Trygon Electronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 404 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trygon Electronics , Inc. andJohn Joseph Wilson. Case
29-CA-2562
September 29, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
PENELLO
On July 10, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der?
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, inter
alia, that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by discharging John Joseph Wilson for
engaging in the protected activites of complaining
about working conditions affecting himself and oth-
ers, pursuing grievances through Local 475 directed
toward the correction of such conditions, and circu-
lating petitions to remove Local 475's union steward
and to substitute Local 1922 for Local 475 as the
employees' collective-bargaining representative.
The Respondent contends that the Board should
honor an arbitration award concerning the discharge
although it concedes that the question of Wilson's
union and concerted activities was never raised before
the arbitrator. The Administrative Law Judge did not
deal with this contention in his Decision although
Respondent raised it at the hearing and in its brief to
him.
In two recent decisions we have held that:
.. deference would not be accorded to the result
of an arbitration proceeding where the issue of
Respondent's asserted discriminatory motive
had not been presented to the arbitral forum
which considered whether the discipline of an
employee was imposed for just cause .3
Accordingly, as Respondent admits that the issue
of its assertedly improper motivation in effecting the
discharge was not litigated at the arbitration proceed-
ing, we shall not honor the arbitration award and shall
affirm the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion
that Respondent discharged Wilson because of his
union and concerted activities in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Trygon Electronics, Inc.,
Westbury, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 The Respondent in effect has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy
not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined
the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 Yourga Trucking, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 130; Airco Industrial Gases, 195
NLRB No. 120.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, un-
der Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on April 26,
1972, at Brooklyn, New York.
The charge was filed on October 13, 1971. The com-
plaint in this matter was issued on March 21, 1972. The
ussues concern (1) whether Respondent discharged John
Joseph Wilson on October 8, 1971, because of his union or
protected concerted activites in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act; and (2) whether Respondent engaged in
acts of interrogation and threats relating to employee union
activies or protected concerted activities in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. Local 475's participation was limited to
participating in the proceeding and to the right to file a brief
with the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been filed by Respon-
dent and the General Counsel and have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and
admissions therein . Trygon Electronics , Inc., the Respon-
dent, is and has been at all times material herein a corpora-
tion duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the
laws of the State of New York. At all time material herein,
Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of
business at 1200 Shames Drive, in the town of Westbury,
199 NLRB No. 61
TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC. 405
State of New York, herein called the Westbury plant, where
it is , and has been at all times material herein , engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic prod-
ucts and related products.
During the year ending October 31, 1971, which period
is representative of its annual operations generally, Respon-
dent, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Westbury plant
products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant in
interstate commerce directly to States of the United States
other than the State in which it is located.
As conceded by Respondent and based upon the fore-
going, it is concluded and found that the Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and
admissions therein.
Amalgamated Local 475, International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 475, is and has been at all times material herein
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1922, is and has
been at all times material herein a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Issues
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and
admissions therein.
1. Supervisory status
Arthur Johannsen and Viola Dawson are, and have
been at all times material herein, production manager and
supervisor of the component board department, respective-
ly, of Respondent, agents thereof acting on its behalf, and
supervisors thereof within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
2. Collective-bargaining agreement
At all times material herein, Respondent and Local 475
have maintained in effect and enforced a collective-bargain-
ing agreement previously executed by them relating to the
hire, tenure, and other terms and conditions of employment
of the employees of Respondent.
they filed grievances with Local 475 against Respondent."
The testimony about this incident concerns remarks
made or not made by Johannsen at a company party in
August 1971. The party was held prior to the moving of the
company plant from Woodhaven to Westbury.
Witnesses Wilson, Aliko, and Surico testified to the
composite effect that at said party Johannsen told Wilson
and Surico in effect that Wilson wouldn't last long, that the
Company would get rid of him within a month when it
moved to Westbury, and that Surico would be next.
Johansen testified about the alleged incident as is re-
vealed by the following excerpts from his testimony.
Q. There has been some testimony, Mr. Johann-
sen, about statements you made to Mr. Wilson and to
Mr. Sunco at a party at the Woodhaven plant.
Do you remember that occasion?
A. Yes. Very well I remember the occasion.
Q. Would you tell us what happened?
A. We had a party. And that' s all I remember. I
remember passing no remarks of threatening John or
Joe about losing their jobs.
I recollect none of this and we had a wild party.
Q. Are you denying that you said anything?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Or are you saying you merely don't remember
whether you said it?
A. I'm not saying-I'm denying that I said it.
Considering the foregoing, I am persuaded that Wil-
son, Aliko, and Surico's testimonial recollection of what
occurred is more reliable than that of Johannsen on this
point. I am not persuaded that Johannsen has a good recol-
lection of the event. I credit the composite effect of the
testimony of Wilson, Aliko, and Surico as indicated. I dis-
credit Johannsen's denial of the events. The remarks in
question reveal a threat but not necessarily a threat in re-
prisal of union or concerted activities.
Much background evidence was adduced in this pro-
ceeding relating to Wilson's complaints to the Company
and to grievances filed with Local 475 relating to working
conditions. It is clear that Wilson made such complaints to
the Company and contacted the Union about solutions to
his and others' contended grievances. It is not necessary
herein to detail such grievances or determine what the solu-
tion to the grievances and complaints should have been. It
is clear that the Respondent knew of such complaints and
grievances and did attempt some solutions thereto. The
facts reveal that the Respondent was in financial trouble at,
the time of these events and that solutions to some of the
grievances and complaints may have been hampered there-
by.
It is clear that after Wilson had taken complaints to the
Union, at some time during either April or May 1971,'
Production Manager Johannsen asked Wilson in effect why
he was bothering with the Union and told him that he
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent
denies that "on or about a date presently unknown in Au-
gust 1971, Respondent by Arthur Johansen, its supervisor
and agent, threatened its employees with discharge and oth-
er reprisals because of their concerted activity and because
1 There is no complaint allegation as to violative conduct in April or May
1971. I note the charge in this case was filed on October 13, 1971 I would
not find that this matter was litigated as other than background evidence
Further, I would find the testimony of the witnesses unreliable to establish
that the conduct occurred within the 10(b) period (within 6 months of the
date the charge was filed).
2 The facts are based upon Wilson' s credited testimony . Johannsen, who
testified, did not testify in denial of these remarks.
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should watch his step or he would get in trouble,2 and that
he should stop pestering the Union every time something
happened. Around the same time Supervisor Viola Dawson
told Wilson that he should leave the Union alone, that he
was a troublemaker, and that he didn't need the equipment
he claimed he needed?
The facts reveal that Wilson was a habitual complainer
during his term of employment (December 1970 to October
1971). The specific facts as to his complaints, contacts with
the Union, and conversations with supervisors thereto relate
to events of April or May 1971. Production Manager Jo-
hannsen and Supervisor Dawson credibly testified to other
aspects of Wilson's work and attitude throughout the period
of his employment. Such credited facts reveal that Wilson
was away from his machine on many occasions; that when
questioned by his supervisors, Wilson always had an answer
in explanation for being away from his machine; that the
supervisors did not believe his explanation but apparently
could not disprove the same ; and that on many of the
occasions Wilson was with Surico. The facts reveal in effect
that Surico appeared allied with Wilson in the complaints
about working conditions! The facts reveal that supervisors
spoke to Wilson on many occasions about his work and that
Wilson's replies were to the effect to get "off his back." The
facts also reveal that there was employee friction because
Wilson turned the ventilation fans one way and other em-
ployees turned the fans a different direction. Wilson and the
girls would argue about the fan. Wilson would tell the girls
to get "off his back." Johannsen on such occasions had to
tell Wilson to quiet things down. On many occasions Wilson
would ignore Dawson when she was talking to him.
As to some of the problems between Wilson and his
supervisors, I note the following. One of Wilson's com-
plaints was about the ventilation fan. The machine upon
which Wilson worked emitted smoke from the oil used. The
ventilation fan was apparently old and apparently did not
always function correctly. It appears that Wilson was not
happy with the way the ventilation fan functioned after
being repaired. The problem seems to result from
Respondent's financial problems and attempts to manage
such problems. Thus, Wilson considered the repairs inad-
equate, and Respondent appears to have considered Wilson
to be unreasonable in his attitude. Another of Wilson's
complaints was about the lack of heavy neoprene gloves to
protect his hands from burns. Prior to Wilson's employment
Respondent had such gloves available for use. Either shortly
before or after Wilson's assignment to the machine he used,
such gloves (and apron) disappeared. After Wilson's com-
plaint, Production Manager Johannsen gave Wilson some
light neoprene gloves for use. These were cut thereafter,
intentionally or unintentionally. Johannsen gave Wilson an-
other set of light neoprene gloves. Wilson did not use these
gloves. Ultimately in September, after Wilson's renewed
complaints through the Union, heavy neoprene gloves were
furnished to him.5 The problem as to the gloves seems to
have been generated in part by Respondent's financial con-
3 The facts are based upon Wilson's credited testimony. Dawson, who
testified, did not testify in denial of these remarks.
4The facts about Sunco's being allied with Wilson are revealed by the
composite testimony of all witnesses and is not in dispute.
S The heavy neoprene gloves were the gloves customarily used on said job.
ditions and attempts to solve its problem as best it could but
not in the most adequate way. Again, it appears that Wilson
was insisting on complete solution. Respondent believed
that Wilson was not interested in the equipment (gloves) as
such, but was being unreasonable.
Facts reveal that Wilson was absent from work on
many occasions but not absent enough to warrant automat-
ic dismissal according to company policy or the collective-
bargaining agreement. Thus, records reveal that Wilson was
excessively absent during June, that he received a warning
on July 1, 1971, to the effect that he had had excessive
absences in June.
Such warning is revealed by the following warning no-
tice:
WARNING NOTICE-ABSENTEEISM
DATE: July 1, 1971
TO: J. Wilson
DEPT: 51
CLOCK NUMBER: 1372
This is to advise you that your attendance for the
month of June is unsatisfactory.
This is your first written warning in the last 3 months.
Company rules specify that 3 months of excessive ab-
senteeism in any 5 month period will result in automat-
ic dismissal.
Please make every effort to improve your attendance
immediately.
G.C. Rabin
GR:pr
Again in September, Wilson received another warning
about his absenteeism as is revealed by the following warn-
ing notice:
WARNING NOTICE-ABSENTEEISM
DATE: Sept. 7, 1971
TO: John Wilson
DEPT: 51
CLOCK NUMBER: 1372
This is to advise you that your attendance for the
month of August is unsatisfactory.
This is your second written warning in the last 4
months.
ONE additional month in which your absenteeism is
excessive will result in automatic dismissal.
Please make every effort to improve your attendance
immediately.
G. C. Rabin
GR:pr
It is noted that within the purview of such warning
notice Wilson did not have excessive absenteeism for 3
months within a 5-month period. Wilson's testimony was to
the effect that some of the absenteeism in June was "ex-
cused" because of "burns" he received at work.
Respondent's evidence on this point was limited to the
warning notice. From the record revealing that Wilson dill-
TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC.
gently pushed for what he considered his rights, I am not
persuaded that his recollection of his absenteeism is correct
as to the "bums" reasons. I am persuaded that if Wilson had
received a warning notice about absenteeism in June, and
that if such absenteeism had been excused, Wilson would
have complained at that time. There is no indication of such
complaint. I do not credit his testimony to the effect that
some of the June absenteeism was of an excused nature.
Events following the August threat by Johannsen at the
party reveal more union and concerted activity by Wilson.
Events following the threat in August 1971 also reveal Re-
spondent threats of reprisal as to union and concerted activ-
ity by Wilson and his discriminatory discharge. I have
considered such later events as a matter of evidence in
determining whether the events preceding the August 1971
threat caused an improper motivation on Johannsen's part.
It is clear that Johannsen threatened employees with
discharge at the party in Woodhaven in August 1971. The
question is whether the threat was one of reprisal because
of their concerted activity and because they filed grievances
with Local 475 against Respondent. It is clear that the rea-
son for the threat must have been prompted by events pre-
ceding the threat.
Considering all of the foregoing, I note the following.
The August threat by Johannsen to Wilson and Surico does
not specifically spell out the the threat was because of union
or protected concerted activity. The other statements of
threats by Johannsen and Dawson are explicit in such re-
gard. There is no evidence of any statements or threats by
Johannsen or Dawson indicative that Wilson's job status
was in jeopardy because of any other reason. Under such
circumstances, I am persuaded that Johannsen intended tc
convey to Wilson and Surico•the threat that they were to be
fired because of their union or protected concerted activity.
I am persuaded that Wilson and Surico understood the
intended threat. Such conduct by Johannsen constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so con-
cluded and found.
2. The General Counsel alleges and Respondent denies
that:
A. On or about a date presently unknown in the latter
part of September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Dawson, its
supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, interrogated its
employees concerning the employees' membership in, activ-
ities on behalf of, and sympathy in and for Local 1922.
B. On or about various dates presently unknown during
mid-to-late September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Dawson,
its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, interrogated
its employees concerning the employees' filing grievances
with Local 475 against Respondent.
C. On or about various dates presently unknown in the
latter part of September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Daw-
son, its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, threat-
ened its employees with discharge and other reprisals for
circulating petitions concerning Local 475 and Local 1922,
and if they engaged in other union and concerted activities.
The facts relating to these allegations are based upon
the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Wilson.
In September 1971, Wilson circulated two petitions
among the employees. One of the petitions circulated was
for the removal of Frank Fanfan as union steward. The
407
other petition was for the purpose of securing Local 1922 as
bargaining agent. It is clear that Supervisor Dawson became
aware of both petitions. Thus, Dawson saw a document or
piece of paper being circulated and asked an employee what
it was. The employee told Dawson that it was a petition to
get rid of the Union.
Around this time Dawson also spoke to Wilson about
the petitions. Dawson told Wilson that he should not do it,
that he should leave the union out of it, that he was going
to fired, and that he was going to lose his job. In the conver-
sation Dawson asked Wilson why he wanted to get rid of
Fanfan and told him that Local 475 was the best union he
ever had.
Considering the foregoing, I note the following. I am
not persuaded that Dawson's inquiry to an employee about
a document being circulated constitutes unlawful interroga-
tion as to union or protected concerted activity. It is clear
that the facts do not establish that Dawson knew that the
document was prior to the time that the employee told her.
I find it understandable that a supervisor, or anyone else,
might ask what was being circulated. Considering this, I
conclude and find that such inquiry was not violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As to Dawson's other remarks to Wilson set forth
above, I conclude and find that they constitute a threat of
reprisal because of his union and protected concerted activi-
ties . Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1).
I am not persuaded, however, that Dawson's remarks
(included in the conversation containing the threat of re-
prisal referred to above) as to why Wilson wanted to get rid
of Fanfan constitute unlawful interrogation within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Considering the back-
ground of Wilson's grievances, complaints, and discussions
in the plant with supervisors, it is clear that the "inquiry"
was mere argument in nature, that the question of "why" he
wanted to get rid of Fanfan would not be coercive or re-
straining in nature upon his activities, and that it would not
add to the coerciveness or restraining nature of the threat
of reprisal in the other remarks. By the "inquiry" Respon-
dent, by Dawson, did not separately violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent
denies that Respondent, by Arthur Johannsen, its supervisor
and agent, at the Westbury plant, harassed its employee,
John Wilson, because of his activities in behalf of Local
1922 and other union and concerted activity, by giving him
a written warning on or about September 24, 1971, to the
effect that unless he improved he would be discharged and
thereafter, on or about October 1, 6, and 7, 1971, advising
said employee that he only had so many days to go until he
was discharged.
The facts are clear that Respondent gave Wilson a
warning letter on or about September 27, 1971. Such letter
was as follows:
TRYGON ELECTRONICS INC.
111 Pleasant Avenue
Roosevelt , L. I., New York
Area Code 516
FReeport 8-2800
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 27, 1971
Mr. John Wilson,
You have been notified verbally on a number of
occasions, that your work attitude and your ability to
operate the solder machine and associated tasks is un-
satisfactory. You have had 6 months to develop compe-
tence in the adjustments, and maintenance and
operation of the equipment. You have failed to achieve
the level of competence required of a solder machine
operator, as a result of which an acceptable level of
supervision and direction is required.
We are giving you an additional two weeks, (Oct.
8th) to demonstrate a significant improvement in your
work attitude and the performance of your job func-
tion.
A. Johannsen
Production Man.
AJ: cc
Wilson testified that Production Manager Johansen
taunted him during the 2-week period between September
27 and October 8, 1971, that Johannsen (1) told him that
there were only 2 weeks "until we get rid of you," (2) told
him that there were only 3 days to go, (3) told him that he
hated to see him go, (4) told him "goodby," and (5) told him
that there would be some peace around there. Surico testi-
fied to overhearing such remarks. Johansen testified in
denial of these remarks. Wilson's and Sunco's testimony
had the ring of truth. Considering this and the logical con-
sistency of the evidence, I credit Wilson's and Surico's testi-
mony to these events.
Considering (1) the foregoing; (2) the conduct of Re-
spondent found in this case to constitute conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, previously set forth; (3)
Johannsen's statements to Wilson following Wilson's Sep-
tember 1971 circulation of the petitions to the effect that if
Wilson didn't watch his step, he would be fired, that Wilson
was starting a lot of trouble in there, that Wilson was drag-
ging the Union into the matter, and that nobody had ever
started that trouble before;6 and (4) the discriminatory dis-
charge of Wilson on October 8, 1971, found later herein, I
conclude and find that the Respondent, by Johannsen, har-
assed Wilson, as alleged, because of his union and protected
concerted activities. Such conduct is violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
C. The Discriminatory Discharge of Wilson
The Respondent discharged John Wilson on October
6 The facts are based on Wilson's credited testimony Johannsen testified
in the proceeding but did not testify to such remarks or a denial thereof. I
note that the charge in this case was filed on October 13, 1971, that complaint
issued on March 21 , 1972, that the hearing was held on April 26, 1972, that
the testimony of events came from Wilson, the Charging Party, that there is
no allegation of the complaint as to violative conduct as regards to
Johannsen 's remarks, and that General Counsel 's brief contains no conten-
tion that this has been litigated as an 8(axl) issue or that the said remarks
are violative of the Act. I do not make a finding that this conduct referred
to in (3) constitutes conduct violative of the Act I do consider it as back-
ground in connection with the complaint issues . I do not find it proper under
all the circumstances to consider that such remarks have been litigated as
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
8, 1971. The General Counsel contends that Respondent
discharged Wilson because of his union and protected con-
certed activities. The Respondent denies that it discharged
Wilson because of his union or protected concerted activi-
ties . The Respondent contends in effect that its reasons for
the discharge of Wilson were the reasons set forth in its
letter of September 27, 1971, to Wilson, and that he made
no improvement during the last 2-week period.
The facts are clear, as previously indicated, that Wilson
engaged in union and protected concerted activities. He
made many complaints to supervisors about working condi-
tions affecting him and others. He pursued grievances
through Local 475 directed toward the correction of such
conditions. Wilson circulated petitions directed toward get-
ting the Local 1922 substituted for Local 475, and directed
toward the removal of Local 475 union steward.
Respondent's supervisors, as previously indicated, re-
sponded by statements to Wilson to the effect that he would
be fired for such activity.
The facts also reveal that there was some friction be-
tween Wilson and his supervisors, that supervisors believed
that he was away much of the time from his machine with-
out cause, and that there was disagreement between him
and his supervisor over the quality of his work and job
attendance.
Considering all of the facts, I find that the facts prepon-
derate for a finding that Respondent was discriminatorily
motivated in its discharge of Wilson. The facts , excepting
(1) for the warnings about absenteeism-keyed to a 3- out
of 5-month excessive absenteeism as cause for automatic
dismissal and (2) the September 27, 1971, warning letter,
found to constitute harrassment herein, reveal only warn-
ings of discharge because of union or concerted activity.? In
sum, I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the discharge of Wilson on
October 8, 1971.
The testimonial record in this case persuades me that
the discriminatee, Wilson, might misinterpret the effect of
this decision. The remedy in this case will be designed to
correct the unfair labor practices of the Respondent. It will
be designed to do no more and to do no less. It will not
afford insulation from discipline or supervision which is not
discriminatorily motivated or discriminatory in nature.
With this in mind, it is hoped that Respondent's good-faith
compliance with the remedy and the Charging Party's un-
derstanding thereof will result in the end of litigation in this
matter.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
r Based on a consideration of the logical consistency of all facts , and the
fact that I did not find his testimony as to the reason for Wilson's discharge
to be persuasive , I discredit Johannsen 's testimony as to the motivating
reason for his discharge of Wilson
TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC. 409
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respon-
dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discharged
John Joseph Wilson on October 8, 1971, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the recommended Order
will provide that Respondent offer him reinstatement to his
job, and make him whole for loss of earnings within the
meaning and in accord with the Board's decisions in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716, except as specifically modified by
the wording of such recommended Order.
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
herein found, the recommended Order will provide that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Trygon Electronics, Inc., the Respondent; is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Local 475, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor orgainzation
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 1922 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
4. By discharging John Joseph Wilson on October 8,
1971, the Respondent has encouraged membership in one
labor organization and discouraged membership in another
labor organization by discriminating in regard to tenure of
employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By the foregoing and by interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the 'Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, Trygon Electronics, Inc., its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against
employees, in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment because of their union
or protected concerted activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge and other
reprisals because of their union activities or protected con-
certed activities.
(c) Harassing employees by giving them written warn-
ings relating to possible discharge and by oral statements
indicating that discharge would follow because of employ-
ees' union activities or protected concerted activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John Joseph Wilson immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the
manner described above in the section entitled "The Reme-
dy „
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of his right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms and this
recommended Order.
(d) Post at Respondent's plant in Westbury, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10
9 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
10 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify
Continued
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of unlawful
conduct not specifically found to be violative herein be
dismissed.
the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer to John Joseph Wilson immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such
position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment
because of their union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other reprisals because of their union activities or pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT harass employees by giving them writ-
ten warnings relatmg to possible discharge or by orally
stating to them-that discharge will follow because of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agree-
ments in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organi-
zation, except to the extent provided by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the Unites States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.