Teledyne-Allvac, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 886 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION_`; :=LARD
Teledyne -Allvac , Inc. and Drivers , Chauffeurs,-Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local -No. 71, International'
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Cases 1 1-CA-5777
and 11-CA-5833
May 9, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On January 28, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Robert Cohn issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Teledyne-Allvac, Inc., Monroe, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding of the 8(a)(3) viola-
tion, we do not rely on the size of the Plant in order to establish that
Respondent had knowledge of Taylor's union activities prior to his dis-
charge. -
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Administrative Law Judge: This con-
solidated proceeding, heard before me at Monroe, North
Carolina, on October 21, 22, and 23, 1974,' with all parties
present, involves a complaint issued' pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(herein the Act), alleging that Teledyne-Allvac, Inc. (herein
the Company or Respondent), interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act, by engaging in certain conduct
I All dates are 1974 , unless otherwise indicated
2 September 19 (amended October 7), based upon original charges filed
June 12 (Case 11-CA-5777) and August 9 (Case 11 -CA-5833).
described more fully herein, including the discharge of an
employee in order to discourage membership in and activities
on behalf of Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers Local No. 71, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein
the Charging Party or Union), in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. By its duly filed answer, as amended, Respondent
admitted the facts constituting the jurisdictional allegations
of the complaint, as well as the status of the Union as a labor
organization, but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel was al-
lowed to further amend the consolidated complaint to allege
an additional violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Within
the time allowed following the close of the hearing, written
briefs have been received from counsel for the Respondent
and from counsel for the General Counsel, which have been
duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations, and argu-
ments of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses,' and the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS4
I ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent, at its Monroe facility, is engaged in the
manufacture of high temperature alloys, employing approxi-
mately 150-175 production and maintenance employees
Most of the events which gave rise to the issues involved in
the instant case occurred in and about the raw materials area
of the plant where the Company receives and stores the raw
materials which are ultimately processed and distributed to
its customers. In the spring of 1974, there were five employees
who worked in the raw materials area, which number in-
cluded a "work leader" named Jerry Sam Taylor. The latter
was responsible to the superintendent of the induction melt
department (Vic Lowery) who was, in turn, responsible to the
plant superintendent (H. C. McBride).
As far as the record shows, the employees at the Respon-
dent's Monroe facility have never been represented for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes by a labor organization." The or-
ganizational campaign of the Charging Party commenced
around May 1 apparently as a result of a conversation be-
tween the said Jerry Taylor and another employee, in which
Taylor gave the the employee the telephone number of the
Charging Party in Charlotte. A meeting of interested em-
3 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered, which includes their
demeanor while testifying. The absence of a statement of resolution of
conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such testimony, does not
mean that such resolution or analysis was not made. See Bishop and Malco,
Inc, d/b/a Walker's 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966).
4 There is no issue as to the Board's jurisdiction, or the status of the Union
as a labor organization As previously noted, the complaint alleges sufficient
facts, which are admitted by answer, upon which I may, and do hereby, find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
mg of Sec 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act
5 The record reflects that the National Labor Relations Board conducted
an election among the employees in 1967, but the Union involved failed to
receive a majority of the valid votes cast
217 NLRB No. 157
TELEDYNE-ALLVAC,_ INC.
ployees was held at the Charging Party's office in Charlotte
in early May, wherein authorization cards were distributed.
Although Taylor did not attend such meeting, he did receive
some authorization cards and he thereafter spoke to em-
ployees about the Union in and about the plant and solicited
employees to sign authorization cards after working hours in
their homes. According to his testimony, which I credit, he
received about six signed authorization cards prior to his
discharge by the Respondent on June 6.6 Thereafter, Taylor
distributed union literature at the Respondent's plant gate.
It should be noted at the outset that the policy of the
Company was vigorously opposed to the organizational efforts of
the employees at the Monroe facility. In a letter to all em-
ployees, dated June 18, the President of the Respondent
stated that they should be aware that "the Company will use
every legal and proper means in opposing this organizing
attempt. We will not allow the Teamsters Union to gain total
domination of our employees."' Daryl Hasty, the arc melt
superintendent, after testifying to a conversation with an em-
ployee (of which more anon), testified as follows with respect
to this point:
Q. You considered it your obligation to do everything
you could to keep the union out of Teledyne, didn't you?
A. I felt it was my duty to state the company's posi-
tion.
Q. And to do everything you could to keep the union
out of Teledyne, wasn't that the company's position?
A. That's right.
Also, Foreman Harold Bradley testified that he reported to
his superior concerning the events of a union meeting because
he knew that "the Company was against the Union."
Of course, the Respondent had every right under the law
to maintain a position which did not favor the organizational
efforts of its employees. However, counsel for the General
Counsel maintains that some of the Respondent's supervisors
overstepped legitimate bounds in stating the Company's posi-
tion., thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We come
now to an examination of the evidence in this regard.
B. Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Interrogation
The record reflects that , following the commencement of
the union campaign in May, some of the Respondent's super-
visors began a rather systematic interrogation of the em-
ployees under their jurisdiction respecting the tatters' posi-
tion and desires in the matter . Thus, employee Phillip
Hernandez testified that in late May, Superintendent Gordon
Tailllon approached him at his work station and asked him
what he thought about the Union . Hernandez said that he
didn 't know anything about it. Hernandez further testified
that in June , his forman James Preslar called each person in
the department into his office, seriatim . When it became Her-
nandez' turn, Preslar asked what Hernandez thought about
the Union , to which the latter replied that he did not know
6 The discharge is alleged as discriminatory in the complaint , as discussed
more fully, infra.
7 C C Exh. 2
887
anything about it. Preslar opined that he did not think that
the Union would ever be successful in becoming the represen-
tative of the employees at the Company. About a week later
when Preslar was on vacation, James Efird, the second shift
plant superintendent, was passing out paychecks and asked
Hernandez what he thought about the Union. The latter did
not respond, but Efird went on to say that the Union would
never get into the Company and that the "wise thing for us
to do is not to vote for it."'
On June 12, (the day following the handbilling of the plant
by Jerry Taylor, as previously noted), employee Neil Price,
who had worked with Taylor in the raw materials depart-
ment, was called into the office of Plant Superintendent
McBride for the ostensible reason of discussing the possibility
of Price's succeeding to Taylor's job. However, McBride
quickly turned the subject matter of the conversation to the
handbilling, and questioned Price as to whether he saw Tay-
lor handing out union literature and if he had taken any. Price
responded affirmatively. McBride then asked Price if he knew
anything about the Union, to which Price responded in the
negative. McBride went on to explain that it was the Team-
sters Union out of Charlotte. When Price asked McBride
whether he knew anything about that, the latter responded
that all he knew was that the Union could not help the
employees-that all it could do was to cause the employees
to go on strike and direct them not to work if the Company
did not meet its demands.9
McBride recalled a conversation with Price at about that
8 The following findings are based upon the credited testimony of Her-
nandez who impressed me as an honest and candid witness, even though I
have taken into consideration the fact that he was subsequently discharged
by the Company and may hold a bias against it. At the same time I do not
believe that he fabricated the conversations, and the circumstances and
context of the situations as testified to by the respective supervisors does not
ring true Thus Taillon admitted, to having a conversation with Hernandez
in June wherein he asked Hernandez to sign a warning slip During that
conversation, according to Taillon, Hernandez asked him what he thought
about unions (Taillon denied that he asked Hernandez any question but lust
answered Hernandez' questions). It would seem improbable in the context
of Respondent's opposition to the Union that an employee would question
the superintendent of a department on this matter at the time when the latter
was giving the employee a warning slip for alleged misconduct Preslar
admitted that he called everyone in his department into his office-and talked
to them about the Union, expressing his opinion that he did not think that
the Union would be successful in view of the benefits and wages that the
Company was paying He conceded that sometime during the conversation
he advised Hernandez to vote against the Union, and that he did not think
that employees "would be any better off' by signing a union card. Preslar
denied that he asked Hernandez the question "What do you think about the
Union" As indicated, I credit Hernandez . But even assuming , arguendo,
that Preslar did not interrogate Hernandez by use of that specific language,
the record as a whole leads me to the conclusion that the whole purpose of
the interview was to "sound out" the reactions of the employees to the
Union's campaign, and to impress upon him the undesirability and futility
of a sympathetic leaning toward the Union. Under these circumstances, such
an interview, taking place in the sanctum of a supervisor's office, could only
lead a fair-minded observer to conclude that "the interview was an attempt,
by Respondent, to impede the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act " (N.LR B v Standard Container Co., 428 F.2d 793, 794 (C.A. 5,
1970), enfg 171 NLRB-433 (1968).)
Efird testified that while passing out the checks on this occasion, he gave
a little talk to each employee about the-good working conditions extant at
the Company, and that he did not think that the employees "needed outside
help." He denied asking Hernandez what he thought about the Union, and
further denied that of the approximate 15 employees to whom he distributed
paychecks, anyone said anything to him This seems quite improbable, and,
as indicated, I credit Hernandez.
9 Testimony of Price.
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, but placed it on the receiving dock in the maintenance
building. According to McBride, Price asked him about Tay-
lor's job , and the superintendent gave him a brief description
of what was involved. When Price appeared undetermined as
to whether he could fulfill the position , McBride suggested
that Price think it over and talk to Supervisor Lowery about
it. Whereupon , according to McBride's testimony, Price
asked him whether he knew that Taylor was passing out
union literature . When McBride answered affirmatively,
Price asked the identity of the Union , and McBride re-
sponded that it was the Teamsters Union.
I find it highly unlikely that the conversation would have
occurred in the manner in which McBride testified. In the
first place, I believe it unlikely that an employee , knowing the
Company's policy as respects unions, would broach the sub-
ject of unionization with the plant superintendent unless the
employee had a purpose of making it appear to the superin-
tendent that the employee was in sympathy with the Com-
pany's position. However, McBride attributed no such state-
ment to Price on this occasion . Secondly, since Price was a
friend of Taylor 's, he must have known by that time what
union was involved , and therefore would not have questioned
McBride on that point . Finally, it appears from the evidence
above set forth, and from the record as whole, that it was the
Company's policy to attempt to ascertain the employees'
reactions to the union campaign . Since Price worked with
Taylor, it would seem reasonable to infer that McBride would
be interested in knowing the former 's sympathies in that
regard . Under all the circumstances , I credit Price and find
that McBride's inquiry concerning the Union , made in his
office, without justification or reassurance against recrimina-
tion, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
Several days later , on the back dock of the raw materials
area, Price had a conversation with Daryl Hasty, superin-
tendent of the arc melt department ., Hasty was in the area
pursuant to instructions from Vic Lowery, the induction melt
superintendent, who instructed Hasty to contact Neil Price
who would show him some scrap that needed cleaning. After
some perfunctory conversation relating to the material, Hasty
asked Price had he read the union literature and whether
Taylor had talked to him about it. When Price responded
affimatively, Hasty asked Price what he thought about it, to
which the latter replied that he had not decided one way or
the other. Whereupon Hasty retorted that "he could tell
[Price] right then and there that the Union could not help and
that he should tell Taylor that."
I find the foregoing statement by Hasty to constitute coer-
cive interrogation , and therefore to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.11
10 See NLR.B v. Cameo, Inc., 340 F,2d 803 (C.A 5, 1965)
11 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Price.
Counsel for the General Counsel stated on the record that he was relying
on the testimony solely for coercive interrogation under par. 7(b) of the
complaint. Hasty denied interrogating Price stating that Price asked him
what he thought about the Union I deem this improbable for substantially
the same reasons stated above with respect to the Price -McBride conversa-
tion.
2. Threats and coercion
As previously noted, on June " 18, the Company sent all
employees a letter that stated its opposition to the
Union) Shortly thereafter, Sam Traywick, a scheduler in
the melt shop , was called into the office of his supervisor,
Mike Condor . Condor opened the conversation by saying
that "everyone" was to talk to the people that worked with
them about the letter that the Company sent, and stated that
"you realize if the Union comes in here , you will lose your
benefits." He then discussed some of the benefits such as
holidays and vacations. Traywick knew that Condor 's father
worked for the railroad , and questioned Condor about how
his-father would feel about the Union . The supervisor replied
that he knew that unions helped "in places," but he didn't
think that a union would help in the Company.
Condor admitted calling Traywick into his office and ask-
ing him whether he received the Company 's letter. Traywick
acknowledged that he had. Whereupon , Condor admitted, on
cross-examination , that he had "talked to all the employees
(under his supervision) in the office" and asked them if they
had received the letter, and how they felt about the Union.
He further admitted that he stated to Traywick that "if the
Union came into the Company , he could lose his benefits until
the Company and the Union negotiated what terms or bene-
fits the people would get . . ." Condor also said something
about his father being a member of the union on the railroad
and that most likely the railroad needed the union, but he did
not think that the employees at the Company needed the
Union.
I find , based upon the foregoing , that Condor coercively
interrogated an employee concerning his union activities in,
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (N.L. R.B. v. Cameo,
Inc., supra), and threatened him with loss of benefits should
employees choose the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative. 11
Traywick further testified to a conversation he had with
Superintendent Taillon in the summer of 1974 as respects
employee Phillip Hernandez . It was acknowledged that, by
that time, it was known that Hernandez was an active propo-
nent of the Union and, according to Traywick 's testimony,
Taillon opined that Hernandez had been sent there from
iz The letter is not attacked as unlawful in the complaint
13 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of both partici-
pants as respects the interrogation; it is based upon the, credited testimony
of Traywick as respects the threat Unlike Traywick, Condor was not im-
pressive as a witness: He was clearly reluctant to testify as to what he
actually stated in the interview , admitting the interrogation only after vigor-
ous cross-examination by counsel for the General Counsel , and in spite of
attempted rehabilitation by counsel for the Respondent But even if credibil-
ity be turned around, I would still find an unlawful threat based upon
Condor's admitted statements Thus whether he said "could" or "would,"
the reasonable tendency of his language , in the context of the whole inter-
view, was to impress upon Traywick the inevitability of loss of benefits by
employees should they choose the Union as their collective -bargaining rep-
resentative, even for the period of time during negotiations Such conduct
clearly restrains the exercise of Section 7 rights See N.L.R B. v Standard
Container Co., supra; see also Components, Inc., 197 NLRB 163 (1972)
Although the interrogation was not alleged in the complaint , it was fully
litigated, without objection by Respondent, and therefore may properly
form the basis for a finding of violation . American Boiler Manufacturing
Association. v NL.R.B., 366 F 2d 823 , 825 (C .A 8, 1966), see also NLR.B
v J. C. Penney Co, Inc., 384 F 2d 479 (C A 10, 1967)
TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC
Texas to organize for the Union; that- he, Taillon, felt that
Hernandez was thereby "ruining his future in Monroe" by
engaging in such activities because "no one would hire him
after that-all the personnel departments knew one another
in Monroe." I find, based upon the credited testimony of
Traywick, that the above statement constituted an implied
threat of blacklist for engaging in union activities.",
3. Impression of surveillance
In the late afternoon of June 5, there was a union meeting
on the shore of a lake near Monroe. Employee James Claxton
Baucom attended the meeting, and had a conversation con-
cerning it with his foreman, Harold Brantley, the following
morning at work. According to Baucorn's testimony, Brant-
ley asked how the meeting went, to which Baucom responded
that there were very few employees in attendance. Brantley
said[, "Jerry Taylor was there, wasn't he?" Baucom replied,
"Not when I was there. If he was there, it was either before
or after I was." Brantley then stated that he was aware that
Baucom was at the meeting since "our cars had been seen
there," mentioning the names of employees Ricky Helms and
Neil Price.
Brantley acknowledged having the conversation with Ban-
corn stating that it occurred during a coffeebreak. According
to Brantley, Claxton volunteered that the employees "had a
union meeting at Lake Lee yesterday [and] there wasn't very
many there; he mentioned Neil Price and Ricky Helms, and
said that Jerry Taylor had been there and left when he got
there." Brantley did not recall making any comment during
the conversation.
It is not deemed necessary to resolve the particular credi-
bility issue for the purpose of deciding the question of the
violation since, even if Baucom's testimony be credited, I do
not view the circumstances to be such as would constitute an
impression of surveillance in the particular circumstances of
this case. Thus, Baucom testified that there was no secrecy
about the union meeting because it was "talked all over the
plant." The meeting itself was held in an open area approxi-
mately 100 yards from a state highway, so that any passer-by
could observe it, Moreover, the record shows that Baucom
and Brantley had known each other for many years, and
Brantley testified that Baucom had reported on the union
activities of fellow employees on other occasions years ago.
Under these circumstances, I find that the conversation did
not carry with any overtones of "employer omniscience" or
threat of reprisal, and I will therefore recommend that this
allegation of the complaint be dismissed.ts
C. The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Jerry Taylor
Prior to his discharge on June 6, Taylor had worked for the
Company in the raw materials area since February 1966.
During the first approximately 7-1/2 years of his employ-
ment, Taylor performed all the functions of an employee in
that deaprtment which included loading and unloading
trucks, cleaning scrap materials, weighing out "heats,"16
14 Taillon admitted having a conversation with Traywick concerning Her-
nandez, but denied making the statement attributed to him. Such denial is
not credited. -
15 See William L Bonnell Company, Inc., 170 NLRB 204 (1968)
889
keeping the bins of material orderly, and keeping the area
clean. In addition, there was a small office where one em-
ployee normally performed some paper work in connection
with keeping an inventory record of the materials utilized. In
August 1973, Taylor was promoted to "work leader"-of the
department. This meant that he had authority to give certain
directions and instructions to the other four employees in the
department respecting their work.17 At the time of such
promotion, Taylor received an increase in pay, but remained
on an hourly rate. He continued to perform the same manual
functions that he did previously, but apparently spent more
time in directing the other employees, particularly in the
training of a new girl in the operation of a computer which
was installed for the purpose of assisting in the paperwork.
The parties are at odds as to the proficiency with which
Taylor performed his job as work leader. Taylor testified that
he received only two written warnings concerning his job
performance during his whole tenure of employment with the
Company. The first was given about five years ago by his then
supervisor John Troutman," which was, of course, prior to
his promotion to work leader. The second was given to him
by Lowery on May 28. This was occasioned by the fact that
two or three thousand pounds of nickel was omitted from a
"heat," which resulted in the loss of five hours melting time
in the furnaces. This, according to Taylor, was the only warn-
ing or reprimand that he received during his tenure as work
leader.
On the other hand, Respondent contends, in essence, that
Taylor never satisfactorily performed the job as work leader.
Thus, Lowery testified that in December 1973, he had a
"counselling session" with Taylor which was occasioned by
the latter's "failure to progress toward meeting job require-
ments of leadman."19 At that time, according to Lowery's
testimony, he went over with Taylor the requirements of the
position as described in the "job description" of work leader
(Resp. Exh. 7), and told Taylor the following (as was memori-
alized by Lowery's memorandum following the session):
Employee was told that he had made insufficient pro-
gress toward meeting his total job requirements as a
leadman. Supervisory aspects of job were emphasized
and pointed out as necessary to fulfill job requirements.
I have cautioned this employee of the necessity for ac-
curacy, careful planning, and constant attention to all
that goes on in weighing out heats. We have lost several
heats due to heat-sheet calculation errors that would
have been caught if Jerry had checked more closely. I
have found mixed scrap in many heats that were
weighed out ready to charge into furnace that would
have been caught if Jerry had been performing his job of
16 A "heat" consists of several cans of material, presumably combined
according to chemical formulae, which are prepared by employees of the
raw materials department for delivery into the induction melt department,
where they are placed in high temperature furnaces for processing
17 See Resp Exh. 7, the Respondent contends that the position was
supervisory within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act, of which more
anon.
is Troutman is no longer employed by the Company, his place having
been taken by Vic Lowery, Taylor's immediate supervisor at the time of his
promotion to work leader and'at the time of his discharge.
19 Resp. Exh. 6
,890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
checking the work of the other employees under his
leadership. I don't know if Jerry will ever be able to
organize himself to fulfill the total Job requirements .20
I
Although Lowery testified that he did not consider this
"counselling session" as a "warning," I note that the memo-
randum was written on a form customarily used for issuing
written warnings. Also, Lowery conceded that he never
showed the memorandum to Taylor, nor requested him to
sign it, although there is a space on the memorandum for the
"signature of employee" acknowledging his understanding of
the "nature of my offense."21 Taylor did not recall any con-
versation with Lowery about this time concerning his per-
formance as work leader.
Plant Superintendent McBride testified that he had a "seri-
ous talk" with Taylor in the latter part of 1973 in the raw
materials building for the purpose of making sure that "Jerry
understood- the full responsibilities of his job." Taylor re-
called a conversation with McBride at about this time, in
which the latter pointed out some pieces of alloy in the aisles
and mentioned the necessity for identifying materials. How-
ever, there is no evidence or claim or warning or other disci-
plinary action from this conversation.
On March 6, following a routine audit of the raw materials
area by one of the Respondent's customers, the president of
Respondent sent Lowery a memorandum which set forth five
enumerated violations of standard procedure for maintaining
proper housekeeping in the raw materials area (Resp. Exh. 2).
Lowery testified that following receipt of this memorandum,
he had a group meeting of employees in the raw materials
department concerning it. However, there was no discipline
imposed upon any of the employees at that time.
On May 8, according to Lowery's testimony, the latter
called Taylor into his office for the purpose of having a dis-
cussion with him and giving him a reprimand. According to
the memorandum which was subsequently filed by Lowery,
he told Taylor that the latter was failing "to meet total job
requirements and responsibilities and inefficiency [sic] ...
employees' job was reviewed. He was told to do a more
efficient and complete job and was informed that failure to do
so might result in his dismissal. He was told to work more on
the supervisory requirements of his job." (Resp. Exh. 8).
Lowery referred to the foregoing as a "written record of a
verbal reprimand," but, again, admittedly failed to show it to
Taylor or to have Taylor sign the memorandum although
there is a space on the document for the signature of the
employee. Taylor denied knowledge of any such reprimand.
In latter May, according to the testimony of Lowery and
Blake Hudson, vice president of manufacturing, the latter
-reprimanded Lowery for falling to improve the conditions in
the raw materials department. Lowery promised to do all that
he could to straighten out the problems.
20 Statement as continued on back of the memorandum (Resp. Exh. 6 )
21 There are two spaces on the memorandum where the writer is requested
to insert a date In both places an Resp. Exh 6, the date inserted is
"12/18/73", however, in both places the number "3" is written over another
writing which appears to be the number "4." At one point in his cross-
examination of Lowery, counsel for the General Counsel appeared to take
the position that Lowery had been accustomed to writing "1974" rather
than "1973," and that, perhaps, it could be contended that this memoran-
dum was not written contemporaneously with the interview in December
1973, but later. However, he did not pursue this contention
On June 3, Lowery issued a written reprimand to Taylor
for "carelessness in weighing out material for heat No. 9504,"
on May 29 (Resp. Exh. 9). This was the reprimand previously
referred to by Taylor in which it was conceded that approxi-
mately 2,000 pounds of nickle was omitted from the "heat,"
which resulted in approximately 5 hours extra processing
time. According to the memorandum, the warning issued was
"employee was warned that carelessness of this nature can-
not be tolerated."22
On the morning of Thursday, June 6, Taylor went to work
as usual at approximately 6:45 a.m. (work officially com-
menced at 7 a.m.). The first thing was to remedy a situation
in which a heat was "out of chemistry." Taylor met with
Lowery concerning the matter after which Taylor weighed
out approximately 500 more pounds of material to add to the
heat. According to Lowery's testimony, he spent the first 15
or 20 minutes after 7 a.m. going over with Taylor the schedul-
ing for the day and "getting him started." Lowery noticed
during that time that the "heat" the employees were working
on was not covered .21
Following the discussion with Lowery, Taylor commenced
weighing out the materials, and Lowery went into the induc-
tion melt department. Shortly thereafter, prior to 8 a.m.,
Plant Superintendent McBride approached Lowery and asked
him to accompany McBride to the raw materials area.
McBride was mad. He claimed that the raw materials depart-
ment was a mess and that he was "damn tired of talking," and
asked Lowery when he was going to clean the "damn mess
up." Lowery responded that "he would do it."24
Lowery testified that during his conversation with McBride,
he noticed Taylor, Price and Helms "standing about 10 feet
from the raw matenals office, and they were laughing and
cutting up about something, and it just ran all over me; and
I knew right then that the only way that I was ever going to
get it straightened out was to get rid of Jerry Taylor; and so,
I called Jerry Taylor over; I told him, `Jerry, get your stuff,
I'm going to have to let you go.' " Lowery further testified
that he pointed to the heat being uncovered and materials
being scattered, and then walked Taylor over to where the
latter punched the timeclock; they then went to the credit
union for Taylor to get his savings out. He then walked
Taylor to the latter's car, and during that time there was some
conversation. Lowery testified:
22 It is noted that this exhibit reflects that Taylor had been reprimanded
on two occasions previously, whereas on the May 8 memorandum (written
record of oral reprimand), it was stated that Taylor had not been repri-
manded previously Yet, there is no indication in the record of any repri-
mand between the two dates
23 The record shows that after the employees in the raw materials area had
prepared a "heat" for processing, the "heat" should properly be left in the
raw materials area , covered with a sheet of polyethylene plastic , until it is
picked up by employees from the induction melt department to be inserted
in one of the furnaces It is apparently not improper, or outside of standard
operating procedure, for a heat to be uncovered during the time that the
induction melt employees are securing and transferring the "heat" from the
raw materials area to the induction melt area (which are adjacent to each
other)
24 Testimony of McBride, which was substantially corroborated by Low-
ery No one else heard the conversation
McBride testified that earlier that morning he had taken a tour through
the raw materials department and found it in a state of disarray; i.e , that
materials and containers were lying on the floor, nickel was spilled on the
floor, etc -
TELEDYNE -ALLVAC, INC.
He asked me why was he being fired, and I told him,
"Jerry, you have been talking with the wrong people too
much. It is interfering with your job. You are not getting
your job done, and that's the reason you are being fired."
Taylor's testimony with respect to his conversation with
Lowery is substantially similar to the above, except that after
Lowery made the remark about Taylor's talking with the
"wrong people," Taylor asked Lowery to identify them. Low-
ery replied that he did not have to state names because "as
smart a fellow as [Taylor] was, he figured [Taylor] would wise
up because they wasn't [sic] going to put up with it."25
Lowery testified that after Taylor left, he returned to the
raw materials department and called the other employees
into the office and told them why Taylor had been ter-
minated, and put them back to work.26
Lowery denied that he knew at the time of Taylor's dis-
charge that the latter was involved in union activities. Later
that morning (June 6), however, according to Lowery's tes-
timony, he had a conversation with Foreman Harold Brant-
ley at or about 10 a.m. It appears that Lowery was passing
through the induction melt shop when Brantley called him
over and said there was something he wanted to tell Lowery
about-that he had "some information on a union meeting
the clay before." Lowery continued:
Q. Just tell me what the conversation was.
A. He named Neil Price, Ricky Helms, a,boy from the
Finishing Department, and the fellow that gave him the
information, Claxton Baucom.
Q. Did he mention Mr. Taylor?
A. He said Jerry might have been there. I didn't know
that that was material .27
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
Respondent denies that Taylor's union activities played
any part in his discharge. Rather, it asserts that Taylor's
derelictions as a work leader provided ample and just cause
for the discharge, and, moreover, the officials of Respondent
were unaware at the time of the union activities or Taylor's
participation in them. Finally, Respondent contends that, in
any event, Taylor was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act and therefore his termination was not protected there-
under. I find lack of substantial evidence on the record to
support these assertions, and therefore reject them.
25 Credited testimony of Taylor Lowery acknowledged that on this occa-
sion he told Taylor that "you have been keeping company with the wrong
people," but denied responding to Taylor's question with the words "You
know I don't have to tell you." Rather, Lowery testified that he told Taylor
who they were "truckdrivers, people from other departments he had no
business talking with It was something I had warned him about in times
gone by." However, I note that in the memoranda of warnings and counsel-
ing sessions referred to above, Lowery made no mention of Taylor's talking
to "truckdrivers and people from other departments he had no business
talking with."
26 I note that at no time did Lowery reprimand or discipline Price or
Helms because they were "standing around talking and laughing" and not
performing work
27 Brantley confirmed Lowery's testimony, and averred he told Lowery
about the union meeting because Lowery was his boss and he knew that the
Company was against the Union. Interestingly enough , Lowery did not
advise Brantley at that time that he had just terminated Taylor.
891
As to the issue of company knowledge of Taylor's union
proclivities, it is true that there is no direct evidence in the
record that the company officials responsible for the termina-
tion knew prior thereto of Taylor's activities in this regard.
But in Wiese Plow Welding Company, Inc.," the Board
stated:
We disagree with the Trial Examiner that direct knowl-
edge of an employee's concerted or union activities is a
sine qua non for fmding that he has been discharged
because of such activities. On the contrary, there is well
established Board and court precedent that such knowl-
edge may be inferred from the record as a whole (citing
cases).
See also F W Woolworth Company v. N..L.R.B.,29 where
the court stated:
Petitioner [Woolworth] attacks the Board's fmding
because there was no positive proof that it knew which
of its employees were, and which were not, members of
the Union.
Implicit in Petitioner's argument is a basic objection to
reliance upon so-called "circumstantial evidence." But
courts and other triers of facts, in a multitude of cases,
must rely upon such evidence, i.e. inferences from tes-
timony as to attitudes, acts and deeds; where-such mat-
ters as purpose, plans, designs, motives, intent, or similar
matters, are involved, the use of such inferences is often
indispensable.
The record herein provides substantial, evidence from
which I may reasonably infer that Lowery and/or
McBride" were, contrary to their testimony, aware of the
union campaign and Taylor's participation in it prior to his
termination. Thus, the statement made by Lowery at the time
of the discharge-that Taylor had been talking with the
"wrong people" too much-refers, in my view, to union acti-
vists and not to the persons Lowery claimed he meant such
as truckdrivers and persons from other departments in the
plant3' This because it was clearly part of Taylor's job to
contact and talk with truckdrivers as they loaded and un-
loaded trucks in the raw materials department, and as he
ordered materials from the purchasing department, and as
he discussed scheduling work with the production control
28 123 NLRB 616 (1959).
29 121 F 2d 658, 660 (C.A. 2, 1941)
30 Although Lowery testified that he alone made the decision to terminate
Taylor, I am not convinced that this is the case, as more fully discussed,
infra. The fact that Lowery's testimony is not contradicted on this point
does not require me to believe it See N.L.R B. v. Howell Chevrolet Com-
pany, 204 F 2d 79, 86 (C A. 9).
31 See e.g, Angwell Curtain Co v. N.L.R.B.,192 F.2d 899 (C.A. 7), where
the court held that the Board was warranted in inferring that the company
official's reference to "this thing" meant the umon organizational drive.
Hence, as in that case , "it is not an unreasonable inference that in a small
plant in a relatively small community news of the intense union organiza-
tional drive came quickly to the attention of plant officers " Indeed,
McBride admitted that he had heard of the campaign "through the grape-
vine" but that his first knowledge of it was when he observed Taylor leaflet-
ting the plant subsequent to his discharge. In this connection, McBride told
employee Collen Griffin, in a conversation which took place on the day-after
Taylor passed out the handbills, that he "thought" Jerry was involved with
the union, and after seeing him out there handing out union handbills, he
knew for sure he was involved. (Credited testimony of Griffin )
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department. As previously noted, in none of the previous
counselling sessions and other instances wherein Lowery
claimed he criticized Taylor's work did it ever appear that his
type of conduct was ever cited as a deficiency. ,
Furthermore, I find, based upon the testimony of Claxton
Baucom, that Respondent's officials were aware prior to Tay-
lor's discharge, of the union meeting which took place on
June 5, and which it was believed or suspected that Jerry
Taylor had attended.32 It will be recalled that Foreman
Harold Brantley testified that the following morning Baucom
reported to him concerning the meeting and mentioned that
"Neil Price and Richy Helms [were there] and that Jerry had
been there and left when he (Baucom) got there."33 How-
ever the record reflects that"Baucom became somewhat con-
fused and uncertain as to the exact time he reported this
information to Brantley on the morning of June 6. Thus, in
his direct examination as a witness for the General Counsel,
BaiIcom testified that he could not "recall the exact time."
but believed that the conversation with Brantley took place
around "breaktime, i.e., 9 a.m." However, in his prehearing
affidavit (which was taken on October 17), he stated as fol-
lows:
The next morning first thing no more than 30 minutes
after I got to work, the shift starts at 7 o'clock, and I got
there 15 minutes ahead of time; and so this conversation
would have been at about 7:15; Brantley came to the
tank where I was working, and asked me how the meet-
ing went.
Baucorn further testified that on the Sunday prior to the
trial (October 20) he reviewed his affidavit with counsel for
the General Counsel at about 5:30 p.m. At that time he did
not advise counsel for the General Counsel of any change in
his testimony, but testified herein that he commenced to
"think and start studying about exactly what was said and
where it was said, "and" recall[ed] that it did occur in the
break area at 9 a.m." Baucom further testified that while at
work on Monday morning, October 21, he was called into the
office at the plant and there interviewed by Respondent's
counsel and its industrial relations manager concerning the
testimony that he was to give in this proceeding.34 Finally,
Baucom testified that "it is possible" that the conversation
between him and Brantley did occur at the melt tank on the
morning of June 6 at 7:15.
Under the circumstances as outlined above, I am con-
vinced, and therefore find, that the conversation between
Brantley and Baucom did, in fact, occur at the time,and place
that Baucom first testified that it did, i.e., at the melt tank at
or about 7:15 a.m. on the morning of June 6; that thereafter
this information was transmitted to other of Respondent's
officials, including Plant Superintendent McBride; that it was
32 The fact is, of course, that Taylor did not attend such meeting. Indeed,
he did not attend any union meetings prior to his discharge, because, as he
testified, Price and Helms advised that "somebody would tell on him be-
cause he was a work leader." Of course, thelegal consequences remain the
same whether or not he, in fact, attended-the meeting if Respondent be-
lieved that he did
33 Lowery also testified that in his conversation with Brantley, the latter
stated that Baucom told him (Brantley) that "Jerry might have been there
He did.not know that Jerry was there "
34 Baucom had been supenaed to appear at the hearing, and he advised
his superior, Brantley, of that fact on Friday evening, October 18.
this information-and not any particular dereliction in Tay-
lor's work proficiency that day-which aroused McBride's
anger, and which precipitated the decision to discharge Tay-
lor. I believe this conclusion is amply supported by the evi-
dence including, particularly, the failure of Lowery, who had
been with Taylor in the raw materials department that morn-
ing for 15 or 20 minutes prior to 8 a.m., to make mention of
any disarray in the area or uncovering of the heat, which he
admittedly noticed, and about which he said nothing because
it was, at the time, in the process of being transferred,to the
induction melt department. Had the condition of the raw ma-
terials department been in as bad a state of disarray as
McBride pictured it, I have no doubt that Lowery would have
said something to Taylor about it that morning.
Indeed, it seems surprising that McBride made no mention
of the situation to Taylor. When asked why he did not,
McBride testified that he preferred to take such matters
through proper supervisory channels. However, I note that
McBride did not let such a formality stand in his way in
December 1973, when he had a "serious talk" with Taylor
concerning the latter's work performance as a work leader.
Accordingly, I am inclined to disbelieve the testimony that it
was Lowery's decision to terminate Taylor; rather, I am con-
vinced and therefore find that it was the decision of McBride,
but that Lowery took the onus since it would have appeared
suspect for McBride to have dictated the action."
In reaching this conclusion I have also considered the fact
that Lowery did not admonish, discipline, or caution the
other two employees with whom Taylor was allegedly cavort-
ing that morning. I have also considered the discrepancy in
the testimony of Lowery and McBride: McBride testified that
he took Lowery around the area pointing out the disarray of
material and that the only time he and Lowery stopped and
stood together was at the back exit to the building and was
"as far away as you can get from the [raw materials
storage] office and still be in the building." Yet Taylor and
Lowery testified that Lowery's conversation with McBride
took place near the raw materials office. In addition, I fmd
it difficult to believe that Taylor's name was not mentioned
in the conversation even though Lowery observed him laugh-
ing and talking, and it was at that point that Lowery sup-
posedly reached the decision to discharge.
Finally, I have considered that if Taylor's performance as
a work leader was as poor as Lowery sought to picture it, for
as long a time as he testified, he would have imposed a sterner
discipline for the May 28 dereliction than a mere written
warning. It will be recalled that it was only several weeks
before, according to Lowery's testimony, that he had "ver-
bally warned" Taylor about these deficiencies. I am inclined
to believe Taylor's testimony that he received no such warn-
ing, or such counseling session, particularly in the absence of
Lowery's showing to him the written memoranda which were
proffered into evidence at the trial.
Under all circumstances, I am convinced and therefore
find that the reasons cited by the Respondent for the dis-
charge were a pretext, and that the real reason for the term'i-
35 I note, in this connection that in the 3-1/2 years that he had been
supervisor in the melt induction department, Lowery had never discharged
anyone for not performing the job properly
TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC.
nation of Taylor was his active participation in- the union
activities, to which Respondent was unalterably opposed.
There remains for consideration Respondent's contention
that. Taylor was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and therefore is not entitled to its protection.36 I find that
substantial evidence on the record does not support Respon-
dent's contention in this regard, and I therefore reject it.
In the first place, this contention itself is apparently an
afterthought, 37 since it appears from the testimony that Re-
spondent's officials did not consider Taylor one who pos-
sessed requisite supervisory authority. Thus, the record
shows that work leaders voted in the 1967 Board election, and
there is not evidence that their supervisory status was ele-
vated from that time until 1974; that Respondent's supervi-
sory hierarchy included persons who were designated as
"foremen" who, unlike work leaders, were salaried, had
designated parking spaces "inside the fence"; attended meet-
ings of supervisory personnel, and, in general, had "full au-
thority to hire and fire people."38 Indeed, the evidence
shows that Lowery did not consider Taylor's status to be a
supervisor. He testified that in the "counseling session" that
he had with Taylor in December 1973, he went over those
things that Taylor was responsible for as a work leader and
pointed out those areas that needed improving upon. In the
course of the discussion, Lowery said, "Jerry, we have got to
make some improvements in those areas if you are ever going
to be a supervisor . . . All I remember telling him was that
he was going to have to make some definite improvements in
the way he ran the raw materials storage area, if he was ever
going to be supervisory material; if he was ever going to be
made foreman."
Secondly, the record shows that there was no substantial
increase in authority given Taylor at the time of his promo-
tion to work leader than existed prior thereto. Taylor, having
been an employee in that department since 1966, was clearly
the oldest and most experienced employee in the functions of
the department. It would naturally follow that the younger
employees would look to him for direction and assistance in
performing their work and in solving their problems, and
Taylor assumed this posture even before his promotion to
work leader.39 After his promotion, he was apparently given
more responsibility with respect to getting out the work of the
36 A supervisor is defined in Sec 2 (11) of the Act as follows:
The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the
interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, pro-
mote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or re-
sponsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exer-
cise of such authonty is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment
37 Counsel for the Respondent announced at the commencement of the
trial that he had "apprised Mr Carson last week that [he] discovered in the
course of [his] investigation that we would probably assert that [defense]
38 'Lowery testified that when Respondent replaced Taylor with a foreman
in the raw materials department, they did so because they wanted a person
"to have full authority to hire and fire people, and to run the whole show."
39 Significantly, there is no language contained in the job description of
"Work Leader" (Resp. Exh. 7) upon which a fact finder could fairly predi-
cate a conclusion that such a person possessed or exercised supervisory
authority as contemplated by the statute.
893
department but the only authority enumerated by Lowery as
given to Taylor with respect to his relationship with other
employees in the department was to allow them to go home
if it was necessary.40 Lowery testified as follows on this
point:
Q. Now how long a conversation did you have with
him when you informed him of his promotion, approxi-
mately how long did it last?
A. It didn't last very long. I just told Jerry that he had
been promoted to work leader, told him a few of the
things that I was going to expect him to do.
Q. What did you tell him in that regard?
A. I told him that I was going to expect him to direct
the full work in the raw materials area to make sure that
all the heat sheets were calculated properly; to make sure
that all materials, were received and identified properly,
to make sure that the area stayed in a neat and orderly
condition.
Q. What else, if anything, did you tell him?
A. Well, I just told him basically he was in charge of
the raw materials department in my absence. I told him
if I couldn't be found, and somebody had a problem, if
they needed to go home or something, that he had the
authority to let them go home. I told him if people had
any problems and came to him with them, if he couldn't
handle them, to see me about it.
Q. What else, if anything, did you tell him?
A. I told him he would not have the power to hire or
fire anybody; he would not have the authority to repri-
mand anybody; if he felt somebody needed some coun-
seling, or a reprimand, or anything like that, that I
would do whatever had to be done based on his judg-
ment and what he told me.
* * * * *
Q. Now with this increase in responsibility, that being
his, that you now held him responsible but actually what
he did didn't change; what additional authority was he
granted?
A. He was granted the authority to let people go home
on his own, if it was necessary.
Q. Is that all?
A. If he felt that it was necessary. He was granted the
authority to do the job between him and other supervi-
sors or between him and supervisors of other depart-
ments, call on them if there was a scrap mix-up rather
than come to me, call them directly and ask them to
straigthen it out.
Q. Hadn't he been doing that before he was classified
as a working leader?
A. I don't think so.
Q. You don't think so? You know that he had been,
don't you, W. Lowery?
A. I know that he had called me on a lot of instances
to straighten out scrap mixes and after I made him a
working leader, I told him to call them; "Don't call me,
dust go ahead and -call them."
Q. You told him to call them?
A. Yes.
40 The record shows that he exercised this authority on one occasion.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And sometimes before he had been calling them
anyway, right?
A. I guess he had.
There can be no question but that Taylor, as a work leader,
possessed and exercised some degree of authority, direction,
and control of the four employees with whom he worked in
the raw materials department 41 However, the record shows
that Superintendent Lowery regularly came into the depart-
ment in the morning and stayed for an average of an hour or
two at which time he went over with Taylor the work
schedule for the day and any other problems incident thereto.
Except when he was on vacation, Lowery was always present
in the induction melt department, which was adjacent to the
raw materials area, for consultation with Taylor; Taylor's
duties, therefore, were essentially to carry out the policies and
directives given him by Lowery. In so-doing, there was little
if any need for the exercise of independent judgment. That is
to say, the materials to be inserted in the heats were predeter-
mined; the other work was more or less of a casual or perfunc-
tory nature such as cleaning up, loading and unloading
trucks, cleaning scrap, etc., all of which required little exer-
cise of direction on the part of Taylor, and in which he
performed manual labor himself. The job requiring perhaps
most "expertise" was in the paper work performed by a
female employee in the raw materials office. Taylor was in the
process of training this employee at the time he was dis-
charged. However, here again, there is no showing that the
operation of this machine, which was essentially used for the
purpose of calculating heats, and keeping inventory and pro-
duction records, was other than a routine and clerical opera-
tion.
In sum, I am convinced and therefore find that the duties
of Taylor to the extent that they included the direction and
control of other employees who worked with him in the raw
materials department , was such as a "straw boss" or "lead-
man," which were "not intended to be excluded from the
coverage of the Act."42 Rather I find that the record reflects
that Taylor was "merely a superior workman or a leadman
who exercised the control of a skilled worker over less capable
employees."43
II THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with the interstate operations of Respondent,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
41 Respondent contends that Taylor "effectively recommended" that
Shirley Helms and Joe Wright received pay increases. However, Lowery
testified that the raises were "basically automatic" but subject to a veto; that,
moreover, Helms received the raise even though Taylor apparently did not
"recommend" it, i.e., he told Lowery, that "she had a lot of room for im-
provement "
42 N.L.R.B. v. Quincy Steel Casting Company, 200 F.2d 293, 296 (C A.
1), see also Salant Corporation d/b/a Carrizo Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 214 NLRB No. 21 (1974); Becker County Sand and Gravel
Company, 157 NLRB 557, 567-571, enfd. 373 F 2d 528 (C.A. 4, 1976).
43 NL R.B. v Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Inc., 257 F 2d 235, 239
(C A. 4, 1958). In a recent case (Crest Chemical Company, 213 NLRB No.
118 (1974)) a panel majority of the Board found a "leaderperson," who was
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities, and by threatening employees with loss of
benefits or other reprisals if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging its employee, Jerry Sam Taylor, in order
to discourage membership in the Union, Respondent had
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Jerry Sam Taylor, it is recommended that Respond-
ent offer said employee immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him. Any backpay found to be
due shall be computed in accordance with the formula set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
strike at the very heart of employee rights safeguarded by the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be placed under a
broad order to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
on the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.44
salaried and possessed greater authority than Taylor, not to be a supervisor,
as defined in the Act. See also Paoli Chair Company, Inc, 213 NLRB No
121 (1974).
44 NL RB. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4)
TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC. 895
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)-of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER45
The Respondent, Teledyne Allvac, Inc., Monroe, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 71, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against employees because of their union membership or
activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership or activities.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of benefits or other
reprisals should they join or assist the above-named Union or
select it as their collective-bargaining representative.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor
organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutal aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities. -
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jerry Sam Taylor immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job, or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to se-
niority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him in the manner set forth 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, person-
nel records and reports, and all records necessary and rele-
vant to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due
under this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Monroe, North Carolina, plant 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 the Company's authorized repre-
4iI In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order which follows herein shall, as pro-
vided in Sec 102.48 of those Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
116 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board "
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Company 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 date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith. -
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed in all other respects.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board, after a hearing in
which all parties were permitted to introduce evidence, found
that we discharged Jerry Sam Taylor unlawfully and that by
his discharge we discouraged our employees from engaging
in concerted activities and from becoming members of Driv-
ers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 71, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL offer the above-named employee his former
job or, if his job no longer exists, a substantially
equivalent position and will restore his seniority.
WE WILL pay him any backpay he has lost because we
discharged him.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge employees for law-
fully engaging in union activities or protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with
respect to their union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of benefits
or other reprisals if they engage in activities on behalf of
the above-named union, or any other labor organization.
The laws of the United States give all employees these
rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join or help unions
To bargain as a group through representatives they
choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
All of our employees are free to remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of a labor organization.
TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC.