Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc. and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
1-CA-5512.
April 26,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
excepted , are not contrary to a clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence , and we therefore adopt them . Standard
Drywall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3)
We note that the Trial Examiner erroneously referred to the
service of the charge herein as the service of a petition The
names William Butler and Samuel McConnell are hereby added
to paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Law
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 17, 1967, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil
issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint , and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and a
supporting brief: the General Counsel also filed a
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
,powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that Respondent, Ulbrich Stainless
Steels, Inc., Wallingford, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
' At the hearing , witness Butler was asked by Respondent's
counsel whether he had made "book" in the plant He declined to
answer on Fifth Amendment grounds The Trial Examiner did not
direct him to answer , and no motion was made to strike the
witness' testimony under Section 102 44( c) of the Board's Rules
The Trial Examiner refused to draw any inference from Butler's
refusal to answer the question In its brief to the Board,
Respondent has moved to strike Butler's testimony under Section
102 44(c) The cited rule provides that the refusal of a witness to
answer any question which has been ruled to be proper "shall, in
the discretion of the Trial Examiner, be ground for striking all
testimony previously given by such witness on related matters "
Such a motion should be directed to the Trial Examiner, and
ruling thereon made by him within his discretion . Accordingly,
Respondent's present motion to the Board to strike Butler's
testimony in its entirety is hereby denied
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial
Examiner 's credibility findings, to which the Respondent
PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
June 13, and amended June 28,i the General Counsel by
the Regional Director for Region 1 (Boston,
Massachusetts ) issued his complaint on July 28, alleging
that Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc. (herein called
Respondent), violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging
three individuals in the month of June, and independently
violated Section 8(a)(1) by various acts and conduct. The
complaint was thereafter amended on September 2, and at
the hearing, held before me, by the addition of three
allegations of 8(a )( 1) violations . I conducted the hearing on
the matter on October 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20. All parties
were represented by counsel. After the hearing, all parties
were afforded an opportunity to make oral argument and
file briefs. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed
briefs after the close of the hearing.
On the record , my observation of the witnesses, and in
consideration of the briefs, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Connecticut corporation engaged, in
Wallingford, Connecticut , in the processing, sale, and
distribution of stainless steel and related products.
Respondent annually ships materials in interstate
commerce valued in excess of $50 ,000. Respondent is and
at all times relevant has been engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is, and at
all times relevant hereto has been, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates its plant in Wallingford with about
100 employees . Management consists of Richard Ulbrich,
vice president and apparently operating head of the firm,
and Daniel Ulbrich, Richard ' s younger brother, vice
president of the corporation and a "management trainee."
At the time of the alleged unfair labor practices, Daniel
Ulbrich occupied the position of personnel manager.
Frank Riccardi is the plant superintendent in charge of the
production and maintenance employees and their
activities , with the exception of those employees involved
in production control and quality control , with neither of
which we are concerned herein.
' All dates herein are in the year 1966 unless otherwise
specified
164 NLRB No. 22
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS
Respondent's employees are not represented by any
labor organization. In the early years of the present
decade, apparently in 1962, the Charging Party attempted
to organize the employees and a Board-conducted election
was held which resulted in the rejection of the Union at
that time.
On April 18, Andrew J. Mezzi was hired as a slitter
helper. Shortly after he was employed, Mezzi concluded
that a union was desirable and contacted one Satori, the
president of the local of the Charging Party which
represented the employees at Wallingford Steel, a
competitor of the Respondent. Satori furnished Mezzi with
blue dues-deduction cards from the Charging Party to use
in attempting to organize the employees. Three days later,
Satori learned that the blue cards were not appropriate for
the purpose but that white cards, authorizing the Charging
Party to represent the employees, were more appropriate
and agreed to furnish Mezzi with white cards.
On May 20, Mezzi, who in the interim had taken no
steps with regard to organization, received a pack of white
cards from Satori and in the following week contacted 10
or 15 employees asking them to sign cards. The last day
Mezzi worked was May 27. He took off May 31 and June 1
and 2 for personal reasons and on his return on June 2 was
informed that he had been discharged for absenteeism.
In the early steps of his organizing, Mezzi had contacted
Arthur Arnold, who agreed to assist him but warned Mezzi
to proceed with caution. Upon Mezzi's discharge, Arnold
made no move until after June 7, on which date he had a
conversation with Satori. Thereafter, Arnold commenced
organizing within the plant. On June 15, Arnold was
discharged, allegedly for absenteeism. About June 20, the
organizing campaign became overt and thereafter through
the summer Mezzi openly distributed literature and cards
at the gate to the plant. Lawrence Tremaglio joined the
Union on June 24 and, also on that date, made a statement
to an investigator of the National Labor Relations Board
investigating charges filed as a result of Mezzi's discharge.
On June 27 Tremaglio was discharged, allegedly for
absenteeism.
On June 27, sometime in July, and on or about August 3,
Respondent Richard Ulbrich delivered antiunion speeches
to all of its employees in groups numbering from 15 to 30.
It does not appear that the Respondent is charged with any
violation stemming from the speeches.
The complaint alleges that the discharges of Mezzi,
Arnold, and Tremaglio resulted from their union activities
and are violative of 8(a)(3) and (1). The General Counsel
alleges also that Respondent has violated 8(a)(1) by a
course of conduct including interrogation of employees in
the hiring process and on June 3, 8, and 27 and July 15,
and by threats of discharge and reprisals on June 8 and
July 15. Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practice and contends in addition that it had no
knowledge of any union organizational campaign prior to
the receipt of the original charge on June 15.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
On May 27, William Butler, a furnace operator on the
first shift, received permission to leave the plant at
lunchtime to pick up pizzas for himself and other members
of his crew, including the supervisor. On his way to the
pizza shop, to which an order had been telephoned, Butler
stopped at a bank and at a newsstand where he purchased
2 Butler testified that he had been in trouble some 4 years
before
131
a horseracing scratch sheet. On his arrival at the pizza
establishment, Butler found that his order was not yet
ready and walked across the street to a bar, which he
frequented at least 2 nights a week. As he entered he
noticed Daniel Ulbrich across the street at an entrance to a
lunchroom.
Butler entered the bar and, with a friend whom he met
there, commenced perusing the scratch sheet. Hearing a
sound behind him, he turned around and saw Daniel
Ulbrich and asked him what he was doing there. Ulbrich
answered "I don't know" and left. Butler left, picked up
the pizzas, and went back to his shop.
On Butler's return to the plant, he told his foreman,
Dennis Gifford, of seeing Daniel Ulbrich and said that he
thought it was rather strange for them to be checking on
him or whatever he was doing. Foreman Gifford answered,
"Well, they are kind of worried about union activities and
everything." About a half hour later Gifford was called to
the office. When Gifford returned from the office, he
asked Butler for the paper that he was reading in the bar.
Gifford told Butler that he had seen Daniel Ulbrich follow
Butler out of the shop when he went out for the pizzas.
Gifford also told Butler that, in his opinion, the Ulbrichs
might have thought that the paper (the scratch sheet) was
a petition or a union paper with names on it. Butler gave
him the scratch sheet and Gifford returned to the office.
Daniel Ulbrich, testifying about the same incident,
stated that on May 27 he went to a lunchroom called
Mabel's to get a quick sandwich and, as he was entering
the lunchroom, he saw Butler entering the Silver Fox bar.
He followed Butler into the bar because "I was quite
disturbed to see one of our employees going into a bar on
company hours," and because he knew that the furnace
operation was continuous and the employees had no time
off for lunch. Daniel Ulbrich testified that he asked Butler
what he was doing there and whether he was having a
drink. Butler denied that he was drinking and stated that
he was getting some sandwiches and both walked out. He
also testified that Butler was putting something in his
pocket and he mentioned this to Frank Riccardi and
mentioned that he did not know what Butler was putting in
his pocket. Later that afternoon, Ulbrich testified, he went
up to Butler at his work and said, "Bill, I want you to know
I have the right to follow you into any bar if you are on
company hours and I don't want to find out that you have
been drinking while you were on the clock."
The following week, Butler was called to Richard
Ulbrich's office where he found Frank Riccardi and'
Richard Ulbrich. Richard Ulbrich, after asking him how
long he had been employed by the Company (4 years) and
whether he liked his job (yes), told him that he had dust had
a conversation with John Cei, a local detective, who
reported that Butler had not been in trouble lately.2 Butler
testified that Richard Ulbrich then shook his head and said
that he hated to see 4 years with the Company go to waste.
When Butler asked what he meant, Ulbrich said, "You are
involved in union activity aren't you?" Butler denied that
he was and Ulbrich said that he knew that Butler had been
approached by Satori. Riccardi then said that three
employees in the shop had said that Butler was involved in
the Union. Butler challenged them to produce the three
employees so that he could call them liars to their faces.
Ulbrich and Riccardi continued to insist that Butler was
involved and that he was the ringleader and asked him
298-668 0-69-10
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who else was in the organizing with him. Butler denied any
knowledge of the organization and either Ulbrich or
Riccardi told him that they had already caught the head
man behind the Union, Andrew Mezzi, and had gotten rid
of him.
When Butler continued to insist that he had nothing to
do with any union organization, he was told to go back to
his job and think it over for the rest of the day and come up
with a different answer. He answered that he could not
come up with a different answer if they gave him a year to
think about it because he knew nothing about it.
Butler went back to his job and concluded that he was
all through with the Company and asked his supervisor if
he could get his vacation pay. The supervisor said that he
could not afford to lose him and Butler said, "Well, I can't
work under these conditions with people watching me and
suspecting me of these things and I can't do my job right."
Butler's supervisor called Richard Ulbrich and told him
that Butler wanted to quit whereupon Butler was called
back to Richard Ulbrich's office. On this occasion, Daniel
Ulbrich as well as Frank Riccardi were also present. One
of the management group told Butler about the prior union
organizational attempt 4 or 5 years before and mentioned
that the Union had lost "something like 97 to 6" and that
the men who organized the Union had been discharged.
They suggested that Butler return to his job and think it
over and he did so without further talk about quitting.
Richard Ulbrich testified to the same conversation but
stated that the Union was never mentioned and that he had
called Butler in to his office because he suspected him of
bookmaking. He told Butler that he had talked to his
cousin, Detective John Cei, and asked if Butler had been
picked up or even suspected of bookmaking. According to
Richard Ulbrich, this is all he said. Butler recognized what
he was talking about and denied that he was involved in
any way in bookmaking in the shop or out of the plant and
then became perturbed and asked if he could leave.
Ulbrich also testified that he did not come back. Ulbrich
specifically denied asking him whether he had been
approached by Satori or any reference to Andrew Mezzi or
to any former organization in the plant.
Riccardi testified that he had heard there was
bookmaking in the plant and suggested that Butler be
called into the office and interrogated about it. According
to his version, after Ulbrich told Butler about his call to the
police department, Butler asked, "What is this all about?"
Riccardi "jumped in" and said that he had been told by
certain individuals that Butler was booking horses and he
had found racing forms, scratch sheets, and obscene
literature in a vertical tower at the plant and had found
some literature in barrels. He testified that Butler then got
angry and asked whether they were accusing him,
whereupon Riccardi answered, "No one is accusing you of
anything, we are just asking you." Butler then said, "You
fellows don't trust me," and Riccardi answered, "We're
just trying to get the truth and tell you if you are
bookmaking, to cut it out." After further conversation
along these lines, Butler lost his temper and said he was
going to go to the Union, whereupon "we said for him to go
ahead" and that was the end of the conversation. Riccardi
also denied that there was any mention of Mezzi or any
mention of union activities other than Butler's threat to go
to the Union. Riccardi was not asked whether there was
another meeting later that day.
Butler testified to a third incident later in June when
Richard Ulbrich came to his workplace and told him that a
man from the Board was coming to town and would
probably question Butler. He testified that Ulbrich said
that lie would deny any discussion with Butler and that
would put Butler in an embarrassing situation. Butler was
not interviewed on that occasion by anyone from the
Board. Ulbrich denied that any such conversation had
taken place at any time.
Respondent contends that the testimony of Butler is
unworthy of belief as "it is no more than the attempt of one
who is caught at the industrial crime of making book, of
attempting to alibi out of it by making charges against the
accuser." Respondent also submits that the alleged
violation is an isolated incident as well and should be
disregarded for that reason.
Butler testified that he had never talked to a Board
agent , including the attorney trying the case, prior to the
time he took the witness stand, except to refuse to sign a
statement. He testified that sometime between the
occurrences detailed above and the hearing, Andrew
Mezzi had met him in a bar and bought him five or six
beers and at that time he had dictated a letter to Mezzi
containing the story as he told it on the witness stand.
Thereafter, he took the letter home and later transcribed
it, and a week or so later gave it to Mezzi. He testified that
he is still employed by the Respondent and that in August
Respondent had attempted to get him a draft deferment on
a hardship basis and had promised that if he were called
up they would attempt to get him deferred on an
occupational basis. I consider that Respondent's attack on
Butler's credibility is ill conceived. He did not admit and
was not caught at the industrial crime of making book. In
fact, Dan Ulbrich had caught him in a bar and thought he
had gone there for the purpose of getting a drink. There is
no evidence that he, at anytime, made book in the plant.3 I
credit Butler as to all three conversations. The incident on
May 27 is important only in that it led to the statement by
Butler's supervisor, Dennis Gifford, that revealed that, as
early as May 27, Respondent was concerned about the
union organization. Gifford was not called to testify." I
infer from the lack of explanation, as well as from the
corroborating testimony concerning the incident with the
scratch sheet furnished by Daniel Ulbrich, that Butler's
testimony is to be credited. I note that he was reluctant to
appear and testify but that on the witness stand he
testified in relevant aspects with candor.
As to the second conversation during the week of
June 2, I note the very substantial variance between the
accounts given by Riccardi and Richard Ulbrich, both of
which are at substantial variance with that of Butler. I
credit Butler largely on the basis of his demeanor. I
consider that his credibility is enhanced and supported
both by the fact that he is still in the employ of
3 When asked whether he had done so, Butler declined to
answer on Fifth Amendment grounds I cannot base a finding that
he had committed a crime in the plant on this evidence,
particularly in view of the fact that the question asked, "Do you
make book in the shop"" is so ambiguous, at least to me, that I
could not conclude, even from an affirmative answer , that he had
broken any law
° Riccardi testified that Gifford was no longer employed at the
plant However , there is no indication that Respondent made any
attempt to call him as a witness or that Respondent faced any
difficulty in locating him
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS 133
Respondent ,s and the additional fact that he has much to
lose in view of the Employer's past and promised future
attempt to have him deferred by the Selective Service
Board . Finally, I reject Respondent 's suggestion that his
testimony is not to be believed because he had had a
number of beers when he first reported the story to Mezzi.
Butler was obviously sober on the witness stand and his
demeanor and deportment were such as to enhance rather
than impair his credibility . Accordingly, I find that
Respondent knew of the union organization as early as
May 27, and I find that Respondent , by interrogating and
impliedly threatening Butler during the first week in June,
restrained and coerced him in the exercise of his
organizational rights protected by Section 7 in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Andrew Mezzi testified that when he was hired he was
interrogated about his feelings toward the Union. Gerald
Noonan and Samuel McConnell both testified credibly to
the same effect . In view of the fact that substantial
corroboration is given Mezzi's story by the similar
occurrences with regard to Noonan and McConnell, in the
face of Respondent ' s denial that it had ever questioned
employees in this regard , I credit Mezzi ' s account.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating prospective employees
concerning their opinions with regard to the Union.
Samuel McConnell, an employee presently on the first
shift, testified that in the middle of June he was employed
on the third shift . When he came to work one night, he was
told by the second -shift supervisor to stay over in the
morning because Frank Riccardi wanted to see him. In the
morning, when his own work was done, he was put on
packing work until 8 : 30, on overtime , at which time
Riccardi came in to work . At 8:30, Riccardi took
McConnell into the office of Richard Ulbrich. Ulbrich had
before him a copy of McConnell's employee record and,
after telling McConnell what a good worker he was, asked
McConnell whom he ate lunch with at night . McConnell
said he ate lunch with everybody. Ulbrich asked what they
talked about . McConnell answered they talked about
trucks, cars , and houses . Ulbrich said , "There is no sense
my beating around the bush , you know what I mean."
When McConnell said he did now know what he meant,
Ulbrich said , "You know they are trying to get a union in
here and I got rumors that you were at the coffee machine
with about 8 or 10 guys talking about the Union."
McConnell denied that he was talking about the Union and
Ulbrich said that he had already "got one." He said, "You
know we got rid of your buddy, Mezzi." McConnell denied
knowing Mezzi and Ulbrich said , "What about Art Arnold?
What did he talk about ?" McConnell pointed out that
Arnold worked on a mill which does not shut down for
lunch and that he therefore did not know what Arnold
talked about . Ulbrich said , "Well, I don 't think you signed
a card yet, but if I hear that you signed a card , that will be
it. You will be fired." McConnell again denied that he
knew anything about the Union. Ulbrich said that the girls
at the union hall who handled the cards only make $60 a
week, and he could find out who signed the cards, and
pointed out that if he had to make a whole change in the
personnel , it might take a couple of years but that he
would do it. McConnell continued to insist that he didn't
know anything about the Union and Riccardi called him a
liar and asked him if he'd swear on the Bible. McConnell
said he would swear on the Bible but Riccardi wouldn't
believe him anyway. Ulbrich said , " I don't know about you
but stay away from Arnold."
After the conversation above, according to McConnell's
testimony , he signed a card for the Union and on July 15,
passed out literature for the Union at the company gate.
On July 15, during the day, he testified , Frank Riccardi
called at his home for him a number of times and left word
for him to get in touch with Riccardi . He went into the
plant about 4:30 that afternoon and was taken to Richard
Ulbrich's office by Riccardi. In Ulbrich's office, Ulbrich
asked him what he would gain by campaigning for the
Union and stated that the Union must be paying him for
organizing . McConnell denied this and Ulbrich said that a
good friend of McConnell ' s had told him that he "got
conned into the Union and wanted out and didn't know
how to get out." McConnell answered that whoever said
that is a liar and asked who it was . Riccardi interjected,
"You know some people seem to think when you got a
union shop you've got a life-time job, but that 's not true"
and Ulbrich said , " I am going to give you a choice, you
stop campaigning now and don ' t go to any more meetings
and we won ' t fire you ." McConnell pointed out that with a
union shop they would have to have a reason for firing him
and Ulbrich said , "We can make all kinds of reasons. We
can jump on the quality of your work , we can bring up your
absenteeism , we can find all kinds of excuses, but just
trust in us and we won ' t fire you later." When McConnell
said that after the last conversation he could not trust
them and never had, Riccardi said , "I do not see how you
can have faith in gangsters like Arnold and Satori," and
referred profanely to DeBow , the union organizer . Ulbrich
then said , "Let's face it Sam , you're making pretty good
money here. Where the hell are you going to make the
money that you're making now? You have a house to pay
for and four kids and where are you going to find a job that
will pay you what you're making now? After all this is over
Arnold , Satori and Mezzi aren ' t going to give a damn and
you're just going to be without a job. All we want is for you
to sit back and keep your mouth shut and don ' t go to any
more meetings and we won ' t fire you ." After further
conversation , Ulbrich said that he knew that there would
be a union meeting the following day and that if he found
out McConnell made a statement concerning this
conversation , that he would lose his job. At this point,
McConnell left.
Under cross-examination , Respondent's counsel
brought out from McConnell a third conversation which
took place mid-August and concerning which there had
been no testimony given on his direct examination. On
redirect examination, McConnell testified that he had
refused to tell the General Counsel about the third
conversation because he felt that he had agreed with
Ulbrich that neither would mention the conversation. His
testimony concerning the conversation is that in mid-
August , while he was at work on the third shift , Ulbrich
came to him about midnight at his machine and said,
"Sam, I didn 't say that you had no choice as far as joining
the Union ." He went on to say that he knew that
McConnell had made a statement to that effect.
McConnell said that he knew that Ulbrich had said that
and asked how he knew it was in the statement if he did
not say it . Ulbrich said somebody told him and that he
knew everything that was in McConnell 's statement.
'See Georgia Rag Mill, 131 NLRB 1304
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ulbrich then said, "All right I did say it but I will deny it at
the hearing."6 Ulbrich went on, saying, "I will tell you
another thing, I fired Arnold and Tremaglio and I will deny
that at the hearing." McConnell answered, "I don't care
what you do at the hearing." Thereafter Ulbrich and
McConnell argued the merits of the union organization.
McConnell testified Ulbrich said that Arnold and Mezzi
would never set foot in the plant again and told McConnell
that he was fired but not right now; that it would take a
little time. Ulbrich asked McConnell to quit and
McConnell said that he was not going to quit, that he liked
his job. Ulbrich told him if he quit then he would give him a
good recommendation, but if he refused to quit, he would
see that he never got a job in the State again. McConnell
testified that he knew if he informed or testified about this
conversation that Ulbrich would blackball him and he
knew that he could never get a job, so he promised not to
make a statement.
Ulbrich and Riccardi both denied the first conversation.
They testified in essence that in mid-June, McConnell had
stayed over by his own choice one morning and asked
Riccardi to take him to Ulbrich's office in order to attempt
to borrow some money in order to consolidate his debts.
Ulbrich testified that he had declined to lend him the
money although he offered to arrange for him to borrow it
from a bank.?
As to the second conversation, Riccardi testified that he
had not sought a conversation with McConnell but rather
McConnell had left word with the second-shift supervisor
that he wanted to have Riccardi call him. Riccardi called
the following day and McConnell came in to see him; he
took McConnell to Ulbrich's office at which time
McConnell told him and Ulbrich that he did not want them
to think he was the one who had brought the Union in, but
that all the other fellows were deserting the Union and
leaving him holding the sack. Riccardi testified that
McConnell was under the influence of liquor at this time
and Ulbrich suggested that he go home and sober up
before it was time to go to work. Thereafter he left. Ulbrich
generally corroborated the testimony of Riccardi.
As to the third conversation in August, Ulbrich testified
that he had, in fact, sought McConnell out at his workplace
at midnight because he had heard that McConnell had said
he was interested in the Union because of things that
Ulbrich had done to McConnell. Ulbrich wanted to point
out to McConnell that he should not lie about such matters
and that he had never done anything harmful to
McConnell. Thereafter, his account concerning the debate
about the Union, pro and con, is not substantially different
from the testimony of McConnell's except that he denied
making any threats or asking McConnell to quit or asking
McConnell to keep their conversation a secret.
I credit McConnell as to all three meetings . I base this
on the fact that I was impressed with his demeanor as a
witness and with his frankness and candor. This was, in
fact, enhanced by the manner in which his account of the
third meeting was brought out. He was visibly upset and
reluctant to testify about the meeting when it was first
broached, which I find to be the natural result of his
honoring his promise to keep the conversation
confidential. The obvious corroboration of his testimony as
to the third meeting by his notes,8 which were written only
20 minutes after the occurrence, further enhances his
credibility. As to the first meeting, the accounts are so
different that it would appear that the various parties were
talking about two different meetings . Whether this be so, I
find that Ulbrich made the statement substantially as
testified to by McConnell and I believe that the third
meeting, which I have heretofore found to have accorded
with McConnell's testimony, was an attempt by Ulbrich to
coerce McConnell so that he would not reveal the
statements made in the earlier conversations.
Accordingly, I find that by the statements made in mid-
June and on or about July 15, Richard Ulbrich coercively
interrogated and threatened McConnell in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9
C. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations
1. Andrew Mezzi
During Mezzi's brief tenure with the Employer, he was
frequently late to work and had been absent on three
occasions prior to June. On May 31 and June 1 and 2,
Mezzi was absent and on his return was discharged for
absenteeism, according to the Respondent. Riccardi
testified that when he ascertained on May 31 that Mezzi
was absent, he decided to discharge him and that he was
impelled to this decision by the complaints voiced by
Supervisor Polnar, that Mezzi's absenteeism and attitude
were affecting production, and specifically by the
complaint of Leadman DuBois whose incentive earnings
were tied to those of Mezzi and who complained that
Mezzi's absenteeism cut down his (DuBois') incentive
earnings.
Respondent produced DuBois who testified on direct
examination that he had asked to have Mezzi removed
because Mezzi's absences cut down on his incentive
earnings and that he was primarily interested in making a
living. However, under vigorous cross-examination,
DuBois' story changed completely. He admitted that
because he was on a different incentive plan, working
without a helper, he was able to earn more money when
Mezzi was absent than when he was present. It appeared
from his testimony that any objection he had resulted from
Mezzi's presence because he was a new helper and needed
to be instructed in his work by the operator or by DuBois,
who was the setup man.
I discredit Polnar's testimony that he reported to
Riccardi that DuBois was complaining about Mezzi's
absences and, accordingly, I discredit Riccardi who
6 The complaint had already been issued
' As to the fact that McConnell was paid overtime for the time
he waited to talk to Ulbrich, at one point Riccardi testified that it
was standard operating procedure that anyone who wanted to talk
to Ulbrich would be paid the time he had to wait On cross-
examination, however, asked whether, if McConnell had wanted
to have the meeting on his own , he would have assigned overtime,
Riccardi answered, "I don't know, I don't think I would, I don't
think so "
" Obvious by reason of the fact that Respondent's counsel was
given an opportunity to read the notes and would certainly have
called it to my attention if the notes were not consis tent with his
testimony
9 For obvious reasons no allegations concerning the third
conversation are to be found in the complaint, nor did the General
Counsel move at the close of the hearing to amend the complaint
to allege any violations While the issue was fully litigated, and
Ulbrich's statements unquestionably violative , I do not deem it
necessary to make specific findings with relation to this incident
inasmuch as the order I shall recommend, based on other
incidents found above to be violative, would, in my opinion, amply
remedy the violations involved in the August conversation
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS
testified that he determined to discharge Mezzi as a result
of Polnar 's complaint. i°
It is clear that Mezzi 's attendance record was far from
good . If Respondent 's evidence as to its motivation for the
discharge were credible , and if the record did not contain
admissions by Richard Ulbrich that Mezzi was discharged
because of his union activity , it would appear that he was
discharged for cause . However, under the following
circumstances : (1) I discredit Respondent ' s contention
that it had no knowledge of union activity prior to June 15,
(2) the only union activity prior to Mezzi's discharge was
Mezzi ' s activity , (3) the testimony was contrived
concerning the causation of Mezzi ' s discharge, and
(4) Ulbrich' s admissions that Mezzi was discharged
because of his union activity , all convinced me that his
discharge was consummated in order to discourage union
activity among Respondent ' s employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and I so find.
Late in the afternoon of June 2, Mezzi came to the plant
for his pay , which was due that day . His supervisor,
pursuant to instructions from Superintendent Riccardi,
told him that he was discharged for absenteeism and to
come in the next day for his check. On June 3, Mezzi came
to the personnel office for his check. Although we have
four accounts of the ensuing events from four participants,
no two of them agree.
Mezzi testified that he came into the front office and was
told by Richard Ulbrich' s secretary to have a seat and that
Frank Riccardi would like to speak to him. He waited
approximately 10 minutes and Riccardi came into the front
office, said, "Please come with me," and took him into
Richard Ulbrich's office where Richard was seated behind
his desk and Daniel Ulbrich was seated in a corner.
Richard Ulbrich asked Mezzi if he had to work and
offered to change his shift and take him off the machine he
worked on and give him a machine for himself if Mezzi
would disclose who was involved with him in the
organizing . Mezzi declined to inform on his fellows and
Ulbrich asked , "What about Art Arnold? Is he involved
with you in this union organizing ?" Mezzi said that he was
not and Ulbrich asked about Bill Butler . Mezzi admitted
knowing Butler but denied that he was involved with him.
Riccardi said that he knew union officials doing organizing
were paid handsomely and said that he had had
experience with that kind of organizing . Richard Ulbrich
asked what Satori and Mezzi were trying to cook up and
said that he knew that they had been seen in John's
Delicatessen . Mezzi said , "Yes, that's true." Then Ulbrich
said , "If I see or hear of you speaking to any of my
employees about union matters, I will blackball you from
every industry in this part of the State. You realize, of
course, I can do this ... if they call here for your records,
all I have to tell them is you are a troublemaker and an
agitator and you will never get the job . Secondly, I will
have the police harass you and thirdly, I know you like
politics and I know you enjoy it. I will ruin you in politics."
Mezzi replied , "That remains to be seen . Of course, I'm
going to take you before the National Labor Relations
Board ." Riccardi said , "We'll deny any accusations that
you make against us and we will deny that this
conversation even took place. We feel that the records will
prove that you were fired because of your attendance."
10 It seems improbable that DuBois would have complained
about Mezzi 's tardiness The record reveals that Mezzi was tardy
only three times during the time he worked with DuBois During
the same time , DuBois was tardy , although excused, six times and
on one of those six, Mezzi was late only 5 minutes so that he
probably arrived before DuBois Thus , DuBois would probably
135
Mezzi then departed and picked up his check in the office.
Daniel Ulbrich testified that he entered the outside
office and saw Mezzi standing there and exchanged
greetings with him . Knowing that Mezzi was being
terminated , he asked him what the story was and Mezzi
answered , "I don 't feel like talking, I'm waiting for Frank
Riccardi ." Riccardi came in and asked for the blue slip. t t
Mezzi became disturbed and told Riccardi , "You can't do
this to me," and Riccardi said , "Let's not discuss it here,
let's go into Richard Ulbrich 's office." All three, Mezzi,
Riccardi , and Daniel Ulbrich , went into Richard Ulbrich's
office with Daniel following. They were both arguing back
and forth with Mezzi doing most of the talking. The two
Ulbrichs looked at each other and shrugged their
shoulders . Mezzi said , "I know you are the boss, and I
know that I am just a peon , but you can't do this to me."
Then he turned to Richard Ulbrich and referred to himself
as a peon again and said , "This isn't fair and I 'm going to
get even ." He mentioned something about a State Labor
Board and Riccardi said , "That is alright , that is your right
to go to the State Labor Board ." Then he mentioned
something about the Union and Richard Ulbrich said,
"What are you talking about a union ?" Mezzi said, "I'm
going to make some trouble." With that Mezzi left with
Riccardi. Daniel Ulbrich denied that his brother made a
statement that he had a deal for Mezzi , would change his
shift and give him a machine if Mezzi would tell him who
else was in the Union, or that his brother asked about Art
Arnold or Butler or that their names occurred in the
conversation.
Riccardi's story is again different : he said he got a call
telling him that Mezzi had arrived , so after a couple of
errands he walked into the office and Mezzi looked at him
and said , "You can 't do this to me" and became very
boisterous . Because he did not want to disturb Daniel
Ulbrich , who was interviewing an applicant, he took Mezzi
into Richard Ulbrich ' s office, not knowing whether
Richard was there or not . Richard Ulbrich was sitting
behind his desk when they went in and asked, "What is
this all about ," and Riccardi told him that he was
terminating Mezzi and that Mezzi was quite upset. He
asked Mezzi to sit down and tried to explain why he was
terminated but Mezzi would not permit him to say
anything . He started repeating that he was going to go to
the Board . Riccardi said , "Well, that is your prerogative,
you can do that if you like. Go right ahead ." Then Mezzi
said , "I'm going to the Union" and Richard Ulbrich said,
"What union ? We have no union here." Mezzi answered,
"You'll find out," and made threats that he was going to
make trouble. He told Ulbrich and Riccardi that he was
influential in politics and they asked him to leave. Riccardi
testified that he never did tell Mezzi the reason for his
discharge although the blue slip showed it. On further
interrogation, by Respondent 's counsel , Riccardi recalled
that Mezzi said , "You think just because you own a
factory, you own the town and you are going to step all over
us little small people."
Riccardi denied that Richard Ulbrich said he had a deal
for Mezzi or he would change his shift , denied recalling
Ulbrich asking Mezzi whether he had to work , denied that
Richard Ulbrich offered Mezzi a different machine if he
would tell who was with him in the Union , 12 and denied
have known only of two of Mezzi's tardinesses during this period
DuBois' tardiness , almost every working day in May, was
excused, although it appears that on occasions he was tardy only
because he overslept
The blue slip is a discharge document
Riccardi pointed out that Mezzi could not run any machine
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Mezzi was questioned about Art Arnold, Bill Butler,
or any other person. He also denied that he said union
organizers get paid handsomely to organize and that
Richard Ulbrich threatened to blackball Mezzi or harass
him or ruin him in politics and he denied saying that they
would deny any statements or that they had a
conversation. On cross-examination Riccardi elaborated
somewhat and stated that Mezzi told him he was going to
the Board when he was in the outside office and then
repeated it when in the inside office.
Richard Ulbrich testified that he did not know that
Mezzi was being discharged, that he was disturbed by a
loud shouting in the outside of his office, and that no one
else was in his office at the time the door opened and
Frank Riccardi, Daniel Ulbrich, and Andrew Mezzi walked
in all together. Mezzi was talking at the time, and he said
"it is not fair" and continued talking. Riccardi tried to
quiet Mezzi and both told him to sit down. Mezzi continued
talking, saying that he thought he was getting a raw deal
and it was unfair. Riccardi looked at Richard Ulbrich and
said, "I'm firing this guy because of excessive absences
and he's lazy." Richard Ulbrich said, "That's good enough
for me" and Mezzi continued talking and stated that he
was going to bring it before a labor board. Ulbrich said,
"Bring what before the Board?" Mezzi answered, "I have
been fired unjustly." Riccardi said that the people Mezzi
had been working with on the shift were complaining
because he was lazy and had been costing them money
because it was a production machine and the incentive is
calculated on the group basis, and they do not want a lazy
man or an undependable man. They want to get rid of him.
The superintendent had agreed to it and the decision had
already been made, and Riccardi stated, "If you want to
bring us before the Labor Board, you go right ahead, that
is your prerogative." Then Mezzi said that he would get
even with them or he would get them and threatened to get
the Union after them. Ulbrich said, "What union? You
know we are not unionized." Mezzi repeated, "I will get
the Union after you." Mezzi then walked out and that was
the end of it. Ulbrich denied asking Mezzi if he had to
work, offering him a deal, offering to change his shift, or
asking about Arnold, Butler or anyone else. He also denied
threatening to harass him with the police or blackball him
or stating, "What are you and Satori trying to cook up."
I do not credit any of the counts completely. I noted
during the hearing that Mezzi has a loud voice, a quick
tongue, and an even quicker temper. I find it
incomprehensible that Respondent, having already
decided to discharge Mezzi, filled out the necessary
papers, informed him of the discharge, and prepared his
termination pay, would have called him in solely for the
purpose of explaining the reasons for his discharge, which
would appear to be self-explanatory, or on the other hand
that they would have commenced the discussion by
offering him a machine of his own (which he probably
could not operate), a raise in pay, or a transfer to the day
shift. I believe that Respondent, knowing of Mezzi's quick
temper and tendency to speak out, arranged for him to
come into the office under circumstances that were
calculated to cause him to lose his temper in the hope that
he would indulge in a diatribe and reveal additional
information concerning the union organization. As Richard
Ulbrich testified with relation to his conversation with
McConnell in August, "I wasn't about to do any
unnecessary talking at that time, but I did want to listen to
find out what was new, what the new argument was and I
wanted to learn things and I did." I believe that in his
conversation with Mezzi, Richard Ulbrich was similarly
trying to "learn things" and to that end I believe that he
did in fact ask about the participation of other employees
in the union effort as Mezzi testified. Also I believe that at
the end of the meeting, either Richard Ulbrich or Frank
Riccardi used the threat of a blackball against Mezzi in an
attempt or with the hope of coercing him to refrain from
revealing the conversation. This is of course similar to the
statement by Ulbrich to McConnell.
Accordingly, I find that by the threat of retaliation and
by interrogation Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Arthur Arnold
Arthur Arnold was employed from May 1965 until his
discharge in June 1966 as a rolling mill helper on the third
shift. His hours of employment were from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Immediately after Mezzi commenced the organizational
campaign for the Union, by obtaining the cards from
Satoh, he communicated with Arnold as to ways and
means to commence organization. Arnold took no active
part other than "more or less feeling a few people out
about it" until Mezzi was discharged on June 3. On June 7,
Arnold testified he had a meeting with Satori after which
he signed a union card.
During his 14-month career with Respondent, Arnold
was given two merit ratings and on each occasion was
rated very highly. On each such occasion he would have
received a raise except for the fact that the raises were
denied because of his absenteeism. The attendance record
for Arnold, received in evidence, indicates that in the year
1966, prior to May 15, Arnold was either tardy or absent
over one-third of the workdays.
On May 13, Arnold was absent; his wife called the plant
to report that he was ill. That night, during working hours,
he was arrested in a gambling raid, a full report of which
appeared in the newspaper. The following workday,
Riccardi called the matter to Arnold's attention. Arnold
offered no excuses for his absence.
After May 15, Arnold was called up for his second merit
review and was told that he had scored highly in the merit
rating but would not be given an increase in pay because of
his absenteeism. He was warned that he would be let go if
his absenteeism did not improve. Arnold indicated that he
wanted to earn more money and promised to improve his
record on absences and tardinesses. Thereafter, Arnold
was neither tardy nor absent again until June 4, on which
day he was tardy, June 6, on which day he was absent, and
June 11, on which day he was tardy by 4 hours. On
June 15, according to Arnold's testimony, he was asked to
stay over to see Frank Riccardi but because he had an
appointment and he would have had to wait for an hour
after his shift for Riccardi to come in, he left word that he
would call Riccardi later in the day and left the factory.
That afternoon he called Riccardi who told him that he
was discharged for absenteeism. Arnold pointed out that
his record had improved since the last denial of the merit
increase, some 3 weeks before, and Riccardi answered, "It
doesn't matter, we have checked out the past 6 month
period and we feel that you have too much and we are
going to have to let you go." Arnold asked whether he
could work that night and whether he could work the rest
of the week and Riccardi refused to permit him to come in
again, but told him that he would be paid for that night.
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS 137
Riccardi testified that at the time of the merit review in
May, he had made up his mind that he did not want Arnold
in his organization and at that time he started looking for a
replacement for him. He further testified that finally
because of the 4-hour tardiness on June 10, he decided to
replace him and took a man, Larry Daigel , out of the
stockroom and put him on as a helper . He further testified
that Daigel started as a helper 2 or 3 days after the
discharge of Arnold.13
Although Riccardi testified that he had determined
together with Foreman Barillaro to discharge Arnold in
mid-May at the time of the gambling raid, Barillaro
testified that Arnold 's discharge was not mentioned until
after the occasion of June 11 , when Arnold was absent for
4 hours . At that time , he testified , Riccardi stated that
Arnold would have to be discharged and Barillaro agreed.
About a week before Arnold's discharge, according to
the credited testimony of McConnell, in the conversation
in Richard Ulbrich's office between McConnell, Richard
Ulbrich, and Frank Riccardi , Ulbrich , in a context of
questioning about the union activity on the third shift,
asked what Art Arnold talked about at lunch. McConnell
pointed out that Arnold had to stay on his mill and did not
eat lunch with the other employees. At the close of that
conversation , Ulbrich told McConnell to stay away from
Art Arnold, which in context could only have meant a
warning that Arnold was engaged in union organization
and that McConnell should shun him to avoid being
similarly infected.
In August in the "confidential " conversation between
Richard Ulbrich and McConnell, concerning which I have
credited McConnell' s account , Ulbrich stated that he fired
Arnold and Tremaglio but would deny that at the hearing
and again , in context, this could only be considered an
admission on his part that he fired them for union activity.
I have carefully scrutinized the evidence with regard to
Respondent 's alleged reason for the discharge of Arnold.
There can be no question that his attendance record was
deplorable and while it had improved substantially during
the first 2 weeks of June, it was still not good. On the other
hand, as the General Counsel points out , for the 11
preceding months, Respondent had put up with the poorer
attendance record he had established.
It is clear that Respondent considered Arnold and Mezzi
to be the leading organizers for the Union at Respondent's
plant.
Riccardi's story about the discharge does not seem true.
He testified that when he learned on Saturday , June 11,
that Arnold had been absent half of the preceding night, he
determined to discharge Arnold. Thereafter, on the 14th,
he left word for Arnold to wait for him on the 15th so that
he could discharge him; ultimately he discharged him
when Arnold called in in the afternoon of the 15th. At that
time, he declined to let him finish the week, but gave him
pay for the night of the 15th, in lieu of notice. No
explanation is given for the lapse between the morning of
the 11th and the evening of the 14th when suddenly
Arnold's discharge became a matter of urgent necessity. I
note also that Riccardi , in leaving word for Arnold to wait
for him on the 15th , did not tell Arnold's supervisor why he
wanted to see him. In the earlier occurrences with Mezzi,
Mezzi's supervisor was told that Mezzi was to -be
discharged and why. I conclude that Riccardi did not have
it in mind to discharge Arnold at the time he left the
message on June 14 but by the time Arnold reached him
on the afternoon of the 15th, the Union's petition in the
representation case had been served. The only intervening
circumstance that appears is the service of the petition.
Accordingly, I conclude that Arnold was discharged
because of his union activity in violation of 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
3. Lawrence Tremaglio
Lawrence Tremaglio was hired in December 1965 and
worked on a furnace during the day shift. He was
apparently an excellent worker for he received four raises
between December 1965 and June when he was
discharged . He was absent once in January, four times in
April, three times in May, and six times in June up to
June 25 on which day he was discharged.
Tremaglio testified that in the earlier part of June he had
been called to Riccardi ' s office where Riccardi
commented that he had been absent quite a few times.
Tremaglio told him that he knew this and Riccardi said
that what he really wanted to talk about were union
activities in the shop and questioned Tremaglic whether
he knew anyone that had a part in the Union. Tremaglio
said that he did not. Riccardi asked Tremaglio if he knew
that Mezzi had been terminated. Tremaglio said that he
did not and said that he knew nothing about the Union.
Riccardi then took Tremaglio to Ulbrich's office where
Ulbrich asked if Frank Riccardi was going to talk about
Tremaglio 's attendance record. Riccardi answered that he
would like to clear up a few things about the Union.
Riccardi started talking about the Union and giving the
Company's argument against union organization after
which he asked again about Mezzi and also whether Art
Arnold had any part in the Union . Tremaglio, who at this
time was unaware of the union organizing campaign,
denied knowing whether Arnold or Mezzi were involved
and denied that he had anything to do with the Union. As
he left the office he was told to ask anyone he heard
talking about the Union to go to the office and hear the
Company's side.
On June 23 , Tremaglio was given the day off in order to
attend a court trial . He was to have reported again on the
24th but did not come in to work. On that day he went to
the union hall where he signed a card and was interviewed
by an investigator of the Board with reference to the
charges theretofore filed in the instant case. The following
Monday, Tremaglio went into work and was asked by
Riccardi where he had been the preceding Friday. He
testified that he told Riccardi that he went to the union hall
and heard the Union's side and decided to join the Union.
He testified that a couple hours later , Riccardi came up to
him and asked him to do the shop a favor and quit. He
decided to do so, because he would not be able to get
unemployment benefits. Riccardi said he would call the
unemployment office and find out whether he could get
benefits . On the way to his office to make the telephone
call, Riccardi questioned Tremaglio whether he had made
any statements on Friday . Tremaglio said that he had not
done so. Riccardi took him to his office and discharged
him, giving him a blue slip which read that he was
discharged for absenteeism.
11 Foreman Barillaro testified that Daigel had been the second-
shift helper since April ; for 2 days after Arnold 's discharge,
Daigel and the first - shift helper split up the third shift, each
working 12 hours a day . Thereafter, Phil Adams was transferred
from the stockroom to the third -shift helper , the job formerly held
by Arnold.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Riccardi testified that in early June Tremaglio came to
him and asked him about the Union, stating that he had
never worked under a union shop and didn't know
anything about it. Thereafter, Riccardi's account of the
conversation is substantially the same as Tremaglio's
except that Riccardi denies that he asked any questions.
Riccardi testified that on June 27, aware that Tremaglio
had not come in on the 24th as he had promised, he had
not made up his mind what to do about Tremaglio until he
talked to him.
Riccardi testified that in the conversation he asked
Tremaglio why he was not present on the 24th. Tremaglio
merely shrugged his shoulders without explanation
whereupon Riccardi told him that he was going to fire him.
He testified thereafter they stayed together until he had
filled out the discharge papers and as Tremaglio was
leaving the plant he told Riccardi that in case he wanted to
know that he had made a statement against the Company
on Friday. Riccardi said it was too late now, he didn't care
what Tremaglio had done on Friday.
Riccardi's story reduces the issue to a direct and simple
issue of credibility as to whether Tremaglio told Riccardi
on June 27 before he was discharged that he had signed a
union card as he testified or whether he had furnished no
reason for his absence thereby causing Riccardi to fire him
as Riccardi testified. It appears to me improbable that an
employee who had enjoyed an excellent relationship with
Superintendent Riccardi, as Tremaglio obviously had,
would have merely shrugged silently when asked the
perfectly normal and appropriate question concerning his
absence on a day on which he admittedly had promised to
come in to work. I cannot credit Riccardi's testimony that,
under these circumstances, Tremaglio stood mute. On the,
other hand, I consider it entirely conceivable, in view of
the same personal relationship which led Riccardi to give
Tremaglio four raises in a period of 6 months and to waive
the Employer's rules concerning vacation pay to put
money in Tremaglio's hands on June 23, that Tremaglio
would have confided in Riccardi that he had signed a
union card on the preceding Friday by way of explanation.
Accordingly, I credit Tremaglio's version of the
conversation and find that the cause of Riccardi's anger
was not solely that he had been absent, but that he had
been absent because he signed a union card. Therefore,
because this resulted in Riccardi's discharging Tremaglio,
I find that the discharge is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act."
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
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discharged Andrew Mezzi, Arthur
Arnold, and Lawrence Tremaglio because of their union
activities, I shall recommend that Respondent offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to
them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally
would have earned as wages from the date of their
discharge to the date when, pursuant to the
Recommended Order herein contained, Respondent shall
offer reinstatement, less their net earnings during said
period. Said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; interest on backpay
shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend
that Respondent be ordered to make available to the
Board or its agents, upon request, payroll and other
records to facilitate the checking of the amount of earnings
due.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, the commission of similar and other unfair
labor practices reasonably may be anticipated, and, in
fact, the commission of similar and other unfair labor
practices, although not alleged, was shown. I shall
therefore recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from, in any manner, infringing upon
rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing conclusions of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section
entitled "Interference, Restraint, and Coercion" to the
extent therein found, and by the interrogation and threats
to Andrew Mezzi at the time of his discharge, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and
Lawrence Tremaglio, thereby discouraging the free
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
and discouraging membership in or activities for the
above-named labor organization, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I
recommend that the Respondent, Ulbrich Stainless Steels,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
" Corroboration for this conclusion is found in the credited
testimony of McConnell that in his August conversation with
Richard Ulbrich, Ulbrich substantially admitted the
discriminatory nature of Tremagho's discharge
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees in any manner violative of
the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Warning or threatening its employees with
discharge or other reprisals if they joined or assisted the
Union.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization provided in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and
Lawrence Tremaglio immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to seniority or other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against them in accordance with the
recommendations set forth in the section above entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant in Wallingford, Connecticut, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representatives, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including each of
Respondent's bulletin boards. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(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, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial
Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply with the foregoing Recommended Order.ls
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless , within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional
Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing
Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order directing Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words " a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
i6 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
139
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 discourage membership in United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against our employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees in any
violative manner or warn or threaten them with
discharge or other reprisals if they join or assist the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of,
their rights protected by the Act.
WE WILL offer to Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold,
and Lawrence Tremaglio immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
as a result of our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members in the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify any of the above-named employees
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston , Massachusetts 02203,
Telephone 223-3300.