Wright Tool Co.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1987

282 N.L.R.B. 1398 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wright Tool Company and Ruth North and Norma
Jean Cerne and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 1055.
Cases 8-CA-17944, 8-CA-17972, and 8-CA-
17983
23 February 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND STEPHENS
On 12 August 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Elbert D. Gadsden issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel and the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs.'
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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Wright Tool Company, Barberton, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(a) Offer the following employees immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions, or,
if those positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges, discharging,
if necessary, any employee hired as a replacement
in any positions formerly worked by such employ-
ees, or for which such employees qualified between
October 1984 and January 1985:
"Francis Adkins Thelma Moore
Phyllis Bennett Elizabeth Negron
Norman Burgess Betty Newberry
Norma Jean Cerne Ruth North
Gussie Davis Dolly Pitts
Norman Eneix Nena Pritchett
Maria Gilkey Naomi Ritchie
Carol Gillespie Regina Robinson
Dortha Horton Dempsey Taylor
Jo Helen Keith Barbara Truex
Francis Long Denver Truman
Jennie Lukezic Eulalia Stalnaker
Junior Mann Gerald Valk"
Virginia McClung
2. Substitute the attached notice for that, of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
1 We grant the General Counsel's motion to correct typographical
errors in her brief to the Board
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
The judge inadvertently failed to list Attorney John T Billick as the
Respondent's counsel, and erroneously listed Attorney Michael J Jalbert
as counsel for the Respondent rather than as counsel for the Charging
Party Union We correct these errors
3 The General Counsel excepts to the judge's inadvertent omission of
the names of discrimmatees Carol Gillespie and Regina Robinson from
the recommended Order and notice We find merit in this exception and
shall modify the Order and notice
In its exceptions, the Respondent asserts, as a defense to the complaint
allegations, that certain alleged discriminatees had obtained regular and
substantially equivalent employment elsewhere and therefore are not enti-
tled to reinstatement The Respondent, however, neither adduced nor of-
fered sufficient probative evidence to support such a finding, and we
therefore reject its contention See American Machinery Co, 174 NLRB
130, 133 (1969), Laidlaw Corp, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968)
The General Counsel requests a visitatorial clause, authorizing the
Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Respond-
ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to supervision of
the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir-
cumstances of this case we find it unnecessary to include such a clause
Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's request Nathan's Furniture
Store ofHazelton, 278 NLRB 268 (1986)
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered 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 representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from
engaging in union activity, including participating
in an economic strike, by refusing to reinstate strik-
ers to vacancies which they formerly filled or are
qualified to fill after termination of the strike, or in
any other manner discriminating with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
282 NLRB No. 164
WRIGHT TOOL CO 1399
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to all
employees named below to their former positions
without loss of seniority and other benefits or, if
not available, to substantially equivalent positions,
discharging if necessary, persons hired to such po-
sitions between October 1984 and January 1985,
and
WE WILL make them whole for earnings lost
since replacements were hired between October
1984 and January 1985, by reason of our discrimi-
nation against them, with interest:
Francis Adkins
Phyllis Bennett
Norman Burgess
Norma Jean Cerne
Gussie Davis
Norman Eneix
Maria Gilkey
Carol Gillespie
Dortha Horton
Jo Helen Keith
Francis Long
Jennie Lukezic
Junior Mann
Virginia McClung
Thelma Moore
Elizabeth Negron
Betty Newberry
Ruth North
Dolly Pitts
Nena Pritchett
Naomi Ritchie
Regina Robinson
Dempsey Taylor
Barbara Truex
Denver Truman
Eulalia Stalnaker
Gerald Valk
WE WILL place all discriminatees for whom we
have no immediate position available on a preferen-
tial hiring list and offer them immediate employ-
ment as vacancies occur, as ordered.
WRIGHT TOOL COMPANY
Nancy Recko, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John N. Childs, Esq. (Buckingham, Doolittle & Bur-
roughs), and Michael Galbert , Esq. (Niceley & Wagner),
of Akron, Ohio, for the Respondent
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELBERT D. GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge. On
charges of unfair labor practices filed 27 December 1984
and 3 January 1985, respectively, by Norma Jean Cerne,
an individual (Charging Party or Cerne), and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No.
1055 (the Union), against Wright Tool Company (the
Respondent), a consolidated complaint was issued on 30
January 1986 by the Regional Director for Region 8, on
behalf of the General Counsel
The consolidated complaint alleges in substance that
after an unconditional offer by striking employees to
return to work, Respondent continued to hire new em-
ployees in the job classifications previously worked by
the striking employees, rather than recalling the striking
employees named in paragraph 7(A) of the consolidated
complaint, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, and that as a result of the Respondent's hiring ac-
tions, the striking employees named in the consolidated
complaint were denied being rehired in the job classifica-
tions for which they were qualified or had previously
worked, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
The Respondent filed an answer on 10 February 1986,
denying that it has engaged in any unfair labor practices
as set forth in the consolidated complaint
The hearing in the above matter was held before me in
Akron, Ohio, on 8, 9, and 10 April and 5 May 1986.
Briefs have been received the General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent, respectively, which have
been carefully considered.
On the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and my consid-
eration of the briefs filed by respective counsel, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with an office and
place of business located in Barberton, Ohio (the facili-
ty), where at all times material, it has been engaged in
the business of manufacturing handtools.
In the course and conduct of its business operations,
Respondent annually sold and shipped from the Ohio fa-
cility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points located outside the State of
Ohio
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Respondent is now, and has been at all times materi-
al, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local
Lodge No. 1055 is now, and has been at all times materi-
al, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
IIi. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Information
The answer admits that commencing on or about 12
April 1983 and continuing until or about 23 May 1984,
Respondent's employees engaged in a protected econom-
ic strike; and that on or about 23 May 1984, the Union
made an unconditional offer to Respondent on behalf of
all striking employees, including those employees listed
in paragraph 7(A) of the consolidated complaint, to
return to work
The uncontroverted and credited testimony of Re-
spondent's personnel manager, Patricia Taylor, estab-
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lisped that when the strike concluded 23 May 1984, 62
striking employees' names were placed on a recall list;
and that as of May 1984, 30 of the striking employees
named on the list have been recalled to work by Re-
spondent.
Respondent has also admitted that commencing on or
about 1 October 1984, and continuing to date, it has
hired new employees, but it denies the new employees
have been hired into nonskilled and semiskilled job clas-
sifications rather than recalling employees named in
paragraph 7(A) of the amended consolidated complaint,
or that its hiring of new employees denied rehiring any
of the employees named in paragraph 7(A) as follows:
Francis Adkins Thelma Moore Phyllis
Bennett Elizabeth Negron
Norman Burgess Betty Newberry
Norma Jean Cerne Ruth North
Gussie Davis Dolly Pitts
Norman Eneix Nena Pritchett
Maria Gilkey Naomi Ritchie
Carol Gillespie Regina Robinson
Dortha Horton Dempsey Taylor
Jo Helen Keith Barbara Truex
Francis Long Denver Truman
Jennie Lukezic Eulalia Stalnaker
Junior Mann Gerald Valk
Virginia McClung
The General Counsel contends that Respondent hired
the new employees and failed to call the above-named
striking employees because they joined, supported, or as-
sisted the Union, and engaged in concerted activities or
other activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
On the contrary, counsel for the Respondent argues
that the General Counsel has failed to carry its burden of
the evidence by failing to establish any antiunion animus
by Respondent or any intent by it to discriminate against
the striking employees.
Additionally, Respondent argues it has recalled the
majority of strikers, has maintained a recall list, has not
terminated striking employees relationship, and has ex-
amined each striking employee's work experience for any
job openings. Respondent also contends it has deter-
mined when a striking employee was not qualified for an
opening based on an employee's previous inadequate per-
formance, and partial performance of a job classification;
that it has hired only persons completely qualified by
their job-related work experience; and that in doing these
things, Respondent has demonstrated substantial and le-
gitimate business reasons for its decisions-the need to
increase productivity due to economic losses. i
B. Job Vacancies Subsequent to 23 May 1984
The evidence of record is uncontroverted that on or
about 23 May 1984, the striking employees uncondition-
ally offered to return to work, and that Respondent's
records show that subsequent to their offer, 12 vacancies
for light machine operator occurred between 8 October
' The facts set forth above are not in dispute in the record
1984 and 7 January 1985; and that Respondent filled all
12 positions with new employees. Respondent's records
further show that two of the newly hired employees
(Richard Quinn and Carol McKee) were transferred to
another classification 2 to 5 months later.
Respondent's records show that between 15 October
1984 and 14 January 1985, eight vacancies occurred for
drill operator and Respondent filled all eight positions
with new employees. New employee Steve Kirkpatrick
was hired on 29 October 1984, terminated on 17 Decem-
ber 1984, and rehired on 20 December 1984. The person-
nel jacket of Myrtle Patterson indicates she was hired as
a drill operator and General Counsel's Exhibit 79 indi-
cates she was hired as a light machine operator.
General Counsel's Exhibit 79 shows Robert Reed was
hired as a large lathe operator, but Reed's personnel
jacket indicates he was hired as a drill operator and
transferred to the large lathe 2 weeks later.
Respondent's records show that on 26 November 1984,
two vacancies for "metal polisher and grinder" occurred
and Respondent filled both positions with new employ-
ees, Robert Ferre, and Brett Rasor.
A vacancy occurred for one automatic 'screw machine
operator on 26 November 1984 and Respondent filled
the position with new employee David Hensen.
Between 14 November 1984 and 6 June 1985, six va-
cancies occurred for forge press operator, and Respond-
ent filled all six positions with new- employees Barton
Strawbridge, Allan Bradshaw, Jim Ratliff, Dennis
Bucher, Jim Cowgill, and Bob Cathey.
A vacancy occurred for chucker operator on 7 Janu-
ary 1985 and Respondent filled the position with new
employee Mark McAvinew.
A vacancy occurred on 17 January 1985 for an electri-
cal maintenance #4 and the Respondent filled the posi-
tion with new employee Jerry Tipton.
None of the above-described positions was offered to
any of the striking employees listed in paragraph 7(A) of
the consolidated complaint.
Personnel records of Respondent also establish that
several of the newly hired employees were transferred to
other job positions within the plant. Specifically, James
Corneiluis was transferred from drill operator to metal
polisher and grinder, Paul Hauser, from light machine
operator to plater-racker for 4 months, and then back to
light machine.
After 3 weeks, Ben Matter was transferred from light
machine to drill press, 10 months later to large lathe, and
thereafter to the mill.
After 7 weeks, Richard Quinn was transferred from
light machine to large lathe
After 2 weeks, Robert Reed was transferred from drill
operator to large lathe for 4 months, to forge press oper-
ator for 4 months, and back to large lathe on 1 April
1986.
After 6 months, Barton Strawbridge was transferred
from forge press operator to metal polishing and grinder.
After 2 months, Brian Hale was transferred from light
machine to forge press #2, and 5 months later, to Forge
Press #1.
WRIGHT TOOL CO 1401
Michael Cooper was transferred from, large lathe to
chucker operator 13 May 1985.
After 3 months, Steve Kirkpatrick was transferred
from drill operator to large lathe.
It is therefore established that other vacancies after 23
May 1984 were filled by Respondent by transferring em-
ployees from within the plant, rather than offering such
job vacancies to strike employees listed in paragraph
7(A) of the consolidated complaint.
C. Long Tenure Employees and the Various Job
Classifications They Performed with Respondent
Since the Respondent contends it did not recall any of
the strike employees listed in paragraph 7(A) of the com-
plaint because they were not qualified, the General
Counsel introduced evidence of the tenure of the strike
employees and the various job classifications they held
and/or performed with Respondent. The evidence of
their job functions (experience) from 1970 until the time
of the strike, was obtained from personnel records of Re-
spondent which Respondent used during previous negoti-
ation sessions , but which do not predate 1970. Evidence
of the employees tenure and job functions performed by
them up to 1970 was obtained from the essentially un-
controverted testimony of the employees in this proceed-
ing. The job classifications listed for each employee are
naker worked for Respondent for a period ranging from
20 to 30 years, during which time they performed and/or
were classified in several job classifications.
With respect to the vacancies which occurred and
were filled by Respondent after the employees' uncondi-
tional offer to, return to work on 23 May 1984, I find
that the following chart prepared by the General Coun-
sel is amply supported by the record evidence:
Job Classification
Light Machine Operato
entitled classifications "satisfactorily held" in (G.C_ Exhs. Drill Operator ...... .
513 and 59) or "classifications previously held-competent
to perform." Moreover, the documentary evidence (G.C.
Exh. 60) shows that these classifications as characterized,
were prepared by Respondent for insurance purposes
and, I therefore find them authentic. (See App. A.)
Additionally, Respondent's personnel manager, Patri-
cia Taylor, testified that Respondent continued the prac-
tice of assigning employees to perform a variety of ma-
chine work when work on their regularly assigned job
(machine) was slow. Her testimony in .this regard is con-
sistent with the striking employees who testified that was
Respondent's practice prior to the strike.
Counsel for Respondent presented the following list of
names of strike employees who had actually performed
one or more of the job classifications which became
available after the employees offered to return to work:
Francis Adkins
Phyllis Bennett
Norman Burgess
Norma Jean Cerne
Gussie Davis
Maria Gilkey
Carol Gillespie
Dortha Horton
Jennie Lukezic
Junior Mann
Denver Truman
Gerald Valk
Virginia McClung
Thelma Moore
Elizabeth Negron
Elizabeth Newberry
Ruth North
Dolly Pitts
Nena Pritchett
Naomi Ritchie
Regina Robinson
Dempsey Taylor
Barbara Truex
Other strike employees performed a variety of other
job functions for which there was no specific vacancy,
but the evidence does not establish that these employees
could not have qualified for the vacancies for which Re-
spondent hired new employees. Employees, Norriian
Eneix, Jo Helen Keith, Francis Long, and Eulalia Stal-
Large Lathe Operator.....
Metal Polisher and
Grinder.
Automatic Screw
Machine.
Forge Press Operator......
Chucker Operator. .......
Electrical Operator
Maintenance #4.
Employees Hired
Brian Hale ......................
Joseph Burnside ............
Marguerite Denson.........
Ben Nutter ................. ....
Molly McFarland ...........
Richard Quinn (G.C.
Exh. 74(a))
Carol McKee (G.C.
Exh. 70(a)).
Michael Cooper ...............
Myrtle Patterson .............
Maurice Morton.......... ..
Lloyd Grimes .................
Paula Hauser ....................
David Durant ................
James Corneiluis ............
Steve Kirkpatrick (G.C.
Exh. 85).
Myrtle Patterson (G.C.
Exh. 73(a)).
James Keener .. . ............
Lloyd Grimes (G.C.
Exh. 86).
Robert Reed (G.C. Exh.
76(a))
Richard Quinn ..............
Carol McKee ................ .
Steve Kirkpatrick ..........
Robert Reed ...................
Ronald Ferre .................
Brett Rasor ..................
David Hensen .... :.. ........
..............
Jim Ratliff .................. .
Dennis Bucher .. ...... .....
Jim Cowgill ................
Bob Cathey. . .............
Allan Bradshaw
Barton Strawbridge ...... .
Mark McAvinew .... .
Jerry Tipton ................
Date of
Hire
10-8-84
10-8-84
10-9-84
10-29-84
10-29-84
11-1-84
11-26-84
12-10-84
1-2-85
1-2-85
1-2-85
1-7-85
10-15-84
10-15-84
10-29-84
1-2-85
1-2-85
1-2-85
1-14-85
11-1-84
11-26-84
12-20-84
1-14-85
11-26-84
11-26-84
11-26-84
11-14-84
12-10-84
1-2-85
5-16-85
6-6-85
6-6-85
1-7-85
1-17-85
I therefore find on the uncontroverted evidence, that
several vacancies were available after the unconditional
offer to return to work, and that none of the foregoing
' 1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
positions was offered to the employees listed in para-
graph 7(A) of the consolidated complaint.
The personnel- records introduced at the hearing also
established that several of the new hires were transferred
to other positions within the plant. The following illus-
trates some of the intraplant movement of these employ-
ees:
James Corneiluis-from drill operator to metal polish-
er and grinder (G.C. Exh. 63(a)).
Paula Hauser-from light machine operator to plater-
racker on 3-17-85; back to light machine on 7-22-85
(the dates on the exhibit are unclear) (G.C. Exh. 67(a)).
Ben Nutter-from light machine to drill press operator
on 11-15-84; from drill operator to large lathe on 9-9-
85; from large lathe to mill on 85 (no other date on
exhibit) G.C. Exh. 72(a)).
Richard Quinn-from light machine operator to large
lathe operator on 1-4-85 (G.C. Exh. 74(a))
Robert Reed-from drill operator to large lathe on 1-
28-85; from large lathe to forge press operator on 5-20-
85; disqualified on large lathe 6-28-85; large lathe opera-
tor 4-1-86 (G.C. Exh. 76(a)).
Barton Strawbridge-from forge press operator to
metal polisher and grinder 5-30-85 (G.C. Exh. 77(a)).
Brian Hale-from light machine operator to forge
press #2 12-5-84; from forge press #2 to forge press #1
5-20-85 (G.C. Exh. 83).
Michael Cooper-from light machine to large lathe
(no date); from large lathe to chucker operator 5-13-85
(G.C. Exh. 84).
Steve Kirkpatrick-from drill operator to large lathe
operator 1-28-85 (G.C.,Exh. 85).
I therefore further find upon the foregoing evidence,
that Respondent not only filled vacancies, but it also
transferred in-plant employees into vacancies which oc-
curred subsequent to the unconditional offer of the strik-
ers to return to work on 23 May 1984. '
D. Issues
The issue raised by the pleadings and the evidence is:
Whether, after an unconditional offer to return to work
was made on behalf of all striking employees , Respond-
ent continued to hire new employees into nonskilled and
semiskilled classifications rather than recalling employees
named in paragraph 7(A) of the consolidated complaint,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
E. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel cites NLRB v. Mackay Radio &
Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), in support of her po-
sition that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by hiring new employees in jobs previously
worked by striking employees, without recalling the
strike employees named in paragraph 7(A) of the com-
plaint. In the Mackay Radio case, the court held that
strikers remain employees who are entitled to reinstate-
ment as vacancies occur, although they may not replace
permanent replacements. Counsel also cites NLRB v.
Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 381 (1976), in which
the court stated:
[T]he status of the striker as an employee continues
until he has obtained "other regular and substantial-
ly equivalent employment." . .. If and when a job
for which the striker is qualified becomes available,
he is entitled to an offer of reinstatement. The right
can be defeated only if the employer can show "le-
gitimate and substantial business justifications."
NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26.
The General Counsel also correctly notes that, relying
on the above-cited authorities, the Board has held that
when economic strikers unconditionally apply for rein-
statement to their positions filled by permanent replace-
ments, they are entitled to full reinstatement when the
replacements leave, or when jobs for which they are
qualified become available, unless the employer shows
that legitimate and substantial business reasons justified
its failure to reinstate or recall the strikers Laidlaw
Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enfd. 414 F.2d 99 (7th
Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 920 (1970).
The uncontroverted evidence of record established
that the employees ended their strike and made an un-
conditional offer to return to work on 23 May 1984; that
in early April 1985, in response to inquiry by Respond-
ent, each of the employees named in paragraph 7(A) of
the consolidated complaint, informed Respondent that he
or she wanted their name to remain on the preferential
hiring Iist;'that between October 1984 and January 1985,
Respondent hired new employees in positions formerly
worked by the striking employees named in paragraph
7(A) of the complaint; that Respondent also made sever-
al in-plant employee transfers- on jobs formerly worked
by the aforenamed striking employees; and that all such
hiring and transfers were carried on by Respondent
without recalling any of the striking employees named in
paragraph 7(A) of the consolidated complaint.
Consequently, the General Counsel argues, and cor-
rectly so, that the hiring of new employees in the face of
outstanding offers or applications for reinstatement from
striking 'employees is presumptively a violation of the
Act, irrespective of intent, unless the employer demon-
strates by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had
legitimate and substantial business reasons for not recall-
ing strikers. NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375,
378 (1967); Brooks Research & Mfg., 202 NLRB 634, 636
(1973). Additionally, antiunion motivation need not be
shown when the employer fails to recall qualified eco-
nomic strikers. In Laidlaw Corp., supra at 1366, the
Board stated:
The underlying principle in both Fleetwood and
NLRB v. Great Dane, 388 U.S. 26, is that certain
employer conduct, standing alone, is so inherently
destructive of employee rights that evidence of spe-
cific antiunion motivation is not needed.
On the contrary, counsel for the Respondent addresses
the General Counsel's legal argument by making an
effort to distinguish the conduct of the employers in the
above-cited cases from Respondent's conduct-in the in-
stant case. In doing so, Respondent argues that the Gen-
eral Counsel has failed in carrying her burden of the evi-
WRIGHT TOOL CO. 1403
dence because she has failed to establish that Respond-
ent's hiring new employees and its failure to recall the
striking employees named in paragraph 7(A) were un-
lawfully motivated by union animus. He argues that Re-
spondent has recalled the majority (30) striking employ-
ees, and it has maintained the names of the 27 employees
named in paragraph 7(A) on the recall list to be recalled
when vacancies occur. Respondent did not make a blan-
ket refusal to recall the aforenamed striking employees;
and that when it hired new employees it has hired per-
sons it found completely qualified for the vacant posi-
tion.
Respondent's Defense
Respondent argues that it has legitimate and substantial
business reasons for not recalling the 27 aforenamed
striking employees. Its method of recall has been made
on the Company's determination of whether an employee
on the preferential recall list is qualified to fill the job va-
cancy. This determination is made by Respondent's per-
sonnel manager , Patricia Taylor. Taylor testified that she
makes her determination based on her experience as a
personnel manager for 10 years, and her personal knowl-
edge as a bargaining unit employee up to 1976, her per-
sonal knowledge of the employees, and after consultation
with all supervisors in the plant about the particular em-
ployee on the recall list.
Respondent contends it hired the new employees and
failed to recall employees named in paragraph 7(A) for
legitimate and substantial business reasons. Presumably,
its in-plant transfer of employees was for the same rea-
sons.
In support of its legitimate and substantial- business-rea-
sons defense for not recalling the striking employees
named in paragraph 7(A) of the complaint, Respondent
presented the testimony of Taylor to the effect that,
based on company timestudies for the piecework classifi-
cations on (1) large drill, (2) large lathe, (3) light ma-
chine, and (4) metal polishing, 100-percent performance
its acceptable and less than 100 percent is unacceptable.
In an effort to establish that employees named on the
recall list are not qualified for recall, Respondent' pre-
sented some records (R. Exh. 2), indicating the percent-
age of performance of some of the employees on one or
more of the four classified machines during varying peri-
ods between 1980 and 1983. Respondent did not have
such records for the same employees for the several, and
in some instances, many years the employees worked for
Respondent prior to 1980-1983. A review of the charts
in Appendix A reveals the data which I have inserted
from Respondent's Exhibit 2, under the names of the em-
ployees to which they refer. A comparative examination
of those charts will readily reflect the excessive number
of years these employees worked for Respondent, for
which Respondent has no performance records. Not only
is there no' documentation for their performance during
those prior years on the four subject classified machines,
but nor are there any on other machines they operated.
Conspicuously absent in Respondent's evidence are any
performance records of the new employees who replaced
striking employees. Such records for the new employees
could have some comparative value in determining
whether the new employees' performance records are
any better than the performance records provided by Re-
spondent for employees on the recall list.
Respondent's employee performance records are in-
complete and the record evidence in this proceeding
contains the testimony of the many employee witnesses
who testified that their performance percentage over the
years was satisfactory. I credit their testimony in this
regard not only because I was persuaded by their de-
meanor that they were testifying truthfully but, also, be-
cause none of the personnel records of any of the em-
ployees contained evidence that any of them were ever
disciplined for poor work performance, even though a
few did contain one or two warnings for poor, perform-
ance or absenteeism over a period of 10 or more years.
Specifically, the following employees received warnings
for poor performance:
Norman Burgess, one in 1977
Francis Long, one in the 1980s
Jennie Lukezic, two in 1971
Virginia McClung, one in 1975
Barbara Truex, some warnings
Eleven more employees received warnings for attend-
ance, two for participating in a wildcat strike, and one
for a tooling problem. All the warnings for all of the em-
ployees occurred mostly in the late 1960s, the 1970s, or
in 1980, several years before the strike occurred in the
spring of 1983. Under these circumstances, I am not per-
suaded that Respondent considered these remote warn-
ings significant prior to the employees strike in 1983. The
record evidence fails to show that any significance had
been attributed,to these one-time or two-time warnings
over a period of 10 or 20 years, until Respondent raised
them as a part of its defense in this proceeding. This con-
clusion is especially true because none of the employees
were disciplined for the infractions.
Although Personnel Manager Taylor testified she de-
termined employees on the recall list were not qualified
for any of the job openings, I am not persuaded by her
testimony and Respondent's incomplete records, that Re-
spondent has established that the employees on the recall
list were not qualified for recall. This is particularly so,
because Taylor was the only witness to testify about the
qualifications of the subject employees, and her testimo-
ny is in conflict with the testimony of the 20 some em-
ployees on the recall list.
Additionally, I am not persuaded by Respondent's evi-
dence that employees on the recall list, none of whom
worked less than 10 years and some of whom worked as
long as 30 years for Respondent, could not perform any
of the four work classifications This conclusion is inevi-
table when I consider the essentially uncontroverted tes-
timony of many of the employee-witnesses, that they op-
erated many of Respondent's machines after receiving a
I- or 2-hour demonstration by the foreman or a fellow
employee. The testimony of Taylor conceded that em-
ployees are moved from one machine to another when
work for the specific machine to which an employee is
assigned is low or the machine is inoperable. Respondent
has not demonstrated it now has different machines and
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tools more difficult to operate. Nor has it shown that the
qualifications of the newly hired employees are better
than the long-experienced employees on the recall list
and, if so; how.
Respondent spent - considerable time cross-examining
Phyllis Bennett and alluding to her last 3-year perform-
ance record about how she did not meet production
standards . However, it is particularly noted , that Ben-
nett 's personnel file does not contain a single written or
verbal warning about her performance. Nor does the
files of 23 of the 27 employees on the recall list contain
such warnings. In the files of the five employees which
do contain warnings for performance, only two had one
warning prior to 1977, one had two warnings in 1971,
and one had some (unspecified) warnings at undesignated
times. It is further noted that not a single supervisor of
any of the long-tenured employees appeared and testified
in corroboration of Taylor's testimony, about the work
performance of these employees, and about their qualifi-
cations for recall. Nor did Respondent offer any explana-
tion for the nonappearance of the supervisors.
Further examination of Respondent's records demon-
strates, and I find , that 11 of the employees hired by Re-
spondent as replacements were not shown to have had
any special advantage in prior work experience or ability
over the strike employees , to operate Respondent's ma-
chinery as described below:
James Corneiluis' prior work experience involved farm
work, the U.S. Army, Morton Salt, where he was a bag
puller and Orville Leather, where he worked in mainte-
nance (G.C. Exhs. 63(b) and (c). Corneiluis was hired to
operate a drill.
Marguerite Denson had previous work experience as a
day clerk, a, material handler , and a lab assistant and
worked in child care (G.C. Exh. 64(d)). Denson was
hired to operate a light machine.
David Durant had worked as a pipefitter, terminal
manager, and diesel mechanic (G.C. Exh. 65(d)). Durant
was hired to operate a drill.
Ronald Ferre worked as a cook , installed air condition-
ers and furnaces , and worked as a mechanic (G.C. Exh.
65(b). Ferre was hired as a metal polisher and grinder.
Paula Hauser worked as a bar maid , on an assembly
line, and as a clerk at Lawsons and at Cowgill's Flowers
(G.C. Exh. 67(b)). Hauser was hired as a light machine
operator.
Maurice Morton had been a dock worker and served in
the Army as a communications specialist (G.C. Exh.
71(b)). Morton was hired to operate a light machine.
Mrytle Patterson had worked as a dietary aid, meat
packer, and office assistant (G.C. Exh. 73(b)). Patterson
was hired as a light machine operator.
Richard Quinn worked as a general laborer, and served
in the Navy as an "aircraft director" (G.C. Exh. 74(b)).
Quinn was' hired to operate a large lathe.
Brett Rasor's only on-the-job experience involved
being a counter clerk at Taco Bell, a grill cook at
McDonald's, and mowing lawns and trimming hedges
for a lawn service (G.C. Exh. 75(b)). He apparently took
some classes in shop theory, shop math, and blueprint
reading . Rasor was hired as a metal polisher and grinder.
Robert Reed's prior employment was as head dairy
clerk at Kroger Co. (G.C. Exh. 76(b)). Reed was hired
as a drill operator and later moved to the large lathe and
forge press.
Brian Hale served in the Army and worked as a night
shift leader at a supermarket (G.C. Exh. 83). Hale was
hired to operate a light machine and later moved to the
forge press.
It is therefore clear from the above evidence, which is
consistent with the testimony of the employee-witnesses,
that persons with varied and unrelated work experiences,
can adapt to and perform the required machine work for
Respondent with a couple of hours on-the-job training
by a supervisor or coworker. Respondent further argues
in its brief, "That the strikers have not truly performed
in the classifications because they have not performed all
the job duties to qualify for a job such as set up' or work
on all types of machinery in the job classifications." The
latter statement tends to prove that special or work -relat-
ed experience is not a necessary qualification, because
neither have all of the newly hired employees performed
all of such job duties before Respondent hired them.
In this regard it is noted that Respondent did not offer
the performance and production records of the replace-
ment employees in evidence, as it did the last 3 year
records of employees on the recall list. However, coun-
sel for the General Counsel directs attention to the sub-
poenaed performance production records of some of the
new employees which contain the following:
1. Marguerite Denson-one verbal warning 30 May
1985 for low performance 8 months after hired. Produc-
tion average for 10 weeks, 65 percent. Latest production
average, 73 percent (G.C. Exh. 64(b)).
2. David Durant-one verbal warning for poor per-
formance 25 April 1985. Production 6 months after
hired, 76 percent (G.C. Exh. 65(d)).
3. Carol McKee-average production rate 25 April
1985, 70 percent (G.C. Exh. 70(c)).
4. Ben Nutter-production 10 weeks average rate, 64
percent (G.C. Exh. 72(c)).
5. Robert Reedjob performance rated 86 percent,
called good percentage (G.C. Exh. 76(b)).
All the above-rated new employees are still in Re-
spondent's employ.
I therefore conclude and find on the foregoing uncon-
troverted evidence that Respondent does not hold all of
its replacement employees to an average of 100-percent
production performance; that Respondent accepts as
little as 76-percent production performance after 6
months on the job; that the records of some of the re-
placement employees contain warnings for low produc-
tion or poor performance; that some of such replacement
employees are performing considerably below the per-
formance of employees on the recall list; that all the new
employees are still being given an opportunity to im-
prove, while employees on the recall list are denied such
an opportunity; and that Respondent is conditioning the
recall of employees on the recall list on a higher and dis-
criminatory double standard of production performance
than it requires of its replacement employees.
WRIGHT TOOL CO 1405
In this regard, the law is clear, as the General Counsel
points out, "that employer misgivings concerning the
qualifications of an economic striker are to be tested on
the job through recall, with the employer, later, permit-
ted to take appropriate action if the recalled striker is in
fact `unqualified or cannot do the work."' Lehigh Metal
Fabricators, 267 NLRB 568, 575 (1983); Brooks Research
& Mfg., 202 NLRB 634, 637 fn. 13.
Pursuant to the above-cited authority in Brooks Re-
search and Lehigh Metal, Respondent is under a legal
duty to recall all employees on the recall list as vacan-
cies occur and thereby verify or refute, its subjective
conclusions that they are unqualified to operate machines
they have had little or no opportunity to operate. Such a
recall opportunity is the same kind of opportunity Re-
spondent has afforded its newly hired replacements and
in-plant transferees.
Although employees Norman Eneix and Junior Mann
performed essentially skilled work during their long
tenure with Respondent, that is not a valid reason for
Respondent's failure to recall them for lesser skilled job
functions. As the Board held in Arlington Hotel Co., 273
NLRB 210 (1984), "A lesser skilled job with less pay
and/or reduced benefits may not be as attractive, but it is
a better job than no job at all."
Finally, Respondent argues that the General Counsel
has failed in carrying the burden of proof necessary to
substantiate a violation of the Act because she has failed
to produce evidence of discriminatory motive for Re-
spondent's recall system. However, I am not so persuad-
ed. It is fairly well established by the evidence that Re-
spondent's recall system required a higher production
percentage for employees on the recall list than it re-
quired for new replacement employees. The evidence is
also persuasive that Respondent allows new replacements
an opportunity to improve their performance and pro-
duction, while it refuses to afford such opportunity to
employees on the recall list. Respondent's recall system
also requires less workrelated work experience for new
replacements than it is now requiring' of employees on
the recall list. Such more demanding requirements for
strike employees than for new employees may well be
found discriminatory against employees on the recall list.
However, even if such a recall system is not discrimi-
natory, or does not manifest a discriminatory intent by
Respondent, I nevertheless find that a discriminatory
motive on the part of the Respondent is not essential to
support a finding that Respondent unlawfully failed to
recall employees on the recall list, in violation of the
Act. NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221, 227
(1963).
I therefore conclude and find on the foregoing evi-
dence and cited authority that Respondent has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its rea-
sons for hiring new employees and failing to recall em-
ployees on the recall list were based on legitimate and
substantial business considerations.
Having failed to establish its economic defense, I fur-
ther conclude and find that Respondent hired 35 new
employees, and thereafter transferred in- plant 9 of the
newly hired employees without recalling any of the 27
employees on the recall list. Under these circumstances, I
find that such hiring and failure to recall action by Re-
spondent discriminated against its employees, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Laidlaw Corp.,
supra; Fleetwood Trailer Co., supra, Great Dane Trailers,
supra; Brooks Research & Mfg., supra; and Lehigh Metal
Fabricators, supra, and Erie Resistor Corp., supra.
Respondent cites and relies on Weyerhaeuser Co., 274
NLRB 972 (1985), in support of its defense. However, I
find the facts in Weyerhaeuser distinguishable from the
facts here, and the decision there not controlling here.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Wright Tool Company, is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local Lodge No. 1055, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By hiring new employees instead of recalling em-
ployees on the preferential hiring list for vacant positions
which they formerly worked or were qualified to fill,
Respondent discriminated against its employees, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices constitute unfair
labor practices having an effect on 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 shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain, affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by failing to recall and rein-
state 27 former striking employees on the preferential
hiring list, I shall recommend that it immediately recall
and offer them reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions into which it has hired 35 new
employees as positions became available between Octo-
ber 1984 and January-1985,, without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges, and to discharge, if
necessary, any new employees hired into such positions
between October 1984 and January 1985.
I shall further recommend that all employees entitled
to recall and reinstatement for whom Respondent has no
position immediately available be placed on a preferential
hiring list; and that as positions become- available for
which such employees are qualified, Respondent shall
offer them positions in the order of the priority to which
they are entitled before new employees are hired. Be-
cause it is uncertain about the order and date on which a
specific employee would have been recalled had Re-
spondent not replaced him or her with a newly hired
employee and/or transferee between October 1984 and
January 1985, final determination of these specifics and
the amount of backpay to which any, such employee is
entitled will be properly left to compliance.2
2 Alexander 's Restaurant & Lounge, 228 NLRB 165, 179 (1977), quoting
Apex Ventilating Co, 186 NLRB 534 fn 1 (1970).
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further, recommended that Respondent be ordered
to make whole said employees for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them , by paying to them the amount which they
normally would have earned from the date of their dis-
criminatory replacement to the date Respondent offers
them reinstatement, less their net earnings during such
period, with interest thereon to be computed in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent , Wright Tool Company, Barberton,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging employees from engaging in activity
on behalf of a labor organization by hiring new employ-
ees instead of recalling , employees on a preferential hiring
list for positions they formerly worked or for which they
are qualified.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Offer the following employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions or, if those posi-
tions no longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges , discharging, if necessary , any employee hired
as a replacement in any positions formerly worked by
such employees , or for which such employees qualified
between October 1984 and January 1985:
Francis Adkins Thelma Moore
Phyllis Bennett Elizabeth Negron
Norman Burgess Betty Newberry
Norma Jean Cerne Ruth North
Jo Helen Keith Barbara Truex
Francis Long Denver Truman
Jennie Lukezic Eulalia Stalnaker
Junor Mann Gerald Valk
Virginia McClung
(b) Place all discriminatees for whom Respondent has
no immediate position available on a preferential hiring
list and offer them employment as vacancies occur in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Make whole each of the above-described discrimin-
atees for any loss of earnings he or she may have suf-
a 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.
Gussie Davis Dolly Pitts
Norman Eneix Nena Pritchett
Maria Gilkey Naomi Ritchie
Dortha Horton Dempsey Taylor
fered as a result of the discrimination against him or her
in the manner described in the remedy section of this de-
cision.
(d) Preserve and, upon 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.
(e) Post at the above-described facility in Barberton,
Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by
the Respondent 's authorized representative , shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
4 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-
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 A
Date ofName
Hire
Job Performed/Classification Held
Francis Adkins.... 8-4-69 Drill Operator (G C. Exhs. 57,
58, 59, 60, 29)
Resp. Exh . 2(a).. Marking Machine Operator
(G.C. Exhs. 57 , 58, 59, 29)
Performance 4- Light Machine Operator (G C.
82 thru 3-83. Exhs. 58, 59, 29)
Lg. Lathe 65%
Metal Pol. 61%... Turret Lathe Operator (G C.
Exh. 29)
Lt Machine Painter-Plater-Racker (G C.
42%. Exh 29) (177)
Large Lathe (175)
Inspec-
tion (175-
Phyllis Bennett....
Resp . Exh. 2(b)...
Performance 7-
81 thru 9-81
1-82 thru 3-
83.
Drill 64% .........
176)
11-25-69 Shipping Department (G.C.
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 30)
Small Mill (G C Exhs. 57, 58,
59, 30)
Plater-Racker (G.C. Exhs. 57,
60, 30)
Light Machine Operator (G C.
Exhs. 59, 30)
WRIGHT TOOL CO. 1407
APPENDIX A-Continued APPENDIX A-Continued
Name
Date of
Hire
Job Performed/Classification Held Name
Date of
Hire
I Job Performed/Classification Held
Lt. Machine Mill Operator (G.C. Exh. 30) Lg. Lathe 37%
83%.
Metal Po 60% . Norman Eneix.... 2-28-56 Tool Grinder (G C Exhs. 57, 58,
Lg. Lathe 30%.. Light Forging Press (G.C Exh. 59)
30) Tool & Fix Grinder All Around
Turret Lathe Operator (G.C (G.C Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 34)
Exh 30)
Machine Parts Inspector (G.C
Utility (G C Exhs. 58, 59)
Tool Maker #1 (G C. Exh. 34)
Exh. 30)
Assembler-Hand Tools (G C Maria Gilkey....... 2-10-65 Small Lathe Operator (G C.
59 35)Exhs 57 58Exh 30)
Drill Operator (G.C Exh. 30) Resp . Exh 2(g)..
, , ,
Light Forge Press (G.C Exhs
57, 58, 59, 35)
Norman Burgess 3-23-70 Maintenance & Electrical Repair Performance 8- Saw & Shear (G.C. Exh 58)
#3 (G.C. Exhs 57, 58, 59, 60, 24-81 thru
31) 11-4-81.
Labor (G C Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 30, 1-82 thru 3-83.....
31) Lg. Lathe 72%.. Light Machine Operator (G.C.
Drop Forge Hammer Operator Exhs 58, 59)
#2 (G.C. Exhs 58, 31) Lt. Machine
Internal Trucker (G.C Exhs. 58, 149%
59, 31) Drill 69%..
Large Lathe Operator (G.C.
Exh. 60)
Turret Lathe Operator (G.C
Forging Press Operator #1
(G C Exh 58)
Saw & Shear Operator (G C. Metal Pol. did
Exhs 58, 59 , 31) not run
Exh 35)
Marking Machine (G C Exh. 35)
Maintenance & Electrical Repair
#1 (G C Exhs 58, 59, 31) Carol Gillespie.... 1-21-69 Drill Operator (G C. Exhs. 57,
Maintenance & Electrical Repair 58, 59, 36)
#2 (G.C Exhs 58, 59, 31) Resp Exh. 2(h).. Shipping Department Worker
Metal Polishing & Grinding (G C Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 36)
(411) Performance 8- Light Machine Operator (G.C.
5-80 thru 3- Exhs 58, 59, 60, 36)
Norma Jean 5-30-73 Large Mill Operator (G C. Exhs 83
Cerne 58, 32) Drill 90% ...... xl
Resp Exh. 2(d) Painter (G C Exhs. 58, 32) Lt. Machine Turret Lathe Operator (G C
Performance Plater-Racker (G.C Exhs 58- 59% Exh. 36)
11-4-81 thru 32) Lg Lathe did Marking Machine Operator
1-25-82 not run. (G C Exh 36)
Drill 45% Centerless Grinder #1 (G.C Metal Pol did
not run58 32E h )x s ,
Lg. Lathe 60% ... Tool Grinder #2 (G C. Exhs 58,
32) Dortha Horton . 11-15-65 Small Lathe Operator (G C.
Lt Machine did Light Machine Operator (G.C Exhs 57, 58, 59, 60, 37)
not run Exhs. 58, 32) Resp . Exh 2(1)... Machine Parts Inspector (G C
Metal Pol did Large Lathe (G.C Exh 32) Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 37)
not run Performance 1- Light Machine Operator (G C
Did not run 26-81 thru Exhs 58, 59, 37)
enough to 11-11-81 4-82
qualify thru 3-83
Lt Machine Large Lathe (G C Exh 37)
Gussie Davis
(Richardson).
Resp . Exh. 2(e)
Performance 1-
82 thru 3-83
Drill 81%
Lt Machine
74%
Metal Pol 67%
8-5-69 Painter (G C Exhs. 57, 58, 59) 59%.
Lg Lathe 92%
Light Forge Press (G C Exhs
57, 58, 59, 33) Drill did not
Plater-Racker (G C Exhs. 57, run
58, 59, 60, 33)
Shipping Department Worker
(G C Exhs 58, 59, 33)
Light Machine Operator (G.C
Exhs 59, 33)
Mill Operator (G.C. Exh 33)
Turret Lathe Operator (G.C.
Exh 37)
Marking Machine (G C Exh 37)
1408
Name
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A-Continued
Date of
Hire
I Job Performed/Classicatton Held Name
APPENDIX A-Continued
Date of
Job Performed/Classification HeldHire
Metal Pol. did
not run
Not, long
enough to
qualify
Metal Pol. did
not run.
Assembly 60%.
Machine Parts Inspector (G.C.
Exhs 58, 59)
Tool Grinder #2 (G.C.' Exh. 42)
Metal Polishing & Grinding
(208)
Jo Helen Keith ... 8-21-61 Assembler-Hand Tools (G C. Thelma Moore...
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 38)
Shipping Department Worker Resp. Exh. 2(n) ..
(G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 38)
Machine Parts Inspector (G C. Performance I-
Exhs. 58, 59) 80 thru 3-83
Different time
4-15-63 Machine Parts Inspector (G.C.
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 43)
Light Machine Operator (G.C..
Exhs. 58, 59, 43)
Drill Press Operator (G C. Exhs.
58, 59, 43)
Francis Long....... 11-24-65 Shipping Department Worker worked
(G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59) Drill did not
Plater-Racker (G.C Exhs. 57, run
58, 59, 39) Lt. Machine did
Paint (G C. Exhs 57, 58, 59, 39) not run
Maintenance Janitor (G.C Exhs. Lg. Lathe did
57, 58, 59, 39) not run
Metal Pol did
Jennie Lukezic.... 8-7-68 Marking Machine Operator not run
Resp . Exh. 2(k).,.
Performance 3-
82 thru 3-83.
Drill 65%
Lt. Machine
56%.
Lg. Lathe did
not run.
Metal Pol. did
not run
Not qualified on
either
machine
(G.C Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 40)
Drill Press Operator (G.C Exhs. Elizabeth
58, 59, 40) Negron.,
Machine Parts Inspector (G C
Exhs. 58, 59)
Turret Lathe Operator (G C.
Exh. 40)
Light Machine Operator (396)
2-19-63 Quality Control (G.C Exhs. 57,
58, 59, 44)
Plater-Racker (G.C. Exhs. 57,
58, 59, 44)
Painter (G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59,
60,44)
Metal Polisher & Grinder (G.C
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 44)
Light Machine Operator (G.C.
Exhs. 58, 59, 44)
Mill Operator (G.C. Exhs. 58,
59, 44)
Machine Parts Inspector (G.C.
Exh. 44)
Large Turret Lathe Operator
Junior Mann..... 9-5-51= Centerless Grinder (G.C. Exhs (G.C. Exh. 44)
57 59)58, ,
Elizabeth 2-25-63 Machine Parts Inspector (G CToo] Maker #1 (G.C. Exhs. 57,
Newberry
. .
Exhs. 57 59)
58 59 41)
,
, ,
Resp. Exh.
Tool Grinder (G.C. Exhs. 57, 58,
2(o).
59)
Metal Polishing & Grinding
Quality Control (G C. Exhs. 57,
58, 59)
(358) Performance I-
Tool & Fix Grinder All Around 80 thru 3-83.
Shipping Department Worker
(G C. Exhs 57, 58, 59, 60, 45)
(G.C. Exhs 57, 58, 59, 60, 41) Did not run any Marking Machine Operator
Virginia 9-18-61
of 4 machines
Assembler-Hand Tools (G C
(G C. Exh. 58)
McClung
.
Exhs. 57 58 59 60 42)
Light Machine Operator (G.C.
'
Resp. Exh..
Performance 1-
, , ,,
Straightner (G C. Exhs 57, 58,
Exhs. 58, 59)
Maintenance Janitor (G C Exh.
45)
80 thru 10-80 59 42)
4-82 thru 3-
, Internal Trucker (G.C. Exh. 45)
83. Ruth North 8-15-67 Plater-Racker (G C Exhs. 57,
Lt. Machine Tool Grinder # 1 (G C. Exhs 57, Resp Exh. 58, 59, 60, 46)
45% 58 52 42)59. , , ,
2(p)
Drell did not Plater-Racker (G C. Exhs. 57, Drill Operator (G C Exhs. 57,
run. 59) 58, 59, 46)
Lg. Lathe did Light Machine Operator (G.C Performance 4- Straightner (G C. Exhs 57, 58,
not run. Exhs. 58, 59, 42) 82 thru 3-83 59, 46)
WRIGHT TOOL CO.
Name
APPENDIX A-Continued
Date of I Job Performed/Classification Held
Hire
Name
1409
APPENDIX A-Continued.
Date of Yob Performed/Classification Held
Hire I
Drill 91% ............
Lt. Machine
75%.
Metal Pol. 72%
Lg. Lathe, did
not run
Light Machine Operator (G.C. Dempsey
Exhs. 58, 59, 46) Taylor.
Metal Polisher & Grinder (G.C
Exh. 46)
2-17-66 Upsetter Operator A &' B (G.C.
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 51)
Utility #1 (Shipping Only) (G C.
Exh. 57)
Drop Hammer Operator #1
(G C Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 51)
Utility #1 (G.C. Exhs. 58, 59,
51)
Dolly Pitts........... 12-10-64 Shipping Department Worker Forging Press Operator (G.C.
(G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 47) Exh. 51)
(G Chi O tML hResp . Exh. 2(a) ... pera or . .neacig t
Exhs. 58, 59) Barbara Truex.... 6-7-68 Shipping Department Worker
Did not run any (G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 60, 52)
of 4 machines Resp . Exh. 2(v)... Light Machine Operator (G.C.
Exhs. 58, 59, 52)
Nena Pritchett..... 6-10-68 Machine Parts Inspector (G.C. Performance 1- Marking Machine (G.C. Exh. 52)
Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 48) 80 thru 3-83.
Resp . Exh. 2(r).... Shipping Department Worker Drill 64%
(G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 48) Lt. Machine Drill Operator (G.C. Exh. 52)
Performance 1- Marking Machine Operator 81%.
80 thru 3-83. (G.C. Exhs. 57, 48) Did not run
Lt. Machine
99%.
Light Machine Operator (G C. other 2
Exhs. 60, 48) machines
ill 70%Dr
Did not run Denver Truman.. 8-23-66 Tool Grinder #1 & #2 (G,C.
other 2 Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 53)
machines. Resp. Exh. 2(w).. Tool Maker #1 (G.C. Exhs. 57,
58, 59, 53)
Naomi Ritchie..... 1-16-69 Shipping Department Worker Performance 4- Saw & Shear Operator (G.C.
(G.C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 49) 82 thru 3-83. Exhs. 58, 59)
Resp . Exh. 2(s).... Drill Operator (G.C. Exhs 57, Metal Pol. 62%... Metal Polisher & Grinder (G.C.
59, 60, 49) Exhs. 60, 53)
Mill Operator (G.C. Exhs. 58, Did not run
59, 49) other 3
Tool Maker #2 (G.C. Exh. 53)
Performance 9-
80 thru 3-83.
Light Forging Press Operator machines.
(G.C. Exh. 49)
Drill 70% ........... Large Turret 'Lathe Operator Eulaha 1-2-63 Shipping Department Worker
(G.C. Exh. 49) Stalnaker. 59, 60, 54)(G.C. Exhs 57, 58,
MachineLt Light Machine Operator (G.C.
,
.
82%. Exh. 49) Gerald Valk ....... 1-4-66 Tool Grinder #1 & #2 (G,C.
Metal Pol . 17%... Painter-Plater-Racker (G.C Exhs. 57, 58, 59)
Lg. Mill 78%
Exh. 49) Resp's Exh. 2(x).. Tool
Maker #1
Regina 6-17-68 Drill Operator (G.C. Exhs 57,
(G.C.
Exhs. 57,
Robinson. 58, 59, 60, 50) 58, 59,
Resp. Exh. 2(t).... Shipping Department Worker 55)
(G C. Exhs. 57, 58, 59, 50) ` Performance 4- Metal Polisher & Grinder (G.C.
Performance I- Assembler-Hand Tools (G.C. 82 thru 3-83. Exhs. 58, 59, 60, 55)
82 thru 3-83. Exh. 50) Did not run
Drill 88% ...........
Lt. Machine
Light Machine (373) other 3
machines
51%. Did not
run other 2
machines.