The Standard Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 159
All the foregoing employees work under a single supervisor, the
resident manager, and all are paid on an hourly basis and have the
same fringe benefits. There is no bargaining history for the
employees involved in this proceeding, nor is there evidence of any
area bargaining practice for units limited to employees in the
classifications sought by Petitioner.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find all the employees described
above have such a high degree of functional integration and mutu-
ality of interests that they should be included in a common unit
for collective-bargaining purposes. Accordingly, in the absence of
evidence that the employees sought by Petitioner have employment
interests sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to com-
pel their establishment in a separate bargaining unit, we find that
the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act :
All building service employees employed by the Employer at the
Park Plaza Apartments, including maintenance and construction
employees, porters, doormen, desk clerks, rental agents, and recrea-
tional maintenance employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.5
[Test of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] B
The unit found appropriate herein is larger than that sought by Petitioner. In the
event the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election for such a unit, we shall
permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days
from the date of issuance of this Decision and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of
Election.
"An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all eligibile voters,
must be filed by the employer with the Regional Director for Region 5 within 7 days after
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make
each such list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list
shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure
to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objections are filed . Excel8ior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236.
The Standard Products Company and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , UAW-AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-3585 and
9- RC-G2t9. June 10, 19616
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On February 18, 1966, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued
her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
159 NLRB No. 2.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. In
addition, the Trial Examiner found merit in certain objections to
the election filed in Case 9-RC-6229 and recommended that the
election be set aside. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and
Zagoria].
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 brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on May 7, 1965,
among the Respondent's employees be, and it hereby is, set aside
and that Case 9-RC-6229 be remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 9 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time
as he deems that circumstances will permit the free choice of a bar-
gaining representative.
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
'In this case we need not determine whether the antiunion campaigning on working
time by Respondent 's representatives independently would support a finding that Respond-
ent discriminatorily applied its no -solicitation rule, since such discriminatory applica-
tion is in any event established by the latitude allowed employees to engage during their
working hours in antiunion activities.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges, filed on May 13, 17, and 28 , 1965 , respec-
tively, a complaint was issued on June 28 , 1965, in Case 9-CA-3585, alleging that
Respondent , The Standard Products Company, had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended . This case , on August 30, 1965, was consolidated with
objections to an election in Case 9-RC-6229 . Thereafter Respondent filed an
answer and an amended answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged . A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Fannie M . Boyls, at
Lexington , Kentucky , on October 12 through 14, 1965, in these consolidated cases.
The parties waived oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing but thereafter
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 161
Respondent and the Charging Party filed briefs which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observations of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged at its plant in Lexington, Kentucky,
in the manufacture and sale of automobile window hardware. During the 12-
month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative
period, Respondent sold and shipped from its Lexington plant directly to points
outside the State of Kentucky goods valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent
concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent 's answer admits and I find that International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
American , UAW-AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE CONDUCT
AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION
A. Setting and issues
The Union commenced organizing Respondent's employees about January 1965.
On February 5, 1965, it claimed that a majority of the employees had designated
it as their bargaining representative and requested Respondent to recognize and
bargain with it. Respondent refused for the asserted reason that it doubted the
Union's majority status. Following the filing of a representation petition by the
Union, hearings were held on March 9 and 24, and the Board's Regional Director,
on April 12, issued his Decision and Direction of Election. The Union failed to
receive a majority of the votes cast in the election held on May 7 and thereafter
filed timely objections to the election.
As the basis for setting aside the election and also as the basis for unfair labor
practice charges filed by the Union, it is alleged that shortly after the Union com-
menced its organizational campaign and continuing up to the very day of the elec-
tion, Respondent engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
and discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of cer-
tain employees, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, in an effort to
defeat the Union at the polls.
Although some credibility issues are involved, the basic issues presented are
whether the preelection conduct complained of constitutes an unfair labor practice
or grounds for setting aside the election. Also involved is the question whether
Respondent is liable for certain actions of two of its leadmen, who the Regional
Director found in the representation case were supervisors within the meaning of
the Act. Since the part played by at least one of these leadmen is a pertinent part
of the aggregate role played by Respondent in its preelection antiunion campaign,
the alleged supervisory status of these leadmen will be treated first.
B. Respondent's responsibility for certain actions
of its Leadmen Jelf and Fields
Respondent took the position during the hearings in the representation proceed-
ing and now reasserts that Leadman Tommy Jelf and James A. Fields were not
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and that they were
entitled to vote. Because the testimony in the first representation hearing was
inconclusive on this issue, a supplemental hearing was held on March 23 to receive
evidence regarding the nature of the duties of Jelf and Fields as well as those of
two other individuals whose status is not here involved. In his Decision and Direc-
tion of Election issued on April 12, the Regional Director found Jelf and Fields
to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act and excluded them from the bar-
gaining unit. Respondent did not request the Board to review this decision, as it
had a right to do under Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
243-084-67-vol. 159-12
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8, as amended, and revised on January 1, 1965, and, as explained by General
Manager Stinnett, Respondent decided to accept the Regional Director's findings
insofar as they determined the right of those individuals to vote.'
In a statement given to a Board agent on June 2, 1965, General Manager Charles
D. Stinnett stated that "Jelf is a supervisor in the tool room" and that "Mr. Fields
was also a supervisor on the night shift and he had some responsibility for assign-
ing overtime." In its original answer to the complaint, Respondent admitted the
allegation of the complaint that Jelf and Fields were at all times material to the
complaint "agents of Respondent, acting in its behalf and supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act." Nevertheless, on October 12, 1965, the first day of
the hearing in this case, Respondent amended its answer to deny this allegation.
The General Counsel announced that he was relying on the testimony adduced in
the two representation case hearings in Case 9-RC-6229 in support of the allegation
in the complaint, and the transcripts of those hearings were received as a part of
the record in this case. Respondent was permitted to adduce additional evidence
on the issue of the supervisory status of Jelf and Fields, but no evidence inconsist-
ent with that received at the representation hearings or with the Regional Direc-
tor's findings was adduced Z
I have carefully reviewed the transcripts of the hearings in the representation
proceeding and on the basis of that evidence and the additional evidence introduced
at the hearing before me, I find, in agreement with the Regional Director, and for
the reasons set forth by him in his Decision and Direction of Election, that Jelf
and Fields were at all times material herein supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. Even if I were not satisfied, however, on the basis of
the evidence adduced that they were supervisors, I would, nevertheless, find
Respondent responsible for their antiunion conduct during the preelection cam-
paign because, having failed to seek Board review of the Regional Director's find-
ings in that respect, Respondent accepted the findings for purposes of the repre-
sentation case and in effect held them out as its agents and representatives in the
preelection antiunion campaign.
C. Conduct of Plant Manager Charles D. Stinnett
1. Stinnett's references to the Fram Company plant
It is alleged that a few days before the election, Plant Manager Stinnett, among
other things, mailed to Respondent's employees certain campaign literature which
erroneously portrayed Joe Norsworthy, the Union's organizer in the current cam-
paign at Respondent's plant, as the organizer at the Fram Company plant in nearby
Junction City, Kentucky, and as the cause of that company's havings to cease busi-
ness and move from Kentucky, with the implication that Norsworthy might cause
the same thing to happen to Respondent. It is also alleged that in a speech to the
'Section 102.67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides that a failure to
request review shall preclude the parties from relitigating "in any related subsequent
unfair labor practice proceeding" any issue which was, or could have been , raised in the
representation proceeding , but this provision has not been interpreted by the Board to bar
additional evidence as to the supervisory status of persons alleged to have engaged in
unfair labor practices not related to a refusal-to-bargain charge See e g. Southern Air-
ways Company, 124 NLRB 749, 750
At the representation hearing on March 24, it was shown that Jelf, though still classed
on his timecard as a headman , had, for about a week prior to the hearing , been working
on a temporary assignment, inspecting and debugging new tools for the window hardware
of 1966 model cars then being, developed and it was expected that this assignment would
take him from his regular leadman duties for a period of about 2 or 3 months Jelf's
special assignment required him to work all over the plant , including the toolroom where
he was the regular leadman, but another man, Jollleffe, had been assigned to perform
Jelf's leadman duties while Jelf was engaged In the debugging work At the hearing in
this case, it was shown that at the time he received his special assignment , Jelf was given
a 10-cent-an-hour increase In pay, that hie completed the special work and returned to the
leadman duties in June, and that in July he was promoted to the position of a salaried
foreman over the toolroom and maintenance employees , a position which Respondent con-
cedes Is that of a supervisor.
Also at the hearing in this case, it was shown-that Fields, who during the preelection
period was toolroom leadman on the night shift, had ceased those duties and became a
toolmaker about July . As a toolmaker , Fields was an employee , not a supervisor Neither
his status nor that of Jelf, subsequent to June 1965 , however, is relevant to any of the
issues in this case
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 163
employees on the two shifts, Stinnett, in effect, reiterated this message and that the
message was designed to mislead and deceive Respondent's employees.
According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Union Representative
Norsworthy, he had never been an organizer at the Fram plant but after the Union
had won an election there and had called a strike in support of certain contract
demands, he had been called in to help set up strike headquarters and manage the
strike After a 5-month strike, a contract having a 1-year duration period was
signed. Fram, at the time the contract was signed, was temporarily occupying
some small metal Quonset hut type buildings on leased property in Junction City.
It had been unable to lease facilities in the larger town of Danville nearby, which
would fulfill its needs, and for this reason at the expiration of the lease period at
its then location, it decided to build an adequate plant adjacent to its home office
plant in East Providence. Rhode Island. At the end of the first union contract
period, Fram explained the situation to the Union and entered into a supplemental
contract covering the period during which it would be necessary to dismantle and
move Fram's machinery and equipment to the new plant. Fram's secretary-
treasurer and labor relations director had explained these reasons for the move in
Norsworthy's presence
The campaign material sent by Stinnett to Respondent's employees consisted of
two papers. One contained a reproduction of an article from a Danville, Kentucky,
newspaper dated November 28, 1962, describing the strike called at Fram"s Junc-
tion City plant and mentioned Joe Norswo-rthy as one of the International repre-
sentatives of the union involved. Under this reproduction there appeared the fol-
lowing statements:
NOTE
WHO WAS THE UAW REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE FRAM PLANT
AT JUNCTION CITY, KENTUCKY ? ?
JOE NORSWORTHY ! ! !
THE FRAM STORY
In June, 1962, the UAW was chosen by the Fram employees to REPRESENT
them. This came after Norsworthy made the same kind of PROMISES that
he has made to you.
Then it happened-the UAW called a STRIKE.
The strike CONTINUED. HOW DID IT END?
TODAY THE FRAM COMPANY PAYS NO WAGES OR FRINGE BEN-
EFITS-THE PLANT HAS BEEN CLOSED-FOREVER"-FRAM
MOVED AWAY!!
THIS IS THE UAW-FRAM STORY.
Attached to the above campaign material was another paper headed in large
lettering, "NO HELP WANTED." Under that heading was what purported to be
a reproduction of a photograph of the Fram plant, vacant and surrounded by
weeds. Under the picture appeared the following:
LOCATION: JUNCTION CITY, KENTUCKY
FORMER TENANT: THE FRAM COMPANY
FORMER UNION: THE UAW
FORMER INTERNATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF FRAM : JOE NORSWORTHY
EMPLOYEES
How many promises did the UAW
make to the Fram employees?"
On the second day before the election, Stinnett separately spoke, for about 45
or 50 minutes each time, to his day shift and night shift employees during their
working time on the subject of the forthcoming election. The employees were paid
for their time spent in listening to these speeches. In the speeches Stinnett again
referred to the Fram plant. The speeches were tape recorded but part of the first
speech came out blank on the recording machine. Stinnett testified that both
speeches were substantially the same. As shown by the tape recording, Stinnett
made the following remarks regarding the Fram plant to the second shift
employees:
I will remind you again about the Fram Company over in Danville, Ken-
tucky. We put out a letter on that the other day with a picture of that plant,
where the grass is growing up in the parking lot, windows are knocked out,
and 150 people had to go home because the plant left town, after the Union
got in.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Now, when you leave here in a few minutes,, upon the hill Mr. Norsworthy
will be up there. He is going to give you a letter, if he gives you the same
one he did the first shift today, and this letter is going to say that, "I don't
have anything to do with it. They're talking about somebody- else."' But I
have here and you have a copy of it in your homes,. because it's been sent
to you, the front page of Danville, Kentucky newspaper on November 19,
1962, talking about the strike in the Fram plant and it very specifically says
Mr. Joe Norsworthy, Lexington, International Representative, was involved
in it. And he will tell you, according to his letter, that he didn't have any-
thing to do with it.
So I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, are you going to believe the newspaper
of Danville, Kentucky, and the people down there who know about this-
some of you may be from Danville and may have known about this person-
ally-or are you going to believe this man when he denies it? Because he
does not want you to believe this, this is not very good for him to have you
believe or to have you know the facts, that he was involved in a situation
where a plant finally did move out of town.
It is noted that Stinnett, both in the printed material about Fram which he sent
to the employees and,in the speeches themselves, carefully refrained from specifi-
cally saying that anything Joe Norsworthy or )the, Union had done was in any
way responsible for Fram's decision -to move from its Junction City location. The
clear and unmistakable rimplication'of Stinnett's message to ,the employees, how-
ever, was that Norsworthy was making campaign promises to Respondent's
employees such as those he must have made to the Fram employees, that in
order to carry out such promises he had to call a strike at the Fram plant, that a
long and expensive strike there caused Fram to shut down its business and move
away, and that there was danger that Norsworthy, by similar action at Respondent's
plant, might cause Respondent to shut down and move away. Except to put over
a warning message to Respondent's employees, there would be no occasion for
Stinnett's statements about •Fram and - Norsworthy's connection with that plant.
Because of the careful avoidance by Stinnett of any statement which directly or
specifically charged Norsworthy with doing what he was implicitly charged with
doing, I find, moreover, that Stinnett consciously'sought to mislead and deceive
Respondent's employees into believeing that Norsworthy's conduct at Fram, rather
than business and economic considerations unrelated to the Union, had caused a
removal of the Junction .City business of Fram to its home office location., It is
found that Respondent's conduct in this regard was in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.3
2. Stinnett's alleged unlawful appeal to regional prejudices
During the Union's organizational campaign , a few employees from the Port
Clinton, Ohio, plant of Respondent, which had already been organized by the
Union and was operating under a union contract, obtained leaves of absences
and came down to Lexington, Kentucky, to help organize the latter plant. In its
objections to the election and in its brief to me in this ease, the Union urges that
Respondent improperly appealed to regional prejudices to inflame the minds of
the employees on matters not related to election issues and thereby impeded a
reasoned choice by the employees as to a bargaining representative. Such conduct,
the Union urges, constitutes grounds for setting aside the election.
The conduct about which the Union complains consists of Respondent's partici-
pation in and approval of the picketing of its plant a few days before the elec-
tion with about 3-foot square signs reading, "Yankees Go Home," directed at the
organizers from the Port Clinton plant, and certain remarks about that subject
,made by Stinnett in his May 5 speeches to. the employees:
The "Yankees Go Homb" signs were carried in the plant driveway by Leadman
Jelf and employee Alice Fortner, who he had asked'to assist him, during the
s The complaint also alleges that Stinnett, in his speeches , threatened that Respondent
would lose its competitive ability and lose business if the union was chosen in the election
and that Respondent could bid lower and provide more security for the employees without
a union . A careful consideration of the speeches on the whole, however, shows that Stin-
nett was only expressing views as to what might be the result of possible demands if
acceded to by Respondent and-was not predicting such consequences as an inevitable result.
Respondent 's expressions along these lines were, in my view, protected under Section 8(c)
of the Act. -
THE STANDARD' PRODUCTS COMPANY' 165
approximately 15-minute period while the first shift employees were leaving work
and the second shift employees were arriving. According to Jelf's credited testi-
mony, some of the employees in Respondent's inspection department had made the
signs and placed them in a wire cage beside the office where office supplies are
kept. Jelf got the signs from the office, supply.. cage and returned them to that
place when he had finished carrying them. Jelf further credibly testified that his
regular work hours were between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. but that he was allowed
an hour of overtime work when he wanted it and that it was during his hour of
overtime that he was carrying the sign.4
Another employee, Gladys Ritchie, testified that employees' all' over the plant
talked about the "Yankees Go Home" signs being in General Manager Stinnett's
office and that at the end 'of the night shift on which she worked, she obtained
one of the signs from Stinnett's office and paraded in front of the plant with it.
General Manager Stinnett saw Jelf and his companion carrying the "Yankees Go
Home" signs in front of the plant and saw Personnel Manager Alt taking pictures
of them. Stinnett referred to this incident in his speeches to the employees on
May 5 and further 'developed the theme. He stated: '
But the main difference between the rest of the Company , and as far as I'm
concerned the rest of Fayette county and Lexington, and our plant, is the
people ... and there just aren't any finer people in the world . I'm a South-
erner, I was born in Kentucky . I've been here all my life, and I'm a Rebel.
There is something we Rebels kind of have in common. The Civil War has
been over a hundred years but still we have our pride. It kind of irritates
me a little bit to see these boys come down from up North, I call them
Yankees, and try to tell us what to do down here. And these boys up, on the
hill are Yankees. They come down from Northern -Ohio. They talk differ-
ently than we do; they think differently than we, do, and personally I -don't
want to have any part of having them tell me what I have to do, and I hope
you people feel the same way.
I was very amused today. A couple of the first shift people made up a little
sign called "Yankee Go Home" and they walked up and down out here
when the boys came up on the hill there just to let them know how they
felt about it. So we do have pride here in our people and in _ our com-
munity and in the South,, and let's, by golly, keep it that way even though
the Civil War is over.
the Union has ways of dividing people. "Divide and conquer," -is their
philosophy. So I would ask you above all, let's don't destroy the communion
you have, one with another, the people thing, as I said a while ago. Let's
keep together as Rebels and as people who can get along together.
While these statements may, as the Union asserts, have been designed to appeal
to any regional prejudices which the employees may have had, they were also
designed to create a feeling of solidarity and friendship among Respondent's
employees and were somewhat in the nature of arguments often made by employers
that outsiders cannot know plant conditions or understand the employer's problems
as well as local management and the employees working together in the plant.
I cannot regard the display of 'the "Yankees Go Home" placards or Stinnett's
statements as similar to employer attempts to inflame racial feelings and other
prejudices of the voters on matters unrelated to the representation issues such
as' was involved in Sewell Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 66, and 140
* Jelf apparently had no compunctions against using company time to assist Respondent
in carrying on its antiunion campaign. He testified that he had frequent discussions with
employees about the Union on company time and that also during working hours he marked
"Vote No" on several hats in the toolcrib and told employees who inquired about them
where they could get the hats. Also,-according to the credited testimony of Thelma Hager,
Jelf came by her machine just before 'quitting time on the day he carried the "Yankees Go
Home" sign and asked Alice Fortner, who was helping Hager on her machine, to take up
a collection for the hats. Fortner ieplied that she did not have'time to take up a collec-
tion because it was time to go home She then left with Jelf and helped him picket with
the "Yankees Go Home" signs . Upon another occasion, according to Hager's credited
testimony , Jelf, during working hours, told Fortner that the "Vote No " bats were in the
toolcrib and requested her to tell the other girls 'Fortner yelled down the production
line that the hats were in the toolroom and-invited the other girls to go with heir and get
the hats. Fortner and the other girls ' then left their workstations and obtained "Vote
No" hats from the toolcrib. ' '
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR'RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB 220, cited by the Union. It is accordingly found that such conduct did
not impair the employees' freedom of choice in the election or constitute an unfair
labor practice.
D. Alleged coercive remarks and interrogation by management representation
Beginning. on February 8, 1965, a number of prounion employees began wear-
ing or displaying various types of union insignia at the plant. These consisted of
union buttons, T-shirts, pencils, pencil clips, hats, placards, and match folders.
Management did not prohibit the display of such insignia. It is alleged, however,
that certain remarks addressed to employees wearing or displaying them and
interrogation of some employees wearing them constituted unlawfully coercive
interference with the employees' organizational rights.
Based upon a careful analysis and evaluation of all the testimony and in some
instances also upon my impression of the witnesses as they testified, I find that
the following occurred:
Factory Manager Robert B. Stevens, upon observing employee Hounshell-who
weighs over 300 pounds-wearing a union button but no T-shirt like some of the
others were wearing on February 8, asked Hounshell where his T-shirt was.
Hounshell replied that he could not find one large enough. Stevens then asked
him' why he wanted a union in the plant and Hounshell answered, "for security
reasons," explaining that when he got older the Company might start looking for
a replacement for him. Stevens assured him that it was not the Company's
policy to terminate people when they got old.
On the same day, Stevens came to the work area of employee Coffey, who was
wearing a union button, and after remarking that he saw Coffey was "one of the
boys," asked him what seemed to be the problems at the plant and why Coffey
wanted a union. Coffey replied, "for self-respect and security." Stevens then
said he thought employees were being treated fairly, that he did not see why
they had any problems, that the Company gave out promotions and raises and
that only-the year before employee Sebastian had been promoted from setup man
(the type of job then held by Coffey) to foreman.
Similarly, Stevens inquired of employee Robert Combs, who was wearing a
union button, as to why he was for the Union. Combs replied that he thought
the Union could get an apprenticeship program in the plant.
Employee Eugene Fyffe worked for Respondent as an extruder operator but
did some carpentry work on the side and this fact was known to Factory Manager
Stevens as well as to other management officials. In February, according to Fyffe,
after he started wearing his union button, Stevens walked over to the station where
Fyffe and two other employees were working, pulled some change out of his
pocket and said he was taking up a collection for a hammer and saw for Fyffe
to use when he left Respondent's employ. This incident, according, to Stevens'
credited testimony, was occasioned by the fact that Fyffe had remarked that
although he was promoting the Union, he was, not concerned with the Union's
success because he was planning to leave Respondent's employ in April or May
to go into the construction business. Stevens then, in jest, said, "Good, I'll take
up a collection for a hammer and a saw." Fyffe also in jest, said that he would
take up a collection to send Stevens back to Respondent's Port Clinton plant,
where Stevens had formerly worked, and on the following day placed a collection
box at one end of the extruder line into which employees could place donations
for sending Stevens back to Port Clinton.5
5 Fyffe testified that upon another occasion , at the beginning of the Union 's campaign,
while in a discussion about the Union with Production Superintendent Dubbert, a good
friend of his , the latter compared joining the Union in a small conservative town such as
Lexington with building a bad house ; people would ,remember both for the rest of Fyffe's
life and some people would not want 'anyone working for them who had participated in
causing all the confusion that a union brings to a plant This was in the course of a
friendly discussion and Fyffe expressed agreement with Dubbert 's views.
Dubbert had suffered a stroke prior to the hearing and could not testify . In an affidavit
given to a Board agent prior to becoming incapacitated, he conceded that he had told
Fyffe that if he built a bad house, this fact would follow him for the rest of his life but
denied that the Union was mentioned in this conversation . I find it unnecessary to
resolve the , conflict because, even accepting arguendo Fyffe's version , I am not convinced
that Dubbert 's remarks were more than a friendly , discussion of views, privileged under
Section 8 (c) of the Act
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY-' 167
Night Superintendent Raymond V. Baumgartner , upon observing employee
Mary McDaniel wearing a union button in February, frowned, shook his head, and
said, "You people are stupid as hell."
Personnel Manager William Alt came over to the machine which employee
Goodloe was operating about.February 8 and, observing him wearing a union hat,
remarked, "Oh, I see you are wearing a union hat" and told him, "I think you
are doing the wrong thing." 6
Foreman William C. Griffin, early in May, before the election, approached one
of his employees, Mary McDaniel, who, was wearing a union hat- while she was
working at her machine, and told her that he thought that she was one of his
"dolls." He stated that he did not think he had many "dolls" left on the first
shift-that they thought he was "mean, cruel, and inhuman"-and he hoped that
if they felt that way about him, they would ask for a transfer. He said he would
get them transferred to wherever they wanted to go. Later in the day Griffin
returned to McDaniel's machine with grease on his hands and offered to shake
hands with her stating, "Shake hands with me, Mary. It has been nice working
with you." Upon that occasion, McDaniel asked Griffin whether he had been
referring to her when he mentioned that some of the employees regarded him as
"mean, cruel, and inhuman." He told her "No" that he was planning to shake
hands with another employee but that she had gloves on.
Later in the week, 2 or 3 days. before the election , Griffin ,asked why McDaniel
was fighting so hard to get the Union in the plant since the employees already
had everything the Union could offer "except the $5.00 union fees."
In early February, while employee Thelma Hager was working at her machine,
she paused to light a cigarette, using a match from a folder distributed by, the
Union. Foreman Griffin, though not her own foreman, was standing nearby. He
asked if he could see the match folder, then proceeded to read aloud the list
of union benefits printed on the back of the folder, remarking as- to each that he
could not see how the Union could give the employees that since they already
had it.
About March 1, 1965, while employee May Daly was working at her machine,
she had a conversation with her foreman, Griffin, about the Union during which
he told her that he had heard that under, a union, machine operators worked on
only one job and did not move around from machine to machine like Respond-
ent's employees did. He told her that at an organized plant at which he had
formerly worked all jobs were posted for bidding, that an employee did only one
job and that if the job was shut down during the day, the employee would be
sent home or given a 3-day layoff. During this conversation, according to Daly's
credited testimony, Griffin also told her that under the Union employees would
probably be tried out for different jobs and if they could not make standard pro-
duction on any of them, they would be terminated.?
On another occasion, in late April, when Daly was wearing her union button,
Griffin said to her, "Hello, May doll, . you sure do look sharp today, but
you'd look better if you'd take off that union button." She replied that it was the
union button that made her look good.
About February 8 employee Robert Combs, who at the beginning of the union
campaign had been afraid to disclose his union sympathies, appeared at work
wearing a union hat and bedecked with numerous union buttons, and patches on
his shirt and even on his trousers. Griffin was not his foreman but considered
Combs one of his friends. Upon observing Combs, Griffin asked, "What is it?"
9 There is also testimony by employee Wilse Howard, denied by Alt, that upon an
occasion in May, Howard complained to Alt that the Company's attitude toward him had
changed since he started engaging in union activities . Alt replied that if Howard would
give up his union activities he might be transferred to a day shift job which he wanted
when that job opened up. Howard was not an entirely frank or articulate witness and,
in view of Alt's denial and his -explanation that the job in question, under Respondent's
established policy, could only be awarded on a seniority basis, I am,not convinced that
any mention of Howard's opportunity for transfer was conditioned upon his abandonment
of his union activities. .
7 The latter remark or a similar one according to Griffin was made by him to either Daly
or McDaniel after both of them had been called into the office to discuss their low efficiency
and one of them had remarked to him that what they needed was a union. Griffin had
replied that even under a union, after an employee had been tried out on several jobs,
he would be terminated if he could not make production.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Combs replied that he was not afraid-that he had just as soon quit anyway.
Griffin, in jest, responded that he would get Combs' check "right now." Combs
told him to get it.
On February 8 when employee Bernice Green -wore her union pin to work for
the first time her foreman, Griffin, came to her machine and engaged her in a
conversation about the Union. He told her he did not know why any of the
employees wanted a union because they already had everything a union could
give them. He asked Green if she knew anyone else who had joined the Union
or signed a card. Green replied in the affirmative. Griffin then asked her who
they were and she replied that she could not name everyone. He speculated that
at least one employee, John Shearer, who was not wearing a union button, had
not joined the Union but Green told him that she had heard that Shearer- had
joined. Griffin then said that he would fire Shearer about 3 days before the
election .8
On the following day Griffin came to Green's machine and engaged her in
another conversation about the Union during which he told her that if the Union
organized the plant, Respondent would move all the equipment to another plant
which was already organized. Green replied that she did not see how the Com-
pany could do that. Griffin explained that it would not take but about 3 days
to move all the heavy equipment.
About February 19 or 20, Griffin again came to her-machine and talked to her
about Respondent firing employees under a union . Green said she did not know
how the Company could do that. He replied that there were a lot of ways the
Company could go about firing people and one of them was by putting the girls
on three different jobs on which they could not make standard production and
disqualifying them on each job, with the result that they would then be auto-
matically discharged .9
During the last week in February, Green was transferred for 1 day to work
in the back end of the plant. She complained about the assignment and told
Griffin "Well, I guess I have to take my union button off in order to get some
of the good jobs around here." He replied, "Well, . . . you'll never know unless
you do."
Foreman Carl Parks, at the shift change one day during the first week in May,
told employee Wilse Howard that he was the last man in the world Parks thought
would be for the Union. This occurred after Howard had first led Parks to
believe that he was against the Union, then appeared at the plant wearing union
insignia.
Prior to February 8, Foreman Parks had asked employee Robert Combs what
he thought of the Union and Combs had evaded answering the question. There-
after, a few weeks before the election when Combs appeared at the plant wearing
a union hat and other union insignia, Parks approached him at his work near the
oven, and in jest, told him he looked like he would make a good short order
cook and that he ought to apply for a job in a local hamburger stand which was
advertising for help. (The union hats resembled in appearance those wom by
cooks.) During the conversation, Parks also remarked that Combs had previously
indicated to him that he was not a union member and he asked Combs whether
he was not a hypocrite.
Leadman Tommy Jelf one day in early April remarked to employee Mary
McDaniel while she was working at her machine that if she would take off her
union button everyone would still be her friend.
8 Griffin denied making any threat such as that about which Green testified. Although
he may have been speaking merely in jest, as he did to some employees upon other occasions,
I am convinced that be, in fact, made the statement attributed to him by Green and that
Green did not regard his remark as a joke. Otherwise , it does not seem likely that she
would later have told Shearer, as she did, to be careful and do the best he could-because
Green and another employee, present "knew what the Company said"-when Shearer was
transferred to a different job in early June. Green was thereafter called into Personnel
Manager Alt's office and questioned about what she had told Shearer . Green, at that
time, in Griffin 's presence, informed Alt of the threat described above which Griffin had
made on the prior occasion.
a This conversation was similar to the conversation with Daly or McDaniel , mentioned
above, after they had been summoned to the office about their low efficiency.
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 169
On another occasion in April, Jelf asked employee Robert Coffey what he
thought about the Union. When Coffey expressed himself as 100 percent in
favor of it, Jelf told him that a union was all right in the large plant where
Jelf used to work but that a union could not help the employees in a small plant
like Respondent's.
Analysis and conclusions: Most of the conduct complained of and described in
this subsection appears innocuous and of a noncoercive nature . I refer, in par-
ticular, to the casual inquiries by Factory Manager Stevens of several of the
employees whom he observed wearing union buttons as to why they felt a union
was needed in the plant and his jesting offer to take up a collection to buy
employee Fyffe a hammer and saw; to the remarks by Superintendent Baumgart-
ner and Personnel Manager Alt , upon observing the employees wearing union
insignia; to Foreman Griffin's remarks to McDaniel, Hager, and Green about the
employees already having all that the Union was offering to get for them, his
jesting offer to get Combs' check immediately and his comment that Daly would
look better if she removed her union button; to Foreman Park's remarks to
Howard and Combs; and to Leadman Jelf's remarks to McDaniel and Coffey.
Indeed, except for some of the conduct of Foreman Griffin, mentioned below, I
find nothing unlawfully. coercive in the conduct described in this subsection.
Griffin's interrogation of employee Green on February 8 when she wore her
union button at work as to who else had joined the Union, however, is the type
of conduct almost uniformly held to be coercive for it reasonably causes the inter-
rogated employee to fear that the purpose of the employer in seeking to discover
the identity of union members is to visit reprisals upon them. This fear was magni-
fied in Green's mind because in the same conversation, after Green had disclosed her
understanding that employee Shearer was a union member, Griffin said that he
would fire Shearer about 3 days before the election.
Griffin's statement to Green on the following day that if the Union organized
the plant Respondent would move its equipment to its organized plant, and that
this could be accomplished in about 3 days, was likewise of a coercive character.
The same is true of Griffin's statements on separate occasions to Green and Daly
about how Respondent would probably go about discharging employees under a
union-trying them out on several jobs and discharging them automatically when
they failed to make standard production on any of the jobs. This prediction was
especially meaningful to employee Daly for it was at about this time that she and
McDaniel had been called into the office for a discussion about their low efficiency.
Also of a coercive nature were Griffin's remarks to Daly suggesting that if the
Union organized the plant, each employee could work on only one type of
machine and when that machine was shut down, the employee would have to be
sent home or laid off. In the light of Griffin's other and prior conduct, I find
that Griffin's response, "You'll never know unless you do," to Green's remark
that she guessed that she would have to take off her union button to get some of
the good jobs around the plant, also was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
There are other remarks made by Griffin to employee McDaniel which, at first
blush, appear insignificant but which, considered in the light of his other conduct,
take on a meaningful character. I have no doubt that Griffin sometimes made
bantering remarks to the employees. He called some of his women employees
"dolls" and they called him "Billy." It may be that they were not always sure
whether to take him seriously, but the record leaves no room for doubt that in
his jesting manner he meant to and did put across the idea that he was definitely
opposed to the Union at Respondent's plant. Considered in the light of his total
conduct and McDaniel's concern that he might be referring to her, I find that
his ostensibly bantering remarks about losing all his dolls because they thought
he was "mean, cruel and inhuman,". his expressed hope that those who felt that
way about him'would ask for a transfer and his offer to get any of them trans-
ferred, tended to restrain McDaniel in her' organizational rights, and was therefore
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
E. Disparate treatment by Respondent of union , and, antiunion protagonists
During the preelection campaigri both union and antiunion' protagonists freely
wore insignia displaying their sentimerits' toward the Union, but the record reflects
a clear disparity of treatment between the rival groups in t Respondent's reaction
toward the use of company time for promoting the interests of the two groups.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-On several'occasions, moreover; as shown below, Respondent even -warned or repri-
manded employees for-talking-about the Union or distributing union insignia at the
plant on their own time.- ' i- r
It, has, already been shown that General Manager Stinnett spent 45 or 50 minutes
of company time on each shift in making his antiunion speeches in early. May and
that.the employees were paid for the time spent listening to him. , It has also been
shown that Leadman Jelf, during working time, marked,"Vote No'on some of the
hats in 'ithei toolcrib in the toolroom; over which he was the regular leadman,
informed'employee'Fortner of the presence of the hats there and requested her to
inform other' employees -and that Fortner and other employees left their. work
stations,to get the hats.i° Jelf concededly frequently.discussed'the -Union. with the
employees during working hours. ,, _
The record also shows that on, election day, May.7, -fine of the employees- placed
a, "Votes No" hat on. the head of Leadman Fields and that he wore the hat in the
,toolroom,'for, a,few. minutes before removing it.1
Foreman Griffin credibly testified that he and the employees .under him, mostly
women, talked to each other about the Union every day throughout the day.. When
one of his employees, Doreen Warren, during ' working hours asked him if he knew
where she could get a "Vote No'" hat, he told her that he had heard a collection
was being taken up' to buy some, and, at her request,, he,promised 'to let her know
if any-more of such hats became available. Later in the day, also during working
hours, he told her that "Vote No" hats were available' at the toolcrib; and walked
-in that direction with her. as she left her work station to ,obtain one.
- :In, contrast, to this cooperative and lenient attitude-, toward antiunion -protag-
•onists,.'Foreman Griffin took positive steps to prohibit or limit the activities of pro-
-union employees. It is undisputed that,he told employee Richard Cunningham in
mid-February that he would "write him up" if he caught Cunnningham passing out
any, of the - union material .12 Moreover, during the week before the election, when
employee Goodloe, even a few minutes, before the -7 a.m., starting time, came into
Griffin's department to pass out some union• insignia ,,Griffin told him to get out of
the department and back to his, own machine. To Goodloe's protest,that it was
not-yet 7- a.m., Griffin, replied' that he did not care, that- Goodloe was on company
property. , -
Similar disparate treatment was accorded by other management representative to
union protagonists. Eugene Fyffe, received an oral warning and a written repri-
mand during the preelection period under the following- circumstances. One day in
January ,when Fyffe was working overtime„on one end of the extruder machines,
Foreman Chipley telephoned him from the other end about 250 feet -away that the
line was jammed . He asked Fyffe to stop the machine and come to the other end
of the machine to correct the situation. A new girl had ,been hired to work at the
end where the jam had-occurred. When Fyffe arrived to straighten out the jam, he
remarked to Chipley, , "If we had some good union help . . . probably this
wouldn,t have jammed up." Thereupon Chipley told'him not to "talk this union
trash" on company time. Fyffe replied, "Well, how are you going to stop me?"
Chipley stated that, if he could not stop Fyffe, he would get someone else who
could Chipley then left and returned soon thereafter with Night Superintendent
Baumgartner who admonished Fyffe that he was "not,supposed to talk union cam-
10 The :`,Vote No" hat idea was started by five employees in a carpool After they pur-
chased some hats, marked "Vote No" on them and started wearing them in,the plant, other
employees requested similar hats and employee Broadus who worked in the toolcrib pur-
chased - about $30 worth and distributed them to employees who requested them.
u Although technically this incident might be considered electioneering in prohibited
areas during the,conduct of the election and in violation of the election rules which pro-
hibit such -electioneering, I do not regard Fields' breach of the rules in these circumstances
as of a' nature which would have any substantial effect upon the results of the election.
The incident is mentioned only as another example of Respondent 's permissive use of work-
ing time to promote its campaign against the Union. -
12 Under Respondent 's disciplinary procedure, the first warning to an employee is called
an oral reprimand' even though a written notation of it may appear in the employee's
personnel :file.; after a.second offense , the employee is given what Respondent calls a written
warning; . upon the occasion of a third offense, he is given a 3-day layoff; and at the time
of his fourth offense, he is terminated.
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 171
paign on, company, time." 13 Respondent, had no, rule against employees talking
about the Union or any other, subject during-, working hours and, as has already
been shown; management representative freely did so.
The, rebuke. by Superintendent Baumgartner was considered an oral warning.
Fyffe received a written warning a few weeks, later under the following circum-
stances. . Fyffe had punched'his timecard,out and had started to,the restroomito
wash up when he was told'that Betty_Duff, an employee who had, been laid-off, was
-back -at' work. ^ According to the undenied and credited testimony of Fyffe,. as he
walked in her direction, she .waved to him and he stopped to talk. During the
conversation she told him that a -union. campaign was in progress at the plant,where
her 'husband worked and that her husbands was very much against the Union.
Fyffe then said, ."Well, I take it, then; you're not for,the Union." She replied -that
she was not. Shortly thereafter, according to the testimony of Production -Foreman
James' Cadle, Duff called him over to -her press and asked, "Jim, you know what
Fyffe just tried to, get me to do?" ,When he replied, "No," she said, "Sign a .union
card." Ladle thereupon reported .the incident to Night Superintendent Baumgart-
ner, who in turn reported it to Personnel Manager Alt. Alt summoned Fyffe to
his -office, and announced that he had reports that, Fyffe was passing out union
cards on, company time and that since Fyffe had already been given an oral warn-
ing, he was now. being given a written reprimand., He reminded Fyffe, "Three
times on 'any one, count, you are terminated.7--Fyffe told Alt that he had not passed
out any union card -on company time.' He explained to Alt what,had happened in
his conversation with Duff. Alt, then asked Fyffe whether he had received any
union .card-.and Fyffe stated that on - one occasion an employee had handed him' a
card as he passed by. Alt stated that receiving a card was just as -bad as passing
one out. ' He told Fyffe that' a union could call a strike and, ruin a little company
like Respondent's and that he-would have to write Fyffe up. The written reprimand
was given. ' • u
Although I credit Fyffe's testimony that he never at any time passed, out. a 'union
card on 1 company. time, I would find Respondent's treatment of him discriminatory
and unlawfully 'coercive even if l 'believed that Fyffe did in fact proffer Duff a
union card or try to persuade her to sign one.14 Although the employee handbook
distributed to the employees does not. contain a no-solicitation rule;, Respondent
contends that there was an oral, no-solicitation rule in-effect: which' forbade solici-
tations on company time for any purpose except the annual United Community
Fund drive. Stinnett testified, "There, have been instances through the years where
people have been asked kindly -not to do this: [soliciting] on working -time but we
never published a notice to ' that effect." Stinnett, of course, in giving Fyffe a
written reprimand, the second step toward a layoff or termination, did not ask Fyffe
kindly-not to do that. Moreover, he issued a written reprimand without even talk-
ing to the employee, alleged to have been solicited and despite Fyffe's denial that he
had solicited the employee. This harsh treatment smacks more of a reprisal 'against
Fyffe- for advocating the Union than a desire to avoid interference with production,
the purpose of a valid no-solicitation rule. That Alt's objection was in fact directed
to Fyffe's advocacy of the -Union rather than to any possible interference with
production is- further indicated by Alt's parting remarks to the effect that' a union
could ruin a small company like Respondent's. '
The above account is based in part on the testimony of Fyffe and in•part on that of
Chipley and Baumgartner . Fyffe testified that Chipley started the conversation about the
Union with the statement , "I hear you'boys are - trying to start organizing again" and after
Fyffe replied that if the Company had some good union help, the jam would probably not
have occurred , Chipley told him not to talk about the Union any more. I think it unlikely
that if Chipley was the one who initiated the talk about the Union , he would have told
Fyffe not to talk about it any more. On the other hand, it does not appear logical and
I do not credit that part of Chipley 's account which attributes to Fyffe ' the initiation of
the subject of the Union by telling the new girl that if they had a good union in the plant,
the machine would not have jammed up and that she should join the Union and participate
in the union campaign It is apparent that Fyffe attributed the jam to the lack of ef-
ficiency of the, new and inexperienced girl and it does not seem logical that Fyffe would
have suggested that her joining the Union would help the situation.
Ss Duff, herself, did not testify ' and Fyffe's testimony regarding his conversation with
her stands • uncontradicted: ,
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
My finding that Respondent discriminated against Fyffe and unlawfully coerced
him in his Section 7 rights is also based on the premise that Respondent may not
lawfully enforce a no-solicitation rule forbidding employees to solicit for the Union
on working time while itself utilizing its working time to urge the employees to
reject the Union , as Stinnett and other representatives of Respondent did, and per-
mitting its employees , as Respondent did, to engage in widespread antiunion activ-
ities during their working time. Working time is for work , of course , and in order
to prevent interference with production , the employer clearly has the right to pro-
hibit employees during working time from engaging in conduct which interferes
with that production . For this reason, a rule which prohibits union solicitation
during working hours is presumptively valid unless it is adopted for a discrimina-
tory purpose or is enforced in a discriminatory manner . 15 Respondent's no-
solicitation rule was clearly enforced in a discriminatory manner.
Another example of disparate and discriminatory treatment by Respondent of
union protagonists is the reprimand given to employee John Goodloe , an ardent
union advocate , about April 1 . During the lunch period that day, Goodloe after
finishing his lunch went over to a table at which another active union adherent,
Bernice Green , was eating lunch with a group of other women employees. He sat
behind Green and started talking to her about union matters . An antiunion em-
ployee who was sitting directly across the table from Green was annoyed at hear-
ing this union talk , although the remarks were not directed to her. She reported
to Production Superintendent Dubbert that the union talk was upsetting her. Dub-
bert reported this complaint to Personnel Manager Alt and Alt summoned Goodloe,
along with Fyffe as a witness , to his office . Goodloe was given a written reprimand
for bothering other employees by going to their table during the lunch period and
talking about the Union . He was told that he could talk about the Union all he
wanted to so long as he had willing listeners but not if employees indicated that
they did not want to hear him. Goodloe protested that he did not know that he
had been bothering anyone . He was nevertheless written up for the alleged
offense. Employees were permitted to eat wherever they wanted to in the lunch-
room and although many of them habitually ate at the same table with the same
companions each day, this was entirely by choice . Goodloe was not violating any
company rule by walking over to his fellow union adherent , Green, and talking
to her , about the Union . The statute protects him in his right to engage in such
activity during his own time and Respondent clearly violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act in prohibiting him from doing so.
The record reveals still another instance of disparate treatment of union and
antiunion protagonists . In March , according to the credited testimony of em-
ployee Robert Combs, when Foreman Park , during the change in shifts, saw
several men standing around Combs ' toolbox where Combs had some extra union
hats and buttons , he told Combs to put the extra union paraphernalia in his tool-
box and that he would be "written up" if he was caught passing out any of it in
the plant . This treatment of Combs is in striking contrast to the active - coopera-
tion and assistance later given by Foreman Griffin and Leadman Jelf in the distri-
bution of "Vote No" hats in the plant during working hours.
It is concluded that by the disparate and discriminatory treatment of its pro-
union and antiunion employees in the manner above set forth, Respondent has
interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
F. The alleged discrimination against employee Wilse Howard
It is alleged ' that on or about March 12, 1965 , Respondent discriminatorily
ceased its practice of assigning overtime work to Wilse Howard , Jr., because of
his union membership and activities . There is no doubt that Howard sincerely
believed that he was being discriminated against because of his union activities
and particularly because earlier in the week , on March 9 , he had given testimony
at the representation case hearing in support of the Union 's position.
ss Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 49 ,NLRB ,828, 843 to 844 , quoted with approval in
Republic Aviation Corporation V. N.L.R.B., 324 ,U.S. 793, 803; N.L.R.B. v. United Steel-
workers ,of America, 357 U.S. 357, 364, 368-369; N.L.R.B. v. United Aircraft Corp., 324
F.2d 128 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 376 U S 951 ; Montgomery Ward & Co , Inc. v. N.L.R B.,
339 F.2d 889 (C.A. 6).
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY 173
From October 1964 until about March 12, 1965, Howard had been working at
least 1 hour a day overtime, 5 days a week, on a regular basis repairing and servic-
ing material handling equipment. This was in addition to regular overtime which
he and other employees received from time to time. Howard was given no expla-
nation as to why he was no longer assigned to regular overtime after March 12.
On two occasions when he knew repair work on the highlifts was needed, he was
told that his supervisor, Leadman Fields, and the electrician, Bill Newby, had
done the work.
Fields testified that Howard Butz, the maintenance superintendent, at one time
had the responsibility of keeping the highlifts in good condition and that when he
was absent from the plant with heart trouble, the work was assigned to Wilse
Howard as overtime work. He further testified that when Butz returned to work,
Howard was no longer needed for the overtime work. Although he did not
directly so testify, the implication of Fields' testimony is that Butz resumed his
duties in that respect. Fields' explanation does not appear to tally with that of
Night Superintendent Baumgartner. The latter testified that Howard was relieved
of his regular overtime because the highlift operators themselves were checking
the highlifts and he saw no need for Howard duplicating those duties on overtime.
Although Respondent's explanations leave much room for doubt as to its real
reasons for relieving Howard of his regular overtime, I note that the record does
not show that anyone else was assigned the same duties on a regular overtime
basis after Howard was relieved of them. Moreover, it is possible to reconcile
Fields' and Baumgartner's explanations if it is assumed that Butz took over the
repairs during regular hours when breakdowns occurred and that the regular
checking and servicing was done by the highhft operators. I am not persuaded
that the General Counsel has shown by preponderance of the evidence that Re-
spondent was discriminatorily motivated in relieving Howard of his regular over-
time duties.16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By the aforesaid unfair labor practices which were committed between
February 10, 1965, when the representation petition was filed, and the election on
May 7, 1965, Respondent has interfered with and unlawfully affected the results
of the election.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, my Recommended Order will require that Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Since it has been found that the warning notices and written reprimands issued
to employees Eugene Fyffe and John Goodloe between January and May 1965
were discriminatorily motivated and unlawfully interfered with their right to
engage in union activities, my Recommended Order will require that Respondent
expunge from the personnel records of these employees all mention of such
warnings and reprimands.
It having been found that Respondent has interfered with a free choice by its
employees in the election conducted on May 7, 1965, my Recommended Order
will require that the election be set aside and that a new election be conducted.
to Evidence was adduced that on March 12 Howard received an oral warning for climbing
over the plant fence and reporting back to work late after his lunch break on that day;
that he received a written reprimand on May 7 for failing to complete his safety check
sheet report on that date; and that he received a third warning and a 3-day layoff on
May 28 for doing personal soldering work for another employee on company time. The
Union, in its brief, argues that these reprimands were discriminatorily motivated, but
since the complaint does not so allege and the General Counsel does not so contend, I make
no finding in this regard.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the
following.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Standard Products Company, Lexington Kentucky, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors and assigns , shall:
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees in regard to their union membership or
sympathies.
(b) Threatening employees with plant removal, job reprisals, and less favorable
working conditions should the employees select the Union to represent them.
(c) Prohibiting employees from talking about the Union at the plant during
nonworking time.
(d) Giving reprimands or warnings to employees for engaging in prounion activ-
ities either during or outside working time while itself engaging in, and permitting
and encouraging other employees to engage in, antiunion activity during such time.
(e) Enforcing its no-solicitation rule in such a manner as to discriminate be-
tween prounion and antiunion protagonists.
(f) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining , or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Expunge from the personnel files of employees Eugene Fyffe and John
Goodloe all mention of the warning notices and reprimands given them between
January and May 1965, in connection with their union activities.
(b) Post at its plant in Lexington , Kentucky , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." 17 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 9, shall , after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicious places, where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in wasting, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 18
IT IS FURTHFR ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on May 7, 1965 , in Case
9-RC-6229 be, and it hereby is, set aside and that the Regional Director for Region
9 conduct a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances will permit
the free choice of a bargaining representative.
17 111 the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order Is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Anpeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the voids "a Decision
and Order"
is In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees in regard to their union
membership or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant removal, job reprisals, or
less favorable working conditions should the employees select the union to
represent them.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from talking about the Union at the
plant during nonworking time.
GRIFFITH LADDER CORPORATION 175
WE WILL NOT give reprimands or warnings to employees for engaging in
prounion activities either during or outside working time while ourselves engag-
ing in , and permitting and encouraging other employees to engage in, antiunion
activities during such time.
WE WILL NOT enforce our no-solicitation rule in such a manner as to dis-
criminate between prounion and antiunion protagonists.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL expunge from the personnel files of employees Eugene Fyffe and
John Goodloe all mention of the warning notices and reprimands given them
between January and May 1965, in connection with their union activities.
THE STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office,
Room 2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
Telephone 684-3627.
Griffith Ladder Corporation and Aluminum Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO
Griffith Ladder Corporation and Aluminum Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 4-CA-3608 and
4-RC-6281. June 13,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 4, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg 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. The Trial Examiner further
found merit in the objections filed by the Union to the election con-
ducted on March 12, 1965, and recommended that the election be
set aside and all proceedings in that case be vacated. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and 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 these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
159 NLRB No. 12.