The Lau Blower Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1226 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of receipt.
of this Trial Examiner 's Decision , the Respondent shall notify , the said Regional
Director, in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order,29'
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the-
aforesaid action.
29 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall:
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local 377, or United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our em-
ployees , by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment. -
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local 377, or United Steel-
workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual
aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor -Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Raymond O. Kuneli , Paul R . Weeden, Philip E . LaCivita,
Thomas Kliem , Frank Bartholomew , Vincent P. Chianese , Daniel J. Creatura,
Vergil Larson , Joseph G . Shuluga, and Dwight Unger immediate and full rein-
statement to the former or substantially equivalent position of each without
prejudice to the seniority or other rights and privileges each previously enjoyed
and we will make each of them whole for any loss of salary or pay suffered as
the result of the discrimination against him.
IRON CITY SASH & DOOR COMPANY OF JOHNSTOWN,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of the right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Eighth Regional Office, 720
Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland , Ohio , Telephone No. Main
1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
The Lau Blower Company and United Steelworkers of America,.
AFL-CIO . Case No. 05-CA-1755. April 30, 196.¢
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 7, 1964, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Decision -in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
146 NLRB No. 146.
. THE LAU BLOWER COMPANY 1227
had engaged'' in- and was engaging in :certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and, desist therefrom and take certain
-affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. He also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.
'Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Decision and supporting briefs. The Respondent also filed a
reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the modification noted.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, The Lau
Blower Company, its officers, agents, successors, and. assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to find the layoff of
James Rains on April 12, 1963, discriminatory. The Trial Examiner's failure so to find
appears to be based on his erroneous assumption that this action had not been alleged to
be violative. As in fact the complaint does include such an allegation, the matter was
litigated, and the record fully supports a finding df a violation of Section 8(a)(3) with
respect to Rains' layoff from April 12 to June 25 , 1963, we find merit in the General
Counsel's exception, and hereby modify the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy,"
to provide, additionally, that James Rains be made whole for any loss of pay he may have
:suffered by reason of the discrimination against him from April 12 to June 25, 1963.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed May 13, 1963, and an amended charge filed July 17, 1963, by
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Steelworkers or the
Union, against The Lau Blower Company, herein called Lau or the Respondent,
the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging Respondent violated Section
:8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. At the hearing the motion of the General
-Counsel to dismiss the allegations that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and
a motion to amend the complaint in other particulars were granted. The answer
of Respondent, as amended, denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
John F. Funke at Indianapolis, Indiana, on September 30 and October 1 and 2,
1963.1 At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given permission to file
briefs and briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on.
November 13.
1 Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to 1963.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in-this case and my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation having a place of business at Indianapolis,
Indiana. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electric fans
and blowers and during the past 12 months had sold manufactured products in a
value exceeding $50,000 to points outside the State of Indiana.
I find Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The discharge of Hargrove
Ronald S. Hargrove was employed as a tool and machine mechanic by Respondent
and was earning $2.62 an hour when he was discharged on May 10. Hargrove
had been in the employ of Respondent for about 8 years. Hargrove testified that
he did not learn that the Steelworkers were attempting to organize the plant until
about April 1. On or about April 8 he had a conversation with another employee
named James Rains. In this conversation Rains 'asked him if he would join the
Union and Hargrove replied that he would not and that he did not think a union
was.needed at Lau. Shortly after. this conversation, which took place in the men's
restroom, Hargrove had a conversation with Wilbur Pash, the plant superintendent,
at his workbench, in which Pash, after discussing a work problem, told him that
it "didn't look good for him to be talking to Rains as Rains was a known union
member and was pushing the Union." According to Hargrove, Pash went on to
say that he would "hang his ass one way or the other" and that Hargrove could
tell Rains that. Hargrove told Pash he could tell Rains himself but that he would
speak with Rains,.tell him conditions were much better than when he started work,
that Pash and Bill Cook, plant manager, should be given a fair chance, and that he
(Hargrove) would back him 100 percent.2 This conversation was not denied by
Pash.
On'April'27 Hargrove had a conversation with Bill Cook in Cook's office re-
specting. another employee, Willie Savage, who. had . received a 3-day suspension. In
this conversation Cook described the union employees as cancerous 3 and told'
Hargrove it "didn't look good" for him to be talking to them and that "they were
jeopardizing my job by my affiliation with them." Cook went on to say that they
thought Willie was for the Union and that he was not doing him any favors. On
April 29, Hargrove had another conversation with Pash and Dick Russell, fore-
man in the heat department, respecting Savage in which some strong language was
used between Russell and Hargrove .before they were both sent back to work by
Pash. The Union was not mentioned in this argument and it appears to have no
relevancy to the,complaint.
Hargrove next testified to a conversation he had with Sam Hippie, vice president
of Lau, which took place on April 30 in the toolroom. In this conversation Hippie
asked him what he thought the employees' feelings were toward the Union. Har-
grove mentioned some complaints about transfers and abolition of overtime and
said the Union was gaining votes but that if things were restored to what they had
been the "union situation would have been forgotten about by then." Hippie was
not called as a witness by Respondent.
. About a week later Hargrove had a conversation with James Walls, -foreman of
the pressroom, in which Walls told him that if the Union got in they would move
the plant to Dayton.' This conversation is not denied by Walls.5
20n cross-examination Hargrove testified that he never signed a union card and never
assisted the Union in any way.
3 Cook specifically denied this remark.
4 Respondent's main plant was at Dayton.
5 Cook, in his testimony, stated that Hargrove told him that there was a rumor that the
plant would be moved to Dayton if the employees became organized and that lie not only
denied the rumor but explained that Lau had a 10-year lease at Indianapolis.
THE LAU BLOWER COMPANY 1229
On May 2 Hargrove had another conversation with Pash concerning Willie Savage.
In this conversation Pash told Hargrove that the supervisors thought he was for the
Union although not pushing it but that he was sympathetic with the union employees.
Hargrove asked him who the supervisors were and Pash told him Bill Biers and David
Hawkins, both foremen. Hargrove cursed both Biers and Hawkins and called them
liars.
On a day that can best be fixed as May 4, Hargrove had a conversation with James
Walls in which Walls allegedly told him that 14 employees were to be fired that day
because of their union affiliation. Walls denied making such a statement. and it is a
fact that 14 employees were not fired that day or as a group at any time. I credit
the testimony of Walls.
The next conversation relating to the Union occurred between Hargrove and
Pash on May 9. In this conversation Pash allegedly told him that he was not to work
any more overtime and when Hargrove asked for an explanation he was told that it
was because .of his association with the union people.6 Hargrove denied having
anything to do with • the Union and 'referred to the informants as damned liars.
Pash then informed him that his future depended on his activities in the next 10 days.
Hargrove protested the imposition of such a condition after 8 years of service and
told Pash that if he found out the "damn liar" his "ass belonged to me." Later that
same day he passed the desk.of Foreman Bill Biers and asked him if he told the
Company that he (Hargrove) was for the Union and Biers answered -that he had.
Hargrove then told him that because of his "damn lies" he had torn down in a
matter of minutes what Hargrove had taken 8 years to build up and that if he crossed
him one more time he would "stomp your damn brains in." He then asked Biers if
he wanted to try him out for size.
Pash denied telling Hargrove that he would receive no more overtime because
of his union affiliation although he admitted telling him that his overtime was to stop.
He did state that Biers reported to him that Hargrove had threatened and cursed
him on May 9 and that he in turn discussed the matter with Cook. They decided
that Hargrove would be discharged for cursing and threatening a foreman in the
plant.
The next day, according to Hargrove, Pash told him he would have to discharge
him because of his "squabble" with Biers and because of the language used. Despite
Hargrove's protest that Biers' "damn lies" had torn him down and that half the
plant used similar language the discharge stuck.
2. The termination of Rains
James Rains was employed by Lau from April 14, 1958, until April 12, 1963, when
he was laid off. He was reinstated on June 26, and laid off again on August 16 and
he was in a layoff status at the time of the hearing. Rains testified that he signed
an application-for-membership card with the Steelworkers on February 15 7 and
that thereafter he attempted to induce some 45 other employees to sign. Rains, at
the time of both layoffs, was employed as a shear setup man and his foreman was
James Walls. Rains stated that about April 1, Walls came to him while he was
working at the shear machine and said the Company "was on him because I was
talking to other employees, and he told me to stay at my machine and not talk to
them." He also told Rains that whatever he did at breaktime and dinnertime was
all right with him.
On April 12 at 4:25 p.m. (quitting time was 4:30), Walls came to him , gave him a
check, and told him the Company would call him when they needed him. There was
no further conversation. After he was recalled on June 25 he was again notified
by Walls that he was laid off and told that if there was an opening he would be called
back.
Plant Manager Cook testified that back in 1959, the Respondent began converting
from "flat stock" in the manufacture of propellers to coiled stock and that while flat
stock required shearing the coiled stock did not. The only product Lau produced which
required flat stock was its electric heater line and in June the electric heater line was
sold to the Cryo-Therm Company of Pennsylvania.8 Shortly after the sale Cryo-
Therm requested Lau to manufacture a group of heaters in its name and Rains was
6 Cook testified that he instructed Pash to stop Hargrove's overtime because he had
observed Hargrove spraying oil on weeds at 5:30 and thought that a poor way to be spend-
ing overtime money.
7 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
8 The sale or discontinuance of the electric heater line and the layoff of its employees
was discussed at a meeting on March 28. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recalled to'help rbn• this last group of heaters. He was again laid-, off when the. shear-
ing operations on this group was finished. in August. This is the economic back-
ground which the Respondent asserts justifies the layoff of Rains. .
This allegation of solely economic.motive, plausible on its . face, is weakened. by
other facts. While Rains was the only shear setup operator he,testified without con-
tradiction that he had also worked as setup man in the pressroom so that his experience
was not confined to shear setup work. Nevertheless, a new-employee was hired to
work as setup man in the manifold department the day before Rains was laid off
in August. At least one employee in the heater department was transferred to
another department at the time of Rains' layoff,9 and another employee, James
Hawk, testified that he had had been employed as setup man in :the propeller de-
partment for only.6 months when Rains was laid off.
There is further testimony relating to Respondent's layoff of Rains : Apart from
Hargrove's testimony as to the threats made by Pash, Geneva Hash, a sister of Rains,
testified that about 1 week after her brother was laid off in April Biers called her to
his desk and in the course of the conversation told her that it was too bad-her brother
had been laid off but that he had been flashing union cards and "they" could not
permit it. Although this statement was denied by Biers I credit Hash.
3. The discharge of William E. Crist III -
Crist testified that he had been employed by Lau as a liner operator on April 1,
1962, and was discharged April 16, 1963. He signed an application for member-
ship with the Steelworkers on March 27, 1963.
Crist testified to two conversations with Biers in which the Union was mentioned.
The first took place at Biers' desk in .the presence of employees Dale Sparks and Wil-
liam VanMeter. Biers asked Crist what he thought of the Union and Crist'told
him that the Union could provide security for the employees and the supervisors.
Biers then told VanMeter that if the Union got in there could be a raise in wages
but that eventually the Company would have to move or fold. The second occurred
about 3 days after Crist attended a union meeting when Biers asked him how.the
union meeting had been. Crist's answer was. that he did not fully understand it.
Crist stated that on Wednesday, April 16, he was suffering-from an abscessed
tooth and told another employee, Jim Hawks, to tell Biers he had to make a dentist's
appointment. Hawks returned to Crist and told him Biers wanted the name of the
dentist and the time of the appointment before he left. Crist told Hawks he would
make the appointment and then notify-Biers.l° Crist went home and tried to make
an appointment but, since it was Wednesday afternoon, he was unable to make one.
He then telephoned Biers that he was returning to work and was told by Biers
that his card had been pulled for leaving the plant without permission . Bfers claimed
he had told Hawks to instruct Crist to report to him before he had punched out at
noon and Crist claimed he had never received the message. At 4 o'clock Crist
again called Biers and asked to discuss the discharge. The request was refused.
Three or four weeks later Crist called Plant Manager Cook and asked for his job
back. Cook told him he would investigate. Cook testified, however, that he told
Crist he would not interfere with a supervisor and that Crist should go directly
to Biers. There were no further contacts.
4. The discharge of Ann Bray
Ann.Bray was employed by Lau from November 2, 1961, until she was discharged
on May 9, 1963. She signed an application-for-membership card with the Steel-
workers on February 18. She testified that she worked as a propeller balancer
under Bill Biers and that about May 1 she had a discussion with him in which he
stated the Company's rules must be observed. They had some discussion about
grievances in the plant, including work assignments and cursing, and Biers then
told her that she had made her mistake in joining the Union. They then discussed
whether or not Bray had joined and Biers told her she should be on one side of
6 The testimony does not establish whether this referred to the April or August layoff.
10 On recall Crist testified that 10 minutes before he clocked out Biers passed his desk:
and he told Biers he would make the appointment and notify him when and where it was.
According to Crist, Biers merely grunted. This conversation was corroborated by em-
ployee Dale Sparks, to the extent that be testified that he had overheard Biers tell Crist
that he was to make the appointment and notify him of the name of the dentist and
the time.
THE LAU BLOWER COMPANY 1231
the fence or the other and that he was going to fire her, union or no union , because
she had gone to a union meeting. He then told her he would get her and that if
she went to the Labor Board and told them what he had said he would swear she
was a liar.
On May 9, Bray was working at her machine when Pash and Biers approached
her and said there was a rumor that she had a weapon in her possession and told
her they were going to search her and her locker." Bray stated that she had been
threatened with a gun and a razor and asked Pash if be had heard of that and Pash
admitted he had. Bray refused to submit to any search and was told to check out.
This terminated her employment with Lau.
Marylin Hanson, called by the Respondent, testified that on the night before
Bray was discharged she .had a conversation with her in which Bray told her she
was in a quarrel and that Hargrove was going to make her a blackjack, slip it into
her car, and get "them" the next day. When she left work that night she saw Har-
grove putting something in Bray's car. She asked him what it was and was told
it was a flashlight.12 The next day she told different employees, including Bill
Biers, about her conversation with Bray.
Marcella Dianne White, called by Respondent, testified that on the day of Bray's
discharge she overheard a conversation between Bray and Bobbie Williams, another
employee, and that during the conversation Bray pulled a blackjack out of her
purse and showed it to Williams. White told Dave Hawkins, a setup man , of the
incident.13 Hawkins testified that be reported this to Bill Biers.t4
5. The quitting of Betty Waggoner
Betty Waggoner was employed by Lau on November 21, 1961, signed an ap-
plication for membership in the Steelworkers on February 20, 1963, and quit her
employment on April 29. Waggoner testified that about a week before she signed
her card she had a conversation with Personnel Director Dawson Price in which
Price asked her if she knew anyone at the Company who had signed a union card.
She testified she had many conversations with Biers in which the Union was dis-
cussed. In one of them Biers had a copy of a notice sent by the Steelworkers to the
employees.15 He told Waggoner that he "didn't give a damn what law he was break-
ing, he had better not see any union cards on the premises , at break time, lunch
time, in the locker room, that he would fire every damn one of them." 16 In a sub-
sequent conversation which took place about April 1 or 2 Biers told her he under-
stood there was going to be1another union meeting and that he would like her to
attend and report to him what took place, that he wanted to find out what "they were
up to." He told her he had had three people go to a previous meeting and that
"they have been spotted, and I don't want anyone to get hurt." Waggoner told him
she could not go and at the close of the day she again told him so and Biers told her
to forget it, that he had plenty of friends. Waggoner further testified that after this
conversation she received no more overtime whereas prior to the conversation she
had received as much as 12 to 18 hours a week.
On or about April 19 or 20 Biers took her to his desk and said he had received
a petition which stated at least 30 percent of the people wanted a union and that he
wanted to find out why. Waggoner told him • that she was not receiving enough
money, that Hawkins had taken the stop off her machine 17 and had not replaced
it, and that if her harassment did not stop she was quitting. _
111 credit the testimony of Pash and Biers that they asked only to search her locker
and her purse.
"Hargrove and Bray both testified it was a flashlight.
13 Williams denied that Bray ever showed her a blackjack.
11 Blers testified that Hawkins told him that White had reported to him that Bray had a
blackjack In her possession.
11 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6.
11 Later In her testimony Waggoner testified to a conversation with Pliers which took
place before she signed her card and in which Biers told her that if the Union came in he
would quit, that he would do anything to keep the Union out, and that lie was going to
fire "every damn" employee who was for the Union. It is not clear that this was part of
the conversation recited above but it took place, apparently, about the same time.
"There is interminable testimony as to whether the stop was a safety device. On the
basis of the testimony of Plant Superintendent Pash and other operators , I conclude that
it was not, at least primarily , a safety device. Respondent offered in evidence a film,
Respondent ' s Exhibit No . 4, showing the operation of this machine. The offer was rejected.
744-670-65-vol . 146-79
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Waggoner also testified to a conversation with Plant Manager Cook in early April
in which he told her that he and Biers drank at the corner several times, that they
tried to figure out who was for the Union and who was against it, and that if the
Union came in the prop department would be moved to Dayton.
On April 29 about 10:40 a.m. Waggoner left her post and went to the office of
Personnel Director Price, told him she had punched out, laid her card on his desk,
and told him she had quit. When asked the reason she told him she did not have
to work with "the scum of the earth." She was then told she could talk to Plant
Superintendent Pash to whom she repeated her grievances, particularly the removal
of the stop. On May 3, she called Cook, made an appointment, and again repeated
her grievances. Cook sympathized with her and told her he was equally opposed
to such` things.
Dawson Price, called by Respondent, testified that Waggoner told him she was
quitting for personal reasons and that no specific reasons or grievances were men-
tioned. Respondent offered in evidence timecards from the first week in January
until April 28 as evidence of her overtime.18 These cards indicate that the amount
of overtime varied from week to week and followed no consistent pattern. (For
the first 3 weeks in January Waggoner earned no overtime at all.) In the week of
March 31, the week immediately preceding the conversation with Biers which allegedly
stopped her overtime, Waggoner received no overtime. The week ending April 7 she
received 12 hours, in the week ending April 14 she received 13 hours, in the week end-
ing April 21 she did not work the first 2 days but received I hour overtime on the third
day and 4 hours on the sixth day. The week of April 28 she worked 2 hours
overtime on the first day.
Pash and Cook also testified to the termination and posttermination interviews and
disagreed with Waggoner to the extent that they did not recall that she recited any
specific grievances. Cook stated that in his interview with Waggoner on May 3
she told him, "I am not going down there," and that there was some discussion
concerning a subpena or an affidavit and that he assumed it had something to do
with the Labor Board. 0
Waggoner's testimony respecting her conversations with Biers is almost entirely
uncontradicted.
6. Other evidence of violation of Section 8(a)(1)
There is testimony by other witnesses of violation of, Section 8(a) (1) on the part
of supervisory employees of Lau. Since, for the most part, it is merely cumulative
it will be summarized as briefly as possible.
James C.'Finn testified that Foreman Walls told him that if the Union got in
"they" would have to pay union wages and that they could send the heat line to
Dayton.
Nell Hargis testified that her foreman, Bill Biers, asked her how she felt about
the Union; that Foreman Dick Russell asked her why she was for the Union, told
her the Company could not afford a union and would move to Dayton if the Union
came in. Russell also told her that some of. the things the Company was doing
might be illegal but that the employees might "jerk them down before the Labor
Board two or three times, but that the Board wouldn't believe us people." A few
days later Foreman Walls was teasing her about her muscles and Foreman Russell
said, "Yes, Nell is my girl. I am going to work the hell out of her and then
fire her damn ass." Later she was transferred to another machine and Walls
remarked to Russell about the operation being easier and. Russell told him that she
had signed a union card and that he didn't want to make it easier, but that if Walls
could think of a way to make it harder to let him (Russell) know. Subsequently.
Hargis was transferred back to her original job.
Geneva Hash testified that Foreman Biers asked her why the girls wanted a union
and told her, respecting union cards, that if she brought anything "in here, written
or typed, you will be fired on the spot." He also told her that she could get a
raise, as high as 30 cents, depending on which way she turned. She further testified
that she and Yvonne Mosely were warned that they could not talk at their machines
but that two other employees were permitted to talk, and that when Yvonne made
inquiry she was told by Biers that "the piles are made for some people. We will
do anything to keep strangers out." 19 The firing and pay raise offer were denied
by Biers: I credit Hash.
Is Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3a-3q.
19 Corroborated by Mosely.
THE LAU BLOWER COMPANY 1233
Yvonne Mosely testified that Biers called her to his desk, told her he knew she had
signed a union card; that the Company could have fired her because she signed a
false application card; that the Company would move to Ohio if the Union got in;
asked her to think it over about joining the Union and that thereafter he would
poke her in the ribs and ask her if she was thinking things over. Biers denied tell-
ing Mosely he knew she had signed a card. I do not consider it necessary to resolve
this conflict. 0
Margaret Rose Parsley testified that Foreman Biers called her to his desk one day
in May and told her that "the ones" that were fighting for the Union "he was going
to get rid of." He also told her that the employees were up for a raise in January
but that the Company had canceled it because the employees would think it was to
keep them from joining the Union .20
Wanda Rager testified that Foreman Biers told: her there would not be a union
election and that by that time "none of us would be there." Biers denied making
this statement; I credit Rager.
B. Conclusions
1. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
Based on testimony which I credit or which is uncontradicted, I find that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following statements made by its
supervisory employees:
1. Pash's comment to Hargrove that it did not look "good" for him to be talking
to a union man who was pushing the Union. His further comment that he would
"hang his [ Rains'] ass one way or the other."
2. Cook's statement to Hargrove that Hargrove was jeopardizing his job by af-
filiation with the union employees.
3. Walls' statement to Hargrove that if the Union got in the plant would be
moved to Dayton. (Other instances of similar threats by supervisors will not be
set forth since they would be cumulative.)
4. Biers' statement to Hash made after her brother, James Rains, had been laid
off to the effect that Rains had been flashing union cards and the Company could not
permit that.
5. Bier 's interrogation of Crist as to what he thought of the Union and how the
union meeting had been 21
6. Biers ' statement to Ann Bray that she had made a mistake in joining the Union
and that he was going to fire her because she had gone to a union meeting. His
further statement that if she . went to the Labor Board he would swear she was a liar.
7. Biers ' statement to Betty Waggoner that he had better not see any union cards
on the premises and that he would fire every one of them.
8. Biers ' request to Waggoner to attend a union meeting and report what took
place, and his statement that he had had three people go to a previous meeting and
report back to him.
9. Russell 's statement to Nell Hargis that some of the things the Company might be
doing were illegal but that the Board would not believe the employees.
10. Biers ' threat to Hash to fire her on the spot if she brought any union cards or
literature into the plant.
11. Biers ' offer of . a 30-cent pay raise to Hash depending on which way she turned.
12. Biers' statement to Mosely that the company rules could be discriminatively
enforced.
13. Biers' statement to Margaret Rose Parsley that the employees who were fighting
for the Union were the ones he would get rid of.
14. Biers ' statement to Wanda Rager that none of the prounion employees would
be there when the election was held.
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(3)
The complaint , as amended , alleges the discriminatory discharge or termination of
employment of five employees , William E . Crist III, Betty J. Waggoner , Ann Bray,
Ronald S . Hargrove , and James Rains.
As to Hargrove , who was neither a member of the Steelworkers nor a sym-
pathizer with it, I find that he was discharged because be threatened to assault a fore-
man. I believe that Respondent suspected that Hargrove was sympathetic with
=°The evidence indicates , however, that the Union did not begin its organizing until
February.
' I also find as violations , again cumulative, Dawson's Interrogation of Betty Waggoner
and Biers' Interrogation of Hargis.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the union employees and I have credited Hargrove's testimony that he was told he
was jeopardizing his job because of his affiliations . Nevertheless neither union sym-
pathy nor membership establishes an immunity against discharge for cause and I
believe that a threat made to a foreman to "stomp his brains in" is sufficient cause for
discharge.
Similarly , I find that Ann Bray was discharged for cause . Lau had a rule ( and the
necessity for it seems surprising ) against employees possessing weapons in the plant.
On the basis of testimony which I credit , the Respondent 's supervisors did have reason
to believe that Bray might have a blackjack in her purse or in her possession. Her
refusal to let the officials examine her purse without a search warrant could serve to
confirm that suspicion . The discharge was peremptory and there was a previous
threat to discharge her because she had attended a union meeting, facts which
surely could sustain an inference of discrimination . Discipline , however, appears to
have been a serious problem in the plant 22 and I would consider the refusal to permit
an examination of her purse , under the circumstances of this case , sufficient to
warrant a discharge , although I admit the issue is a close one.
Betty Waggoner is alleged to have been constructively discharged on April 29
and to have received less than her normal or average amount of overtime since
April 3 . I think the payroll records previously recited are sufficient to rebut the
latter charge . The voluminous evidence with respect to the removal of the stop on her
machine proves little . I cannot sustain the General Counsel 's contention that the
removal of the stop made her work more hazardous and the removal of the stop, on
the evidence , was due to the negligence of a fellow employee and not an act of
management . The testimony does sustain the theory that Waggoner was disgusted
with the conditions of her employment and voluntarily quit but I cannot find that
these conditions were imposed by management for discriminatory reasons.
I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the
discharges of Hargrove and Bray violated Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act and that
Waggoner 's quitting was a constructive discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
I reach a different conclusion with respect to the layoff of Rains . Rains was an
experienced setup operator but he was known to be organizing for the Union and Pash
had threatened Hargrove that he would "hang his ass" for that . After his first layoff
Biers told Rains' sister that he (Rains ) had been flashing union cards in the plant
and that the Company could not stand for that . It is true that the specific job Rains
was performing was eliminated or about to be eliminated but there appears to have
been no reason, except for his union activity, why he would not have been trans-
ferred to another setup operation over employees junior in experience. I therefore
hold his layoff in August in violation of Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act 23
In view of the established pronounced hostility of management at the Indianapolis
plant and particularly the animosity of Biers to union organization , I make a similar
finding with respect to the discharge of Crist . Although Biers attempted to fortify
his reasons for discharging Crist with allegations which were admittedly after-
thoughts , I can only conclude that his alleged reason was pretextuous. ' Biers admit-
tedly knew that Crist was suffering from a toothache and that he intended to seek
dental attention on the afternoon of his discharge , yet his only reason for discharge
was the fact that Crist did not report to him before he left . Whether or not Crist did
report to him is inconsequential. Crist did report when he found ' he could not obtain
dental care on a Wednesday afternoon ; he was absent for a period of only 2 hours
when he reported and Biers refused to discuss the situation with him. Again , review-
ing the numerous threats attributed to Biers to engage in reprisals , including dis-
charge , for union activity and membership , I find his explanation unconvincing.
I conclude that Crist , like Rains , was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against James Rains by laying
him off for discriminatory reasons on August 16, 1 shall recommend that the Respond-
ent make an immediate offer of reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges . Having
ra The - Company not only had a rule against carrying weapons but also , found it
necessary to impose a rule against cursing . A reading of the record will indicate that
the Company found it impossible to enforce this rule even among its female employees.
29 The complaint , as amended , does not allege the April layq B violated , the Act.
THE LAU BLOWER COMPANY 1235
found that the Respondent discharged William E . Crist III, for discriminatory rea-
sons on April 16, I shall make the same recommendation with respect to Crist. I
shall further recommend that Respondent make both Rains and Crist whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of said discrimination by the payment
to them of a sum each would have earned from the dates of layoff as to Rains and
discharge as to Crist, less interim earnings, said sums to be computed in accordance
with the Woolworth formula 24 plus interest at the rate of 6 percent in accordance
with the Board 's decision in Isis Plumbing.25
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as found in paragraph B, 1, herein,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against James Rains and William E . Crist III, with respect
to their hire and tenure of employment , thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon the entire
record in this case, it is recommended that The Lau Blower Company , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Telling its employees they should not talk to union employees; telling its
employees they would "get" union employees ; interrogating its employees as to their
union activities and membership ; threatening to move its plant or any division thereof;
telling its employees it could not permit union cards or literature on the premises and
that -an employee had been fired for this ; threatening to fire union employees;
offering pay raises to employees to discourage union membership ; informing em-
ployees that the rules could be discriminatively enforced against union members;
telling employees it would get rid of union members before an election could be
held.
(b) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, by discharging or laying off any of its employees , or dis-
criminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment , or any term
or condition of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer James Rains and William E . Crist III immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay
each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them, as
provided for in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents , for copying and examining , all payroll and other records nec-
essary for the computation of backpay due as herein provided.
(c) Post at its plant at Indianapolis , Indiana , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 26 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Di-
24 F: 1V. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289.
=a Isis Plumbing h Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
^ In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rector for the Twenty-fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representa-
tive of the Respondent , 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of
this Decision and Recommended Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.27
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to all allegations'not
specifically found herein to have been in violation of the Act.
n In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging or otherwise discrimi-
nating against any employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment be-
cause he joined the United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL make whole James Rains and William E . Crist III for any loss of
pay suffered by them and we will offer full and immediate reinstatement to James
Rains and William E. Crist III.
THE LAD BLOWER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street , Indianapolis , Indiana, Telephone No. Melrose
3-8921 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Wallace Press, Inc. and District No. 123, International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-5779. April 30,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon the filing of a charge and amended charges by District No.
123, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for the 'Thirteenth Region, issued a
complaint on September 30, 1963, alleging that Wallace Press, Inc.,
146 NLRB No. 154.