Wilbraham Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 333 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

WILBRAHAM MFG CO., 333
Wilbraham Manufacturing Corporation and
International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CA-5429 and
I-CA-5707
September 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On April 26, 1967, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Charging
Party, and 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, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. I
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that on
May 19, 1966, the day after a majority of the em-
ployess selected the Union as their representative,
the Respondent posted three notices discriminatori-
ly canceling various employee benefits, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1). We find merit in the General
Counsel's and the Charging Party's contention that
the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) as
well.2
To remedy this unlawful cancellation of benefits,
the Trial Examiner recommended only that the
Respondent restore the benefits in the event that
they were not covered by the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement subsequently en-
tered into by the parties.3 While we agree with and
adopt this remedy, we find merit in the contention
that the mere prospective restoration of such
benefits is not an adequate remedy for the losses
theretofore suffered as a result of the unlawful can-
cellation. Accordingly, we shall further order that
the Respondent make whole its employees for all
net losses suffered by them from the date of the
Respondent's discriminatory cancellation of their
benefits to the date of such restoration, or the effec-
tive date of the collective-bargaining agreement in
the event that such benefit was covered, whichever
is earlier,4 together with interest thereon.--,
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, Wilbraham Manufactur-
ing Corporation, Wilbraham, Massachusetts, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Amend paragraph 1(d) by substituting the fol-
lowing therefor:
"(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Amend paragraph 2(c) by substituting the fol-
lowing therefor:
"(c) Restore to its employees all benefits
withdrawn from them pursuant to the three notices
posted by the Respondent on May 19, 1966, in the
event that such benefits were not covered by the
terms of the collective-bargaining agreement; and
make whole its employees for all net losses suffered
by them from the date of the Respondent's dis-
criminatory cancellation of their benefits to the date
of such restoration or the effective date of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement in the event that such
benefit was covered, whichever is earlier, together
with interest thereon."
3. Amend the fourth paragraph of the notice by
substituting the following therefor:
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to join or assist a labor
organization, to bargain collectively, or to en-
gage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act of 1959.
' Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credi-
bility findings unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence con-
vinces us that they are incorrect we find no basis for disturbing the credi-
bility findings in this case Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc , 91 NLRB
544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
' Standard Tank and Cleaning Company, 152 NLRB 1222. 1225-26
1 As the Trial Examiner found , a strike occurred on November 22,
1966, and the agreement was part of the strike settlement, but the terms of
the agreement do not appear in the record
' Custom-Pak, Inc , 126 NLRB 242 244
s See Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 158 N LRB 186
167 NLRB No. 41
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
4. Amend the fifth paragraph in the notice by
substituting the following therefor:
WE WILL make our employees whole for all
benefits withdrawn from them pursuant to the
three notices posted by us on May 19, 1966,
and we will restore to our employees all such
benefits, in the event that they are not covered
by our collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed April 15, 1966,' and upon amended charges filed
May 6, 19, and 25, by International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
referred to as the Union), a complaint in Case
1-CA-5429 was issued against Wilbraham Manufactur-
ing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Respond-
ent), on July 25, 1966. The complaint, subsequently
amended on August 1, alleged that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent's
answer admitted certain allegations contained in the com-
plaint , denied others ,2 and specifically denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
The case was tried before me on August 30, 1966, at
Springfield , Massachusetts. Briefs were subsequently
submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
On January 3, 1967, the General Counsel moved to
reopen the hearing in order to consolidate the case with
Case 1-CA-5707 and to amend the complaint to allege
additional violations of Section 8(a)(3). On February 23,
1967, the hearing was reopened at Springfield, Mas-
sachusetts , and the parties presented additional evidence
bearing on the new allegations. Supplemental briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent in support of their respective positions. These
briefs have been considered by me, along with the
original briefs , in arriving at my decision in this matter.
Upon the entire record in this case , including my
evaluation of the witnesses based on my observation of
their demeanor , and upon the relevant evidence con-
tained in the record, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent , a Massachusetts corporation, is en-
gaged in the sale, manufacture , and distribution of elec-
tronic wiring components and related products. The
Respondent maintains its principal office and place of
business in Wilbraham , Massachusetts . During the
course of its business operations , the Respondent an-
nually ships products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly
to points located outside the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts . Accordingly , I find that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
Sometime prior to March 25 ,3 the Union began its
campaign to organize the Respondent ' s employees.
Henry Lussier of the Union contacted Glenn,Goodale
who was employed as a stockboy by the Respondent.
Lussier gave him union authorization cards to distribute
among the employees . On March 25, the Union inten-
sified its activity by distributing leaflets to the employees
at the gate of the Respondent 's plant . Goodale's name
was printed on the bottom of the leaflets, and he was
identified as the Union 's shop supporter . On May 4, the
Union and the Respondent entered into a Stipulation for
Certification upon Consent Election agreement and an
election was conducted by the Regional Director on May
18. The election resulted in 45 votes in favor of the
Union , 29 against , and 20 ballots were challenged. The
Respondent filed timely objections , and on June 22, the
Regional Director issued a consolidated report on objec-
tions and challenged ballots. The Regional Director
recommended that a revised tally of ballots be issued and
that the Union be certified as the collective -bargaining
representative of the Respondent ' s employees. The
Respondent took exception to the Regional Director's re-
port, and at the time of the initial hearing in this case, the
representation case was pending before the Board. On
September 16, the Board issued a Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representative in which it adopted the Regional
Director 's recommendations and certified the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative.
During the first week in October, the Union and the
Respondent commenced negotiations in an effort to agree
upon a collective -bargaining contract. Unable to reach
agreement after several meetings, the Union struck
Respondent 's plant on November 22. The strike was of
short duration and was settled by mutual consent of the
parties. As part of the strike settlement terms, the parties
entered into a collective -bargaining agreement.
B. The Respondent 's Conduct After the Leaflet Dis-
tribution on March 25
As noted above, representatives of the Union began
distributing leaflets to the Respondent 's employees on
March 25. On that date , Lussier was accompanied by
another union representative , Mello Ricardi ,4 and they
passed out leaflets to the employees reporting to work on
the day shift. Arthur St. Andre, Respondent's production
manager , drove up and Ricardi gave him a leaflet. St.
Andre asked , "who was trying to organize his em-
ployees?" Ricardi replied that the employees were trying
to organize themselves . St. Andre then said , "Well, I
have a pretty good idea of who it is after seeing you there
[sic]," and "I will take care of him." Ricardi made a nota-
tion of this conversation on a leaflet which was sub-
sequently introduced in evidence as General Counsel's
Exhibit 2.5
Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein refer to the year 1966
The Respondent 's answer denied the supervisory status of floorlady
Helen Piesz At the hearing , however, it was stipulated that Piesz was a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
The exact date is not clearly established in the record
Ricardi was an organizer for the AFL-CIO
Although St Andre denied having such a conversation with Ricardi.
I do not credit his testimony in this regard This witness impressed me as
being hostile , evasive, and reluctant to give forthright answers to the
questions asked of him
WILBRAHAM MFG. CO.,
Floorlady Helen Piesz received a leaflet when she re-
ported to work that morning . Although she did not have
time to read the leaflet , Piesz learned of its contents
through discussions with various female employees
throughout the plant . According to Piesz, several of the
women solicited her opinion about the Union. Piesz
testified that she told the employees she was not against
the Union , but"it could be bad ." She stated that "it could
hurt us with IBM."c When asked to explain how the
Union would affect the Respondent 's relationship with
IBM, Piesz replied , "Well, they [IBM ] want their har-
nesses shipped out everyday and that is our biggest job,
and if we don't give them the shipment - in case there
would be trouble as far as a strike or something that is
what I was referring to, that we might lose it because they
wouldn 't get the shipment , that is the trouble we could
run into with IBM."
Other employees testified concerning statements made
by Piesz that morning about the Union. Barbara Bates, a
solderer , stated that Piesz stood in front of her work-
bench and said , "Oliver St . Andre [Respondent 's presi-
dent] was so mad , and it was Glenn Goodale who started
the whole thing ; and if the Union gets in IBM will pull out
all of their work." Ann Rodrigues , another solderer,
testified that Piesz stated , "So you want the Union, you
know what that means, losing the IBM orders." Em-
ployee Kathleen Lind testified that she overheard Piesz
tell two other solderers that she could not stop the em-
ployees from wanting a union , "but if the Union gets in,
IBM will remove all of their work , and then where will we
be?"
The distribution of the union leaflets also evoked com-
ment in the plant by Respondent 's president, Oliver St.
Andre . Irene Converse , a machine operator , testified that
she overheard St. Andre speaking to another employee in
the plant . According to Converse , St. Andre was angry
because Goodale 's name was mentioned on the leaflet.
Converse testified that St . Andre threatened to fire
Goodale "personally."7
C. The Events Relating to Goodale
Glenn Goodale was employed by the Respondent in
the spring of 1965 as a stockboy. His starting rate of pay
was $1.50 per hour , and he received a merit increase of
10 cents more an hour on February 26, 1966. Goodale
worked on the first shift (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m .). His duties
primarily involved keeping the women supplied with
wire , building frames on which the wire was strung, and
placing stock on the shelves. He was responsible for sup-
plying approximately 30 female employees with materials
on the first shift.
As the designated shop supporter for the Union,
Goodale distributed union authorization cards to the em-
ployees and returned the signed cards to the union
representatives. Goodale testified that he distributed the
cards mainly in the plant cafeteria ; often times in the
presence of Oliver, Arthur, and Peter St. Andre. The
', International Business Machine Corporation is the Respondent's lar-
gest customer Orders from IBM account for at least 50 percent of the
Respondent 's total production of electronic harnesses
Converse testified that St Andre made this statement I or 2 days after
the leaflets were distributed
" There were only two women working on the night shift These women
335
latter individual is the plant manager and the son of the
Respondent 's president.
On March 31 , Goodale was informed by Arthur St.
Andre that his hours would be changed beginning April
1. Goodale was instructed to work from 12:30 to 9 p.m.
As a result of this change, Goodale only performed his
regular duties as stockboy from the beginning of his new
shift until the end of the first shift at 4:30 p. m. Thereafter,
he performed janitorial services around the plant.8
Although his duties were changed , Goodale's rate of
pay was not affected . Two other male employees worked
with Goodale in the evenings . These individuals were
high school students who worked part-time for the
Respondent . Shortly after his hours had been changed,
Goodale asked Arthur St. Andre why he had been
switched from the first shift . St. Andre told Goodale that
the decision had been made by the front office . Goodale
continued to work his new shift until he was laid off on
April 22, along with a number of other employees.
D. The Layoff of April 22.
On April 20, the Respondent received a call from IBM
directing a rescheduling of 75 percent of the orders previ-
ously placed for electronic harnesses . These orders were
originally scheduled for delivery to IBM during the
months of September , October, and November 1966.
Under the terms of the rescheduling, delivery was
changed to various dates in 1967. As the IBM orders con-
stituted approximately 50 percent of Respondent 's total
output , the rescheduling resulted in a drastic curtailment
of current production . Respondent 's management held an
emergency meeting and decided that it would be neces-
sary to lay off 36 employees. According to Oliver St. An-
dre, ability was the only criterion used in determining
which employees would be laid off. Goodale was one of
the employees selected for layoff.
E. The Withdrawal of Existing Benefits
As previously indicated, a representation election was
conducted on May 18 . The following day, the Respond-
ent posted three notices to the employees on the bulletin
board . The first notice canceled the employees ' insurance
plan as of June 1 . This notice also stated that cof-
feebreaks were discontinued "immediately." The second
notice informed the employees that there would be no
paid holidays until negotiations were made by [their] bar-
gaining agent . The third notice announced that there
would no longer be any paid vacations . As to be an-
ticipated, the notices caused considerable discussion
among the employees in the plant . Employee Rodrigues
testified that on the day the notices were posted she over-
heard a conversation between Oliver St. Andre and em-
ployee Helen Wise. St. Andre was walking through the
plant . Wise confronted him and said, "Do you have to
take it out on all of us? After all I wasn 't for the union. I
was for you." According to Rodrigues , St. Andre replied
"that if the vote is 48 to 29 , nobody gets a coffee break."9
operated machines and it was not necessary for Goodale to supply them
with wire
Although the number cited by Rodrigues as being for the Union ex-
ceeds the official tally by three. I do not consider this variance to be
material I credit Rodrigues' testimony and I find that St Andre did in fact
make this statement to Wise
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Contention of the Parties
It is the General Counsel's theory that on March 25,
the Respondent, through floorlady Piesz, threatened em-
ployees with serious economic loss in the event the plant
became unionized. The General Counsel asserts that the
withdrawal of employee benefits on May 19, was
patently an act of reprisal directed against the employees
because they had voted in favor of union representation.
The General Counsel further asserts that the Respond-
ent's hostility toward the Union and its supporters was
the true reason underlying the transfer and subsequent
layoff of Goodale. Thus, Goodale's shift was changed in
order to minimize his chances of contacting the other em-
ployees on behalf of the Union, and in order to punish
him for his activities. according to the General Councel,
Goodale was selected for layoff on April 22, because he
was the chief supporter of the Union in the plant.
The Respondent denies that its conduct was inspired
by any unlawful desire to interfere with its employees'
union activities. The Respondent contends that Goodale
was transferred solely because the two part- time em-
ployees were unable to cope with the work in the
evenings, and prior to Goodale's transfer, it was neces-
sary for the plant manager to stay at the plant after the first
shift. The Respondent asserts that Goodale was selected
for layoff on April 22, because he was not working on the
production line. The Respondent further contends, that
it had decided to cancel employee benefits as far back as
February, but that it did not implement this decision until
May because of the advent of the Union.
Concluding Findings
On the basis of the entire record before me, I find that
the General Counsel has established by a preponderance
of the relevant evidence that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The undisputed
evidence discloses that on the day that the leaflets were
distributed, floorlady Piesz told employees throughout
the plant that unionization would cause the Respondent's
largest customer to pull out its work. The clear and
unmistakeable inferevnke to be drawn from these state-
ments by an acknowledged supervisor is that selection of
the Union as the employees' collective-bargaining
representative would inevitably result in a great economic
loss. Such statements far exceed the boundaries of per-
missable predictions allowed by Section 8(c), and con-
stitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Madison
Brass Works, Inc., and Surf, Inc., 161 NLRB 1206.•
Vinylex Corporation and Everwarm Corporation, 160
NLRB 1883.
The evidence also supports the finding that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) by canceling employee
benefits 1 day after the Union apparently received a
majority of the votes in the election. Respondent's pres-
ident testified that management had decided in February
to cancel the employee benefits, but that this decision was
not implemented until May because of the advent of the
Union and because management hoped that business
would improve. The facts and the timing of the
withdrawal of the benefits do not support this claim. The
evidence discloses that management did not learn of the
Union's organizing campaign until March 25, thus ruling
out this factor as a reason for delaying implementation of
the decision purportedly made in February. But more im-
portant, if the Respondent's economic situation was so
critical in February as to warrant a decision to eliminate
employee benefits, it became even more critical in April,
when IBM rescheduled the delivery dates of its orders.
However, the Respondent, if believed, continued to delay
implementation of its decision to cut back on these
benefits; although the rescheduling was considered seri-
ous enough to warrant a substantial reduction in the work
force.
Therefore, I find that the withdrawal of employee
benefits, 1 day after an apparent majority of the em-
ployees had voted in favor of the Union, was not for
reasons of economy, but, rather, was in retaliation for the
employees' preference for union representation. That an
employer may not engage in retaliatory conduct against
employees because they seek to be represented by a
union is a proposition too fundamental in the law to war-
rant citation.
Although the complaint alleges that Goodale's change
in shift and his subsequent layoff were for discriminatory
reasons, I am not convinced that these two events can be
treated as part of one continuous unlawful act. In my
judgment, the evidence adduced by the General Counsel
does not overcome the practical business reason ad-
vanced by the Respondent for the transfer of Goodale. At
the very most, the transfer of Goodale in these circum-
stances gives rise to suspicion . But mere suspicion is not
sufficient to establish a violation of the Act. I do find,
however, that the selection of Goodale as one of the em-
ployees to be laid off on April 22, was discriminatorily
motivated. The record discloses that the Respondent's
president was incensed over the fact that Goodale was
the union shop supporter and threatened to "fire him per-
sonally." Although Oliver St. Andre denied making this
statement in the plant, I do not credit his testimony in this
regard. When viewed in its totality, the evidence clearly
demonstrates that St. Andre was not reluctant to strike
back at employees for supporting the Union; as
evidenced by the abrupt withdrawal of benefits after the
election in May. But even more persuasive is the fact that
when testifying concerning Goodale's layoff, St. Andre
stated that Goodale was laid off because he was "non-
productive." When asked what he meant by nonproduc-
tive, St. Andre stated that Goodale did not engage in ac-
tual production work, however, he went further and
stated that Goodale was not a productive worker and did
not perform his duties satisfactorily. Until St. Andre
testified at the hearing, there was no claim on the part of
the Respondent that Goodale was an unsatisfactory em-
ployee. Indeed, the Respondent's own records show that
Goodale was given a merit increase approximately 2
months before he was laid off. Thus, it is evident to me
that the Respondent is now willing to assign a spurious
and patently false reason in order to justify the selection
of Goodale for layoff on April 22. Moreover , it is impor-
tant to note that the two part-time employees were
retained on the payroll at the very time that the Respond-
ent found it necessary to layoff Goodale for reasons of
economy; these employees were retained in spite of St.
Andre' s admission that they were unable to cope with the
work in the evening.
Accordingly, I reject the Respondent's claim that
Goodale was laid off because he was not a productive
worker and was not engaged in the actual production of
harnesses. To the contrary, I find that the Respondent
seized upon this opportunity, brought about by the
rescheduling of the IBM orders, to rid itself of an em-
ployee who openly and avowedly supported the Union.
WILBRAHAM MFG. CO.,
Such conduct violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Standard Tank Cleaning Company, 152 NLRB 1222;
Dunrail Construction Co., Inc., 151 NLRB 98.
G. The Amended Allegations
As noted above, the hearing in this case was reopened
on February 23, to allow the General Counsel to amend
the complaint and to allow the parties to introduce
evidence concerning these additional allegations. The
amendments allege that from October 14 through
November 28, the Respondent failed and refused to re-
call or reinstate employees Irene LaVigne and Lauretta
Larose to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions of employment. The General Counsel contends that
these employees were not recalled during this period
because of their activities on behalf of the Union. The
operative facts relating to the refusal to recall LaVigne
and Larose are not in great dispute.
During the organizing campaign in April, LaVigne was
quite active on behalf of the Union. She collected signed
authorization cards from the employees and returned
them to the Union , and she also assisted the union or-
ganizers by passing out campaign buttons to employees
at a union meeting. LaVigne displayed her union buttons
openly at the plant. LaVigne was a member of the union
committee that met with the Respondent 's representa-
tives in the Board 's offices to set up the election in May.
She also attended a meeting at the Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Labor and Industry wherein the Union objected
to the Respondent's request for a homework permit.
After the Board certified the Union as the collective-bar-
gaining representative, LaVigne was a member of the
Union's negotiating committee and attended four or five
bargaining sessions.
Larose's activities on behalf of the Union were on a
much smaller scale. Larose signed a card on March 29,
1966, and she distributed authorization cards to other em-
ployees during the organizing campaign . On April 19,
Larose attended a union meeting where she received two
union campaign buttons. The following 2 days, Larose
wore these buttons in the plant. Larose was not a member
of the union committee and she did not attend any
meetings on behalf of the Union with the Respondent.
After the Board certification, the Union and the
Respondent engaged in collective -bargaining negotiations
in order to agree upon the terms of a contract. One of the
foremost issues discussed at these bargaining sessions
was the recall of the employees laid off in April.
The parties agreed to contact the laid off employees to
determine whether or not they were interested in return-
ing to work . Inquiries were sent out by both the Union
and the Respondent , however, the Respondent did not
direct any such inquiry to LaVigne or Larose.10 After
several bargaining sessions , the Respondent's personnel
manager, Roy Consedine, informed the Union that the
Respondent would not recall LaVigne or Larose because
they were not "compatible with their surrounding em-
ployees." Consedine indicated that several female em-
ployees threatened to quit if these two individuals
returned to work . Unable to agree on a contract or on
the question of the recall of LaVigne and Larose, the
Union struck Respondent's plant on November 22. The
strike only lasted several days, and as part of the strike
settlement agreement , the parties entered into a contract
and LaVigne and Larose were recalled to work on
November 28.
The Respondent contends that were it not for the ob-
jection to their reemployment, Larose would have been
337
recalled on or about October 14, but LaVigne would not
have been recalled until some time in December , as there
was insufficient work in her department.
Concluding Findings
On the basis of the entire record before me, I find that
the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of
proving a violation concerning the failure to recall
LaVigne and Larose. Although there is no doubt that
LaVigne had been active on behalf of the Union and that
the Respondent was aware of this fact, there is no
evidence that any of the other employee members of the
union committee were refused reemployment . There is
undisputed testimony, however, that LaVigne had past
difficulties with her coworkers, and that on one occasion
she had to be separated from them. In the case of Larose,
the evidence shows that shortly before the economic
layoff in April, she was placed on probation because of a
problem with coworkers. Larose had repeated a story
concerning two female employees to another employee,
and the women complained to the foreman. Larose's
foreman discharged her, but was subsequently persuaded
by the personnel manager to place her on probation, and
she was given work in another department. Although
Larose wore a union button, the evidence discloses that
many other employees also wore union buttons in the
plant. The Respondent ' s personnel manager
acknowledged that complaints against coworkers were
not uncommon among the female employees. But
whether the Respondent was justified in singling out
these two employees for this reason is not the issue here;
the sole issue , as I view it, is whether they were singled
out because of their activities on behalf of the Union. In
my judgment , the evidence does not preponderate in
favor of such a finding. Rather, I find that the Respondent
objected to these two employees for reasons unrelated to
their union activities. Accordingly, I shall recommend
that the amended allegations relating to the discriminato-
ry refusal to recall LaVigne and Larose be dismissed in
their entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wilbraham Manufacturing Corporation is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By informing employees that the Respondent 's larg-
est customer would withdraw all work from the plant if
the employees selected the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative , the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By withdrawing existing employee benefits 1 day
after a Board-conducted election in which an apparent
majority of the employees voted in favor of the Union,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By laying off employee Glenn Goodale on April 22,
1966, for the reason that he was the chief union supporter
"' Both of these employees made known their desire to return to work
through the Union
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the plant, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
6. The Respondent did not commit unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the Act by refusing to recall
employees Irene LaVigne and Lauretta Larose during the
period October 14 to November 28, 1966.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Inasmuch
as the Respondent and the Union have now entered into
a collective-bargaining agreement, the terms of which are
not known in this record, I shall recommend that the
Respondent restore the employee benefits, withdrawn on
May 19, only in the event such benefits are not presently
covered by the terms of the existing contract. As the
record discloses that Glenn Goodale was serving as a
member of the Armed Forces at the time of the hearing
and it is not presently known whether he is still serving in
this capacity, I shall recommend that the Respondent
offer this employee immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in a
manner consistent with the Board policy set out in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. However, should it
be determined that Goodale is presently serving in the
Armed Forces, I shall recommend that the Respondent
make him whole for any loss of earnings as set forth
above and notify him 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 his discharge from the Armed Forces.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent , Wilbraham Manufacturing Corporation,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Informing employees that International Business
Machine Corporation, the Respondent ' s largest
customer , will remove all work from the Respondent's
plant in the event that the employees select International
Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Withdrawing existing employee benefits for the
reason that a majority of the employees have manifested
a desire to be represented by the above -named Union.
(c) Laying off employees because they have engaged
in activities on behalf of the above -named Union.
(d) In any like or related manner , interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(b) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, the
records necessary to determine the adequacy of the rein-
statement and the amount due as backpay as set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Restore all employee benefits, withdrawn on May
19, 1966, in the event that these benefits are not presently
covered by the terms of the current collective-bargaining
agreement.
(d) Post at its establishment in Wilbraham, Mas-
sachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by
an authorized representative, shall be posted by Respond-
ent 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith. 12
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 "
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ent 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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they will
suffer a serious economic loss if they select Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT withdraw benefits from our em-
ployees because they desire to be represented by a
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or lay off employees
because they are members or supporters of the
above-named Union or because they have engaged
in activities on behalf of the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with our employees in the exercise of their right
to join or assist a labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively, or to engage in concerted activities for mu-
tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL restore all employee benefits, previously
withdrawn, which are not presently covered by the
WILBRAHAM MFG. CO.,
existing collective-bargaining agreement with the
above-named Union.
WE WILL offer Glenn Goodale immediate rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent
position and make him whole for any loss he may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination against
him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , except to the
extent such right may be affected by an agreement
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WILBRAHAM MANUFACTUR-
ING CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
339
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: We will 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.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203,
Telephone 223-3353.
310-641 0 - 70 - 23