The Cameron Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Cameron Company and Local 545, Service
Employees International Union , AFL-CIO. Case
23-CA-3868
September 29, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On June 29, 1971, Trial Examiner Myron S. Waks
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief and the Acting General Counsel filed an
answering 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, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, The Cameron Company, Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
i We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial
Examiner 's Decision which in no way affect his Decision nor our adoption
thereof . In the first sentence of paragraph 2 of sec. III, 1, the Trial
Examiner states that Mott was first employed by Respondent in October
1968, when in fact the evidence shows that she was originally hired in
October 1969. In the third sentence of paragraph 1 of sec. III, 3, the Trial
Examiner finds that Benton admittedly did not discuss the two alleged
airline complaints with Mott. As the record shows, and the Trial Examiner
correctly found in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of sec III, 2,
Benton testified that he did talk to Mott about the two purported airline
complaints . However, Benton further stated that he never specifically
warned Mott about doing her job nor took any other action besides
communicating the complaints to her
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3) We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his fi.sdings.
As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties, Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MYRON S. WAKs, Trial Examiner: This case was tried at
Houston, Texas, on April 27, 1971, pursuant to charges
filed on January 26, 1971, and a complaint issued on March
5, 1971, alleging that Respondent discharged Mary Mott in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.' Respondent
admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The pleadings establish and I find that Respondent, a
Texas corporation having its principal office in Houston,
Texas, where it is engaged in the business of furnishing
building maintenance services to other enterprises, during
the year preceding issuance of the complaint purchased and
received goods in excess of $50,000 from outside the State
of Texas. Upon these admitted facts, I find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Local 545, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, which is an organization in which
employees participate and exists for the purpose of dealing
with employers in respect to rates of pay, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Mott s Union Activity, the Company's Response
and Mott's Discharge
The Company has contracts to provide janitorial services
at Houston International Airport. These contracts are with
the city for certain public areas of the airport, and with the
airlines to maintain their areas.
Mott was first employed by the Company in October
1968 and was assigned to performing cleaning work for the
airlines at terminal A. Her employment with Cameron
continued until sometime in June 1970. Mott who at that
time was working the night shift from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30
a.m. was forced to leave her job because of transportation
i General Counsel amended the complaint at the start of the hearing to
delete the allegation that certain conduct set forth in par . 7 of the
complaint constituted violations of Sec 8 (a)(l) of the Act in view of the
informal settlement agreement entered into with Respondent which inter
aba covered such conduct and had not been set aside.
193 NLRB No. 67
THE CAMERON COMPANY
difficulties. Two weeks later Mott contacted the Company
and spoke with Company Supervisor Robert Castille and
learned there was an opening on the evening shift which
worked between 2:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. Mott accepted
the job and continued to work on that shift until her
discharge on January 24, 1971. When Mott returned to
work in June 1970, she was told by both Castille and Heyse,
the Company's general manager for airport operations, that
they were happy to have her back. Also, during the early
part of the summer of 1970 she was complimented for the
work she performed for Eastern Airlines by James Benton,
the assistant manager for Cameron at the airport. At that
time Benton told Mott that it was because of her good work
that Eastern had not canceled its service contract with the
Company.
Sometime during the summer of 1970 the work assign-
ments of the Cameron employees providing services for the
airlines was changed. Apparently while Cameron had
previously assigned one employee to clean each airline
(Mott had been assigned to Eastern), it now assigned one
employee to do just policing work with no heavy cleaning
for two airlines on the evening shift. Mott was assigned to
work for Eastern and Texas International, and employee
Linda Frankinburger was assigned to Continental and
National Airlines; these were all located in terminal A.
Mott's job, briefly described, was to police the ticket
counter areas, the satellites or flight stations (where the
passengers gathered before boarding or leaving the
aircraft), the long corridor between the ticket counter and
the flight stations , and the operations area where the airline
employees who serviced the planes were stationed.
Frankinburger performed the same duties for Continental
and National Airlines. In addition, the two employees were
required to clean the Hertz car rental booth, the gift shop,
and Continental's VIP room together. In performing their
jobs, Mott and Frankinburger were expected to make two
rounds of the airline stations-one round before their
dinner break and one round following it. Each of the
employees was permitted to schedule the order in which
they performed their work; the only requirement being that
they clean the Continental VIP lounge at 9 p.m. In
November 1970, Assistant Manager Benton became Mott's
immediate supervisor; Benton relieved Robert Castille who
was moved to the day shift.
Starting in July or August 1970 the Union began
organizing the Company's employees. The first two
employees who assisted Union Representative Lucio in the
organizing campaign were employees Vasquez and Mott;
other employees who were active on behalf of the Union
included Alanzo Villarreal and Linda Frankinburger. Mott
spoke to employees on breaktime in favor of the Union and
2 Respondent's objection at the hearing to the admissibility of this and
other evidence relating to conduct covered by the prior settlement
agreement , still outstanding , was overruled The Board may and will
consider conduct which is the subject matter of an outstanding settlement
agreement for purposes of considering a respondent ' s motivation or animus
concerning alleged unlawful conduct which is not covered by the
settlement . See Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co, 160 NLRB 1484, Steve's Sash
& Door Co, v N L R B, 401 F 2d 676 (C A 5) See also Joseph's
Landscaping Service, 154 NLRB 1384, enfd 389 F 2d 271 (C A. 9)
3 Frankinburger testified as a rebuttal witness for the General Counsel.
Benton denied that he had any conversation about the meeting to be held
at Denny's with any employee , other than possibly Mary Bryant, who told
431
signed a union authorization card in mid-August. In early
November, Mott arranged for a meeting between Cameron
employees and the Union on a Wednesday evening at
Dobb's House, a coffee shop at terminal A. At this meeting
employees Mott, Frankinburger, Villarreal, and one other
employee met with Lucio and another union representative.
It was agreed at this time that a meeting of Cameron
employees and the Union would be held the following
Saturday morning at Denny's, a restaurant about 5 miles
from the airport. Thereafter, Mott distributed notices
advising the employees of the meeting.
Prior to the meeting at Denny's, Assistant Manager
Benton engaged Frankinburger in a conversation about the
Union when she walked into the office to check out.2
Frankinburger credibly testified that at this meeting (at
which only she and Benton were present), she was asked by
Benton if the employees had held a meeting with the Union
at Dobb's House, if they were supposed to meet at Denny's,
and if she, Frankinburger were going to attend the meeting.
Frankinburger told Benton that her daughter was ill and
she did not know whether she would attend the meeting.
Benton told Frankinburger that he was telling her this
because he knew that she had to work and that Mary Mott
had a husband who was working and could support her.
Benton then stated that he did not need Mott, that he knew
she was involved in the Union, and while making this
statement erased Mott's name from the schedule board
behind him.3 That same night Mott received a call from
Frankinburger who told her that Benton indicated
employees attending the meeting at Denny's would be
discharged.4
The following morning Mott arrived at Denny's Restau-
rant for the planned meeting. Heyse had arrived at Denny's
earlier along with his two sons and Bevin Harvey, the
general manager of the Company and Heyse's supervisor.
Heyse and Harvey had also been at Denny's the previous
morning. Benton had heard a rumor about what he
gathered was to be a union organizing meeting with
Cameron employees. According to Heyse, he was there to
see what was "transpiring." More specifically, I find that
Heyse was there to learn which of his employees attended
the meeting. Heyse saw three men drive up in a car with a
New York license plate. Later he observed one company
employee come into the restaurant, talk to these men, and
leave within a few seconds; he also passed former employee
Alanzo Villarreal as he was coming into the restaurant and
observed him talking to the three men. He and Harvey at
this time walked out of the restaurant to the parking lot and
stood there talking. About this time Mary Mott arrived and
drove up to Heyse. Mott asked Heyse if she was
terminated; Heyse said "no, not that he knew of." Mott
him of it, he further denied that he ever threatened employees about the
Union or talked to employees other than to indicate when he was
approached by them that it was their decision and to caution them about
union activity on company time I have credited Frankinburger's
testimony Frankinburger was still in the employ of Respondent and her
experience on the witness stand in her employer's presence was obviously
not an easy one Frankmburger who was obviously under great stress when
testifying impressed me as a more honest witness than Benton.
4 I have not relied on Mott's testimony concerning this telephone call to
the extent it concerned the truth that Benton made such a statement to
Frankinburger but have relied on it only to the extent that it explains
Mott's exchange with Heyse the following day.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then parked and proceeded into the restaurant; she
observed Heyse and Harvey leaving about 15 minutes after
her arrival.
The following evening when Mott reported for work she
found that her timecard had been removed from its slot.
She then asked Relief Supervisor Mike Waring5 if she had
been fired . Waring said he would check and made a
telephone call during which he asked if Mott had been
terminated . Waring during the call picked up Mott's
timecard which she observed had a "big red question mark"
by her name. Waring when he completed his call told Mott
to go to work.
That evening or the following evening about 9:30 p.m.
Mott encountered Benton as she was coming down the
Texas International hallway after cleaning the Continental
VIP room. Benton asked Mott what the Union promised
the workers and stated that "a lot of people had been fired
because they tried to get the union in." Benton also told
Mott that Heyse had left it to him whether she stayed on the
payroll and that if she tried "to get the Union in" she would
be discharged .6 Mott continued to be active on behalf of
the Union until her discharge.
On Monday, January 18, 1971, Mott injured her stomach
while working. She reported this to Schwartz, supervisor of
trainees ; Schwartz told Mott to return to work if she felt
able to do so. On Wednesday, Mott "almost fainted" and
could not continue her work; Mott spoke to Benton and
received permission to go home. At that time Mott told
Benton if she was feeling better she would return to work
the next day. When Mott reported for work on Thursday
she was told by Benton to stay behind while the others went
to work; Benton told Mott she would have to be examined
and get a doctor's release for the Company's protection.
When Mott "kiddingly" asked Benton if that meant she was
discharged , he replied that it did not. Mott returned home
and on Friday went to the Company's doctor who told her
there was a possible muscle strain but that she could return
to work. In the meantime , on January 21, 1971, the
Thursday preceding the discharge of Mott, Respondent
pursuant to a settlement agreement of an earlier charge
which was approved on January 15, 1971, started to post
notices in compliance with the agreement. The notices
covered charged 8(a)(l) conduct, the assurance that
employees would not be discharged because of union
activity, and the offer of reinstatement to Alanzo Villarreal
(not accepted by Villarreal) plus payment for loss of wages
to Villarreal which he may have suffered because of his
charged unlawful discharge. On the following day, Heyse
discussed Mott's status with Benton. Heyse solicited
Benton 's opinion regarding the retention of Mott and
according to Benton he told Heyse that Mott's work was
"down" and that she should be terminated. According to
5 The facts set forth concerning this exchange are based on Mott's
credited testimony which was undisputed, Waring was not called to testify
6 The substance of the exchange set forth is based on the credited
testimony of Mott, who impressed me as a more reliable witness than
Benton . Moreover, Benton's version of the conversation strains credulity
According to Benton, Mott had stopped him and stated that her husband
did not believe in unions, that unions were only out for poor people's
money, and that she would not participate in union activity Yet on cross-
examination , Benton testified that he knew Mott was "talking for the
Union," and learned this "about the time she stopped me in Continental,
Eastern , Texas International 's concourse" Furthermore, it is highly
Heyse he took the matter under advisement and on Sunday,
January 24, 1971, reached the decision to discharge Mott.
According to Heyse, to save Mott the trip to the airport he
then called Castille, who was the supervisor on duty at the
airport and asked him to call Mott at home and relate to her
his discharge decision. Heyse testified that he told Castille
to tell Mott the reason for her discharge was that over a
period of time the Company had received complaints from
the airlines. He instructed Castille to tell Mott that if she
had any questions she was to speak to him.
Mott who was scheduled to work on Sunday, January 24
(her days off normally were Friday and Saturday) in fact
received a telephone call from Castille before she left for
work and was informed that she was discharged. Mott's
testimony regarding her exchange with Castille is
undisputed.? Castille told Mott that he was calling on the
instructions of Heyse, that she was not to go to work that
day, and that she was terminated. When Mott asked why
she had been terminated, Castille said there had been
complaints from Eastern that she had not been performing
her work properly. Mott remonstrated with Castille, stating
that she believed there was more involved, referring to
rumors that Benton was going to discharge higher paid
employees and hire new employees for less money, that
Benton was the one really behind the whole thing and that
she would talk to him. Castille assured Mott that all the
orders came from Heyse and that if she wanted a more
detailed explanation about her discharge she could contact
Heyse. Mott did not contact Heyse for a further
explanation of the reason for her discharge and on January
26, 1971, the charge in the instant proceeding was filed.
B. Respondent 's Defenses
Respondent, whose only stated reason to Mott for her
discharge was the receipt of complaints from Eastern
Airlines, took the position at the hearing that Mott's
discharge resulted from complaints received from other
sources as well as the airlines. Thus, Heyse testified that "it
was a culmination over a period of time of reports from my
supervisors, reports in the log about complaints delivered to
us either by the airlines or by supervisors or other
employees employed by the Cameron Company at the
airport." 8
In order to evaluate the defense of Respondent it is
necessary to consider the frequency of complaints generally
received by Cameron, the way in which they are treated and
the course of action ordinarily followed with regard to the
employees involved. According to Benton he receives
complaints daily, that it is the nature of the business;
generally these complaints came from airlines and others
are received from supervisors about work left undone on
improbable that Mott who earlier attended the meeting at Denny's at
which she had seen Heyse, would stop Benton to tell him , contrary to what
she realized was the known fact, that she would not participate in union
activity
7 Castille was not called as a witness by Respondent; Mott's version of
this exchange is consistent with Heyse's testimony as to the instructions he
gave Castille regarding the call he was to make to Mott
8 According to Heyse, Mott's injury played no part in his discharge
decision except to the extent he was assured that Mott could return to work
and he was not terminating an employee who was medically incapable of
working because of an injury received on the job
THE CAMERON COMPANY
the previous shifts. As to the latter Benton testified, for
example, that he receives complaints almost daily from the
supervisor of the day shift about work left undone by the
night shift. Benton further testified that the shift supervisors
also enter complaints in the logbook which the Company
maintains.9 According to Benton he enters complaints in
the log only if they are "serious" or "major" complaints.
Upon receipt of complaints they are generally investigated;
many turn out not to be valid complaints and where the
complaint is valid the employee who is responsible is
usually told of it. According to the testimony of both Sue
Rodin, the night supervisor and Dorothy Clifton, the day
supervisor, an employee whose work is not satisfactory is
warned, given an opportunity to improve, and only if the
employee fails to improve is he or she terminated. It is
undisputed that Mott was never warned before her
discharge that her work was unsatisfactory or that her job
was in jeopardy.
Regarding the Eastern Airline complaints allegedly
received about Mott, the declared reason for her discharge,
Respondent adduced only the vague testimony of Benton
regarding one telephone call from somebody at Eastern,
whom he could not identify, and which he placed as
occurring in December 1970. The Eastern complaint
purportedly concerned Eastern areas which were badly in
need of cleaning while Mott was on duty. The only other
airline complaint attested to by Benton was a call from
Texas International and allegedly concerned Mott talking
too much with airline personnel. According to Benton these
were the only airlines complaints he received about Mott
and the only two occasions on which he had talked to Mott
about complaints. Benton did not consider either of these
serious enough to log them nor did he even claim to have
issued any kind of warning to Mott on these occasions.
Mott, whom I found a more credible witness than Benton
denied that she was ever told by Benton about an Eastern
complaint or any other airline complaint. Furthermore, I
find that Benton, contrary to his testimony, never received
these complaints. First, Benton's description of the
complaint received from Eastern, that the area looked like a
"hog pen" and that his investigation disclosed this to be the
case, I find incredible in view of his further testimony that
he did not reprimand Mott about the situation, and further
while Benton purports to have appraised the situation as
one of the worst he had seen, he admittedly did not log the
incident, as he does when there is a major complaint. The
foregoing taken together with Benton's inability to identify
the person making the complaint, his uncertainty as to
when the complaint was received, and Mott's credible
9 The Company did not put the logbook in evidence
10 As regards Mott's work for Eastern I note the credible testimony of
Hope Davenport, Eastern's ground hostess for customer service, that Mott
did an exceptionally good job for Eastern and that she had told this to
Cameron supervisors several times and to Benton as late as January 1971
Hope Davenport as ground hostess covered all Eastern areas, it was part of
her job to make certain the areas were clean and it was she who originated
most airline complaints about Cameron employees Davenport who
worked from 10 30 a in to 7 p in (or later if needed) had made complaints
about other Cameron employees but she had no occasion to complain
about Mott's work As she told Benton, she could always count on Mott's
cooperation in an emergency situation as well as Mott's performing a good
job at her regular tasks
ii Mott admitted that at timeti she had not completed all the work
433
testimony that Benton never spoke to her about the matter
leads me to conclude that the incident did not occur.10
Similarly, I do not credit Benton's testimony that he had
received a complaint from Texas International. In this
instance too Benton's testimony was vague as to the
Ilentity of the complainant or when it occurred; further-
more Benton did not record it in the log and Mott credibly
denied that she was ever told by Cameron that she was
talking too much.
Sue Rodin, the night supervisor for Cameron, was the
principal witness for the Respondent in cataloging
complaints about Mott's work. According to Rodin she did
not like to log complaints against employees because it
caused hard feelings but generally spoke to the employee's
supervisor. Rodin's testimony was that Mott frequently left
work undone; according to Rodin this started in July or
August.ii Rodin at first testified that she made complaints
to Benton at least five or six times and probably more
before she started to enter them in the logbook, that this
would be before the end of August; Rodin then testified the
first bad complaint she logged following complaints to
Benton was in October; later she testified that her
complaints to Benton were toward the end of the year 1970,
within the last 3 months "when we started finding, when I
started finding so much being left undone." Rodin further
testified that she complained to Benton several times after
she started writing in the logbook. According to Rodin she
also complained several times about Mott when she was
talking to Heyse. Apart from Rodin's inconsistent testimo-
ny as to when and how often she had complained to
Benton, her testimony is at odds with that of Benton,
himself. In the first place Benton testified that prior to his
becoming Mott's immediate supervisor in November 1970
he was not familiar with Mott's work nor had he received
any complaints about Mott. Furthermore, according to
Benton he had received just two or three complaints from
Rodin about work Mott had left undone. He admittedly
never spoke to Mott about them. Furthermore, Benton's
attitude toward complaints from supervisors regarding the
work of employees on previous shifts reflects that this was a
daily occurrence and one which he apparently did not take
as serious. In any event Rodin herself testified that she had
stopped complaining to Benton or making entries in the log
at the end of December 1970.
C. Concluding Findings
Based on the facts set forth above I conclude that the
reasons advanced by Respondent for Mott's discharge were
pretextual. In the first place the reason told Mott at the time
during her second round of the airlines She had been instructed to clean
the Continental VIP room at 9 o'clock and even Rodin testified that
following this there would be time for Mott to cover only one other area
Mott had been instructed by Benton to make certain that airlines
operations was covered before she left It is quite possible therefore that
some of the areas covered by Mott would not have been policed between 9
p in and II p in when Rodin or her people arrived to perform their work.
There is the further consideration, as noted by Supervisor Dorothy Clifton,
that "finding a mess don't mean that it hasn't been cleaned up already in
airlines Finding a mess like that doesn't mean that it hasn 't been cleaned
up maybe two or three times during the day. Because they are real messy
there and they are working constantly around the clock. And you can clean
it up and go back an hour or two later and you've got the same mess to
clean up again "
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was discharged, i.e., complaints from Eastern (or as
Heyse purportedly told Castille, complaints from airlines), I
have found lacked any basis in fact. Moreover, even were I
to credit Benton 's testimony that he had received the two
airline complaints, the fact that Benton, who logged serious
complaints and admittedly did not do so in these instances,
or even discuss the complaints with Mott, would support
the conclusion that the alleged complaints from airlines
were not the reason for Mott's discharge, as Heyse testified
he instructed Castille to tell Mott at the time of her
termination.
Furthermore, I find, in addition to the fact that
Respondent shifted from its declared reason at the time of
the discharge to add other reasons at the time of the hearing
(i.e., complaints from sources other than airlines), that
Respondent's further explanation for Mott's discharge does
not withstand examination. The other source of complaints
as to which Respondent presented testimony concerned
those made by Rodin relating to work left undone by Mott
during the evening shift.12 Benton's testimony is, however,
that he had received just two or three complaints from
Rodin concerning Mott and that this kind of complaint
occurred almost daily. Furthermore, Benton's failure to
even communicate with Mott about these complaints
evidences that Rodin's complaints were not considered
serious and would not have been the basis for her
termination. For the record establishes that where an
employee's work was considered unsatisfactory, the
procedure followed by the supervisors was to warn the
employee, and give the employee an opportunity to
improve prior to any termination action. It is particularly
significant that Mott, who was a senior employee among a
complement where there was substantial turnover, was
never told her work was unsatisfactory or given any
warning that her job was in jeopardy by Benton or any
other official of the Company. Indeed during Mott's
relatively long tenure with the Company she had been
individually complimented for her work by Benton in the
summer of 1970, was a member of a group whom Benton
told was doing a good job in December 1970, and had been
commended to Benton for the fine job she was doing for
Eastern as late as January 1971. In the circumstances,
Respondent's sudden termination of Mott without any
prior warning I find was not for the reason, advanced by
Respondent, that complaints were received about Mott's
work performance.i3
It having been found that the reasons advanced by
Respondent were pretextual, I conclude that the motivating
reason for the Company's termination of Mott was her
union activities. In reaching this conclusion I have
considered the Respondent's argument that there was no
showing of coercive conduct by Respondent between
November and Mott's discharge in January. However, I
find this insufficient to outweigh the other evidence
pertaining to the Company's discharge motivation. The
Company knew of Mott's activities on behalf of the Union,
which it opposed, and had threatened to discharge Mott for
12 As noted Respondent failed to introduce the Company's logs, these
would have provided objective evidence of the complaints entered about
Mott as compared to the number of complaints entered against other
employees for similar reasons
13 In its brief Respondent points to the fact that during the month
her union role; these affirmative facts which provide a
substantial basis for the conclusion of unlawful motivation
are lent further support by Respondent's shifting reasons
for Mott's discharge, its failure to proffer any credible
evidence in support of its initially stated reason for Mott's
summary dismissal, and the failure of its later explanation
to stand up on close examination of the credible evidence in
this record.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's discharge of
Mott was because of her union activities and therefore was
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, occurnng in connection with the operations of the
Respondent, as described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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
It having been found that the Company engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, it will be recommended that the Company cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Company offer Mary
Mott reinstatement and also make her whole for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her, by payment to her of any loss of wages which
she may have suffered by reason of her discharge consistent
with the Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Company by discharging Mary Mott on January
24, 1971, for engaging in union activities , violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, which unfair labor practices
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
preceding her discharge Mott had read a newspaper for 15 minutes while
on the job, smoked a cigarette in the restroom dunng worktime, and failed
to have her worksheet signed properly. As to none of these incidents,
however, was any complaint ever made to Mott or a warning given as to
possible disciplinary action
THE CAMERON COMPANY 435
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 14
ORDER
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
he. ewith "
The Cameron Company its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 545, Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO or any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of
its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer to Mary Mott immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole
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,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to compute the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at Houston International Airport copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said
notf ,e, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 23, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent 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
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
15 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a trial in which the Company and the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participat-
ed and offered their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the
Board has found that we violated the law; we hereby
inform you that:
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees to try to discourage employees from
being or becoming members of Local 545 Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere
with you or attempt to restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the above rights.
WE WILL offer Mary Mott immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if thatjob no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and pay
her for the earnings she lost as a result of her January
24, 1971, discharge, plus 6-percent interest.
All our employees are free, if they choose, to join Local
545 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
THE CAMERON COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas,
Telephone 713-226-4296.