White Chapel Memorial Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
White Chapel Memorial Association and Local 614,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(IND.). Case 7-CA-5732
October 20, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On July 11, 1967, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, White Chapel Memorial
Association, Troy, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I The Trial Examiner stated that Maintenance Supervisor Robert Knoll
testified that employee complaints against both Lamb and Hughes were
one of the factors Knoll considered in transferring Hughes and Lamb from
the marker department However, Knoll's testimony related only to
Hughes This inadvertency does not alter our conclusions
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M . DYER, Trial Examiner: Following an original
and amended charges filed by Local 614, international
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America ( Ind.), herein called the Union,
and the issuance of a complaint and amended complaint
against White Chapel Memorial Association , herein vari-
ously called Respondent or White Chapel, this case was
heard in Detroit, Michigan, by me, on March 23 and 24,
1967.1 Respondent urges that the Board should, as a
matter of policy, decline jurisdiction over it, asserting it
is engaged in a particularly local type of business and that
the amount of its purchases in interstate commerce are
merely incidental to the local character of its business. A
motion to dismiss the complaints on this basis was de-
nied. Respondent denied that it had violated the Act by
its transfer of two employees and the discharge of one of
them or that it had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. All parties were ac-
corded full opportunity to participate in the hearing and
to examine and cross-examine witnesses . The parties en-
gaged in oral argument and a brief received from
Respondent has been considered.
Upon the complete record in this case and on my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based both
on the evidence received and my observation of their
demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZA-
TION
Respondent with executive offices in Detroit,
Michigan, maintains its only facility, a garden-type ceme-
tery, in the city of Troy, Michigan, where it is engaged in
the sale of burial space rights and in the care and main-
tenance and providing of other services incidental to the
maintenance of its facilities. In the preceding fiscal year
Respondent derived $483,000 from the sale of burial
rights and received $401,000 for its services and the sale
of bronze markers which are used to mark the graves. Of
this latter amount, Respondent purchased in excess of
$100,000 worth of materials and supplies directly from
out of State sources. At the present time there are ap-
proximately 1,700 interments a year in the cemetery and
approximately 2 percent of these are of persons who have
died outside the State of Michigan.
The Board has legal jurisdiction over Respondent and
Respondent appears to meet the Board's jurisdictional
standards on both the retail and nonretail bases and since
the particular industry has not been excluded from its ju-
risdiction by the Board (Cemetery Service Corporation,
149 NLRB 604), I find and conclude that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.2
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts and Issues
Respondent's cemetery has grown from some 80 acres
to over 214 acres of which approximately 165 have been
or are being developed into a park-type cemetery divided
into a number of sections called gardens. Each of the
Unless otherwise stated all dates heicin occurred in 1966.
Respondent asserts that its operation as a burial park is peculiar in the
burial industry and uiges as a mattes of policy that its operations should be
outside of the commerce yardstick in that its sales of buiial rights are to
Michigan residents and that its business is peculiarly local in character
with the amounts of supplies purchased interstate merely incidental to this
local business. Respondent 's argument goes to Board policy.
167 N LRB No. 131
WHITE CHAPEL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION
gravesites are marked by bronze plaques which are af-
fixed to a concrete block and are placed in the ground at
ground level so that the appearance of the grounds will be
that of a large park. In addition to burial in the park
gardens, Respondent maintains a large marble building
which contains facilities for interment, a crematory and
various chapels.
Respondent maintains the grounds including grass,
trees, shrubs and gardens with its complement of some 20
to 253 regular men plus summer help who are usually col-
lege students. In its answer, Respondent states its one
classification of employees is "park and temple em-
ployees" and that all of its employees are required to be
qualified and capable of performing all of the work func-
tions of "park and temple employees." There is no
dispute that where need arises, management moves em-
ployees from job to job. However from the testimony it
appears that some employees have regular jobs that they
perform the majority of the time.
Respondent is very busy in the spring readying the
cemetery for Memorial Day. It tries to get all of the grave
markers placed by then (grave markers are not installed
during the winter months) and have the grounds looking
their best. The cemetery stays busy from then through
late fall with grounds upkeep (mowing grass, watering,
etc.), placement of markers , funeral services , leveling
gravesites, etc. The winter season commences with the
manufacture and placement of grave blankets (wooden
frames thatched with evergreens ) and includes other
work such as the placing of snow pins marking graves,
and snow removal.
Respondent 's former President Hunt died in the late
summer of 1966, with resultant reorganization in Sep-
tember. Under the guidance of the board of directors is
General Superintendent Roy Haney who is assisted by
Maintenance Supervisor Robert Knoll. Foreman Henry
Brinkey and Assistant Foreman Maynard Schoof4 are
under Knoll.
Herman Lamb, with Respondent some 19 years, was
in charge of the marker (bronze plaque) department some
15 years until he was transferred on June 20, on his
return from a week 's leave . Among his duties in the
marker department were to receive bronze plaques, un-
pack them, photograph them, see that they were properly
affixed to a cement base which was poured in the shop,
and maintain records for the department. He also over-
saw the removal , shipment , return, and installation of
name and date plates on the bronze memorial plaques.
After the work in the department grew to warrant it,
Lamb had a helper assigned to the department . In 1964
Robert Hughes was assigned as the helper after the previ-
ous incumbent died. Hughes remained as Lamb 's helper
until he was transferred on June 27, following his return
from a 2-week vacation. Lamb's and Hughes' principal
work was in the marker department with Respondent's
records establishing that Lamb spent approximately 80
' At the time of the State Labor Board election Respondent has some
25 eligible employees
' Respondent asserts that Assistant Foreman Schoof is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, while the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party maintain that he is Foreman Brinkey assigns a number of the
men to particular jobs in the morning of each working day and then tells
Assistant Foreman Schoof what otherjobs remain and has him assign the
balance of the staff Schoof thereafter directs those men under him on
their jobs, moves them from job to job as he sees the need arise and is
927
percent of his time in the marker department, about 6 per-
cent of his time doing ground maintenance work and the
balance of his time in carpentry or shop maintenance or
related duties. Respondent's records also reflect that
Hughes spent about 65 percent of his time in the marker
department and the balance of his time in general main-
tenance of the grounds, digging or filling graves, leveling
graves, etc. When the marker department was very busy
Respondent would detail another man to assist Lamb and
Hughes. In May 1966, Artman was placed in the depart-
ment to assist and Hughes started teaching him how to set
markers in cement. Prior to that time Artman had helped
in the marker department on one other occasion. When
Hughes and Lamb were on occasions pulled out of the
marker department to assist on other things such as fu-
nerals, cutting grass, etc., no one replaced them in the
marker department and the department's work was al-
lowed to slide until Respondent felt it could allow them to
resume their work. In June when Respondent transferred
Hughes and Lamb from the marker department they were
the only trained employees capable of operating it.
Respondent assigned Artman who had worked in there
only a few weeks, to run the department although ad-
mitting that it would take 7 to 8 months to properly train
an employee to operate it.
Respondent, according to its answer, discharged
Robert Hughes on September 29, for failure to perform
his employment obligations in the form and manner
required of all employees.
Early in 1966, Lamb got in touch with the Union
through a truckdriver and arranged with a union repre-
sentative to hold a meeting at his house. Hughes and
Lamb and one other employee attended the meeting and
agreed to assist in organization. Lamb gave authorization
cards to Hughes who circulated them among Respond-
ent's employees and after obtaining signatures returned
the cards to Lamb for transmission to the Union. In
March the Union demanded recognition and the parties
agreed to an election under the auspices of the State
Labor Board. The Union lost the election held May 12,
by 17 to 8, and the results were certified May 29. Lamb
testified that immediately after the election the employees
split on the basis of who voted for and against the Union
and from then on there was some coolness among the
men.
The Company has a seniority system but the parties did
not delineate it or in what manner it was used. All of
Respondent's regular employees are salaried with first
year men earning less than the others. Assistant Foreman
Schoof stated he did not know where his salary stood in
relation to that of the other employees.
The basic issues are whether the transfer of Hughes
and Lamb and Hughes' discharge were discriminatory
and whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
Assistant Foreman Schoof's statement to John Westveer.
responsible to see that they do the work Schoof and Brinkey work al-
ternate Saturdays, each being responsible for the working force on his
Saturday workday Schoof also replaces Brinkey when Brinkey takes his
3 weeks' vacation Schoof allows men overtime, permits them to take a
day off if he feels the amount of work will permit it, and some years ago ef-
fectively recommended that some individuals be discharged There is
nothing to indicate that his authority is any less at the present I conclude
and find that Assistant Foreman Maynard Schoof is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Unfair Labor Practices attitude towards the other employees he wanted to isolate
Hughes and keep him away from the number of em-
ployees as he would be in contact with at the marker de-
partment.
In regard to the same question, General Superintend-
ent Roy Haney testified he was advised by Maintenance
Supervisor Bob Knoll, no later than June 14 or 15, that he
was moving Artman into the department and Lamb and
Hughes out, because it was time they had somebody else
trained in memorials . Thereafter Haney added that they
were receiving quite a few bronze memorials and they
were getting complaints from families because they were
not being set.
Thus Respondent's reasons for moving Lamb and
Hughes vary as between there being a lot of work that
needed to be done in the department, and the work in the
department being slack so they could train a man, de-
pending on the nature of the questions being asked.
Robert Knoll testified that he heard complaints from
some employees in May that they did not want to work
with Hughes and Lamb because of the way they were act-
ing and talking and that these complaints started right
after the union election on May 12. After May, he says he
only heard complaints about Hughes, but that these com-
plaints were one of the factors he considered in deciding
to get Hughes and Lamb away from the marker depart-
ment where there were a lot of men around and place
them out in yard maintenance where they would be iso-
lated or separated from the other men.
I fail to understand that if there were legitimate com-
plaints about Lamb and Hughes, how it would help to
take them from the department where they worked
together and place them with other employees working in
the maintenance of the grounds, where there would be of
necessity occasions for them to work side by side with
other men. There would be no such occasions, when they
as the only persons assigned, were working in the marker
department. If there was friction, it would seem that
Respondent's course of action could only serve to in-
crease it.
There is no doubt that there was some coolness among
the men following the election. Lamb testified that Knoll
use to come in the marker shop every day and they would
converse about various topics prior to the time they
started distributing union authorization cards. Thereafter
Knoll seldom went to the marker shop and had not con-
versed with Lamb but twice in the inteiim and those times
immediately preceding the instant hearing, although when
there was a discussion as to methods of performing du-
ties, Knoll would single Lamb out saying that the Union
would not allow that, would they Lamb. Hughes and
Lamb testified that relations between those for and those
against the Union were not pleasant at all times and that
on a few occasions there had been some name calling
between the men. This brings us to Hughes' discharge
and the reasons advanced therefor.
On Thursday, September 29, Respondent called a
meeting of its employees, at which paychecks were dis-
tributed to all employees except Hughes. When Hughes
asked for his paycheck the man distributing the checks
asked Knoll about it and Knoll responded that his check
was in the office. During the meeting the employees were
told they were getting an increase in pay and a retirement
system. Later in the afternoon Hughes was called to the
office where, with Brinkey, Knoll, and Haney present, he
was asked if he knew why he was there. Hughes replied
Respondent tries to have all the bronze markers it
receives prior to Memorial Day placed at the gravesites
by that day. According to Lamb, work in the department
becomes slack for a short period after Memorial Day
until more markers are received. When Lamb returned
from his week off in June , he was transferred from the de-
partment and assigned to cutting grass on a tractor pulling
a "gang mower." Lamb was not assigned again to the
marker department until 2 days before the instant hearing
and then he was assigned as Artman 's helper.
When Hughes returned from his 2-week vacation, he
was transferred from the marker department and assigned
to cut grass using a push mower. Employees Lamb, West-
veer, Artman, and Cowsert and Assistant Foreman
Schoof verified Hughes' testimony that low seniority em-
ployees or college students were assigned to the
"Goodall" push mower, with Schoof stating they usually
hired students for that job . It entails pushing a lawn
mower 8 hours a day and is considered the lowest job
Respondent has. Hughes worked at this and other jobs in
the cemetery until his discharge on September 29, but
was never placed back in the marker department. Schoof
also stated he was not consulted about the placement of
Hughes on the Goodall or told why it was done, that it
was all done over his head. Asked if he knew the reason
for this assignment , Schoof stated "Not anything unless
it was the union activity."
Respondent made several references to the fact that the
employees were permitted to pick their own vacation
periods and Respondent sought not to interfere with their
choices. Respondent suggested by questions and state-
ments that Lamb and Hughes should not have both been
on leave during the same week, leaving the marker depart-
ment with no one to operate it. However Superintendent
Haney states he may have known they were both to
be off at the same time and Respondent, if it chose,
presumably could have forbidden their both leaving. But
Respondent did nothing , nor did it reprimand or even
mention the fact to Hughes and Lamb. In these circum-
stances I can not assume that Hughes' and Lamb's ac-
tions in being off during I week in June were a disservice
to Respondent or an indication that they were not ful-
filling their duties as good employees.
Maintenance Supervisor Knoll is the individual who
decided to transfer Lamb and Hughes from the marker
department. Knoll testified initially that Respondent was
in a jam and needed to get production out in the marker
department and while Hughes and Lamb were gone he
realized he did not have any trained men for the marker
department and decided he needed to train men for this
department. For that reason he assigned Artman to take
over and run the department , telling him to consult with
Knoll if he needed any assistance.
It seems elemental that if Respondent were in a jam in
that department, it would have retained its trained per-
sonnel in that department to run it and give them addi-
tional help if they needed it , and had them train additional
men in the operations. When Knoll was queried as to why
he did not keep the trained personnel in the job, he
responded that the marker work was a bit slack so that he
could afford to have Artman in the department learning
the work. Knoll was asked why he transferred both
Hughes and Lamb and stated that he wanted to break
other men in on both of their jobs and because of Hughes'
WHITE CHAPEL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION 929
that he guessed so, that he was no longer employed by the
Company. Hughes testified he said this because the
checks and an envelope were on the table. Knoll said that
was right. Hughes asked several times why he was
discharged but Knoll did not give a reason. Knoll said
Hughes would have to sign for his paychecks and he did
so. Hughes asked Knoll whether anyone else was being
fired and was told no. Hughes was paid through the fol-
lowing day and told to take the day off.
Knoll stated that it was his decision to request permis-
sion from the board of directors to discharge Hughes. He
stated he made this decision after receiving a number of
complaints from employees about Hughes. The first com-
plaint , shortly after the election , was from employee Dill,
who told him that an employee named Meier had been
cursed out by Lamb or Hughes calling him "a scab" and
another name and Knoll added that he was led to believe
that Meier had been called an "S.O.B." Dill testified that
in late June, he told Knoll that Meier told him that some
of the boys called Meier a scab and another name. When
Dill was prompted by Respondent counsel , he stated that
the name caller was Hughes and one other person. Dill
stated that he did not hear Hughes or the other person
talk to Meier. Knoll did not testify that Meier ever told
him anything about this incident . However when Meier
testified thereafter , he said he told Dill that while walking
past the restroom he heard Hughes call him names but
that he could not remember them . He said that they
amounted to his being no good , would not work , and that
Hughes had to carry him . Meier testified that Knoll ap-
proached him thereafter and asked if Hughes had said
something that he did not like and he reported to Knoll
that Hughes had run him down saying he had to carry
him. The only run-in that Hughes remembered having
with Meier was when Meier called him a name and he
responded by saying that at least he was not a charity
case.
Respondent by having Knoll testify to the third-hand
report which contained vulgar language , and omitting the
fact of the rather innocuous direct report from Meier, at-
tempted to color this incident into something it was not.
The timing provided by Dill and Meier is considerably
different from Knoll's.
The second report, according to Knoll, was by em-
ployee Diesing in latter May, saying he was glad to be
away from "those fellows," that he did not want to work
with them . Diesing testified he told Knoll about a month
after the election that Hughes was ignoring them, would
have nothing to do with them after the election, and it
made it difficult to get along where they were used to
helping one another . Diesing admitted that he never
worked with Hughes after the election and testified that
the friction consisted of Hughes not accepting a ride from
him. Contrary to Knoll, he testified that he never told a
supervisor that he did not want to work with Hughes.
Knoll testified that in late May, he had a conversation
with a group of employees including Kitson, Archer,
Stacey, Gearhart, and some others and that Archer and
Gearhart said the Company should get rid of "those
guys," that they were soreheads and they did not want to
work with them. Later in his testimony Knoll identified
"those guys" as Hughes and Lamb. Of the group of men
named , only Archer was presented to testify. Archer said
he told Knoll a month or so after the election that ". . . it
would be nice if we could all get along together if they
would get some of them out of there or something but I
wouldn't work with those fellows if they wouldn't
cooperate, they wouldn't say nothing to me or speak to
me." Knoll asked him if he would work with Hughes and
he answered no. He was asked why and told Knoll that it
would be difficult to work with a man who would not talk
to you.
Knoll also reported a further conversation with Archer
in August in which Archer said that everything was com-
ing along fine, but that Hughes was a sorehead who gave
him a cold shoulder. Archer could not recall this conver-
sation but admitted that Knoll asked him how things were
between hiim and Hughes.
Knoll further testified that in early June while at the
pump pit, he spoke to employee Hunwick, who told him
he was glad that he was on a job away from Hughes, that
he did not want to work with him, that they might tangle.
Employee Hunwick testified that probably in June he had
a conversation with Knoll, in which he said something to
the effect that he was glad he was working by himself, the
way that the feeling was between the men. During the
conversation Hughes was mentioned and he said he was
glad that he was not working with him directly, that
because of the feeling there could be trouble. Hunwick,
a relative of Respondent's vice president, said that after
the election he approached Hughes because he had heard
a rumor that Hughes said the Company had paid him
off. He testified that in the conversation Hughes said that
the employees were in two groups and they were going to
pull the silent treatment. Further he testified he attempted
to be friendly to Hughes and was rebuffed, Hughes even
refusing to ride with him. In later cross-examination Hun-
wick admitted that he had ridden Hughes on his motor
scooter and they had talked thereafter.
Knoll testified that in July he talked to employee Gear-
hart who said that he ate by himself since that was the
only way he could get a little peace away from Hughes
and that he wished he did not have to work by him. Gear-
hart did not testify. This testimony seems oddly at vari-
ance with the complaints of silent treatment.
On the basis of Knoll's version of these reports and in
particular Archer's August report, Knoll testified he de-
cided he could not afford the morale of the men, that if
that was the way they felt, that he would get rid of
Hughes. Knoll told Superintendent Haney he thought he
could get a lot more done and the men would work better
if they discharged Hughes. Haney testified that Knoll told
him that Hughes was harassing the men and that he said
he would take it up with the board of directors and did so.
The board did not act in August but did in September.
Knoll admitted he heard rumors that Hughes could be en-
gaged in union activity but said he really did not know it.
Neither Knoll, Haney, nor any of the other supervisors
sought out Hughes or Lamb to ask their version of these
occurrences or "harassment" or try to discover the
•reasons for the coolness or how the problems, if they in
truth existed, could be resolved. Assistant Foreman
Schoof who knew Hughes for 15 to 18 years said he knew
him as a good worker and never received any complaints
from men about him and that none of the men told him
they did not want to work with Hughes. Foreman Brin-
key was not presented by Respondent to testify, pre-
sumptively because he could not verify the alleged
grievances against Hughes. It seems strange that none of
the employees complained to their immediate supervisors
about Hughes and Lamb. But then looking closely at the
testimony, we see that Knoll was soliciting complaints
against them, by approaching various employees as to
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their feelings about Hughes and Lamb and then taking
these solicited comments as complaints and using them as
justification to fire Hughes. It is easy to understand that
the manner of a supervisor ' s question may exact an
answer he wishes to hear.
This view of Respondent 's action is bolstered by the
hedging and evasive manner in which Knoll testified.
Thus taking the first complaint we have Knoll reporting
a third-hand report of an altercation (from Dill) and using
this as one of the bases for his final action while not
divulging that he had a mild report from one of the partici-
pants (Meier). This and other evident attempts to build a
case (the altercations or remarks were not in most cases
as Knoll reported them) convinces me that Respondent's
reasons for firing Hughes are a sham to cover a dis-
criminatory discharge.
In the same manner we have Respondent asserting that
it was its (Knoll's) business judgment to transfer Lamb
and Hughes from the marker department and since they
suffered no loss of wages , there was no discrimination by
such transfer . Where "business judgment" flies in the
face of commonsense and the reasons advanced are them-
selves in conflict , I cannot credit Respondent that there
was not an underlying motive behind this move. Thus
Respondent claimed it was in a jam in the marker depart-
ment , had memorials that had to be set , and put a partially
trained man in to run the department , removed the ex-
perienced men and then said work was slack enough in
the department where it could afford to use the partially
trained men. Respondent allowed this situation to prevail
through the balance of 1966 , when the marker depart-
ment is supposed to be busy since it is installing more
markers each year . It is true that Hughes and Lamb
received the same compensation and possibly more by
way of overtime , but their job duties included the lowest
job around - one usually reserved for the lowest seniority
men or summer replacements , working in the rain when
none of the other men were working (Lamb), and finally
Lamb 's being put back in the department he used to run,
as a helper to a man who was once his helper 's helper.
Being summarily removed from jobs held for years with-
out being given any reason therefore , when Respondent
had no qualms with the manner the jobs were performed
and against the precepts of commonsense and then
assigned lesser jobs could not help but deal a blow to
a workman's pride and impress other employees that
Hughes and Lamb were being thus dealt with for the only
conceivable reason extant , their union activities.
Such treatment was demeaning to Hughes and Lamb,
and Respondent has not advanced any sound reason for
it, and I conclude and find that it was discriminatorily
motivated . It seems evident to me that Respondent was
attempting to force Hughes and Lamb to quit , and not
succeeding because they stood up to the treatment and
did not complain to management , it went further and fired
Hughes.
Respondent 's employees were surprised by this treat-
ment . Thus Meier told the Board investigator "I was sur-
prised to find out that Hughes was fired because he was
his old self again for weeks before he was fired."
Assistant Foreman Schoof was surprised by Hughes'
discharge saying " I thought it had all blown over."
Schoof who was not consulted about the transfer and as-
signment of Hughes to the push mower when asked if he
knew the reason for the assignment said "Not anything
unless it was the union activity." Schoof noted further
that Hughes had not worked on the "Goodall" (push
mower) prior to his transfer to the memorial department.
In the absence of any warnings or reprimands to
Hughes , with no showing of an attempt to examine the
"reports" of various employees and indeed it appearing
that such complaints were solicited by Knoll, the evident
attempts to color these reports , and Respondent's
knowledge that Lamb and Hughes were union leaders,
convince me , and I find and conclude that they were
disciminatorily transferred and assigned lesser jobs and
that Hughes was discriminatorily discharged all in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Employee John Westveer testified to two conversa-
tions with Assistant Foreman Schoof neither of which
Schoof denied, stating he did not remember them. Ac-
cording to Westveer on each occasion Schoof was riding
him in to eat lunch and on the first occasion in June
Schoof told him that Hughes would be put on grasscutting
along with Westveer when Hughes returned from his va-
cation . The second conversation , which is alleged by
General Counsel as violative of Section 8(a)(1), occurred
in August or September. Schoof told Westveer that they
were going to try to get rid of both Hughes and Lamb be-
fore "blanket -making" season began , which would have
been around November. Although this statement by itself
does not set out a reason for Respondent taking such ac-
tion, I find that the full context of the situation, that
Hughes and Lamb were union leaders , that the em-
ployees and management were aware of that, and of the
fact of their discriminatory transfer , provides the setting
for the statement and makes the reason for the statement
inescapable . As noted above Schoof himself was aware
of the context , for, when asked for the reason of Hughes'
transfer , he replied -"Nothing unless it was the union
activities."
Noting that Schoof was somewhat evasive in his
testimony and did not deny these statements , I credit
Westveer that Schoof did make these statements and find
and conclude that the latter statement violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section 11,
above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, oc-
curring in connection with Respondent's business opera-
tions as set forth in section 1, above , have a close, inti-
mate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices as set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
Respondent having discriminatorily transferred em-
ployees Herman Lamb and Robert Hughes from the
marker department to other less agreeable or less presti-
gious jobs and not thereafter having reinstated them to
such former jobs because of their union activities and
thereafter having discharged employee Robert Hughes
because of his union activities , I recommend that
Respondent offer Robert Hughes and Herman Lamb im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former positions in
WHITE CHAPEL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION
the marker department or if those positions are abolished
through change in Respondent's operations, then to sub-
stantially similar positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges and the Respond-
ent make Robert Hughes whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against him, by payment to him of a sum equal to that
which he would have normally received as wages from
September 29, 1966, the date of his discharge, until the
date Respondent reinstates him, less any net earnings for
the interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. 1 further recommend that Respondent make avail-
able to the Board, on request, payroll and other records,
in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of back-
pay due and the rights of Robert Hughes.
Respondent has also interfered with its employees
rights by its discriminatory transfer of employees Hughes
and Lamb and by the discharge of Hughes and by the oral
threat of the discharge of Hughes and Lamb because they
engaged in union activity. It is hereby recommended that
Respondent be ordered not to infringe upon the rights
guaranteed its employees by violating the Act in the same
or any similar manner.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. White Chapel Memorial Association is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily transferring Herman Lamb and
Robert Hughes on June 20 and 27, respectively, and by
discriminatorily discharging Robert Hughes on Sep-
tember 29, 1966, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them
to their former positions because of their union senti-
ments, membership, and activities, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By threatening to discharge employees Lamb and
Hughes because of their union activity, Respondent en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
considered as a whole, I hereby recommend that
Respondent White Chapel Memorial Association of
Detroit and Troy, Michigan, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on be-
half of Local 614, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica (Ind.), or any other labor organization by discrimina-
torily transferring and by discriminatorily discharging its
employees and not reinstating or reemploying them.
931
(b) Threatening to discharge employees who engaged
in union activity.
(c) In any like or similar manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, and to join or assist Local 614, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (Ind.), to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Herman Lamb and Robert Hughes im-
mediate reinstatement to their former positions in ac-
cordance with the recommendations set forth in the sec-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Make Robert Hughes whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against him in accordance with the recommendations
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its Detroit and Troy, Michigan, facilities,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5
-Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by a
responsible agent of Respondent shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.6
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
310-541 0 - 70 - 60
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
Following a trial in which the Company, the Union,
and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered their evidence , it has been
found that we violated the law and we have been ordered
to post this notice and to abide by what we say in this
notice.
WE WILL NOT transfer , discharge , or otherwise
discriminate against employees to try to discourage
them or other employees from being or becoming
members of Local 614, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America ( Ind.), or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
because of their union activity.
WE WILL offer Robert Hughes his former job with
all of his rights and any backpay due.
WE WILL reinstate Herman Lamb to his old job.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain union
members.
WHITE CHAPEL MEMORIAL
ASSOCIATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: We will notify Robert Hughes if presently serv-
ing in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right
to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit , Michigan
48226, Telephone 226-3200.