W. R. Bean & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building , 110 West Fifth Street , Fort Worth, Texas , Telephone No.
335-4211, Extension 2145.
W. R. Bean & Son, Inc . and International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, AFL-CIO , Local No . 96. Case No. 10-CA-6196.
May 6, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices 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.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]:
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications indicated
below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, W. R. Bean & Son, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(b) of the cease and desist portion of the
Recommended Order and substitute therefor the following new para
graphs 1(b) and (c) :
"(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees by
creating the impression of surveillance of its employees union activi-
ties, and by threatening employees with layoffs and reductions in the
hours of overtime work available and by promises of, or threats of loss
158 NLRB No. 64.
W. R. BEAN & SON, INC. 713
of, benefits based on whether or not the employees select the Union as
their bargaining representative.
"(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Local No. 96, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities."
2. The notice in the Trial Examiner's Decision marked "Appendix"
is hereby modified by striking the words "like or similar" and sub-
stituting therefor the word "other" in the original third substantive
paragraph, and by adding the following paragraph immediately before
the original third substantive paragraph :
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
by creating the impression of surveillance of our employees' union
activities, and by threatening employees with layoffs and reduc-
tions in the hours of overtime work available and by promises of,
or threats of loss of, benefits based on whether or not the employees
select the union as their bargaining representative.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on July 21, 1965, and thereafter amended on July 22,
1965, by International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, Local No. 96, here-
inafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter called the General Counsel 1 and the Board , respectively, by the Regional
Director for Region 10 (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued its complaint dated September 22,
1965, against W. R. Bean & Son, Inc., hereinafter called the Respondent . The com-
plaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and
2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein
called the Act. Copies of the charges, the complaint , and hearing thereon , were duly
served on Respondent and the Union.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing thereon was held in Atlanta , Georgia, on November 9
and 10, 1965, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. All parties appeared at
the hearing, were represented by counsel or representative, and afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard , to produce, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to intro-
duce evidence material and pertinent to the issues . At the conclusion of the hearing
oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from General Counsel, the Union,
and Respondent on December 15, 1965.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
W. R. Bean & Son, Inc. is , and has been at all times material herein , a Georgia
corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Atlanta, Georgia,
1 This term speci9ca11y Includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where it is engaged in the printing and sale of commercial printing paper. During
the past calendar year, which period is representative of all times material herein,
Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside the State of Georgia.
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, Local No. 96, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion
1. The facts
Sometime in the early part of June 1965,2 the Union began an attempt to organize
the employees of Respondent's bindery. At that time the Union held a meeting for
such employees, as Respondent's vice president, Bill Bean, promptly learned. Another
such meeting was scheduled for these employees for June 25 or 26. Respondent's
personnel manager, Charlie Steed, was so informed.
As a result of this information about the Union's organizational efforts, Steed
began, starting on June 22 or 23, calling the bindery employees individually into his
office for interviews.3
According to his own testimony, Steed began these interviews by stating that "the
interview is completely voluntary on the part of the employee who was free to leave
at any time without hard feelings." Steed then stated that he "was seeking no
information, do not intend to threaten [the employee] in any way or make any
promises and that the only purpose of the interview is to bring out facts about W. R.
Bean as compared to the Union." 4 No employee refused to be interviewed.
Steed then produced a blank union application card (secured by him from Vice
President Bill Bean) and pointed out two already underscored lines thereon as proof
that the employee who had signed the same thereby became a member of the Union
and, as such, subject to union dues, fines, and assessments. He pointed out that this
application caid, unlike the card used by the Pressmen's Union in its 1963 organiza-
tional campaign among the pressroom employees, did not request that an election
be held. Steed then stated that because of this he "was concerned" that the employ-
ees who signed such union application cards had signed the same "under misinterpre-
tation or whatever" as recognition of the Union was being demanded, instead of an
election and that the employees had thereby subjected themselves to the union dues,
fines, and assessments together with the obligation of "joining union strikes."
During this part of the interview two employees at least, Jimmie Greene and Roger
Farlow, admitted that they had executed such union application cards so that,
whether purposely or not, Respondent in fact did ferret out information regarding
the employees' union activities as was inevitable in this type of interview.
Steed informed employees Betty Warren and Jimmie Greene during his interviews
with them that he "knew" the employees who had been signing application cards
and attending union meetings. From what he had learned during other interviews
with employees, Steed in fact did know some of the employees at least who had
been doing such.5
2 All dates are In the year 1965 unless otherwise noted.
3 Originally Steed testified that he interviewed 90 or 95 percent of Respondent's bindery
personnel during these sessions but ultimately testified that he interviewed only the
"permanent" employees and none of the "part time" employees so that the percentage of
employees so interviewed fell suddenly to about 50 percent according -to his final testi-
mony. Steed's testimony, like that of other of Respondent's witnesses, was subject to
change without notice.
In fact the testimony presented by Respondent was characterized, by a rather undue
indefiniteness, particularly about important dates, and by a noticeable inclusion of qualify-
ing phrases such as "I believe" or "I think" In otherwise apparently factual answers.
The testimony was not impressive
* The above quotes are from Steed's own handwritten format for these interviews.
s Steed's testimony was to the effect that he Informed the Interviewees that he "be-
lieved" that some of the employees were signing cards and attending union meetings. This
alleged subtle change of phraseology would not have prevented the interviewees from
receiving the impression that union activities were under Respondent's surveillance.
W R BEAN & SON, INC 715
During his interview with Farlow, Steed suggested that Farlow had signed the
application card under the above suggested ` misinterpretation or whatever" and
then inquired if Farlow did not wish to have the signed application card back
Farlow refused Obviously Steed's purpose in holding these interviews encompassed
more than he had acknowledged in his preamble to the employees
Following this Steed turned to what he referred to as a comparison of the benefits
which Respondent had already conferred on its employees as against those secured
by the Union through its contract with the printers of Atlanta In preparation for
the interviews Steed had prepared mimeographed copies of a written chart indicating
that Respondent had granted more benefits to its employees than the Union had
obtained under its contract After explaining the chart , Steed gave each interviewee
a copy of the chart with the admonition that they use it to determine for themselves
which way they should vote in an election either for the Company or for the Union
During the interviews Steed went down this chart item by item proving that the
benefits which Respondent had conferred on its employees were 'the same or better'
than those secured in the union contract He candidly acknowledged that the union
contract "beat ' Respondent by providing for one more paid holiday and in overtime
rates He also stressed , among other things, the fact that, on the other hand,
Respondent 's premium pay for the third shift "beat the union contract , that the
Respondent provided "group insurance" for accident and health benefits whereas the
union contract had none,6 and that Respondents Code of Good Conduct required
two written warnings be given the employee before he could be discharged whereas
the union contract had no such provision 7
During the discussions of this chart , Steed candidly agreed that the union contract
on overtime rates had us beat all over the place but proceeded to point out that,
if the Respondent became bound by this union contract , Respondent would employ
mole people so as to eliminate overtime In fact Steed stressed the fact that , in order
to remain competitive , Respondent would have to eliminate overtime if the Union
was successful in its campaign at Respondent 's plant
In his interviews with employee Maurene Plott and apprentices Greene and
Farlow, Steed stated that , if the Union came in, some apprentices employed by Re-
spondent would lose their jobs because the union contract provided for an apprentice
journeyman ratio of one to five with a maximum of three apprentices whereas
Respondent had a ratio of about one to one Hence some apprentices had to go
After making sure that Farlow was an apprentice , Steed stated that, ` if the Union
came in and its contract became applicable , you will be replaced by a journeyman if
the Union comes in I know that Theo Bean [Respondents president] wouldn't
raise an apprentice when he can get a journeyman with more experience for the
same money " To apprentice Greene, Steed stated that `some apprentices would
lose their jobs if the Union comes in because the Company would not pay present
apprentices that much money to do the job that was called for them to do"
Furthermore Steed informed those whom he interviewed that Respondent had
already instituted an incentive and bonus plan in part of the bindery 8 and planned
to put the plan into effect as soon as possible in the rest of the bindery However
he went on to explain that, if the Union came in, the employees would lose the
benefit of this incentive and bonus plan because the Union 's constitution prohibited
its members from working under any such plans During his interview with Farlow,
e It subsequently developed that Respondent was self insured and that it was not com
pany policy ' to apply any benefits of this `group insurance ' to the part time employees
4 It subsequently developed that this Code was not applicable to part time employ
ees either
8 Steed testified that this plan had been instituted a week or 10 days before his inter
views began but the best evidence indicates that the plan began in the saddle stitch de
partment on June 24 or 2 days after Steed began his interviews
9 The,, was the Second time employee Farlow had been told about such in incentive plan
by Steed the first time having been during the Pressmen s Union s organizing campaign
in the pressroom where Farlow was then working Actually despite Steed s assurance in
similar interviews conducted among the pressmen at that time the plan was never in
stituted in the pressroom This record does not disclose the results of thit organizational
campaign
It is also noteworthy that Respondent s personnel manager acknowledged his complete
ignorance as to the operations of the suggested plan in the bindery eien to the date of the
healing which would appear to be a very strange thing for a personnel manager if Respond
ent had ever seriously intended to install such a system Thus the alleged plan appears
to have been more propaganda than fact
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steed told of an employee who had earned $15 extra in 1 week under the plan and
again stressed the fact that such increase would be impossible if the Union came in.
Steed completed these interviews just prior to July 22.
2. Conclusions
Section 8 (c) of the Act grants an employer the right to give his employees the
benefits of the employer 's "views, argument , or opinion" on the question of union
organizations so long as they contain "no threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit."
Apparently Respondent seeks to justify the systematic individual interviews con-
ducted by Steed under this section of the Act.
The Board has always looked askance at the practice of an employer expressing
his "views , argument , or opinion" under any circumstances which might be con-
sidered to be coercive, i.e., such as the systematic interviews of individual employees
in management offices.
However, of much greater significance here is the fact that, despite Steed's initial
disclaimer, he did through this technique of interviews secure information regarding
the individual's sympathies toward union organization and, in fact, secured admis-
sions from at least two of the interviewees that they had already executed union
authorization cards. With either this or some other information Steed proceeded to
inform other interviewees that he "knew" or "believed" that some of Respondent's
employees had executed such cards and had attended union meetings thereby, rightly
or wrongly, creating the impression among the employees that Respondent was or
had been engaged in surveillance of the employees' union activities. The creation
of the impression among employees that an employer was engaging in such surveil-
lance has been found by both the Board and the courts to constitute interference,
restraint , and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find.
Then there can be no question but that Steed threatened the apprentices , particu-
larly Greene and Farlow, with loss of employment with Respondent in the event that
the Union succeeded in becoming the representative of Respondent 's bindery employ-
ees. It is immaterial that Steed sought to lay the responsibility for such loss of
employment upon the Union's five-to-one journeyman-apprentice ratio. It is to be
recalled that Steed went even further when he insisted , that, of course , Respondent
would employ journeymen in the event the Union came into the shop in place of
apprentices in order to save money. In Farlow 's interview , Steed just made the bald
statement that Farlow would be dismissed if the Union came in. Hence these inter-
views contained threats of reprisal,' thus depriving them of the protection of Section
8(e). These threats constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find.
In addition Steed 's statement made during the interviews that the Respondent would
employ more persons in order to eliminate the Union 's overtime rates in the event that
the Union was successful in the bindery also amounted to a threat of reprisal through
the elimination of overtime work which also amounted to interference , restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Then Steed's conversation regarding the impending incentive and bonus plan,
whether illusory or real , constituted a promise of benefit to the employees or, with the
additional conversational fact as added by Steed that such alleged plan could not be
granted to the employees under the union constitution if the Union succeeded, a
definite threat of reprisal . Either way this incentive bonus plan conversation con-
stituted interference , restraint , and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Consequently I must, and hereby do, find that Respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the Act through the systematic individual interviews conducted by
Personnel Manager Steed between June 22 and July 22, 1965 , in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The discharge of Rosa Holmes
1. The facts
In January Rosa Holes applied to Respondent for permanent employment. In the
latter part of June Steed telephoned Holmes and asked if she would accept "part-
time" employment until such time as she could be given permanent employment.
-Holmes accepted and reported for work on or about July 1, at which time she told
Foreman Al Gray that she and her husband had already planned a several-day trip
for the July 4 holiday. Gray agreed that there would be no necessity for Holmes to
cancel the trip.
W. R. BEAN & SON, INC. 717
Gray put her to work on the side stitcher and asked employee Thompson to oversee
her work. After I day of work Thompson volunteered a report in glowing terms on
Holmes' ability 10 to Gray.
Due to vacations and absences for other reasons, a number of Respondent's
employees failed to report for work which caused Gray to shift Holmes from one job
to another as necessity indicated until Holmes went off on her planned holiday trip.
When Holmes had not reported back for work by July 8, Gray telephoned her at
home and requested that she return to work immediately which Holmes did. There-
after she worked a considerable amount of overtime on a number of different jobs.
On one such job Holmes complained that the bundles of paper the women had to
lift were too heavy for women and that the method of cutting the wires which tightly
bound these bundles was dangerous to the employees' legs and arms.
Early on the morning of July 13 Holmes cut her hand when such a wire binding on a
bundle sprang back as she cut it. Gray gave her first aid and then suggested that she
see the company doctor or go to a nearby hospital for treatment. Holmes refused,
insisting on seeing her own doctor which she thereupon did. She returned to work
immediately after receiving treatment by her own doctor and was thereafter assigned
to table work by Gray because of her bandaged hand.
Because of her injury, Holmes stayed away from work on July 14 and 15.
After her return to work on July 16 Holmes inquired of Gray, Steed, and Mitchell,
plant superintendent, if she would be compensated for these 2 days under Respond-
ent's group insurance. Gray, who had only been the bindery foreman since April 14,
consulted Steed on the matter and then reported back to Holmes that she would be
paid. Steed and Mitchell also confirmed the fact that she would be compensated 11
Having completed his round of individual interviews with the employees on July 22,
Steed called a meeting for all employees of the bindery at the suggestion, in part at
least, of some of the employees previously interviewed. Steed opened the meeting by
saying, "Now, this is an open discussion meeting for you employees to talk about your
problems, your gripes or whatever you have to say. Just be open and above board.
Let's hear from you" and assured the employees that nothing they said would be held
against them.
After some hesitation employee Farlow inquired, "I would like to know why
W. R. Bean & Son is fighting the Union coming in so hard." After first denying that
Respondent was fighting the Union, Steed answered by saying, "Well, Roger, if you
had organized and helped in the growth of the Company and you raised it to a thriving
business how would you like to have an organization come in and tell you how to run
your business and ... how to operate your business."
Although seven or eight employees spoke up at this meeting and although Steed
at first could recall little or nothing which Holmes contributed at the meeting, it was
quite clear from the testimony that Holmes became probably the most vocal of the
employees present at the meeting.
When another employee asked if Respondent's group insurance could not be made
to cover the families of the employees, Holmes contributed the thought that the rail-
road for which her husband worked had a group policy which did, in fact, cover the
employees' families and further suggested the possibility of contributions from the
employees in order to secure such wider coverage. Steed's answer was that Respond-
ent was not in the insurance business.
In other discussions at this meeting Holmes objected to the excess amount of over-
time required of Respondent's part-time employees and suggested the hiring of more
10 However, Gray testified that from his own, observation made after Thompson's recom-
mendation he considered Holmes' work to be "normal" only.
111 accept the testimony of Holmes in the above regard. , The testimony of Respondent's
witnesses on this matter was strangely equivocal.
Steed originally testified that he did not know that Holmes had lost 2 days' work until
July 23 but he did admit that when asked by Gray if Holmes would be compensated, under
Respondent's group insurance, he answered in the affirmative, although he testified that
he only meant for the time Holmes lost while receiving medical treatment. Subsequently,
however, Steed testified that at the time he so informed Gray, he (Steed) did not realize
that Holmes was only a part-time employee because it was not company policy (practice)
to compensate part-time employees for injuries-no doubt because Respondent was a self-
insurer in this regard.
On the other hand Gray maintained, despite Steed's original testimony, that although
he had consulted Steed at Holmes' request, he (Gray), never reported Steed's affirmative
answer to Holmes.
As Mitchell did not testify, Holmes' testimony as to him stands uncontraverted on this
record.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
people, replacements for employees who were known to be going on vacation and
more help on her shift on the side stitcher.
In addition Holmes objected to the fact that part-time employees were apparently
not covered by Respondent's so-called group insurance, that part-time employees
were not paid at the same rate as permanent employees, that part-time employees were
overburdened by overtime work, that employees were required to do an excessive
amount of bookkeeping on their timecards, that women were not paid equally for
doing the same work as a man and finally she inquired how long it took before a part-
time employee could become a permanent employee. It is quite clear that, despite
Steed's lack of memory, that Holmes was perhaps the most vocal employee at this
open discussion meeting.
On the next morning, July 23, Holmes inquired again of Gray about her pay for
July 14 and 15. Gray brushed Holmes' inquiry off, this time in a sufficiently angry
fashion so as to be noticed by Holines.12
According to the testimony of Steed and Gray, about 1 o'clock that afternoon
Gray went into Steed's office with a request that Steed separate Holmes from employ-
ment.13 Gray, according to his own testimony, told Steed that he "thought it would
be best if we released this woman, that her attitude and performance, I could see no
improvement in her performance, her attitude was certainly not that of a lady and I
felt that since I couldn't offer her full-time employment that I didn't even feel I could
carry her on as a part-time girl." After saying that he would bring Holmes in about
3 o'clock for discharge, Gray left the office.14
Five minutes before quitting time that day Gray came to Holmes at her work
station and said, "Rosa, as of right now you are no longer employed by W. R. Bean
Company." When Holmes asked why she was being fired, Gray answered, "You are
not what I am looking for in a full time employee. You are not the type I am looking
for." After making some comments about the fact that her work performance had
never been criticized and that she felt she was being fired for her outspokenness at the
meeting of July 22, Holmes told Gray that she was not "going to drop it right there"
and went to Steed's office followed by Gray.15
When everybody was assembled in the office, Steed inquired why Gray was dis-
charging Holmes. Gray answered, "We felt under the circumstances that we could
not offer her full time employment and we just didn't feel that her attitude was what
we were looking for in a lady and that her work performance had not shown any
gieat merit." Holmes reiterated that her work had never been criticized before and
that she felt that she was being fired because of her outspokenness in the July 22
meeting and because of her injured hand, which incidentally was still being bandaged.
Gray denied that the condition of her hand had anything to do with the discharge.
Holmes inquired if she was to be paid for the 2 days she was off because of this
accident adding that Steed, Gray, and Plant Superintendent Mitchell had all agreed
that she would be paid. Gray denied having so stated whereupon Holmes called him
a "damn liar." 16 Steed made no denial of the Holmes' statement.17
12 Gray admitted to a propensity to remove himself as fast as possible from trouble
"Steed maintained as a witness that he had no authority to discharge "part-time"
employees . He also testified that Respondent's Code of Good Conduct requiring two
written warnings prior to discharge applied only to permanent employees.
14 Although both Steed and Gray denied that Steed had given Gray any report on the
meeting of July 22, it is noteworthy that Gray knew that employees Farlow, Irwin, and
Holmes had spoken at the meeting.
15 There is a dispute between Holmes and Respondent 's witnesses as to just how closely
Gray followed her into Steed ' s office. Holmes maintained that Gray had to be paged to
come to the office while Respondent 's witnesses contended that, although Gray was behind
Holmes, his entry into the office was almost simultaneous with that of Holmes. This
conflict hardly needs to be resolved.
le Respondent 's telephone operator who worked some feet outside of Steed's office testi-
fied that she heard, unlike the others , Holmes refer to Gray as a "g-d-liar," a
fact she remembered only because the use of the Lord ' s name in vain had so shocked her.
She admitted that she was accustomed to ordinary profanity around the plant.
17 At the hearing Steed claimed that this was the first time he realized that Holmes had
been absent for 2 days because of the injury and was making a claim for those 2 days
under Respondent 's "group insurance " Steed also claimed that , until this meeting, he
had not realized that Holmes was a "part -time" employee and thus , according to him, not
covered under this group insurance-which also leads to the conclusion that, fully informed
or not, Steed had, as Holmes testified, previously agreed that Holmes should be paid for
her injury.
W. R. BEAN' & SON, INC. 719
As Gray was again indicating his desire to leave, Steed told him to get Mitchell
and, if he (Mitchell) confirmed Holmes' statement, she would be paid for the 2 days
off caused by her injury. Gray promptly departed, never to be seen again. Nor did
Mitchell appear-either in the office or as a witness at the hearing. After Gray's
departure, Steed telephoned the payroll department to make out Holmes' check as she
was being discharged and requested Holmes to wait outside until the check could be
prepared.is
Holmes departed and has never since been reinstated.
2. Conclusions
At best Holmes joined the Union and "talked to other employees." There is no
evidence here that she was any more active in the Union than this nor that Respondent
had knowledge of even this union activity on her part, at least until July 22. Until
that date Rosa Holmes had been a satisfactory employee who, after her first day on
the job had received a glowing recommendation from the employee who had super-
vised her activities-and who incidentally never changed the opinion he expressed
to Gray about her work. Although Gray testified that he only rated Holmes' work as
"normal," she had been as of July 8 a sufficiently good employee for Gray himself
to telephone her in order to secure her return to work immediately . It is undisputed
that no one criticized Holmes' work until 2:55 p.m. on July 23. Thus it appears
without question that Holmes had been at least a satisfactory employee until that time.
Then at the meeting of July 22 Steed invited the employees to freely voice their
gripes, complaints , etc., with the assurance that there would be no retribution for
anything they might say. The first question was "Why is Respondent fighting the
Union?" which , of course , Steed denied . Thereafter Holmes accepted Steed's invita-
tion at face value and became quite vocal 19 in her numerous comments , criticisms,
and suggestions throughout the remainder of the session. To a personnel director who
for the past month had been engaging in a systematic course of interference , restraint,
and coercion through individual interviews on the subject of the Union with employ-
ees, Holmes ' freedom of expressions at this July 22 meeting must have indicated
all the potentialities of a "union troublemaker ," as that phrase is used. From that
moment on Holmes became an employee who was so "unladylike" and whose work
had suddenly become so unsatisfactory as to require her precipitous discharge the
very next day, following a conference earlier that day between Steed and Giay.
As indicated previously, the testimony of Steed and Gray about this earlier afternoon
conference was so obviously contrived, implausible, and internally inconsistent, not
only with itself but with ordinary business practices, as to confirm, if not strengthen,
the puma facie case of a discriminatory discharge made out by the General Counsel.
Accordingly, I am convinced and, therefore, find that Respondent discharged Rosa
Holmes on July 23, 1965, because, rightly or wrongly, it considered her, after the
July 22 meeting, to be a potentially dangerous advocate of union and concerted
action and in order to discourage such membership and such activities in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take cer-
tain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Rosa Holmes by discharging her on July 23, 1965, I will
recommend that Respondent offer Rosa Holmes immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or
18 If, as Steed and Gray testified , they had In fact agreed on the discharge of Holmes
in the early afternoon , it is surprising that the payroll department had not been so notified
earlier in order that Holmes' check would have been prepared for presentation to her at
the time she was first notified of her discharge at 2. 55 p in As noted earlier , the evi-
dence presented by Respondent was far from convincing.
11 Chaiacteristicaliy, to judge from her appearance on the witness stand
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of said discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination to the date of her reinstatement , less her net earnings during such
period, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Because of the variety, extent, and type of the unfair labor practices engaged in by
Respondent , I sense an opposition to the policies of the Act in general , and hence I
deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing on the rights guaranteed its employees in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Local No. 96 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Rosa
Holmes by discharging her on July 23, 1965, thereby discouraging union membership
and activities among its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees through the use of
systematic individual interviews of its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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 this case, I recommend that W. R. Bean & Son, Inc., Atlanta,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership and activities in International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Local No. 96 by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of any of its employees by discharging such employees in order
to discourage membership or activities therein.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees through individual
interviews with its employees or in any other way interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer to Rosa Holmes immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or her other rights
and privileges and make her whole in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post at Respondent's plant in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies" of the said notice to be, furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 10, shall, upon being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision what steps the•Respondent has taken to comply herewith 21
, 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a 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."
' 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 the Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
LOGAN-MINGO GAS & OIL COMPANY, INC. 721
I further recommend that, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Deci-
sion, Respondent notify the Regional Director what steps it has taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Local No. 96, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment or any other terms or conditions of employment of our
employees because of their union affiliation or activity.
WE WILL offer Rosa Holmes immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges and will make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her together with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 96, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
W. R. BEAN & SON, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-
Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No. 526-5741.
Logan-Mingo Gas & Oil Company, Inc. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 505, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Case No. 9-CA-3535. May 9,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exami-
ner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
158 NLRB No. 74.
221-731-67-vol. 158-47