Warrenton Rubber

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1988

289 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

WARRENTON RUBBER 3
E. H. Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber and
General Teamsters Local Union No. 528, AFL-
CIO.1 Case 10-CA-20791
June 8, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
CRACRAFT
On October 13, 1987, Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Gritta issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, E. H.
Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber, Warrenton,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Order.
i On November 2, 1987, the Teamsters International Union was read-
mitted to the AFL-CIO. Accordingly , the caption has been amended to
reflect that change
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
Sharon Howard, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James P. Cobb, Esq. (Wimberly, Lawson & Cobb), of At-
lanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GRITTA, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on 23, 24, and 25 September
1986 in Warrenton and Thomson, Georgia, based on a
charge filed by General Teamsters, Local Union No. 528
(the Union) on 5 March 1985 and a complaint issued by
the Regional Director for Region 10 of the National
Labor Relations Board on 4 April 1985.1 The complaint
alleged that E. H. Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber
(Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by discharging two employees for engaging in union ac-
i All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise specified
tivities. Respondent's timely answer denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.2
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evi-
dence, and to argue orally. Briefs were submitted by the
General Counsel and Respondent on 10 November 1986.
Both briefs were considered.
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness
stand, and on substantive, reliable evidence considered
along with the consistency and inherent probability of
testimony, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND STATUS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATION-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
The complaint alleges , Respondent admits, and I find
that E. H. Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber is a
Georgia corporation engaged in the manufacturing of in-
nertubes in Warrenton, Georgia. Jurisdiction is not in
issue . E. H. Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber, in the
past 12 months, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, shipped products from its Warrenton facility
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located out-
side the State of Georgia. I conclude and find that E. H.
Mann , Inc., d/b/a Warrenton Rubber is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
The complaint alleges , Respondent admits, and I con-
clude and find that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND
Respondent is the successor to Polson Rubber Co., for
whom several current employees and supervisors were
employed. The product is rubber innertubes. At present
the plant manufactures on three shifts and the shipping
department operates on two shifts. Bill Bonner is plant
manager, Jim Harper is personnel manager, Lewis New-
some is production superintendent, Earnest Hobbs is
shipping manager, and Grover Jobes is the subordinate
shipping supervisor responsible for the boxing employees
on each of the two shifts, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 4 p.m. to
midnight. Each of the three manufacturing shifts is su-
pervised by a general foreman. Boyd Taylor is the gener-
al foreman on the first shift and Linton Jones is the sub-
ordinate mill supervisor on the first shift. Each manufac-
turing shift has mold lines, splice and valve employees,
and inspectors. A chief inspector is present on each man-
ufacturing shift. Eloise Braddy was chief inspector on
the first shift in manufacturing and Gloria Yarbough was
boxing supervisor on the second shift in shipping.
On 31 August 1984 the Union won an election among
Respondent's employees. The Union was not certified as
2 The General Counsel at trial moved to amend the complaint by
adding two counts of coercive interrogation The motion was granted
and Respondent answered orally on the record, denying the allegations
289 NLRB No. 5
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exclusive representative, however, until 11 Novem-
ber 1985. From that certification until June 1986 the par-
ties were engaged in motions including a summary judg-
ment for the General Counsel. The Board denied the
summary judgment and notice of hearing issued on 23
July 1986.
Respondent in its answer to the General Counsel's
complaint admitted the discharges of Eloise Braddy and
Gloria Yarbough on 28 September 1984. Respondent also
admitted that the two employees were discharged for en-
gaging in union activities.
The General Counsel's complaint alleges that the dis-
charges violate the Act and Respondent contends that
the two employees are "supervisors" and therefore not
protected by the Act.
Pertinent testimony of witnesses is detailed below.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Eloise Braddy testified that her previous employment
of 5 years was at Polson Rubber, the predecessor compa-
ny, where the last 2 years she served as chief inspector.
Her employment at Polson ceased 18 January 1980 and
she was hired by Respondent on 26 January 1981.
Braddy was hired by Melissa Dawkins, personnel direc-
tor of Respondent, along with all other inspectors from
Polson . There was no discussion of duties or responsibil-
ities of inspectors for Respondent because all inspectors
were experienced. Braddy was hired as chief inspector
on the first shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.). She was salaried at
$10,000 progressing to $12,559 on the day of her dis-
charge and was a nonexempt employee for overtime pay
purposes. Braddy, as chief inspector, had contributory
health insurance on an 80/20 basis of company pay/-
employee pay, whereas the hourly paid employees had a
60/40 ratio. She received a 2-week vacation after 1 year
and 3 weeks after 5 years, contrasted with hourly em-
ployees, who received 1 week and 2 weeks, respectively.
Braddy oversees the on-the-job training of new inspec-
tors but has no authority to hire or fire employees nor to
assign employees to a particular work station . Plant man-
agement hires employees and assigns employees to work
stations. All new hires for the inspector classification
train on the first shift without regard for their permanent
shift assignment . Taylor decides what position the new
hire is assigned to and Braddy trains the new hire in that
same position. Usual training period is 3 weeks devoted
to learning to spot open splices, wrinkles, pinches, holes,
and thin sidewalls. Inspectors mark tubes with defects
and place them on a conveyor to repair. Good tubes are
placed on a conveyor to warehousing preparatory to
boxing and shipping.
There are 13 hourly employees in the inspection de-
partment; 8 regular inspectors, 1 relief inspector, 2 repair
persons, 1 classifier, and 1 warehouseman. There are four
production lines (A, B, C, and D) consisting of approxi-
mately 14 molds each. Two inspectors are stationed on
each production line and divide the output of the molds
evenly . Normal production consists of standard passen-
ger car tubes or truck/tractor tubes that are larger. Pas-
senger tubes flow down the line at the rate of one per
minute, and that is the established standard for the in-
spectors, seven tubes each 7 minutes . The truck/tractor
tubes are larger and require more molding time and more
inspection time. Typically, two inspectors on a line will
pass 700 passenger tubes and reject 50 to 100 as defects.
Braddy, as chief inspector, inspects all defective tubes
from the four production lines to determine repairability
and marks each tube with her stamp before sending it to
repair. Braddy follows the established standard of no
more than three repairs per tube, unless the repairs are
small, allowing a total of four repairs. Any tubes less
than 50 percent rubber or outside the repair standard are
labeled scrap and recycled into production. Tubes with
more than 50 percent rubber and outside the repair
standard are labeled "blems" and sold as seconds. On oc-
casion Braddy's inspection does not substantiate a defect
and the tube is returned to the original inspector. Many
tubes , in addition to repairs , labeling as scrap or blems
must be buffed to remove unwanted and excess rubber
dregs before proceeding to warehousing. Braddy's de-
partment in the past had a buffer classification but that
has not been the case for years. Braddy, in addition to
inspecting 400 to 500 tubes from all 4 lines per day, must
operate the buffing machine and see that the department
is supplied with valve cases and necessary tools. Ninety-
five percent of Braddy's workday is spent at her station
inspecting and handling tubes from the production line.
The remainder of her workday is spent on recordkeeping
of scrap and repairs per day and the filling out of forms
for employees in her department.
All tubes needing repair are repaired by one of the
two repair persons and then sent to the classifier. The
classifier determines if the repair is satisfactory or if the
tube should be scrapped. Usually all tubes produced on a
shift are inspected rather than leaving any for the next
shift. Occasionally, repairs or blems may be left for the
next shift depending on the critical nature of the sched-
uled production.
Quality control, a separate department, spot checks
first-line tubes (those tubes passed by the inspectors) for
defects or other misinspections. Any tubes found defec-
tive by quality control are red-tagged with the original
inspector's number and returned to the production de-
partment. Boyd Taylor decides if the red-tagged inspec-
tor will be disciplined and if so whether it will be a
warning or a writeup. Taylor then instructs Braddy to
do it. Braddy either executes the warning or writeup
during shift or after shift, depending on her own work-
load of tubes. Braddy includes all writeups with her
record sheets and turns them in daily to Taylor. She
does not see the writeup again . Someone in management
is responsible for them and for implementing the disci-
pline policy of three writeups, then discharge. From time
to time the number of red tags becomes a problem. The
shift will start with all employees going through the red-
tagged tubes to familiarize themselves with what is caus-
ing red tags in an effort to increase efficiency. Taylor has
in the past instructed Braddy to counsel certain employ-
ees about their work performance and to help them do a
better job of inspecting.
Braddy also, on instructions from Taylor, writes up
employees for tardiness and absenteeism. The Company's
rule requires employees to call in before shift to report
WARRENTON RUBBER
unavailability. Usually the third-shift supervisor or Boyd
Taylor will take the call and tell Braddy who would be
out or late that day. Braddy has sometimes been in the
office before shift and taken a phone call; she cannot,
however, excuse employees on her own. She has to
report to Taylor and he decides what to do. All writeups
by Braddy are subject to approval by Taylor, the person-
nel department, or the production superintendent. On
several occasions writeups by Braddy were changed by
Taylor or someone else without consultation of Braddy.
Braddy has not, on her own or via a recommendation,
told Taylor that anyone should be disciplined or fired.
On one recent occasion , an employee called Braddy a
"bitch" during shift. At some later time Braddy men-
tioned it to Taylor, and he said she should have reported
the incident to him, and he would have sent the employ-
ee home. Taylor also told Braddy that she should have
written up the employee. Braddy's standing instructions
from Taylor were to report to him any employees not
doing their work. If Taylor did not personally speak to
the employee, he would tell Braddy what to say to the
employee. If the employee did not thereafter perform
satisfactorily, Braddy was to write up the employee. All
inspection employees are evaluated after the first 30 days
of employment. The wage schedule for inspectors con-
tains four steps from hire-in wage to top of the scale.
Evaluations are based on the Company's inspection
standard of five large tubes each 13 minutes and seven
passenger tubes each 7 minutes. Braddy has, on four or
five occasions since 1981, checked a new employee
against the standards and filled out an employee status
change sheet, which allows the employee to receive the
appropriate step increase in wage . The employee status
sheets are supplied by the personnel office at the appoint-
ed time for each employee. Most frequently, Taylor
filled out the sheets and gave them to Braddy to sign.
Braddy stated that she had authority to recommend dis-
cipline of employees by writing up the employee for
poor quality of production, tardies, and absences because
that was what she did in accord with the procedures.
The writeups were turned in to Taylor at shift's end for
processing.
Employees are allowed several breaks and lunchtime
each shift. Inspectors are relieved for breaks so the pro-
duction line can continue running . Reliefs are handled by
the relief inspector. There have been times when the
relief inspector was absent or filling in for an absent in-
spector and inspectors would break at the same time as
the molder to keep tubes from piling up during break.
Each inspector takes breaks according to an early or late
schedule. In the past the schedule allowed the same in-
spector the same break every shift. Even though inspec-
tors were allowed to switch breaks with each other as
long as the line was attended , the schedule was the rule.
The inspectors complained to Braddy about the inequity
and she talked to Taylor. Taylor told Braddy the inspec-
tors could rotate by line so no one inspector would
always be early or late.
Taylor decides when overtime is necessary and tells
Braddy to check for volunteers. If an insufficient number
of employees volunteer for overtime, the employees
draw straws to see who must work. Any employees who
5
refuse to work their overtime are disciplined. Taylor de-
cides what discipline and instructs Braddy to write up
the employee. Taylor usually knows when employees are
to be late or absent, but if an employee does not report
for work Braddy advises Taylor. He picks employees
from a call-board and either he or Braddy makes the call
to the employee. The process continues repeatedly until
contact with an accepting employee is made.
As chief inspector, Braddy has the authority to shut
down a certain mold continuously producing defective
tubes, but she must immediately notify Taylor so he can
find the trouble and correct it.
From plant opening in 1981 to the union campaign be-
ginning in July, there were scheduled meetings of super-
visors. Braddy was not required to attend nor was she
invited to attend any of the supervisors' meetings. After
employees walked out 10 July, management commenced
daily meetings of all salaried production employees on
each shift. Quality control employees also attended the
meetings. Management was seeking information about
union discussions among employees and speculation of
who would vote for the Union and who would vote for
the Company.
On two other occasions Braddy attended meetings
with management. One just before the election and the
other 2 weeks before her discharge. Both meetings were
held in Bonner's office in the presence of Bonner, New-
some , and Company Attorney Cobb. In the first meeting
Braddy was asked to reveal what she had heard about
the Union from employees in her department and to des-
ignate the affiliation of each employee in her department
for the upcoming election. Braddy told the assembled
management what she knew of the union conversations
among employees in her department and characterized
each employee as procompany or prounion. The second
meeting included additional supervisors, Harper and
Taylor. Cobb started the meeting by telling Braddy that
five employees had reported threats by her to manage-
ment. Cobb stated that the five employees said Braddy
had told them to join the Union or she would have them
fired. Braddy denied making any such threats to employ-
ees and further denied talking to employees about the
Union. Cobb asked if she had signed a union card or at-
tended union meetings . Braddy replied that she had nei-
ther signed a card nor attended union meetings. Cobb
then asked Braddy if she would be willing to go before
the National Labor Relations Board and state that she
had talked to all employees in the plant and influenced
them to vote for the Union. Cobb told Braddy if she
spoke to the National Labor Relations Board he felt the
election would be thrown out. Braddy told the assem-
bled management that she would do whatever they
wanted. Cobb then asked Braddy if she would submit to
a polygraph test and Braddy agreed to do so. The meet-
ing ended and Braddy left to go to her car. As she ap-
proached her car she became upset and started crying.
On reflection Braddy felt she was not being treated right
so she reentered the plant and went to Bonner's office.
She told the assembled management that she had
changed her mind and would not talk to the National
Labor Relations Board or submit to a polygraph test.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Braddy added that they could fire her for not doing it if
they wanted to. Bonner stated that no one said anything
about firing her and asked Braddy if she was feeling all
right . Braddy told Bonner that she was all right and left
again to go home . Braddy worked as usual after that and
no one mentioned the meeting or its substance again.
Braddy worked 28 September , without incident and
without conversation from her supervisor . She felt some-
thing was wrong because Newsome spent the day just
looking at her and not saying a word . At 2:55 p.m.,
Taylor brought Braddy her paycheck and told her to see
Harper in his office . Braddy compiled her production
sheets, as she always did, and turned them over to
Taylor and went to Harper 's office . Harper had Braddy's
personnel folder and a completed separation notice
before him when Braddy arrived . Braddy asked why she
was being fired and Harper replied that he was told to
discharge her for "union activities."
Ophelia Grier testified that she worked as an inspector
for Poison Rubber and was hired by Warrenton as an in-
spector when the plant started operations . She worked
first shift with Braddy . Grier , although employed at
Warrenton , would on occasion fill in for chief inspectors
on other shifts , but did not fill out any forms or docu-
ments normally executed by the chief inspector . Several
times Grier has heard Taylor instruct Braddy to write up
employees for too many red tags . Once Grier herself and
two other employees were subjects of writeups dictated
by Taylor . In the past Grier was forced by severe winter
weather to call in absent . She would ask for Taylor or
Braddy when calling , but Taylor answered the phone
and told her to get to work when she could . Grier has
not talked to Braddy when calling in. Whenever she
wanted to leave work early Grier would make the re-
quest of Braddy . Braddy did not on her own grant any
permission to leave work . Braddy would tell Taylor of
the request and then relay Taylor's answer to the em-
ployee . Either "yes" or "no ." Grier also worked as relief
inspector . She would relieve each line inspector and then
the chief inspector although the chief did not have a set
time to break. The chief inspector 's job is harder than
the line inspectors because the chief has more work to
do. Relief inspectors also fill in for any absent inspector
for the whole day. Whenever Grier filled in for the chief
inspector , whether breaktime , lunch , or the full day, she
did have to relay Taylor's instructions or criticisms to
the employees . "If they had done wrong and if Taylor
come to me I have to tell them what Taylor said."
Gloria Yarbough testified that she worked in the
boxing department of Polson and was hired by Warren-
ton for boxing in 1981 at an hourly rate on the first shift.
After 3 months she became crew leader of boxing on the
second shift at the same hourly rate . The second shift
boxing crew is composed of five boxers , one conveyor
man, one tube supplier , and the crew leader . The second
shift times are 3 to 11 p.m., but the crew leader always
arrives 15 minutes early to consult with the first-shift
crew leader about the ongoing order . Each tube size has
to be packed in different boxes and each crew leader has
a list of tube sizes to be packed on that shift. Yarbough
always started her shift with extra sheets of orders sup-
plied by Shipping Supervisor Jobes. As crew leader,
Yarbough would determine from the shipping list what
size boxes the crew would need . She physically moved
the correct bundle of boxes to the work area and labeled
the boxes with the tube sizes and quantity . There were
approximately 50 different sizes . Tubes to be packed
would be moved into the area by the supply person and
if bundles of boxes were short he also moved them in.
On occasion when special orders required more speed,
Yarbough would tell the tube man to give a certain size
tube to a particular boxer because she could box faster
than the others . Usually on Thursdays or Fridays a rush
order would require one or two boxes of tubes made up
before the truck was loaded and someone would tell
Yarbough what to box and she would either get it boxed
or do it herself. There are times when an unusual size is
ordered and Jobes or Hobbs would have to determine
the box size and quantity before the crew could box
them.
Whenever employees were not working as they
should , Yarbough told them if they did not stop what
they were doing or pay more attention to their work, she
would tell Jobes or Hobbs. Jobes would normally come
out on the floor and talk with the employees to get them
straightened out. On occasion , Jobes told Yarbough to
send the employee to his office. Blank writeup notices
were kept in Jobes ' office . Although Yarbough wrote up
employees, she could not do so unless Jobes or Hobbs
told her to do so. She did not on her own volition write
up or otherwise discipline employees . After being in-
structed to write up an employee , Yarbough always
turned in the writeup to Jobes and never saw it again.
Yarbough also filled out employee attendance informa-
tion sheets whenever employees were absent, tardy, or
left work early and turned in the sheets to Jobes. Only
Jobes or Hobbs could give employees permission to
leave work early and, if both Jobes and Hobbs had left
for the day when an employee requested permission to
leave early , Yarbough called one or the other at home to
see if the employee could leave early. At all times when
employees called in to report an absence or being late to
work , they spoke to Jobes or Hobbs . Yarbough would
not know of an absent or late employee until supervision
informed her.
All employees trained on the job at the hire-in rate. If
a new employee was boxing at a speed comparable to
the older employees Yarbough told Jobes . Sometimes
Jobes told Yarbough to check on the performance of
certain employees and report to him. Jobes would decide
if a new employee could have a first wage increase and
whether older employees were entitled to a wage in-
crease . When Jobes decides that an employee is entitled
to a wage increase he tells Yarbough to write up the em-
ployee for an increase. Yarbough would do so and leave
the form with Jobes for his approval . Normally, Yar-
bough did not have time during shift to make whatever
writeups she was told to do , so she waited until the end
of the shift to do her paperwork , sometimes during the
last 15 minutes and sometimes after shift.
In the past , Yarbough has complained to Jobes and/or
Hobbs about certain employees not doing their job or
causing friction among the crew . She suggested one time
WARRENTON RUBBER 7
that a particular employee be discharged because he
would not do his job and always caused trouble. Both
Jobes and Hobbs talked to Yarbough about the situation
and decided to transfer the employee to another shift.
Several other employees have been a problem either due
to slow work or bad work , and Yarbough also reported
their performance to Jobes . After such a report Jobes or
Hobbs would come to the floor and counsel the employ-
ee to do better . If an employee was not keeping up with
the crew and had been reported by Yarbough to Jobes
or Hobbs , either or both of them would observe the em-
ployee 's work . They then decided whether to give the
employee more time to work up to speed or to tell Yar-
bough to write them up . One employee was fired by
Jobes because the wrong size tubes were shipped and
then returned by the customer.
Whenever overtime was required Hobbs or Jobes de-
cided how long to work . With the exception of Satur-
days, usually several employees had to work . Yarbough
was told to check with the employees to see who
wanted to work overtime . If no one , including Yar-
bough , wanted to work overtime either Jobes or Hobbs
would talk to the whole crew . There were times when
only Yarbough was willing to work overtime and she
would work by herself. Several Saturdays , Jobes and
Hobbs called Yarbough at home for overtime work and
she came in to work by herself.
Work breaks among the boxing crew were taken all at
the same time unless there was an order that had to be
finished. In that event Yarbough would relieve each em-
ployee , one by one , until all had been given a break. The
order of relief was decided by the employees and who
wanted to go on break first . On one occasion , the whole
crew took a few extra minutes on break . Jobes saw that
Yarbough was the only one at her work station. Jobes
told Yarbough to write up all five employees for over-
staying break when there was work to do.
During the month of July, on Fridays , when shift
started , if the first shift had left enough boxes and tubes
to keep the second shift occupied for awhile , Yarbough
would not have to move boxes or tubes into position
right away. With the crew already working Jobes would
tell Yarbough to get the timecards from the rack and ini-
tial the employees ' recorded time. The initialing of time-
cards was actually Jobes' responsibility , but he would
utilize Yarbough 's slow time to help him
About the first week in August , Yarbough was put on
salary, contrary to her wishes. Hobbs called her to his
office and asked how she felt about going on salary. Yar-
bough told Hobbs she preferred staying at an hourly rate
because of the weekly paycheck . Hobbs told her to think
about it for a few days and they would talk again. Yar-
bough went to Hobbs several days later and told Hobbs
she did not want to go on salary . Hobbs said she had to
go on salary whether she wanted to or not and told her
to see Harper in the personnel office. Yarbough told
Harper that she preferred an hourly wage, but Harper
said she had to go on salary and explained to her that
she would get a raise and additional benefits . On salary,
Yarbough received a paid vacation whereas before she
had not, and with a salary she no longer punched the
timeclock . She kept the title crew leader and was not
told she was thereafter a supervisor . Hobbs did tell Yar-
bough that she could not talk to the union employees nor
could she vote in the election because she was now a sal-
aried employee. Yarbough did feel that she was a super-
visor of sorts because she was instructed to see that the
work was done and was to report any deficiencies of em-
ployees ' performances to Jobes or Hobbs. Also Yar-
bough did the same work that Dorothy Ray did on first
shift, and Yarbough considered her to be a supervisor.
Yarbough , however , did not have the authority to hire
or fire employees nor the authority to recommend such
actions. Yarbough 's job remained the same after salary as
it had been before with the exception that she was given
one additional duty , the initialing of timecards whenever
employees worked overtime . Yarbough was paid for her
overtime , at an hourly rate, after she was put on salary
just as she had been before.
Within a week of the election Yarbough was called to
the front office by Hobbs . Hobbs informed her that
Bonner and Newsome wanted to ask her some questions.
When Yarbough arrived at the front office, Attorney
Cobb was also present . Cobb did most of the talking and
wrote a statement of Yarbough 's responses . Cobb asked
Yarbough if she went to the union meetings in the city
park and she said she had . She was asked if she had
signed a union card and told management present that
she had . Yarbough was then asked to recall which em-
ployees she had seen in attendance at the park meetings,
but she said there were too many to name. Yarbough
was asked to sign the statement that Attorney Cobb
wrote during the meeting and she did.
On 28 September when Yarbough arrived for work
she was called to Harper 's office. Harper told Yarbough
she was fired for having engaged in union activities.
Harper paid her and she left the property.
Lula West testified she had been employed as a repair
person since Respondent opened the plant She repairs
tubes on the first shift . Occasionally , West runs the buff-
ing machine in addition to repairing tubes. At present
her hourly rate of pay is $4.53 and has been since 1984.
Although Braddy was chief inspector , if West wanted to
leave work early, she would notify Braddy. Braddy in
turn would ask Taylor if West could leave early. Tay-
lor's decision was then passed on to West by Braddy. On
the days that West intended to come in late or be absent
the whole day she would call in . West would tell who-
ever answered the phone to tell Taylor of her absence or
her tardiness . West never spoke to Braddy when calling
in nor did she ever ask for Braddy . In overtime situa-
tions, if employees refused to work overtime , Braddy
told them that Taylor said to write up anyone who did
not stay over . Delores Pinkston , chief inspector on the
third shift , was transferred to first shift after Braddy was
discharged . Taylor does little, if any, manual work in the
plant . Mostly he checks the molds and the tubes in vari-
ous stages of production.
Grover Jobes testified that he retired from Respond-
ent's employment on 6 March 1986 While employed he
was shipping supervisor with responsibility to schedule
the work of the boxing department and see that the
proper crew was in the department each shift He also
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had responsibility for completion of shipping schedules
of the shipping employees. Jobes worked from 7:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. normally but on a weekly basis worked over 3
or 4 days until 6 or 7 p.m. There were two shipping em-
ployees on the second shift under Jobes' supervision, but
after Jobes left for the day they were unsupervised.
Jobes relied on one of the most senior employees to get
the order shipped in his absence.
When the plant reopened in 1981, the boxing depart-
ment was set up with a crew leader, Dorothy Ray, on
the first shift only. Within a short time Ray was changed
from hourly to salary. Jobes explained that Ray was re-
ferred to as a supervisor after she became salaried.
Gloria Yarbough had boxing experience when she was
hired into the boxing department with Ray. Yarbough on
occasion assisted Ray in the boxing operation. When a
second-shift boxing department was installed, Yarbough
became the crew leader on the second shift. Jobes in-
structed her to handle the second shift according to what
she was supposed to do or what she was trained to do.
Jobes did not tell her what her title would be. He took
for granted that Yarbough would know what her posi-
tion would be and what she would be doing. Jobes did
not, in any descriptive language, tell Yarbough that she
was a supervisor or the supervisor of the second-shift
boxing. Jobes did recall that when Yarbough was put on
second shift he talked to both she and Ray. He instructed
both that they had the authority to orally discipline em-
ployees and showed them the discipline forms to use.
Jobes showed them where the discipline forms were kept
in his office, but he did not tell Yarbough that she could
write up employees without first reporting to him. Spe-
cifically, whenever Yarbough reported an incident to
Jobes before any discipline was administered, Jobes
never told her that she could discipline or write up em-
ployees without checking with him. Jobes, on occasion,
after hearing Yarbough's report of an employee, would
tell her to let the incident pass without a writeup or he
would talk to the employee himself. Jobes initialed all
writeups because if he did not, when Hobbs saw the
writeup without Jobes' approval he would say, "Jobes,
do you agree with this?"
One example of the discipline procedure cited by
Jobes occurred in May 1984. Jobes had instructed Yar-
bough to have employee Vernon Johnson stock a certain
size tube when he started his shift. Later in the shift Yar-
bough called Jobes and reported that she had given
Johnson the instruction but he refused to do the task.
Jobes told Yarbough that she knew the procedure, what
"we" had to do and to go ahead and do it. Yarbough
then wrote up Johnson for refusal to follow instructions
and poor quality workmanship. Jobes initialed the write-
up to confirm that Yarbough had followed through with
what she was supposed to do.
A second example of discipline occurring in May 1984
involved Willie Norris. He reported for work intoxicated
at 8 p.m. Yarbough called Jobes at home to report the
incident. Jobes returned to the plant and sent Norris
home. The following morning Jobes wrote up the inci-
dent on a discipline form and signed Yarbough's name to
show that the incident took place on the second shift.
Jobes also reported the incident to Hobbs.
Jobes also stated that both Ray and Yarbough talked
to employees who had trouble doing the work or trouble
on the shift. They would more or less give the employ-
ees an oral discipline and then report to him. A writeup
of the employee on a discipline form following a report
to Jobes was standard procedure. In fact, in the absence
of Ray or Yarbough from the boxing department, Jobes
would discipline employees followed by a writeup, but
Jobes always signed the crew leader's name to the write-
up. On occasion, but not at all times , Jobes would notify
the crew leader on her return of the previous writeup.
Also in May, Wyvonie Collins was in training as a
boxer on second shift. Yarbough saw that Collins was
working at a speed comparable to the older employees
but receiving the hourly wage of trainees. Jobes told
Yarbough to put it in writing to him and Hobbs. Yar-
bough wrote a note to Hobbs and Jobes recommending
that Collins be taken off the training pay and given her
first incremental pay raise. Jobes discussed Collins with
Hobbs and Hobbs told Jobes to take it to personnel to
see if she could get a raise. Jobes followed through and
Collins got her raise.
Typically, Yarbough's workday began with her check-
ing with first-shift boxers (Ray) to see what was left to
do on any current orders and checking with Jobes for
any additional orders to work. Jobes had premade lists of
tubes to be boxed and shipped for Yarbough to work
from, and he would supply her with enough lists to last
the entire shift. If special orders were needed Jobes
would supply a written schedule of tubes and tell her
what priority the special order had. After Yarbough re-
ceived the production schedules, she would check to see
if all employees reported for work. If all employees had
not reported for work, Yarbough informed Jobes and he
would get with Hobbs to determine if someone from first
shift should be held over, if someone should be called in
for overtime, or if Yarbough should work with a short
crew. The decision by Jobes and Hobbs rested on the
critical nature of the orders on the production schedule.
Once the shift started Yarbough made up boxes with
labels according to written specifications detailing how
various sized tubes were to be boxed and shipped. Yar-
bough also gave the tube supplier a copy of the produc-
tion schedule so he would know what size tubes to
supply to the boxers. The box label told the boxers what
size tube and the quantity to put in each box. Yarbough
would stack the prepared boxes in separate areas so the
tube supplier would know where to put the correct size
tubes to be boxed. Yarbough, during shift, would inspect
random boxes to check the accuracy of the boxers'
work.
The Company's call-in rule applied plantwide to all
employees. The employees were instructed to call in at
least one-half hour before shift time if they expected to
be late or absent. Second-shift boxing employees were to
call in and speak to Jobes or Hobbs. First-shift employ-
ees who called in to report late or absent were instructed
to speak to Taylor or Newsome. If a second-shift boxer
had called in as instructed, Jobes would tell Yarbough
when she came on shift that an employee would be late
or absent.
WARRENTON RUBBER 9
The Company 's rule on employees leaving early from
shift also applies throughout the plant to all personnel.
The Company would not require employees who
become sick at work or who have a personal emergency
to stay at work . If a second-shift boxer became sick or
had an emergency , Yarbough was not required to notify
Jobes of the emergency at his home . Any other request
to leave early, less than major or catastrophic , had to be
decided by Jobes or higher authority before the fact.
Yarbough could not on her own release employees
making such a request . Whenever a boxer did leave
early , Yarbough had to finish the shift with the short
crew since she did not have authority to call in off-shift
employees . Only Jobes or Hobbs could authorize re-
placement employees.
Overtime for the boxing employees was only author-
ized by Hobbs . He would tell Jobes how much overtime
for any given day and how many employees would be
needed . Jobes would pass the word on to Yarbough. If
less than the full crew was needed , Yarbough would ask
for volunteers . In the event no employees volunteered,
Yarbough reported to Jobes who then went to the
boxing area and appointed the requisite number of em-
ployees to stay and work overtime . At the end of each
week , all timecards showing overtime had to be initialed
before employees would receive overtime pay . Jobes had
instructed both Ray and Yarbough that the timecards
had to be initialed before they were picked up on Friday
evenings by payroll and told Ray and Yarbough to initial
them.
Yarbough did not have authority to hire or fire em-
ployees . Although she never recommended anyone be
hired , she did on one occasion recommend that a recalci-
trant employee, Vernon Johnson , be discharged. Yar-
bough reported to Jobes in June 1984 that Johnson re-
fused to do work that she had instructed him to do.
Jobes told Yarbough to follow the procedures, make a
writeup and turn it in to him. Jobes in turn discussed the
writeup with Hobbs . Both separately counseled Johnson
and later Hobbs told Jobes that he would handle the situ-
ation . Jobes had no further involvement with the inci-
dent.
Yarbough , also, did not have authority to remedy any
employee complaints relative to hours worked or wages
received . Only Jobes could make any adjustments for the
employees . Yarbough could handle complaints by em-
ployees of water on the floor by having the janitor clean
it up . Although other employees could not leave their
work stations to look for the janitor, if the janitor was in
the area , any employee could tell him to clean up a wet
floor.
Jobes was not aware that Yarbough was put on salary
until she told him Although he did not know when Yar-
bough went on salary , he knew that her status changed
from boxer to supervisor with the salary . The changed
status , however , did not carry with it any additional
duties . Yarbough worked as she always had since going
on the second shift.
Shortly after Yarbough's discharge , the second-shift
boxing department was discontinued due to a reduction
in tube orders.
Evelyn Reynolds testified she has been a boxer on the
second shift for 3 years. She was hired by the office and
interviewed in the office . When Reynolds began employ-
ment , she was sent to Jobes' office . Jobes told Reynolds
that she would be working under Yarbough and that
Yarbough was the "boss ." Jobes added that if Reynolds
had any problems , she was to come to him , or, if there
are problems that Yarbough cannot handle , come to him.
Jobes also told Yarbough if she had any trouble with the
employees to call him . Yarbough told Reynolds that Bar-
bara would show her what to do and how to put the
tubes in the boxes . Yarbough asked Barbara to help
Reynolds and show her what to do . The box labels state
the tube size and quantity for each box . The boxers
simply put the stated tube size and number in each box.
The production quota for each boxer was 1000 tubes in 8
hours . Each day a boxer begins work at the same work
station unless the boxes and tubes are stacked differently.
If the work stations are different, Yarbough will tell the
employees what kind of orders are to be done and how
the boxing is to be done . The department is set up with
four boxing stations and two extras. All six stations are
supplied with boxes and tubes each day. Any time a
boxer completes the boxes and tubes at her station, she is
supposed to move to one of the extra stations and contin-
ue working . As a work station is emptied , a new supply
of boxes and tubes are brought in . When the boxer at the
extra station runs out of work the movement is reversed.
Reynolds came to work one night and Yarbough told
her that she looked sick . Reynolds told Yarbough that
she did not feel good but she wanted to try and make the
shift. Later Reynolds told Yarbough that she could not
make it and was going home . Yarbough asked Reynolds
if she had a way home and Reynolds responded , "yes."
Yarbough told Reynolds to bring a doctor 's excuse when
she returned . Reynolds came to work the next day and
turned in her doctor 's excuse to Jobes.
Vernon Johnson was the tube supplier and Yarbough
always had trouble with him. Johnson would shout and
cuss Yarbough whenever she corrected what he was
doing . Usually , Johnson would not put the tubes in the
right work station . Yarbough would end the colloquy
with, "I'll call Grover [Jobes]" or "I'll write you up."
Johnson responded , "I can write too." On occasion, Yar-
bough reminded Johnson that she was his "supervisor"
to which Johnson replied , "You wasn't shit."
Bernice Johnson, another employee that Yarbough had
trouble with, would argue with her . When Yarbough
told Bernice that she was her supervisor , Bernice would
reply that Yarbough "wasn 't nothing ." Yarbough at that
point would take Bernice from the work floor , but Reyn-
olds did not know where they went.
Willie J. Norris, an additional troublesome employee
that was told by Yarbough "I am your supervisor,"
would engage in cussing Yarbough with language too
nasty to repeat.
Reynolds knew that both Johnson and Norris were
written up for their nasty conduct , but Yarbough never
made the writeups at the time of the incidents . Yarbough
made all the writeups after the shift ended. On many oc-
casions when Yarbough had trouble with an employee
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she would say , "I'm going to tell Earnest [Hobbs] or I'm
going to tell Grover [Jobes]." Some time later , either
Hobbs or Jobes would come into the department and
talk to the employees . Jobes called the whole crew into
his office one afternoon and told them , "Yarbough is
your boss , you do what she say do ." Jobes added that he
did not want to have to come back into the plant every
night to straighten things out.
One week Reynolds and several others were shorted
on their paychecks . The employees told Yarbough and
gave her their check stubs . Later Jobes came to the de-
partment and told Yarbough the pay oversight was
straightened out, and Yarbough told all the employees
what Jobes had said.
Yarbough never told Reynolds that she was the super-
visor during working hours , but one time riding enroute
to work she did. Yarbough said she had been made su-
pervisor but was not ready for it because she needed to
get her weekly check to catch up her bills . Even though
Yarbough said she was to be a supervisor , the only thing
that changed was Yarbough no longer punched a time-
clock.
When Reynolds was in training , she was slow working
up to the standard of 1000 tubes . At one point , Yarbough
told Reynolds that "they" were getting on her and she
would have to tell "them" when Reynolds was doing
her job right . Yarbough said she told Jobes that Reyn-
olds was slow but she was a steady worker and could do
it. Reynolds completed her probationary period produc-
ing below standard , and received a partial raise . Later,
Reynolds did start producing at standard and Yarbough
said she would tell Jobes. After awhile , Yarbough told
Reynolds that her raise had been granted and Reynolds
did later get her raise.
Wyvonie Collins testified that she was hired as a boxer
on the second shift by the personnel office . After the
interview , the office lady took Collins to the boxing de-
partment, showed her how to use the timeclock , and in-
troduced her to Yarbough . The office lady told Collins
that Yarbough would tell her what to do . Collins was
not told that Yarbough was her supervisor, but she was
told that she would be working under Yarbough . Collins'
first day was spent training with a first -shift boxer that
stayed over. Thereafter , Yarbough showed her how to
do the work . Yarbough told Collins if there was any-
thing she did not understand , to tell Yarbough and she
would help her all she can . Each day the boxers turn in
a tally of completed boxes to Yarbough who in turn
checked the tally against the department production.
After checking, Yarbough knew on a daily basis each
boxer 's production and whether it was standard or not.
Collins recalled that when she began boxing 1000
tubes per shift , which was standard , Yarbough told her
she was doing a good job. Yarbough also said she would
talk to someone about Collins getting a raise. Later, Col-
lins saw a note that Yarbough had written to Jobes rela-
tive to a pay raise for Collins. Collins did not say any-
thing more to Yarbough about a raise.
Collins worked with Vernon Johnson who was the
tube supplier. Johnson was slow and , on occasion, the
boxers would run out of tubes. When Yarbough would
tell Johnson to hurry up , he would cuss her and tell her
to shut up because she was not his boss. One evening he
and Yarbough got into an argument and Yarbough told
him if he cannot do the job to go on home . Johnson re-
sponded to Yarbough that she did not hire him and
cannot fire him and laughed . Yarbough told Johnson that
she was going to tell Jobes of his conduct.
Another employee, Dooley , had a habit of wandering
off. Yarbough told him he would have to stay in the de-
partment and do his job . Yarbough told Dooley that she
was going to tell Hobbs because she was sick and tired
of how some of the people were talking to her.
Collins had to leave the shift early twice because her
grandbaby was sick . The first time she got word from
home that her grandbaby had to be taken to the hospital,
Collins told Yarbough of the sickness and asked to leave
early . Yarbough said she would have to call Jobes at
home and get his approval , but Collins could not wait
and left anyway . The second time it happened , Collins
did not see Yarbough so she told her coworkers to tell
Yarbough that she left early because her grandbaby was
sick again.
Collins, at one point , wanted to change shifts and
work the first shift for awhile . She asked Yarbough if
she could change , and Yarbough told her to see Jobes or
Hobbs for permission.
Earnest Hobbs testified that he was hired as traffic and
shipping warehouse manager on 22 February 1982.
Hobbs met Yarbough 2 weeks later while she was work-
ing the first-shift boxing as helper to Dorothy Ray. Ray
puts labels on boxes and places the boxes in the several
work stations . Ray was called the boxing supervisor.
When the Company decided to set up a second-shift
boxing department, Hobbs talked to Yarbough about
taking the second -shift boxing position. Hobbs told Yar-
bough that she would be in charge of boxing and he
would hold her responsible for what happened. Al-
though Dorothy Ray on the first shift was doing the
same job as Yarbough on the second shift, Ray was sala-
ried and Yarbough was hourly. Hobbs stated that he sub-
mitted three requests for Yarbough to be put on salary
with the first being made while Yarbough was Ray's
helper on the first shift . The second and third requests
were made after Yarbough was transferred to the second
shift. Hobbs did not remember the dates, but he was sure
that the third and final request for Yarbough's salary
came just before the walkout by employees and was ap-
proved before the elections. Hobbs stated that he was
motivated, in part, to request a salary for Yarbough due
to her complaints that she was doing the same job as
Ray but not making the same amount of money and he
assumed she would welcome a change to salary. Hobbs
called Yarbough to his office to inform her that a salary
had been approved but Yarbough said she was not ready
for it . Yarbough told Hobbs that she could not afford to
miss a pay period by going to a 2-week period on salary.
Hobbs explained to her that she would not miss a week
of pay because she would get the 1-week 's pay that was
held back to fill the gap in the first 2 -week period of
salary. Yarbough said she would think about it . In the in-
terim , Yarbough spoke to Harper in personnel about the
salary plan . Later , Harper and Yarbough told Hobbs that
WARRENTON RUBBER
she had decided to "try it ," meaning the salary. After
Yarbough went on salary , Hobbs explained the better in-
surance and better vacation benefits she would receive.
He did not discuss the timeclock or the signing of time-
cards ; Yarbough had previously begun signing employ-
ees' timecards . Hobbs did not detail any new responsibil-
ities for Yarbough following her salary approval because
he had always depended on her to get the work done
and treated her as his supervisor on the second shift.
Hobbs never told Yarbough that she was a "supervisor"
or the "boss" of the second shift . He did tell her she was
"in charge" of the second-shift boxing and was supposed
to answer to Jobes . Yarbough was the only employee
Hobbs ever recommended for a salary . Hobbs never used
the term "crew leader" for Yarbough or Ray. Hobbs
stated that Yarbough had recommended several employ-
ees for pay raises and employees knew if Yarbough did
not recommend the raise they would not get it. Hobbs
admitted that there was a standard of 1000 tubes for
small tubes and 80 to 90 tubes for tractor tubes per shift,
but he said Yarbough was not bound by the standards
for pay raises, e.g., Hobbs said he would not know when
an employee was boxing 1000 tubes until Yarbough told
him. In addition , an employee boxing to standard had to
also maintain a 90 to 95 percent accuracy to get a pay
raise . All employees were subject to a three-step wage
system, hire in, midrange, and final with the amount of
wage for each step set by upper management . Hobbs was
the only authority to decide when an employee 's error
factor was low enough to get a raise . There was an addi-
tional policy for boxing employees in training. If the em-
ployee was not up to midrange of the standards after 30
days of work , the employee probably would not work
out.
Hobbs stated that Yarbough did not have to check
with him before giving any employees an oral or a writ-
ten warning for rule violations , and in fact she never did
with the exceptions of employees Johnson and Norris.
Regarding the Vernon Johnson incident , Hobbs said
such warnings went through Jobes first and most of the
time never got to him. Hobbs did not recall any writeups
on Vernon Johnson , but did recall that he transferred
him to the first shift rather than discharge him. Hobbs'
decision to transfer rather than discharge was based on a
personal remark Yarbough had made to Johnson during
the verbal altercation.
Hobbs attended supervisory meetings composed of de-
partment heads and the plant manager . If anything arose
in the meetings relative to boxing , he would later pass it
on to Jobes who in turn passed it on to Ray and Yar-
bough . Jobes had in the past attended supervisory meet-
ings , but when Hobbs was hired, Jobes no longer attend-
ed.
All employees are hired by the personnel department,
but Hobbs interviews employees for boxing before hiring
and assigns them to a classification after they are hired.
Hobbs is the only person in shipping and boxing who
can discharge employees without consultation.
Each shift in boxing is started by giving Ray and Yar-
bough an order sheet listing all tube sizes to be boxed
during the shift . The tube supply person is also given an
order sheet so he will know what tubes to supply. If the
11
tubes needed in the department differ from the listing,
Yarbough would tell him what sizes to bring first.
Yarbough could not handle complaints about working
conditions but she could relate them to Jobes or Hobbs.
If an employee complained to Yarbough about short pay
she would tell Hobbs or Jobes. Either Hobbs or Jobes
would pull the employee 's timecard and check for over-
time worked but not paid . Hobbs admittedly never told
Yarbough that she could call off-shift employees to work
when her crew was short, but he said she could have if
she wanted to.
Delores Pinkston testified that she was an inspector on
first shift from her hiring date in January 1981 until
August 1982 . She was relief inspector while Braddy was
chief inspector . Pinkston stated that Braddy would disci-
pline employees with writeups but never said she had
any prior approval to do so . On occasion , usually preci-
pitated by too many red tags , Braddy would conduct
meetings of the inspectors and tell the employees they
had to do a better job or get their act together. Boyd
Taylor attended some of the meetings but not all.
Braddy told the inspectors during the meeting that they
could be fired if they could not do the job. Pinkston re-
called that Braddy told one inspector at her work station
that if she did not do better to lessen the number of red
tags, she would be out the door . Pinkston and the other
inspectors had been told to see Braddy if they had any
complaints about work or pay . Braddy did handle a
short check complaint for Pinkston saying she would
handle it. Later , Pinkston got the shortage . Whenever
the crew was short and no one could work overtime,
Braddy would rearrange the work stations of the mspec-
tors . Braddy never mentioned that Taylor told her to do
so. There were also times that production schedules
changed and other size tubes were also being produced.
Those inspectors who worked better on the odd tube
sizes would be rescheduled by Braddy to work the odd
sizes. Pinkston stated that breaks were scheduled by
Braddy, and the relief inspector followed the schedule
set by Braddy . Braddy also made the decision when she
would take her break, which usually was before the
other inspectors. Pinkston was not aware that inspectors
could change breaktimes among themselves without first
checking with Braddy . Days when Braddy was behind
in defects , Pinkston or another employee would help
Braddy to reduce the number of tubes in the cage. Pink-
ston never saw Taylor help Braddy whenever she was
behind . Pinkston also helped Braddy buff tubes but not
on a daily basis.
One day near the end of the shift , Pinkston became
visibly ill and told Braddy that she needed to go home.
Braddy told Pinkston she could go home early without
mention of approval by Taylor . Pinkston, while working
as an inspector , only called in to report an absence one
time and she spoke to Taylor. She did recall that the in-
spectors were told to call Braddy for absence reports.
Overtime was usually handled by volunteers but when
the overtime was mandatory , the inspectors would be as-
signed days that they were required to work overtime.
Braddy would tell the inspectors what their overtime as-
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signments were. Whenever employees worked overtime,
Braddy later signed all timecards.
Pinkston is now employed as chief inspector on first
shift. A typical production day now is less than what it
was when Braddy was chief inspector. An average day
of defects now is in the 200 range. Pinkston does her pa-
perwork on company time, not her own time.
Although Pinkston could not specifically recall, she
stated that Braddy assigned trainees to work stations and
did recommend pay raises for new hires.
Pinkston came to Warrenton from Polson Rubber
where she was a chief inspector. Polson supervisors had
additional responsibilities that chief inspectors did not
have but her foreman called her a supervisor.
As chief inspector for Warrenton on the third shift,
Pinkston issued written warnings without consulting
with her foreman, albeit, she did not issue any final
warnings within the progressive discipline system of
"three and you're out." Pinkston stated that Newsome
had told her during her tenure as chief inspector she did
not have to check with her foreman before issuing a
written warning. Pinkston was never told she had au-
thority to allow employees to leave early, but if the em-
ployee had an emergency, she did have authority to re-
lease them from the shift. Whenever the third shift was
short Pinkston either called in someone from the first
shift or told the chief inspector on the second shift to
assign someone to work overtime. Pinkston said she had
the authority to call in any number of people she needed
to fill her crew. Although she did not have to check
with her foreman before exercising any authority, she
did, as a matter of courtesy, keep him informed of her
actions. Pinkston also assigned employees to work over-
time within the framework of set days for each employee
to work overtime when needed.
Boyd Taylor testified that as general foreman, he had
direct supervision over molding, seven employees; splic-
ing, eight employees; head in, three employees; and
valve spray, one employee. He had general supervision
over mill, 7 employees and inspection with 13 employ-
ees. Taylor had the responsibility for making tubes on
the first shift. On a good day inspection would handle
768 tubes with defects numbering about 150. On a bad
day the defects number between 300 to 350. Braddy
would spend 25 percent of her time working defects on a
good day and 50 percent of her time on a bad day. The
remainder of her workday is spent checking repaired and
classified tubes. Although Polson Rubber had a buffer
classification, at Warrenton the chief inspector does the
buffing. Many tubes that have been rejected or repaired
need to be buffed before passing them to the warehouse.
Braddy had authority to assign someone to help her with
defects whenever she needed to but has gone to Taylor
to get approval for help. Braddy had authority to write
up employees for red tags without consultation with
Taylor. Taylor would see red tags with employees'
names on them and ask Braddy if she had written the
employee a warning . He had nothing more than that to
do with writeups for red tags. Taylor did not tell Braddy
not to write up employees who got red tags. Although
Taylor stated that Braddy had authority to issue wri-
teups for poor performance, he could only recall one in-
stance where Braddy did so without first checking with
him. In all cases , Braddy turns in the writeups to Taylor
or Newsome by leaving them on their desks at the end
of the shift. Braddy, on occasion , would hold meetings
with inspection employees because too many defects
were being thrown out. One such meeting she told
Taylor, "I am taking my inspectors into a meeting,
you're welcome to attend if you want to." Taylor attend-
ed but said nothing. Braddy explained to the inspectors
exactly how she wanted the job done and how she ex-
pected them to do it. Braddy also had authority to give
employees approval for tardiness or absenteeism. Tay-
lor's only discussion with Braddy about tardiness or ab-
sence was his telling her, "that's her department."
Taylor stated that Braddy had the authority to fire
employees after first checking with him. He could not
recall whether Braddy ever exercised her discharge au-
thority. Braddy could, on the spot, discharge an employ-
ee for fighting on the job, but Taylor could not recall
whether he ever told Braddy she had such authority.
Taylor recalled that Braddy had two employees who
gave her a hard time, and she asked if the employees
could be transferred to another shift. Although Taylor
did not recall what he told Braddy, he stated that she
knew the employees had seniority and could not be
moved off the first shift. Taylor stated that in an over-
time situation , Braddy would seek volunteers first. If no
one wanted to work, Taylor said he was sure he had in-
structed Braddy to appoint someone to work overtime.
Taylor stated that Braddy had the authority to call em-
ployees in from other shifts to work overtime when she
decided that overtime was needed. She could not order
employees to work but she could ask. If any employee
refused, she could report the refusal to Taylor and they
would handle it. Taylor could not think of any specifics
except three occasions when Braddy did not get volun-
teers for overtime and reported to Taylor. He told
Braddy to have the employees draw straws. Braddy had
no authority to hire employees and Taylor did not know
if Braddy had any input into a new hire's initial classifi-
cation or station assignment . Taylor did recall one em-
ployee that was hired and he told Braddy to station the
employee as a rear tractor inspector for training. Taylor
also stated that Braddy rarely came to him just before
taking any action with employees.
Lewis Newsome testified he has been production man-
ager since 5 January 1981. Salaried employees are paid
on a straight 40-hour basis. Eighty percent of insurance
premiums for salaried employees are paid by the Compa-
ny. The hourly employees receive only 60 percent of
their insurance premiums from the Company. Salaried
employees get more vacation time than hourly employ-
ees with both based on years of service. All information
of vacations, salary, and insurance for salaried personnel
are kept in the "black book" by the personnel manager.
During the walkout in July, all salaried employees
worked whereas 50 to 70 hourly employees were on
strike. Only salaried employees are given performance
appraisals . The appraisals are made annually.
Newsome stated that the personnel department has the
only authority to hire or fire employees. Boyd Taylor
WARRENTON RUBBER 13
does not have authority to fire employees , but he can
recommend that employees be fired.
All classifications in manufacturing are duplicated on
all three shifts excepting that the first shift does not have
a splicing supervisor . It was decided in the beginning
that with all the other supervision and experience present
on the first shift, a splicer supervisor was not needed.
Analysis and Conclusions
The gravamen of this case is the supervisory status of
two employees ; Eloise Braddy , chief inspector on first
shift , and Gloria Yarbough , crew leader of the boxing
department on second shift . Both employees were dis-
charged.
Respondent claims both employees are statutory super-
visors , and therefore neither is protected by the antidis-
criminatory provisions of the Act . The burden of prov-
ing supervisory status rests with Respondent.
The General Counsel alleged both discharges to be
violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act because Braddy
and Yarbough were discharged for engaging in union ac-
tivities during the union campaign . Respondent admitted
the discharges and that union activity was the reason for
both.
A corollary issue of coercive interrogation involving
both Braddy and Yarbough depends on resolution of the
supervisory issue.
The statutory provisions and governing principles that
determine an individual 's supervisory status are well set-
tled. Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as:
The "term supervisor" means any individual
having authority , in the interest of the employer, to
hire, transfer , suspend, lay off, recall , promote, dis-
charge, assign , reward , or discipline other employ-
ees, or responsibly to direct them , or to adjust their
grievances, or effectively to recommend such
action , if in connection with the foregoing the exer-
cise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature , but requires the use of independent
judgment.
In making determinations of supervisory status, the
Board is careful not to construe supervisory status too
broadly because any employee found to be a supervisor
is denied protection of the Act . The statutory indicia of
supervisory status is stated disjunctively and only one
need exist to confer supervisory status on an individual.
Possession alone of one of the statutory indicia, however,
is not sufficient to establish supervisory status. The deter-
mination rests on the individual 's functions and authority
Thus, an assigned title or job classification , standing
alone , is insubstantial evidence of statutory authority. If
an individual possesses the statutory authority and uses in-
dependent judgment in performing the supervisory func-
tions in the interest of management , that individual is a
statutory supervisor.
Respondent contends that Braddy has been a supervi-
sor since the plant opened and that Yarbough was made
a supervisor when she was put on salary several months
before her discharge . Respondent argues alternatively
that Yarbough was a supervisor on assuming leadership
of the second -shift boxing crew , but does not contend
that Yarbough 's later change to salary with its attendant
increase in benefits was a supervisory promotion.
The record evidence discloses several facts common to
a determination of supervisory status of both Braddy and
Yarbough.
Production Superintendent Newsome credibly testified
that only the personnel department has the authority to
hire and fire employees . Hobbs, shipping manager , credi-
bly testified that only himself and other department
heads attended the regularly scheduled supervisory meet-
ings , and Taylor credibly testified that Braddy did not
attend supervisors ' meetings . Both Hobbs and Taylor fur-
ther testified that neither Yarbough nor Braddy was ever
told they were supervisors or what authority , if any,
they were to exercise . Hobbs and Taylor expected Yar-
bough and Braddy to do what they were trained to do
and thus help keep production flowing smoothly. New
hires, according to Hobbs , were assigned their job classi-
fication by himself. Taylor , when newly hired employees
reported for work , would tell Braddy where to place
them on the inspection lines. Hobbs stated that Yarbough
did not have to check with him before disciplining em-
ployees but added that Yarbough had to clear everything
through Shipping Supervisor Jobes. Jobes testified that
he never told Yarbough that she had the authority to dis-
cipline employees on her own. Jobes did tell her she was
to check with him first and discuss it. Jobes cited three
examples of discipline for boxing employees . Two oc-
curred in May and one in June . Vernon Johnson had
been instructed by Jobes to perform a certain task . Later,
Jobes asked Yarbough if the task was completed and
Yarbough reported that Johnson had not started the task.
Jobes instructed Yarbough to write up Johnson. Yar-
bough did so, signed the writeup, and turned it in to
Jobes. On another occasion during the second shift, after
Jobes had left for home, Willie Norris came to work late
and under the influence of alcohol Yarbough called
Jobes at home to report the incident and Jobes returned
to the plant and disciplined Norris. Vernon Johnson, in
June , refused to follow the instructions of Yarbough, and
she reported to Jobes recommending that Johnson be dis-
charged . Jobes and Hobbs considered the incident and
transferred Johnson to the first shift due to his disruptive
behavior on the second shift.
Taylor testified that Braddy had the authority to initi-
ate writeups on employees but could only recall one in-
stance in which she did so . In all other instances, she
sought Taylor's approval first . Hobbs stated that Yar-
bough could not handle any employee complaints. She
could only relate the complaint to himself or Jobes.
Jobes testified that Yarbough could not remedy employ-
ee complaints , but she could initiate a "clean up" if
water or some other liquid was on the work floor.
Taylor simply testified that Braddy handled her depart-
ment , and he left the department to her without specify-
ing employee grievances as such . Testimony of inspector
witnesses shows clearly , however , that Braddy just
passed on to Taylor any complaint made by employees.
Of the 40 exhibits offered to show Braddy 's exercise of
supervisory authority from 1981 through 1984: 26 are
14 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nothing more than writing up the employee subsequent
to the receipt of a red tag originating from the quality
control department and without any input from Braddy;
6 are writeups dictated by the absence and tardiness
policy including the uniform rule that all employees must
bring a doctor's excuse when returning to work; 3 are
writeups resulting from an employee's refusal to work
previously scheduled overtime dictated by the estab-
lished overtime selection procedure; 3 are writeups
issued to employees failing to perform at the acceptable
level dictated by the predetermined standard of produc-
tion; and 2 were issued for refusing to follow instruc-
tions, namely, employee Lewis, who was first disciplined
in the office by Taylor for failing to sort tubes, and em-
ployee Christine Johnson who was jointly disciplined by
Taylor and Braddy for failing to perform an assigned
task without backtalk or remarks. Of the 10 exhibits of-
fered to show Yarbough's exercise of supervisory author-
ity from 1982 through 1984 (with all exhibits dated
1984): 5 were issued by Yarbough at Jobes' direction to
write up all employees for overstaying break when there
was work to do; 1 was issued by Yarbough per Jobes'
instruction when a box was shipped with less tubes
packed than the order called for; 1 was issued by Yar-
bough after Jobes instructed an employee to perform a
task and he failed to do so. Jobes checked with Yar-
bough and found that the employee had so failed and in-
structed Yarbough to write up the employee; one was
issued by Yarbough to an employee who had called in
with car trouble. Jobes told the employee to come in
tardy but the employee failed to report for work. Yar-
bough wrote up the employee for the absence, one was
issued by Yarbough to an employee who refused to per-
form the daily cleanup of the work station as required,
and one was issued by Jobes to an employee reporting
for work under the influence of alcohol. Yarbough called
Jobes at home to report the employee and Jobes re-
turned to the plant and sent the employee home. The fol-
lowing morning , Jobes wrote up the employee and
signed Yarbough's name to the form.
Thus, it is clear that neither Yarbough nor Braddy had
authority to hire, discharge, assign, or discipline employ-
ees or to adjust grievances of employees. It is equally
clear that neither could effectively recommend such
action as contemplated by the statute.
There is no evidence in the record relating to the au-
thority of any individual to suspend, lay off, recall, or
promote employees. There is a limited reference in the
record to a company policy that no employee is required
to remain at work if a family emergency exists, or the
employee becomes ill. Several witnesses testified to prac-
tices under the policy. Ophelia Grier testified that when-
ever she wanted to leave work early, she made the re-
quest to Braddy. Braddy would tell Taylor of Grier's re-
quest and Braddy would later relay Taylor's answer to
Grier. Grier stated that Braddy did not grant permission
to leave work. Lula West testified that while Braddy was
chief inspector, she would notify Braddy if she wanted
to leave work early. Braddy in turn would ask Taylor if
West could leave early and later Braddy would pass on
Taylor's decision to West. Wyvonie Collins testified that
during her employment as a boxer on the second shift
with Yarbough, she had several family illnesses. The first
instance involved her grandbaby being taken to the hos-
pital. Collins received word at work of the sickness and
asked Yarbough if she could leave work. Yarbough told
Collins that Jobes had to be notified at home before
anyone could leave work. Before Yarbough could talk to
Jobes, Collins left work to care for her grandbaby. A
second sickness occurred, and when Collins was notified
at work, she did not see Yarbough so she told her co-
workers to notify Yarbough that her grandbaby was sick
again . Both Braddy and Yarbough testified that they did
not have authority to release employees to leave work
early except in cases of an emergency. When emergen-
cies existed and employees left work, both Braddy and
Yarbough simply notified their foreman and continued
the shift with a short crew. Taylor and Jobes credibly
testified that neither Braddy nor Yarbough had authority
to replace absent employees no matter the reason for the
absence, and Jobe stated that only he or Hobbs had au-
thority to release employees to go home early. Pinkston's
testimony to the contrary, I do not credit with probative
value of Braddy's work functions. Pinkston's testimony
involved her duties as chief inspector on a different shift
and, as she noted, she functions differently than Braddy
for whatever reason. I do credit the testimony of em-
ployees Grier, West, Collins, Braddy, and Yarbough.
The credible record evidence shows that the practice of
releasing employees does not involve any supervisory
function of Braddy or Yarbough nor does the practice
entail the use of independent judgment by Braddy or
Yarbough. In addition, Braddy credibly testified without
contradiction to an episode involving an inspector during
the working shift. The inspector in the course of a con-
versation with Braddy became angry and called Braddy
a "bitch." Sometime later, Braddy mentioned the inci-
dent to Taylor. Taylor told Braddy that she should have
reported the incident to him when it happened and he
would have sent the employee home. Taylor's belated
resolution of the incident is instructive of the status
Braddy enjoyed vis-a-vis the employees. I conclude and
find that neither Braddy nor Yarbough possessed author-
ity to suspend, lay off, recall, or promote employees or
that either exercised such authority.
The record shows that overtime, when ordered by
Taylor, Hobbs, or Jobes, was fulfilled first by volunteers
and second by drawing straws. If the overtime crew
needs were small and the employees did not volunteer or
draw straws, a selective procedure was followed. In in-
spection, each employee was previously assigned a week-
day. Whenever overtime occurred (without volunteers
or drawing of straws), the employees named for that
weekday were required to work. When there were no
volunteers for overtime in boxing, Jobes selected which
employees were required to work the scheduled over-
time. Failure of an employee to work scheduled over-
time under the weekday selection process or by direction
of Jobes was automatically disciplined by writeup under
the progressive discipline policy. The testimony of
Hobbs that Yarbough could have called off-shift employ-
ees and ordered them to report for work I do not credit
due to the highly speculative nature of the testimony and
WARRENTON RUBBER 15
Hobbs ' admission that Yarbough was never told she had
or could exercise such authority . Likewise , Taylor's testi-
mony that Braddy had authority to call in employees
from other shifts to perform overtime work I do not
credit due to the failure of Taylor to inform Braddy that
she had such authority or could exercise such authority.
Further , neither Braddy nor Yarbough ever called in off-
shift employees to work for overtime or fill in purposes.
Both Braddy and Yarbough worked shorthanded when-
ever their crew sizes were reduced by absence , illness, or
lack of sufficient employees to work overtime.
All employees have seniority based on their date of
hire and their seniority gives them shift preferences. Nei-
ther Braddy nor Yarbough possesses any authority to
transfer employees off their respective shifts for any
reason . As Taylor testified , Braddy knew that she could
not effect the transfer of a recalcitrant employee so she
had to learn to put up with the inconvenience of the em-
ployee . Employee Collins credibly testified that she
asked Yarbough for a transfer to the first shift and Yar-
bough told her she would have to see Hobbs or Jobes
for permission to transfer . In addition to the lack of au-
thority to transfer employees , the record is silent on the
exercise of any such authority by either Braddy or Yar-
bough.
Respondent offered evidence of the authority of both
Braddy and Yarbough to reward employees by recom-
mending wage increases . The evidence was employee
status change forms signed by Braddy and Yarbough for
several employees . There is no dispute that the status
change forms were executed by Braddy and Yarbough
and turned in to their foreman or the personnel office.
The mere execution of the form , however , does not es-
tablish the authority to grant wage increases or the au-
thority to effectively recommend a wage increase. The
additional record evidence shows clearly that all hourly
employees are paid according to a wage policy com-
posed of four increments from hire-in rate to maximum
rate for each classification of employee . Each increment
is effective for an established period of time . The passage
of that time and an acceptable level of performance
qualifies the employee for the stated wage increase. The
work performance of inspectors and boxers is measured
against a standard set by upper management . Inspectors
must inspect 7 tubes in 7 minutes (of the size mostly pro-
duced) and boxers must box 1000 tubes per 8-hour shift
to be performing at an acceptable level. Both Braddy
and Yarbough maintain daily records of each employee's
performance, which are turned in at the end of each
shift . Simple arithmetic determines whether an employee
is at standard or below . Braddy credibly testified, and
without contradiction , that the office sent the employee
status change forms to the department for each employee
at the appropriate time . Braddy simply verified the em-
ployees ' performance and the next wage increment
within the established wage policy . Braddy did not de-
termine any employees ' eligibility for a wage increase
nor the amount of any such increase . Both eligibility and
amount are predetermined by the established wage
policy . Yarbough credibly testified that whenever em-
ployees were ready for a wage increase within the prede-
termined wage policy , Jobes told her to fill out a wage
form for the employee and give it to him. Jobes credibly
testified that only he or Hobbs decided the wage in-
creases of employees and did not testify that Yarbough
had authority to recommend pay raises . Although Hobbs
testified that Yarbough had recommended several em-
ployees for wage increases and that employees knew that
Yarbough had to recommend them for wage increases
only one such instance was evidenced in the record. The
record evidence as a whole is contra to Hobbs ' statement
of Yarbough 's authority to recommend wage increases.
Yarbough was never informed that she had authority to
recommend pay increases for boxing employees nor were
the boxing employees told that Yarbough had such au-
thority . Yarbough credibly testified that she told Jobes
that Collins , a trainee , was boxing up to standard before
her training period was completed and should be getting
more than the training rate . Jobes told Yarbough to
write a note to him and Hobbs and turn it in to him.
Jobes and Hobbs decided whether Collins would get her
wage increase increment early . As Hobbs stated in his
testimony , whether a boxer is performing up to standard
is not controlling . The controlling factor is the accuracy
of that performance and he alone determines whether the
employee is accurate enough to get a raise in pay. It is
clear that neither Braddy nor Yarbough had authority to
grant wage increases or to effectively recommend wage
increases for employees . It is equally clear that neither
exercised such authority . The mere filling out of a status
form within the framework of the personnel procedures
falls short of the independent judgment required by the
statute . It is nothing more than a clerical function, which
is later acted on independently by Hobbs , Jobes, or the
personnel department and within the established wage
levels policy.
Respondent 's policies on absence and tardiness are ap-
plied uniformly throughout the plant. Individual employ-
ee reports of absence or tardiness are made to General
Foreman Taylor, Production Superintendent Newsome,
Shipping Manager Hobbs, Shipping Supervisor Jobes, or
the personnel department as directed by the policy. The
recordkeeping for Respondent is accomplished by the
employee attendance information form . Both Braddy and
Yarbough credibly testified , and without contradiction,
that they filled out the forms at the direction of Taylor
and Jobes . As the forms indicate , they record the infor-
mation relative to an employee's attendance . Taylor's tes-
timony that Braddy had authority to approve absences
or tardiness is contrary to the testimony of other wit-
nesses as well as his additional testimony . Taylor takes
the calls from employees reporting an absence or tardi-
ness and at that time tells the employee what to do.
Taylor then notifies Braddy of the circumstances and di-
rects her to complete the employee attendance informa-
tion form . Braddy acts as nothing more than a clerk for
Taylor . Any employee absent due to illness must con-
form to the Company's policy of bringing a doctor's re-
lease when returning to work . With the release , the em-
ployee's absence is excused ; without the release the ab-
sence is unexcused . In such a case, Braddy, when filling
out the form , is merely following an established policy
and performing a ministerial act. In addition , the record-
16 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing by Braddy is neither approval nor rejection because
the record form is subsequently acted on by management
and the personnel department. Yarbough, likewise, did
not receive employee reports of absences or tardiness.
Jobes or Hobbs took the calls during the first shift. Most
days Yarbough learned of an absence or tardiness when
she had a vacancy at a work station. Nonetheless, the
recordkeeping chore fell to Yarbough. She recorded the
information about the employee, which she received
from Jobes. As Jobes stated many times when Yarbough
reported an employee-related circumstance to him, "You
know the procedure, fill out a form and turn it in." A
more clerical function could not be devised. Yarbough
was trained to fill out the forms and turn them in to
Jobes. Jobes took for granted that Yarbough was trained
and knew her position and never told Yarbough she was
a supervisor or that she had any supervisory authority.
The objective evidence offered by Respondent to reflect
exercise of supervisory authority by Yarbough is not
probative of the issue. A September warning by Yar-
bough for an employee's refusal to follow instructions
was predicated on a daily chore of cleanup. When Yar-
bough reported to Jobes that the employee refused to do
the cleanup, he directed Yarbough to write up the em-
ployee. An 8 May 1984 warning for absenteeism was ex-
ecuted by Yarbough several months before she was
placed on salary and purportedly became a supervisor. A
15 May 1984 warning for reporting under the influence
of alcohol occurred not only several months before Yar-
bough became salaried, but resulted from Yarbough's tel-
ephonic report to Jobes at home and his return to the
plant to handle the situation. The following day Jobes
executed the warning but signed Yarbough's name
merely to record the fact that the incident occurred on
Yarbough's shift. An 18 May 1984 warning for refusal to
follow instructions (again several months before the date
of supervisory authority for Yarbough) was issued by
Yarbough but at Jobes' direction. The instructions to the
employee had been given by Jobes, and Yarbough re-
ported the failure to act when asked by Jobes and Jobes
told her to write up the employee. Six additional em-
ployee attendance information forms and six employee
warning forms offered to show Yarbough's exercise of
supervisory functions were dated prior to Yarbough's
supposed date of attaining supervisory status and there-
fore are not probative of the issue. They are, however,
instructive to show that Respondent's claim of superviso-
ry exercise by Yarbough comprises duties she exercised
long before being salaried and claimed to be a supervi-
sor. Thus, it is abundantly clear that Braddy and Yar-
bough have no authority to determine absences, tardi-
ness, or work performances of employees but rather per-
form clerical or ministerial duties as instructed by their
supervisors and within the specifications, set by the plant
policies. Such duties do not require the use of independ-
ent judgment nor carry the force of an effective recom-
mendation for employee conduct.
It is undisputed that timecards were initialed by
Braddy and Yarbough whenever employees worked
overtime and that employees would not be paid for the
overtime if the initials were omitted. It is equally undis-
puted that both Braddy and Yarbough were instructed to
initial the cards to confirm the overtime hours authorized
by Taylor or Hobbs. Such a confirmation carries no
weight of authority for the instance of overtime worked
but simply records that previously authorized by some-
one else. The recordation is purely clerical and does not
show the exercise of a supervisory function. Likewise,
the execution of accident reports and workmen's com-
pensation forms is more a clerical function than the exer-
cise of a supervisory function. Both Braddy and Yar-
bough simply reduced to writing what the affected em-
ployee explained about the injury and whether the em-
ployee wanted to see a doctor. The forms were then
turned over to Taylor or Jobes. Neither Braddy nor Yar-
bough had authority to release employees from work and
neither assumed the exercise of such authority. Release
of injured employees and transportation of injured em-
ployees was effected by Taylor or Jobes.
The pay differential between alleged supervisor and
rank-and-file employees may be a consideration depend-
ing upon the dollar amount involved. In this case, the
differential is insignificant due to the dollar amount. The
significance of the differential is further diminished when
contrasted with the pay differential existing between the
alleged supervisors and their immediate foremen or man-
agers. In addition, Braddy and Yarbough are in a nonex-
empt pay status as are the rank-and-file employees,
whereas foremen and managers are in an exempt pay
status. Respondent's contention that the salary classifica-
tion is indicia of supervision is without merit since the
entire quality control department is on salary rather than
hourly wage. Generally, a salary pay status in opposition
to an hourly pay status does not necessarily evidence a
separation of supervision from rank and file. Moreover,
the record evidence as a whole conclusively establishes
that management seized on the salary classification
merely to separate the unit employees from the nonunit
employees. One can conclude from Respondent's lengthy
refusal to delegate supervisory authority to Braddy and
Yarbough that any recognition of their supervisory status
was precipitated by the union organizational drive and
nothing more. The multiple instances in this record when
Respondent could have affirmatively enforced a supervi-
sory status for both individuals, from their dates of hire
to their dates of discharge, but did nothing, serves to
buttress my conclusion that neither Braddy nor Yar-
bough functioned as, nor was meant to function as, a su-
pervisor as defined in the Act. Newsomp's evaluation of
the lack of need for minor supervision on the first shift
and Jobes' willingness to allow shipping employees on
the second shift to work under the guidance of a senior
rank-and-file employee applies equally well to the situa-
tions involving Braddy and Yarbough and further sup-
port my conclusion of nonsupervisory status for Braddy
and Yarbough.3
3 Frequently , the Board will consider the ratio of admitted supervisors
to rank -and-file employees when the supervisory status of an individual Is
in question This case , however, presents no such opportunity because the
pleadings are silent on Respondent's supervisory hierarchy and no stipu-
lations were offered by counsel to fill the void The organizational chart
offered in evidence by Respondent was admittedly drawn for use during
trial and does not purport to be an administrative decree or departmental
schematic
WARRENTON RUBBER
The single theme that continuously emerges from the
evidence in this record is that no one in management
told Braddy and Yarbough that they were supervisors or
that they had any supervisory authority. Albeit, Yar-
bough was later placed on salary, Hobbs' testimony
clearly shows that his recommendation for her salary
had nothing to do with her work functions. Further,
Jobes' conclusion that Yarbough became a supervisor
when she changed to salary is founded on a mere state-
ment by his superior that Ray, when salaried on the first
shift, was thereafter treated as a supervisor; a treatment
unattended by the granting of any authority. The many
attempts to show an exercise of supervisory function
tend to show that Braddy and Yarbough were over-
loaded with paperwork and recordkeeping in addition to
their undisputed manual tasks. Assuming arguendo, the
evidenced exercise was both isolated and sporadic. The
several instances of employees' recalcitrant conduct
toward both Braddy and Yarbough also supports the
conclusion that neither functioned as a supervisor within
the definition contained in the statute. Accordingly, I
conclude and find that Eloise Braddy and Gloria Yar-
bough are not supervisors as defined in the Act and
therefore are guaranteed the rights of employees enumer-
ated in Section 7 of the Act. The discharges, as alleged
in the complaint, are violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act and I so find.
The coercive interrogation of Braddy and Yarbough
amended into complaint paragraph 9, though denied by
Respondent on the record, was not denied in the record
testimony. Both Braddy and Yarbough credibly testified
to interrogation about their union activity occurring in
the months of August and September 1984. I conclude
and find that the several instances of interrogation are
coercive and therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
I shall order that all violations be remedied.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, by interrogating employees Eloise
Braddy and Gloria Yarbough about their union activity
during the organizational campaign of the Union, has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Respondent, by discharging employees Eloise
Braddy and Gloria Yarbough because they engaged in
union activity, has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
3. The above-described unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order Re-
spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.4
4 The General Counsel in brief moved for a remedial Order containing
a "visitatonal" provision authorizing "discovery ," if necessary, to moni-
tor compliance with the Board 's Order The need for such an order is not
demonstrated. I therefore deny the General Counsel 's motion
17
Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees Eloise Braddy and Gloria Yarbough, it must
offer them full reinstatement to their former positions, or,
if those positions no longer exist , to a substantially equiv-
alent position , with backpay computed on a quarterly
basis and interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and New Horizons for the Retarded,5 from the date of dis-
charge to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed6
ORDER
The Respondent, E. H. Mann, Inc., d/b/a Warrenton
Rubber, Warrenton, Georgia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activity.
(b) Discharging employees for engaging in union ac-
tivity.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Eloise Braddy and Gloria Yarbough immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to the jobs from which they
were discharged on 28 September, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and
privileges enjoyed, and make them whole for any earn-
ings they lost, plus interest, as outlined in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharges and notify the employees in writing that this
has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its offices in Warrenton, Georgia, copies of
the attached noticed marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the
S In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), interest on and after January 1, 1987, shall be
computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes
as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C § 6621. Interest on
amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986
amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621 ), shall be computed in accordance with
Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing
Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
s If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses. The General Counsel 's formal papers , in evidence as G.C Exhs.
1(a)-1(1), although indexing the original of Respondent's answer to the
complaint, does not contain the answer.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
Continued
18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately on receipt and maintained for 60 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their union
activities on behalf of General Teamsters, Local Union
No. 528 or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for engaging in
union activities on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No.
528 or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Eloise Braddy and Gloria Yarbough
immediate and full reinstatement to the jobs from which
they were discharged on 28 Sept. 1984, or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earn-
ings, plus interest.
WE WILL notify Eloise Braddy and Gloria Yarbough
that we have removed from our files any reference to
their discharges and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
E. H. MANN, INC., D/B/A WARRENTON
RUBBER