I want
to talk to you" And I said, "Well, Mr. Adcock, why
can't I talk to you here9" I said , "I just don't feel like I
can
And he said, "Well, Polly, as of this time, you are
terminated "
.. all I could say was "0 K " I asked him did he want
to give me a pink slip then, and he said, "No It will be
in the office, and your check will be mailed to you."
And I told him, "O.K "
And he said, "Polly, I'm sorry
And I told him, "Well, its not your fault." And I left
then and went home
In her testimony Lumley denied referring to Adcock as
"old man Adcock." Her termination slip stated that she
was discharged for "using abusive language to supervisory
personnel." At the hearing I sustained an objection to a
question posed to Lumley by the General Counsel to have
her tell what findings had been made in an unemployment
compensation hearing on her discharge Thereupon the
General Counsel made the following offer of proof which
I rejected
If this witness were allowed to testify, this witness
would testify that the Unemployment Compensation
Commission of North Carolina found that she was not
discharged for cause In addition, this witness would
testify that no company official appeared at the
unemployment compensation to contest her discharge.
While I still believe that the weight to be given an
unemployment compensation hearing decision as such is
so minimal as to make its receipt in evidence a matter of
"According to Lumley, Grant Moore and Tony Fisher were with
Adcock at the time
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discretion to the Trial Examiner, I believe that claims or
contentions in such a hearing that materially differ from
those subsequently made in an unfair labor practice
hearing have a more probative value and should be
received In like vein, the fact that the discharging
Company failed to make an appearance in support of its
discharge should also be received. Accordingly, I hereby
reverse my ruling and accept the General Counsel's offer
of proof
Lumley had been transferred to a new department
along with seven other girls a matter of weeks before she
was discharged because of a lack of work in her old
department According to her undenied and credited
testimony this occurred sometime in September At that
time she was told that even though they had run out of
work they were keeping her on the payroll until they could
find some more work for her.
Lumley had worked under Willard Phillips' supervision
for "roughly 8 months " About her work he testified as
follows
in the beginning, she started on wire wrap, and her
production was not such that we could afford to leave
her on wire wrapping, so I put her on what I thought
was an easier job, which was in the cable forming or the
assembly, and she didn't do anything exceptional on
that or even average, so I moved her to another job,
hoping she would make it there
was made to terminate her
Fisher further testified that he knew of no arrangement to
give Lumley her production figures daily and further that
at no time during that week or the preceding week had he
given her any According to him, the abusive language she
was charged with was calling Adcock "old man Adcock"
and calling Fisher a liar
Kapico testified that the Lumley matter was brought to
his attention by Adcock as follows
Well, he was sort of upset I don't know his exact
words I do believe he mentioned that it was upsetting
He made reference that he did not care to be called an
old man from his workers, which he was just called, and
I asked him to explain the situation to me, and he told
me that Tony Fisher was stopped by Mrs Lumley as
she had been asking some sort of question - I'm not
too sure about the question - I can't remember
verbatim I heard Tony Fisher's testimony, and this is
exactly what it was like, saying that he was told -
Mrs Lumley told Tony Fisher to go tell the "Old
Man" or "That Old Man" I want to see him
I told him to go down and confront her with the
situation, and find out what she wanted
It was easier.
And then the occasion arose - I had to lose eight
people - and so I transferred her to the other side,
another job I thought was still easier, hoping she would
make it there
Tony Fisher became the group leader over Lumley just
a few days before her discharge i°
According to his testimony on the occasion that
Lumley had asked him for her production figures he told
her he didn't have them but would try to get them for her
About what then happened he testified as follows
Mr Sauls said there wasn't any need to give out
percentages unless someone was falling low and needed
to be warned about them I went back and told Mrs
Lumley this and she at that time said, "Tell Old Man
Adcock to come over here. I've got a few things I want
to tell him "
And I went and told Mr. Adcock what she had said.
We then went to Mr Kapico and told him the situation,
and he told Mr Adcock to go to her and confront her
with it. We did so. She denied it and called me a liar
three times
Then we went back to Mr. Kapico.
*
Mr Adcock and myself, and I believe Frank Moore
was with us at the time He was the other group leader
in the assembly section We told Mr Kapico what had
happened He called in Mr Harris, and the decision
"He testified that this was about mid-November Lumley was discharged
November 16
He then came back to me and said, "She is now calling
Tony a liar "
At that point Kapico called Harris over and "explained
the situation to him" at which time the discharge decision
was made According to Kapico's further testimony he
was upset when he heard that Lumley had referred to
Adcock as an old man He felt that this was quite serious
- serious enough for a discharge When asked if he had
given Lumley "a chance to give her side of the story
before discharging her" his answer was, "Why should 19"
According to Harris' testimony it was reported to him
that when Lumley asked for her productivity records
Fisher told her that "to be informed daily, they thought,
was unnecessary " He was also informed that at Lumley's
reference to "old man Adcock" had been made
sarcastically and loud enough for employees in her
immediate vicinity to hear. When asked if he was aware
of any instances as plant manager of matters similar to
the Lumley matter he sat mute for some time and finally
answered as follows:
Well, the reason I am hesitating to answer is that it
wasn't just the statement that I decided to discharge her
for
It was the derogatory statement in conjunction with
ordering a supervisor around, telling him to come here,
go there, jump through the loop, in that category She
was undermining the supervisor's authority
* * * * *
She did this through using abusive language.
Like Kapico, Harris never talked to Lumley about the
matter
TECHNITROL, INC. 1241
That profanity and cursing was in commonplace usage
by and between rank-and-file and supervisory employees is
shown by the undenied and credited testimony of several
witnesses. Thus, according to the testimony of Iris
Linthicum, cursing between the employees and the
supervisors "was an every day occurrence." She, herself,
had told her group leader and her supervisor-to go to hell
on several occasions She also testified as follows about an
incident in mid-August 1967 when she had called her
group leader a "damned liar":
Well on this particular day that I spoke to Dwayne, he
brought me two trays of work and it was hard work,
and there were only two hundred in that order, and the
quota was one hundred per hour in that unit, and I
asked him why I had to have both trays of work when
there were only two hundred in the order, and he said,
"Because I gave them to you."
And I said, "Dwayne, I cannot make my quota on that
unit It is not fair that I have both trays."
And he said, "Well, that's the reason you meet your
quota now, because you handed in work that you did
not do."
And I said, "You are just a damned liar. I do not hand
in work that I don't do."
And at that point he called Mr. Adcock over there and
he said, "Mr. Adcock, did you hear what Iris called
me?"
And Mr. Adcock said, "No, I didn't. What?"
And I said, "I'll tell you what I called him " I said, "I
called him a damned liar and he is a damned liar" I
said, "I did not hand in work that I didn't do, and he
said that I did."
According to Linthicum's further testimony Adcock
just laughed and walked off She was not discharged or
reprimanded in any way for it.
Lumley testified that on several occasions she heard
employees call House a liar without being discharged for
doing so. She also testified that Willard Phillips used
profanity in the plant "like every day conversation" and
illustrated with some examples including one about which
she testified as follows:
I remember one particular instance we were trying to
get some parts shipped out that afternoon, and Ray
Stilly who checked them all before they had to go out
- I was standing right beside Mr Phillips and as we
put them in the box, Ray Stilly would take them out.
This made Mr Phillips mad, and he took a screwdriver,
and he picked it up like he might be going to hit him -
I didn't know what - I just stood there. He turned
around and he told Ray, he said, "God dammit, as fast
as I put them in there you take it out." And he took off
across the floor and he was calling him [Stilly] son of a
bitches and everything else.
Stephenson also testified that she had heard supervisors
curse on "many occasions" citing as an example Kapico.
On one occasion Smith had asked her if Kapico's cursing
bothered her She replied, "No, sir, as long as he does not
curse me personally."
Linthicum testified credibly and without denial that she
had heard Fisher himself call Adcock an old man. It was
on an occasion when Fisher and Adcock were sitting at a
table directly behind her engaged in taping Fisher made a
remark, "Well, the old man can tape, can't he9" Adcock
laughed and said, "sure I can tape "
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
Brumfield, Adcock, on occasion, referred to himself as an
old man. To this effect she described an incident that
occurred sometime in November 1967, when Adcock
learned that she was going to attend a show in Raleigh
that evening in which Adcock was going to play the part
of a clown. He told Brumfield that "the old man" would
look for her. This he did, coming by that night in his
clown suit to speak to her.
2. Porterfield
Porterfield worked for Respondent from March 1966 to
December 1, 1967, when she was discharged. On
November 9, Adcock had talked to her about her
production being too low and requested her to make an
effort to improve. A couple of weeks later she was again
warned,15 this time in writing and given 2 weeks to show
improvement. This warning she was required to
acknowledge with her signature From November 9 to this
time she had been out sick several days and also had been
transferred to another department because of a lack of
work. The result was that she had put in only 9 hours on
taping during the 2 weeks in which she was to show
improvement in that work.
On December 1, a Friday, she could have taken off
because of a lack of work but decided to go in because
she had been out part of the week due to illness. When
she got to work, however, she felt indisposed and told her
group leader, Tony Fisher, that she wished she had taken
the day off. He said, "Well, it's not too late now if you
want to take it." At the start of her shift she had 200
large units left over to do from the day before. They were
difficult for her, she could do only 45 or 50 per hour,
while the quota for them was 100 an hour Because Kitty
Smith "was pretty fast on this unit" she asked Fisher if
Smith could do them He said , "no." Fisher then gave her
5 more trays of 100 units each upon which the quota was
70 an hour. As for what took place at this point
Porterfield testified as follows.
I said, "I'll be glad when I get through with this 200
so I can start on the 500 split wires."
And he looked at me and kind of sneared, and said,
"Oh, you have to do Joann's work." The girl next to
me took the day off She had 70 large units."
And I told him, "Tony, I don't think that's fair. You
know I can't possibly do this all in an eight hour period
of time." And I asked him could I get off and so he
went back and talked with Mr. Adcock a few minutes,
and he came back with Mr. Adcock, and Mr. Adcock
said, "Betty, don't you ever refuse to do any work "
And I said, "Mr Adcock, have I ever refused to do
any work for you?"
And he said, "don't you ever refuse to do any work
for Tony either."
At this point Adcock told Fisher to get Kapico.
Porterfield said, "Well, if you are going to get him you
may as well fire me." Adcock said, "No, I'll go back and
talk with Gerry myself." He was gone a few minutes and
when he returned he had a pink slip. Porterfield went over
to this desk and asked if she was discharged. Adcock
apparently indicated that she was and said, "I'm sorry."
She asked why and Adcock told her that "Gerry will
determine what will be put on the slip." Her separation
"Several other employees were also similarly warned at this same time
"From her cross-examination it is clear that this 70 units was in addition
to the 200 she had left over and the 500 smaller units she had been given
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice gave as the reason for her termination that the
"Employee was fired for insubordination. She refused to
do the work given her."
In her further testimony she denied that she refused to
do any work given her. She also testified about an
occasion in 1966 when Iris Linthicum had told her group
leader, Dwayne House, that a certain assignment was too
much for her to do and refused to do it. House thereupon
gave it to Porterfield to do. Linthicum was not
discharged. At her unemployment compensation hearing
the Company stated as an additional reason for her
discharge that she refused to leave. As for this matter she
testified as follows.
Mr. Adcock did tell me that I could leave at 9.00
o'clock that day and I said I was so nervous I couldn't
do any work after that, or him after saying it. He said,
"Well, you can leave now," and I said, "I can't leave
now. I ride with someone regular and she is not going
to get off until lunch. If I can just wait until lunch, I
will go home then "
According to her further testimony Harris told her, at
11:30, that Linthicum could take her home.
There is no question that Fisher did not tell Porterfield
that she would have to finish all the work before her on
this occasion. It was not unusual to have work left over at
the end of the day on occasion, and Porterfield had herself
left work from time to time without comment about it to
her. Nevertheless she also testified that Adcock had told
her employees were expected to complete what they were
given to do each day. She further testified that she "had
never been given such an unfair amount of work and . .
thought [she] was expected to do it within an 8 hour
period."
On cross-examination Porterfield testified that when she
told Fisher she wished she had stayed home and he replied
that "its not too late now," she indicated that she wanted
to go and he went back and talked to Adcock. Adcock
thereupon gave her permission to leave. This was at 9:30.
She told Adcock she had no way to get home. He replied
that "he would see about it." But she heard nothing more
about it until 11:30 when Harris said Linthicum could
take her home. She also claimed that she continued
working until she was told that she was terminated.
Between 9:30 and 11.30 she went to talk to Kapico with
Adcock's permission. About what was said at this time
she testified as follows:
I asked him not to fire me because of the fact it was
just before Christmas and I have four children and I
am their support, and I needed the work. I said I was
sorry, and he said that I was guilty or I wouldn't say I
was sorry. And I said, "No, I'm sorry for losing my
job right now because I need the work," and I asked
him wouldn't I get my profit sharing, and he said he
was sorry, no, that I wouldn't get it.
And so I don't remember - except one more thing
- he said, "I am not going to talk to you anymore
because I know you are going to see your lawyer."
And I said, "What lawyer?"
And he said, "You know what lawyers Your union
lawyers "
And I said, "You bet I am
About Porterfield's discharge Kapico testified as follows:
As best I can recall, Mr. Adcock and Tony Fisher, the
group leader, approached me at or near my desk, within
the area there, and told me that they had had Mrs.
Porterfield refuse to do some work. And then I asked
them why did she refuse to do the work and they said,
"She claims that she was nervous and ill " And 1
decided then - no, I didn't make a decision then. I
asked them then to describe the circumstances to
me, and Tony proceeded to describe, along with Mr.
Adcock, the situation where he had asked her to finish
off a tray of work from a girl that wasn't there on that
day she was discharged. The girl was absent and she
was asked to do this girl's work, and they were told
that she would not do the work.
* * *
They also reported to me that she said that she was
sick, and that they had given her an opportunity to go
home. And at that time I asked them to be sure of what
they were saying, if they give her an opportunity to go
home and she refused to go home, that if this was the
case, that I would call Mr. Harris, because this was a
decision for termination.
At this period of time. . . He was consulted before
anyone was terminated
It was just the time when the activities of the union -
it was known to the company that the union was going
to become organized, to keep from anyone firing people
without just cause, to try-to keep everything above
board. Well, I should say above board - to try to keep
everthing so that we do have a just reason and not
making up reasons for firing people
According to Kapico's further testimony, Harris
"questioned them, too, to be sure of what were the exact
circumstances, and then he decided it was a cause for
termination." Kapico also testified that Adcock had told
him that he had offered Porterfield a ride home.
On cross-examination Kapico testified that it was the
Company's policy to drive girls home from the plant when
they were not feeling well "when they requested it." He
also admitted that she had asked permission to go home
on the occasion in question.
According to Fisher's testimony, Porterfield had about
140 units left over from the day before when he brought
her the current day's assignment of 400 or 500 trays of
100 units each. Joanne Wilson, who worked at
Porterfield's table, was out that day and had left over
something under 100 units from her previous day's
assignment. About what happened regarding Wilson's
unfinished work, Fisher testified as follows
I asked her if she would do these - no, I did not
ask her - I told her to do these before she went on the
others, because we wanted to clear this unit out
completely.
She then said she would not do them, and said they
made her nervous and said she would not do them.
* * * * *
At that time I went to my supervisor, who was Mr.
Ray Adcock and told him this. We went back to her
table and he asked her, and she said, "Yes, I did. I did
refuse to do them. They mace me nervous
And he said, "Well,, if Abey make you nervous, go
home, and come back tomorrow."
TECHNITROL, INC.
And she said, "I don't want to go home now. I
might go at lunch."
And he again asked her to go home, and she said,
"No " So at that time we went to Mr. Kapico about
the matter.
Later, when Fisher was asked if Porterfield had
indicated why she wanted to stay until noon, he testified
as follows:
To the best of my recollection she said that she didn't
have a way home, and at that time we told her that she
would be taken home in the company car. This is not
unusual. It is done whenever anyone is sick, and we
have taken people to the hospital on it, and usually
there is a driver and one of the secretaries goes, when
they take them home like that
The offer to take Porterfield home was made between
8:30 and 9 o'clock, according to Fisher Porterfield
refused this offer saying that she "didn't want to leave
until lunch." Fisher, in his further testimony, confirmed
that when he and Adcock returned from seeing Kapico,
Porterfield was working on her own leftover units
Harris testified that it was reported to him that when
"Adcock reviewed the problem" with Porterfield she told
him that she refused to do the work because it "made her
nervous and she didn't think she could do it." He asked
her why she did not go home then "and she replied no,
that she would stay there until twelve " He then asked if
she was going to do the work and she replied that she was
not At this point Adcock again suggested that she go
home and offered her transportation She still refused
saying she was going to slay until noon.
Notwithstanding Harris' testimony that Adcock had
offered Porterfield transportation home he further testified
as follows
after she had been discharged . I had gone back
to my office I was approached and asked if Linthicum
could have permission to take her home and we said
yes, but that she would have to punch out This is
generally the policy " We would prefer to take them
home ourselves rather than interrupt the now of
production
Harris also testified that "some of the employees may
have declined to do work when someone asked them to do
it but [he] never heard of anyone refusing to do it."
Linthicum, who had formerly worked for Respondent
about 2-1/2 years, testified credibly and without
contradiction that for approximately 2 years of her
employment with Respondent if she did not want to do
certain work she would not do it. She "would dust tell
Don Perry [her supervisor] . . that [she] was not going to
do it and . would get up and go home . " She was
never discharged or otherwise reprimanded for such
conduct. She also testified that on occasion she would tell
Adcock that she did not want to do certain work and he
would not insist on it.
According to Linthicum's further credited testimony it
was the Company's practice when they wanted unfinished
work from the day before completed for an order to give
it to the fastest workers Porterfield was considered a slow
worker. As to Porterfield's situation on the day that she
was discharged, Linthicum testified as follows:
when Jean went in that morning, she had two full
trays of a large unit - they are 100 per tray on each
"On cross-examination Harris 'e'stified that girls were not required to
punch out to take some one h e' if they didn't do it on their own
initiative . +o
1243
tray and she had two of them - which gave her 200
units. It in itself is one of our hardest units and there is
only one woman in the taping department that can do
100, which is the quota of the unit, which is 100 per
hour Then Tony Fisher gave out some more work and
he gave her 5 trays each with 100 units on it, and the
quota was 70 per hour on that Jean was not feeling
well to start with. She had been out 2 days that week
with her kidneys and she was not feeling well." She
could have been off that day if she had chosen
Linthicum also testified that the Company's practice was
to allow the employees without loss of time to take others
home when ill She denied that she had refused to take
Porterfield home because she would have had to punch
out. On the contrary, according to her, she had asked
Adcock at 9 35 if she could take Porterfield home saying,
"she's been fired, and you know she does not have a car."
Adcock said he would find out and let her know. She
never heard from him and it was not until 11 30 when
Harris and Fisher told her that she could take Porterfield
home This was during the lunch hour
3 Brumfield
Brumfield worked for Respondent from March 22,
1966, to December 18, 1967, when she was discharged On
December 4, Brumfield received a letter from the
Company concerning her absenteeism as follows
As per the letter recently circulated and posted
concerning excessive absenteeism and in compliance
with our company policy (warning letters, first offense,
three (3) days layoff, second offense, termination upon
third offense; this is to notify you that your record,
upon review, shows that you have accumulated enough
absences to be deemed excessive.
Your record will be reviewed again
Please let us know if there is anything we can do to
help bring your attendance up to an acceptable level
According to Brumfield's testimony, on the date that
she got the letter she "was having some trouble with
bronchitis" and asked her supervisor, Jack King, whether
she would be laid off 3 days "like that letter said" if she
took time off to go to the hospital King said that she
would and added that "if she missed one day after that
she would be discharged " During her next break,
Brumfield related to some of her fellow employees what
King had told her Later the same day Brumfield again
spoke to King and asked if she had understood him
correctly. He repeated what he had told the first time
On December 18, Brumfield worked until her first
break When she returned from her break her worktable
had been cleared Willard Phillips walked up to her,
"threw a paper down on the table and pointed to it and
said, `get your coat and pocketbook As of now you are
terminated.' " Brumfield asked why she was being
terminated and Phillips answered, pointing to the paper,
"for making malicious and false statements against the
Company and management."" Brumfield asked Phillips to
tell her what she had said and to whom she had said it but
Phillips refused to enlighten her
"Lmthicum further testified that she had sat with Porterfield in the
lunchroom before going to work that day and that "she was nervous and
upset and sick at her stomach at that time "
"Her termination notice gave as the reason for the termination that the
"employee was terminated for making malicious statements about the
management "
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In his testimony, King confirmed that on the day that
Brumfield got the letter she had asked him if he knew she
had gotten the letter When King said yes she asked him
what it meant According to King, he told her that "it
meant that at a later date her absenteeism would be
reviewed and if it warranted, she would receive 3 day's
layoff " King also testified later that on the day Brumfield
received the letter he "reviewed her absenteeism with her
and told her how many occasions she had left work, come
to work, how many days absent, separate days, and how
many days in a row, consecutive days she had been
absent." He also confirmed that Brumfield had
approached him a second time about the matter but
claimed that this was about a week or so after the first
conversation. This time she told King that she might
possibly have to go to the hospital and asked him if she
would be laid off in that event King "told her, referring
back to the letter, that it would be other causes than just
going to the hospital, if she did get laid off " According to
King's further testimony, Brumfield had been absent on
33 occasions in 1967 These absences included whole days
or any portion of a day as short as 5 minutes.20
Yvonne Ford, a current clerical employee called as a
witness by Respondent, testified as follows
It was break time and there were about eight girls in
the restroom and I went in, and I don't remember
whether I asked her how she was feeling, if she had
gone to a doctor or what, or somebody else asked her,
but someone asked her the question as to why she
didn't go to the doctor about the trouble she was
having, and she said, loud enough for everyone to hear
her, if she did she would be terminated for 3 days, laid
off for 3 days.
On December 18 (the day Brumfield was discharged),
after having heard what Brumfield had said in the
restroom, Ford went to see Phillips. About this she
testified
I asked him was it true if someone was out - and I
knew that she had received a letter of warning, because
I typed it - and I asked him was it true that if
someone was absent to go to the doctor, would they be
laid off for 3 days. And he said, "Of course not " And
then he asked me where I heard such a thing, and I
told him about the conversation in the restroom
From Phillips' testimony, the following would appear:
That Brumfield had received no warnings about her
absenteeism prior to the company's letter to her of
December 4, that he also had reviewed her absentee
record for 1967 and found that it involved thirty-three
occasions that she had either left work or didn't come to
work, or was in general out of work, that her record was
about twice as bad as anyone else's, that besides her 33
absences in 1967 she had incurred 34 absences in 1966
"almost all of them medical"; that when he heard
Ford's report "he took it to Mr. Harris because he had
given instructions that nobody was to be terminated unless
it had been through him and he approved of it", and that
it was his "guess" that the decision to terminate
[Brumfield] was a joint one between him and Harris.
According to Harris' testimony, when Phillips reported
to Harris what Brumfield had been telling the employees,
"Brumfield testified credibly and without denial that Phillips had told
her on December 11, when she asked to get off 5 or 10 minutes early to
get to her doctor' s appointment on time, that if she left "it would be
counted as a day's absenteeism "
he and Phillips reviewed her attendance record and, if I
understand Harris' testimony correctly, concluded that in
view of her absenteeism to that time without anything
being done to her about it "what she was saying was
untrue and rather ridiculous." He denied that any union
considerations played a part in her discharge He also
testified that part of the reason for her discharge was her
record of absenteeism in and of itself
4. Stephenson
Joan Stephenson had worked for Respondent from
November 1966 to December 18, 1967, when she was
discharged. She was a clerical employee Her immediate
supervisor, until September 1967, was Kapico and during
much of the time she worked under Kapico, she shared an
office with Harris' secretary 21 In September Stephenson
asked William Smith, material production control head, if
she could be transferred to a new job that was opening up
under his supervision When he asked Stephenson why she
wanted the job she told him that she did not like Kapico's
"I - know - it all attitude and . dust could not get
along with him "
Up until about December 13, Stephenson had been
under the impression that as a clerical employee she
would not be eligible for union membership and would not
be allowed to vote in the election On the 13th, having by
then learned that she would be included in the bargaining
unit according to her testimony, she asked one of the girls
in the plant whose name she did not know for a union
card The girl said she did not have one but would get one
and would meet her in the restroom. They met there
about 20 minutes later where Stephenson signed the card
and gave it back to the girl.
On December 14 (after she presumably had signed the
union card)" Stephenson, having learned that there was
going to be a union meeting on Sunday, December 17,
asked Smith if she could go to the meeting telling him
that now that she "was eligible to vote for the union [she]
wanted to hear both sides of it"; that she had heard the
Company's side and "didn't think it was fair to vote on
anything" without hearing both sides Smith said that as
far as he knew she could go to the meeting but that he
would call Harris and ask him This he did and told her
that Harris said she could go
Stephenson further testified that due to illness in her
family she never did attend the December 17 union
meeting and except for her having signed the union card
and having made an inquiry of Smith about going to the
union meeting she had nothing to do with the Union
whatsoever other than involved a query from a couple of
production girls at the beginning of the union campaign
about which she testified as follows
That was in the plant It was about 4 o'clock and
Carolyn Lassiter and Lou McPhail had both worked in
the plant They were production girls and they asked
me what did I think about the union, and I said, "What
union?" This was the first I heard about a union, and
they told me that they were forming a union, and I
said, "Well, I think it's good I think the Company
needs one "
'At first Harris ' secretary was a woman named Dot Ogburn, but
Ogburn was replaced by a Mrs Helen Glenn while Stephenson still worked
for Kapico
"Respondent offered testimony to show that Stephenson did not sign a
union card until after she had been discharged and that the card had been
backdated as will be more fully shown later
TECHNITROL, INC.
And she said, "Well, would you like to join? Would you
like to sign a pledge card?"
And I said, "Let me think about it, because I don't
think I will be eligible to vote or be in it, being a
clerical worker." I didn't think that we would Usually
at most places, they designate the difference
On Monday, Decmber 18, about 11 a m Stephenson
was called to Harris' office where she encountered Harris
and Smith. About what took place at this time she
testified as follows-
I said, "Good morning," of course, and then John said,
"We are terminating you as of now."
And I said, "May I ask whys"
And he said, "Yes " And he told me two reasons.
He said I could not get along with the people I worked
with, and I asked him to name dust one person I
couldn't get along with out there; that I had always
gotten along well with everybody
* * * * *
he named his secretary, Mrs Helen Glenn.
* * * * *
I asked him to name someone else after he named her,
and he made no comment
He said that I had made an abusive statement about
management, and I asked him what did I say
He said, "Well, it's rather embarrassing "
And I said, "Well, it's not going to embarrass me. You
can say ' it if I am supposed to have said it and he said,
"Well, someone told me that you called me a bastard "
* * * * *
I asked him when, and he said "About 2 weeks back "
* * * * *
At this point I was too upset to think to ask him why
* * * * *
I asked him who said it and he would not tell me.
* * * * *
I just looked him straight in the face and I said, "Do
you believe this?"
And he said, "I don't want to believe you would say
that."
And I then replied, "You must believe it, because you
are firing me for it."
* * * * *
I asked him what was the conversation. I said, "Get the
person in here We'll straighten this out." I said, "I did
not say it. I'm telling you I didn't say it." I said, "Why?"
"Get the person in here and we'll straighten it out "
And he dust made that comment, he wouldn't tell me
what made me say it - I said, "You just don't walk up
to somebody and say, `Hey, did you know that John
Harris is a bastard?' What was the conversation that
1245
made me say that you were a bastard"" And he made no
comment. He dust kept sitting there.
According to Stephenson's further testimony prior to
the discharge she had never had any member of
management suggest to her that she could not get along
with fellow employees nor any suggestion that she had
made abusive remarks about anyone in management She
also denied having called Harris a bastard or told anyone
that Harris was a bastard.
On cross-examination, when Stephenson was asked if
she had signed a union card, she answered, "No, sir."
Later when she was asked how long after the union
meeting of December 17 it was "before [she] got a union
card and signed it, or did [she] ever, sign a union card?"
She answered, "Oh, yes, I signed the union card before I
was discharged."
Respondent offered testimony by a fellow clerical
employee of Stephenson's, Rebecca Ann Daughtry,23 to
show that Stephenson had told her that she had signed a
union card after her discharge and that it had been
backdated. On rebuttal Stephenson denied this and
testified that since signing the card she learned the name
of the person who gave it to her and named that person as
being Annie Walton. In her direct testimony as a witness
called by the General Counsel there was no mention by
Walton of having given Stephenson a union card. Called
in rebuttal Walton corroborated the details of the card
signing as related by Stephenson and confirmed that it
was signed on December 13. It further appears from
Walton's testimony that she was in the courtroom during
Stephenson's testimony the previous day.
On Stephenson's cross-examination the previous day
the following colloquy occurred regarding the identity of
the person from whom she had gotten the union card
Q. How did you happen to pick this particular lady
out?
A She wore a union button and I knew she was in
the union, had something to do with the union.
Q. But you didn't know her name9
A. No
Q. Did you know where she worked?
A She worked in the assembly department. It was
right there at the dividing line. I don't know
Q. Would you recognize her if you saw her?
A. Yes, I'd know her face.
I credit Respondent's testimony here Although it has no
particular relevance so far as Stephenson's discharge is
concerned it obviously has considerable relevance
regarding both her credibility and Walton's
Regarding Stephenson's discharge Funkhauser testified
as follows.
This was on Friday as I recall. The date was the 15th of
December, in which I had spent a considerable number
of days in the Durham facility, and we [he and Harris]
were generally discussing what my findings were at that
point, what was transpiring within his own organization,
and among other things, where were the trouble spots,
what was causing trouble within the operation
On of the findings that I had come up with was in my
conversations with various management personnel, the
names specifically, Gerry Kapico, Willard Phillips, Don
Perry, George Ward, Henry Hennings, and in each and
every conversation the name Joan Stephenson would
"Daughtry admitted on cross-examination that she was against the union
and made no attempt to hide her opposition to it from her fellow
employees
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
crop up, and the context of causing them personal
problems with their operation
Stephenson. And this was my recommendation as of
Saturday, the 16th of December.
In derogatory remarks, in her manner of demanding
paperwork, in her manner of walking up with a handfull
of paperwork and just literally throwing it on the desk
and saying, "Here are your damned papers." This type
of activity.
I related this to Mr Harris during the day, and prior to
this conversation on the 15th, as being a potential sore
point within his operation
He indicated that he had been aware of this, that he
had had the same type of information being reported to
him, but was at that point not totally aware of its
severity.
* * *
I had been there for, as I recall, Wednesday, Thursday
and Friday of that particular week, and when I arrived
I was talking with Mrs Glenn, Mr. Harris' secretary.
I noticed that in our conversation she was reluctant to
speak in her normal manner to me, generally being very
open in her comments, seemingly very upset, and in my
estimation distraught in her mannerisms I questioned
her, as I was questioning other people, what was wrong,
what had happened, what was going on, was there
something I could do, was there some way I could help
Late Friday afternoon - this was a continual thing
with me, with her, through Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday. Late Friday afternoon she said, "I have been so
embarrassed that I just couldn't tell you what was
bothering me." She said, "It has been bothering me so
much I have got to tell somebody I just can't stand the
way they talk about Mr. Harris." And I said, "Who?"
And she said, "Joan Stephenson." And I said, "What
has Joan said now", in those very words. And she said,
"Mr Funkhauser, I can't tell you."
* * *
And in continuing the conversation she related that
after Joan had learned that she was to be in the
bargaining unit, that the decree had come down she was
indeed part of the bargaining unit, Joan said, in
relationship to this, "That Mr. Harris is nothing but a
bastard for what he has done to us"," in those terms -
this is what Mrs Glenn said to me.
I then, in a later conversation, Mr Harris and I had
been interrupted previously - in a conversation with
Mr. Harris on a trip to the airport from the plant,
related again to him this statement which I had already
earlier in the day had been talking about the other facts
that I had found I returned home, thought about it on
the way home, and called him Saturday morning at his
home, and made the suggestion that he might be better
off in the long run if he were to terminate Joan
"Harris had testified at the representation hearing regarding the plant
clericals According to Funkhauser it was his "understanding" that Mrs
Glenn was saying that Mrs Stephenson was referring to that decision when
she called Harris a bastard
At that time he said, "Well, I want to talk to Mrs
Glenn I want to talk to Helen" were his exact words.
"I want to be sure in my own mind." And I talked with
- as I recall Mr Harris again on Monday morning
about the time I entered the plant, and he was at that
time in the process of discharging Mrs Stephenson.
According to Funkhauser's further testimony at the
time Stephenson was discharged he knew nothing of
Stephenson's having asked about going to a union meeting
and only "learned after her discharge that she had indeed
asked to attend the union meeting and Mr Smith had
asked Mr. Harris about [it] and Mr. Harris had said,
"Yes, of course."
Harris testified that Stephenson was discharged for a
"combination" of reasons as follows
When I first took the job as plant manager, Mrs.
Stephenson shared the same office with my former
secretary
* * * *
Mrs Dorothy Ogburn. They, had frequent arguments,
loud arguments In order to try to alleviate this
situation , I had her move out of the office and into the
plant office area She was reporting to Mr Kapico at
the time and because of reporting to him, working in
close proximity to him, it seemed to be a reasonable
place to put her, because I felt that the trouble to be
just personality clashes in those two people
Then I began to get reports from Kapico that there
were more conflicts between she [sic] and some of the
group leaders that she was picking up information from
* * *
Mr Kapico wasn't terribly satisfied not really her
performance but her barking at the way he wanted
things done.
About this time another job opened up under Mr
Smith, the material production control head , where she
would be reporting to him, and it appeared she would
not have to interact with anyone else in the plant, and I
thought this would be a good solution . Mr Smith also
requested her So we transferred her from there to Mr
Smith's organization , and placed her with another girl
*
Some conflicts still kept cropping up between she [sic]
and Kapico mainly, and it was about this time that I
first learned that she had referred to me as a bastard.
This was the incident that pushed me across the
threshhold and led to the decision to discharge her
According to Harris he learned of this from
Funkhauser on the Friday before her discharge He did
not recall if Funkhauser had told him when he had
learned it. Before he discharged Stephenson he "first . .
TECHNITROL, INC.
checked back with Mrs. Glenn to see that she had actually
told Mr. Funkhauser this. [He] didn't want to act too
quickly." Apparently satisfied as to Funkhauser's veracity,
he called Stephenson's supervisor, Smith, and told him of
his decision to discharge her. They thereupon called her
into the office where Harris told her that they were
terminating her for referring to him "this way." She
denied it but he "chose to believe [his] secretary." He also
told her another reason for her discharge which was her
"numerous conflicts with other employees." She said she
was not aware of them but he explained on the witness
stand that he "had to assume that Mr Kapico had
discussed this with her on several occasions."25
Harris also testified that he "was a little surprised"
when Stephenson had asked whether or not she could go
to a union meeting. When Smith had called him about the
matter, Smith "said that the girls in his section were
inquiring whether or not they were allowed to go to the
union meeting " Smith had identified the girls as
Stephenson and Rebecca Daughtry.
Conclusions
I have set forth the testimony in some detail because I
believe that such detail is necessary to understand and
determine the full significance of what took place here.
Having considered the evidence carefully, on the record as
a whole I am convinced and find that three of the
discharges here were discriminatory within the meaning of
the Act.26
There is no question that an employer can discharge an
employee for any reason, no matter how trivial, as long as
union considerations play no part in the decision. Here on
their face, the reasons given for the discharges27 would be
adequate by many employer's standards to justify
Respondent's action But the surrounding circumstances
and the manner in which these discharges occurred point
to an underlying 'antiunion motive on the part of
Respondent indicating that the reasons given for the
discharges were in fact pretexts used to mask this
antiunion motive
Thus, of significance in this connection is Respondent's
strong opposition to the Union - strong enough to
generate serious and sustained illegal conduct on the part
of Respondent Equally significant is that in the course of
this conduct three leaders in the Union's organizing
campaign are summarily discharged. In this connection
Harris testified on direct examination that there were
other employees who "were much more active" in the
Union cause than any of the three discriminatees but he
did not indicate who they were On cross-examination he
nullified this observation by testifying in effect that
because he was not taking note of the union activity of the
employees he "wasn't making a determination of who was
"When on a motion of the General Counsel I ruled that what Harris
"assumed" be striken Harris volunteered , "All right , Mr Kapico said that
he had discussed his conflicts with the group leaders in particular with
her" On cross-examination he testified that Kapico had reported to him
"over an extended period several times" about his conflict with
Stephenson and her "causing a lot of trouble " with the group leaders
There was nothing in Kapico ' s testimony to this effect nor about
Stephenson in any respect whatsoever
"I am referring to Lumley , Porterfield , and Brumfield For reasons
which will appear I do not believe that the General Counsel has proved by
the necessary preponderance of the evidence that Stephenson ' s discharge
violated the Act
"In this connection I believe and find that Lumley referred to Adcock as
old man Adcock and that Stephenson called Harris a "bastard "
1247
doing more or who was doing less" on behalf of the
Union Clearly, if the three discriminatees were not the
leaders in the union campaign they were certainly active
enough to give Respondent considerable pause in its
avowed purpose to "find out what the weak spots were
that the union could take advantage of and plug them
up"" and to defeat it in an election
In the context of these two broad considerations let us
examine the evidence in more detail as to each discharge
5. Porterfield
In my opinion the evidence in the case of Porterfield
reveals a continuing vein of discrimination against her
beginning with Fisher's assignment of work to her on the
day of her discharge. Since Porterfield was a slow worker
the sensible and what I find to have been the normal
procedure would have been to give Wilson's leftovet work
to someone faster. That Porterfield' s earnings were not
contingent upon the amount of her production, and that
she may not have been required to finish all the work
assigned to her does not mean that it was not hoped or
expected that she finish it This would seem to follow
from the fact that work was assigned on a daily basis In
view of this, to be assigned an amount of work way
beyond the capacity of the employee to perform would be
disconcerting if for no other reason than because of the
adverse long-term effect it could be expected to have on
the employer's evaluation of the employee's efficiency.
This apparently is what motivated Linthicum in her
refusal to take on certain assignments and may explain
Harris' testimony that employees may have declined work
on occasion but had not refused it - a nice distinction
Whether or not Porterfield refused to do the work,
according to Fisher's testimony when Fisher returned with
Adcock and Porterfield admitted the refusal to him,
Adcock said, "Well, if they make you nervous, go home,
and come back tomorrow." At this point, according to
Fisher's first version, Porterfield simply refused to leave,
saying that she might go home at lunchtime On his
second version Fisher testified that Porterfield had
indicated to Adcock that she could not go home because
she had no transportation Thereupon, according to
Fisher, Adcock offered to have her taken home and,
enigmatically, she still refused to leave. I am convinced
and find that Respondent made no such offer to
Porterfield and failing to do so went contrary to its
admitted practice further displaying its discriminatory
attitude toward Porterfield.
In addition to the foregoing, Kapico's testimony reveals
some interesting sidelights. From it, it would at first
appear that Kapico's initial reaction when he learned that
Porterfield had refused to do some work because she was
ill, was to make a decision. Thus he started to testify,
"and I decided then," but reconsidered and said, "No, I
didn't make a decision then." What he did then, according
to his testimony, was to have Adcock and Fisher go over
the Porterfield matter for him again in detail at which
time they did so reiterating that Porterfield had refused to
do the work maintaining that she was ill and had refused
to accept "an opportunity to go home." Now Kapico had
all the facts he needed for his delayed decision. He now
would call Harris "because this was a decision for
"This statement in itself indicts Respondent on the caliber of its
conduct It could hardly be said that anything in Sec 8 (c) or anywhere else
in the Act sanctions such action in opposition to the rights guaranteed
employees in Sec 7
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
termination . " and all terminations at this time were
going through Harris because of the union campaign. In
this connection according to Kapico Respondent's purpose
was "to try to keep everything above board ... to try to
keep everything so that we do have a just reason and not
making up reasons for firing people " In my opinion,
Kapico's testimony together with the rest of the evidence
on Porterfield's discharge clearly demonstrates
Respondent's purpose to seize upon a pretext to eliminate
a strong and active union supporter
6. Lumley
While I am inclined to believe that Lumley did in fact
refer to Adcock as old man Adcock and have so found,
there is some question in my mind dust how serious
Kapico or Adcock viewed this. Kapico's testimony did not
sound convincing in this respect when he testified that he
"believed" that Adcock was upset z' In any event, that it
was not foremost in his mind is demonstrated by his
having sent Adcock and Fisher back to her to "find out
what she wanted" in connection with "some sort of
question" she had been asking As for Lumley's calling
Fisher a liar, if Respondent was now concerned about
Lumley's abusive language toward supervisors, it was not
always thus as is demonstrated by Linthicum's "damn
liar" and "go to hell" comments to her group leader and
supervisor and by the other credited evidence regarding
the use of profanity and epithets by and between
Respondent's employees and its supervisors. This disparity
points up the pretextual nature of the reason given for
Lumley's discharge
Even then, having been told she could go, she did not
attend the meeting As shown, I believe and find that
contrary to her denial, she did call Harris a bastard.
Apart from other indicia pertaining to her credibility,
from my observation of her on the witness stand I have no
difficulty in believing that she was fully capable of calling
Harris a bastard. And from my observation of Harris at
the hearing I have no difficulty either in concluding that
he might very well have reacted to such an affront by
retaliating with a discharge.
In this posture it would be difficult to conclude that
Stephenson's union activity was the cause of her
discharge. But there is more to it than this. According to
Respondent's evidence, the reason Stephenson called
Harris a bastard was because she somehow attributed her
inclusion in the unit to him." Ergo, she was unhappy
about being in the unit . If this was the case, she obviously
was antiunion. Knowing this,33 it could hardly be said that
her union attitude was the reason for her discharge
Nevertheless, there are several aspects of Respondent's
testimony on this matter that give me some pause.
Respondent's evidence regarding her not being able to get
along with people is not without its flaws. And
Funkhauser's testimony about the matter seems to have
been embroidered far beyond the basic importance of the
matter itself. In any event these shortcomings in
Respondent's evidence are sufficient only to create a
suspicion that the Union played 'a part in Stephenson's
discharge.33 Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel
has failed to prove by the necessary preponderance of the
evidence that Stephenson's discharge was discriminatory
within the meaning of the Act.
7 Brumfield
Even if I were to credit King's testimony completely as
to what he told Brumfield about her warning letter I
would still be of the opinion that the arbitrary way in
which Respondent discharged her was indicative of its
discriminatory motive. It seems to me that Brumfield's
requst for an explanation was fully warranted by the
wording of the letter. Moreover, the explanation she
claims King gave her accords exactly with what the letter
seems to say In any event , even on the basis of King's
testimony I would not attribute malice to Brumfield in
what she told the employees about it Nevertheless I credit
Brumfield and of course any possibility of malice or
untruth on her part is eliminated
As for Brumfield's absenteeism playing a part in her
discharge, it is interesting to note that for the period of
time she worked in 1966 her absenteeism was at a rate of
about 30 percent higher than it was in 1967. Nothing was
done about it then, but of course, there was no union in
the picture in 1966.
8. Stephenson
The case of Stephenson differs from that of the others
in one significant respect. Stephenson was not a supporter
of the Union. Indeed, her only identification with the
Union and Respondent's knowledge thereof so far as the
record shows30 was her query to her supervisor after
learning she was in the bargaining unit as to whether or
not it was permissible for her to go to a union meeting.
"And apparently Adcock had different standards of reaction to being
called an old man depending on who did the calling, as demonstrated by
his reaction to Fisher ' s having called him that
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the plicies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged Betty Jean
Porterfield, Violet Lumley, and Shirley Brumfield for
engaging in activity protected by the Act, I will
"There is no showing that her conversation with a couple of girls in the
plant early in the campaign where she claims she voiced her opinion that
she thought the Union was needed was ever made known to Respondent
As shown, I have not credited her testimony that she signed a union card
prior to her discharge
"This evidence stands undenied in the record, notwithstanding that
Stephenson was called and testified as a rebuttal witness
"Funkhauser testified to this effect - i e , that she was unhappy about
having been included in the unit
"For instance , one might speculate that with the election only a matter
of days off , Funkhauser decided that since Stephenson thought that Harris
was a bastard she might very well vote for the Union simply to spite him
and that he accordingly called Harris on Saturday morning advising him
that in the long run he probably would be wise in discharging Stephenson
Incidently, this call from Funkhauser was never mentioned by Harris in his
testimony
TECHNITROL, INC.
recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer them full
and immediate reinstatement to their formerly or
substanitally equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
the amount they normally would have earned as wages
from the date of their discharges to the date of an offer of
reinstatement, less net earnings during said period, with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, 291-294, including interest as held in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
I will also recommend that Respondent preserve and
make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and
other records necessary to facilitate the determination of
the amount due under this Recommended Order.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, I am of the opinion that the commission of
similar unfair labor practices may reasonably be
anticipated. I will therefore recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing
in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed its
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Technitrol, Inc , is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4 By discharging Shirley Brumfield, Violet Lumley,
and Betty Jean Porterfield because of their union
activities, thereby discouraging membership in the
aforesaid labor organization, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is hereby ordered that Respondent,
Technitrol , Inc , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from.
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or in any other labor
organization , by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment
(b) Threatening its employees with loss of profit-sharing
or other benefits, or with closing and moving its plant, or
with increasing their workloads by going on standards or
threatening to refuse to bargain if they should select the
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
1249
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other union as their
bargaining agent.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain
from engaging in such activities
2 Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act-
(a) Offer Shirley Brumfield, Violet Lumley, and Betty
Jean Porterfield immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of pay, including
profit-sharing payments, they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them in the manner
provided in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy "
(b) 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 to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order
(c) Post at its plant in Durham, North Carolina, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 11, after being duly signed by its
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent, for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 35
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 11 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that-
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or
activities on behalf of International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any
other labor organization , by discharging employees or
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in any other manner discriminating against them in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
profit-sharing or other benefits, or with closing and
moving our plant, or with increasing workloads by
going on standards, nor threaten to refuse to bargain if
they should select International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any
other union as their collective-bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Violet Lumley, Betty Jean
Porterfield, and Shirley Brumfield immediate and full
reinstatement each to her former position or one
substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges enjoyed
by each We will also pay each whatever loss of pay,
including profit-sharing payments, she may have
suffered as a result of her discharge by us, with interest
at 6 percent per annum.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of said
union or any other labor organization.
Dated By
TECHNITROL, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16th floor,
Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone
723-2300.