General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1365 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1365
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of any labor organization.
DETRAY PLATING WORKS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(lRepresentative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, 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, 316
Federal Building , 110 South Fourth Street , Minneapolis , Minnesota , Telephone No.
334-2611.
General Electric Company , Automatic Blanket Plant and Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO
General Electric Company , Automatic Blanket Plant and Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-461 and 11-CA-2604. December 8, -1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 8, 1965, Trial Examiner Rosanna A. Blake issued her
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain funfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed cross-
exceptions, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Zagoria].
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
Exanniner's Decision,' the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the follow-
ing additions and modifications.
1 We hereby correct the Trial Examiner's inadvertent error by changing the date on
which the complaint in Case No. 11-CA-2604 was Issued to February 4, 1965.
155 NLRB No. 128.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. W e find, in disagreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent's suspension of employee Bailey, on June 15, 1964, did
not violate Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of electric blankets
and other appliances. The Union began an organizing campaign at
the Respondent's plant in the spring of 1963. The Union lost the
election held in March 1964, and filed no objections to conduct. affecting
the results of the election. No overt union activity has taken place
at the Respondent's plant since March 1964. As described in more
detail in the Trial Examiaier's Decision, on several occasions during
June and July 1963, the Respondent spoke to Bailey, who it knew was
a member of the union organizing committee, informing him that he
had violated company rules by talking and visiting with employees
in other departments on working time and by entering the plant at.
night and leaving the plant on working time without permission.
Bailey at the time denied that he had violated any rules. in late.
July 1963, after accusing Bailey- of continued violations of plant rules,
the Respondent told him that he would be. subject to serious dis-
ciplinary action if he violated any of the rules again and that the
Respondent was "watching him."
On March 17, 1964, the (General Counsel issued a complaint in Case
No. 11-CA-2260, alleging that the Respondent had unlawfully dis-
ciplined Bailey because of his union activity, that it had unlawfully-
engaged in surveillance of union meetings, and that. it had interrogated,
threatened, and discharged employees because. of their union activity.
Hearings were held in that proceeding in April 1964, and, in Janu-
ary 1965, the Board issued its Decision, finding that the Respondent
had violated Section 8(a) (1) by engaging in unlawful surveillance of
union activity and by interrogating employees concerning union
activity, but that the General Counsel had not sustained his burden
,of proof as to the other allegations of the complaint, including those
which involved Bailey.'
The incident which led to Bailey's suspension occurred on
June 12, 1964..On that day, shortly after having returned from
hunch .and while on working time, Bailey spoke to employees Leon
and Alta. Ledwell, who were his relatives, about the death of a me._s-
ber of the faamnily. On Monday, June. 15, Supervisor Ward called
Bailey to a conference room, told him that. it had been reported that
Bailey had spoken to employees in violation of the company rule
prohibiting visiting with employees in other departments on their
work time, and reminded hints that he had been warned the year before
that his continued infractions of the company rules would lead to dis-
2 General Electric Company, Aatomatxc Blanket Plant, 150 NLRB 829.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO:; AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1367
ciplinary ac€ion. - card thereupon suspended Bailey from work
indefinitely. Bailey was permitted to return to work on the follow-
ing Monday.
It is not denied that the Respondent had published a rule prohibit-
ing employees from visiting departments other than their own during
working hours without permission. Since maintenance employees
such as Bailey are required to visit other departments in the course
of their work, the. Respondent interpreted its no-visiting rule so as
to bar maintenance employees from talking unnecessarily to employees
in other departments during working time. The. General Counsel does
not contend that this rule or its application to maintenance employees
was unlawful. He contends, however, that Bailey was suspended not
because of his violation of the rule but because of his union activity,
which was known to the Respondent. In reaching the conclusion that
Bailey's participation in the June 12 conversation was a pretext and
that Bailey was suspended because of his union activity, the Trial
Examiner relied on her findings that there was no probative evidence
to support the Respondent's 1963 accusations that Bailey had violated
company rules; that 11 months had passed between July 1963, when
Bailey was last charged with any rule violations, and his suspension;
that talking on work time was common at the plant and that e nployees
were rarely reprimanded for doing so ; and that the Ledwells were
absolved from any blame for their participation in the June 12 con-
versation. The Trial Examiner further relied on the Respondent's
union animus, as evidenced by its unlawful surveillance of union
meetings and interrogation of employees in 1963; and on the. facts
that. Bailey was suspended only a. few weeks after he testified at a
Board hearing; that Respondent knew of Bailey's past union activity;
and that it admittedly was concerned about the possibility of renewed
union activity at the plant.
We disagree with the Trial Examiner that these factors are suf-
ficient to establish that Bailey was suspended because of his union
activity. In the first place, the Trial Examiner's conclusion con-
cerning Bailey's alleged violation of company rues in 1963 was in
effect a finding that the Respondent's accusations against Bailey were
contrived for the purpose of coercing Bailey because of his union
activity. But the issue whether the Respondent's conduct in 1963
involving Bailey was unlawful was litigated in the earlier Board
proceeding, noted supra, and the Board there found that the General
Counsel had not sustained his burden of proof that by such conduct
the Respondent had violated the. Act. Hence, in this proceeding, we
are, we believe, precluded by the Board's earlier decision from now
finding that the Respondent acted improperly in reprimanding Bailey
in 1963 for violating various company rules, including the rule
against visiting and talking on working time, and by warning him that
1368 vECrsaa s o _r.FATIo gA, LABOR E s rfo a ; n
he would -be disciplined if another such incident: occurred, Further,
thee. is no dispute that Bailey's conversation with the Ledwells on
June 12, 1964, violated company rules; and although the Ledwells
were not disciplined for their part in this conversation, there is no
evidence that, like Bailey, they had previously been reprimanded for
violating company rules or that they had been warned that they would
be disciplined for future violations. Also, while no other employees
had been suspended for talking on work time, the record shows that,
between May 1963 and July 1964,11 employees had been warned about
visiting other departments during working hours, and that a month
before Bailey's suspension, the Respondent circulated to employees
a reminder of its rule prohibiting visiting other departments while
employees there were at work. In addition, the events relied on by
the Trial Examiner to establish the- Respondent's union animus
occurred prior to August 1963, 10 months before Bailey's suspension.
Finally, no overt union activity has taken place at the Respondent's
plant since March 1964, when the election was held; and, although,
according to Bailey, the organizing committee, of which he was a
member, continued to meet, the-re is no evidence that. the Respondent
knew of this activity or that Bailey was connected with it. In view of
the foregoing and the record as a whole, we are not convinced the
General Counsel has sustained his burden in this case of proving that
the Respondent unlawfully suspended Bailey on June 15, 1964. We
shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the
June 1964 suspension of Bailey was in violation of the Act.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the _Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (4) and (1) by reprimanding and taking dis-
ciplinary action against employees Garner, Hepler, Sheppard, and
Souther 8 in December 1964, because they gave testimony at the first
Board hearing in this proceeding. We find, for the reasons given by
the Trial Examiner, that the "contact slips" placed in the riles of those
employees were part of the Respondent's disciplinary procedure and
that this action was taken against these employees because they had
testified at the Board hearing. The General Counsel excepts to the
Trial Examiner's failure to order that the Respondent remove the
contact slips from the personnel records of the employees affected. We
find merit in this exception. As we have found that the disciplining of
these employees was unlawful, and as the use of contact slips is part
of the Respondent's disciplinary procedures, we shall order that the
Respondent expunge from the personnel records of employees Hepler,
3 The Trial Examiner made no finding as to Souther on the ground that she did not
testify at the reopened hearing concerning her interview and that her "contact slip" was
not in evidence. However, at the reopened hearing, Employee Relations Manager McAdams
admitted that Souther was interviewed and that a "contact slip" similar to the others was
placed in her file- We therefore find that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a) (4)
and (1 ) as to Souther.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1369
Garner, Sheppard, and Souther; any-mention of the December 1964
interviews, including the contact slips placed there in connection with
such interviews 4 - -
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations -Board here-by- orders that
the Respondent. General Electric Company, Automatic Blanket Plant,
Asheboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, ,and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist frond :
(a) Discouraging its employees from giving testimony in any
National Labor Relations Board proceeding by reprimanding, taking
disciplinary action against, or otherwise penalizing employees because
they gave testimony in any Board proceeding.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 1 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Physically remove and expunge from the personnel records
of Iozelre Kepler, Helen Garner, Jewel Sheppard, and Virginia
Souther, any mention of the December 1964 inters-iews including the
contact slips placed there in connection with such interviews.
(b) Post at its plant in Asheboro, North Carolina, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 11, shall, after being
duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by the Com-
pany 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 Company to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply- herewith. -
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein.
4 As we have found that the Respondents interviews and discipline of these employees
violated Section 8 ( a) (4), we deem it unnecessary to make a finding , as did the Trial
Examiner, whether this conduct also violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 employees that :
WE WILL NOT reprimand, take disciplinary- action, or otherwise
penalize employees because they gave testimony in any National
Labor Relations Board proceeding.
WE WILL ti OT in any like or related manner interfere wt ith, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
AVE WILL physically remove and expunge from the personnel
records of Mozelle Hepler, Helen Garner, Jewel S ,eppard, and
Virginia Souther, any mention of the December 196" interviews,
including the contact slips placed there in connection with such
interviews.
GENERAL ELECTRIC -COMPANY, Airro3TAT_-C
BLANKET PLA TT,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By ----- --------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive clays 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, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone No. 723-2911.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Upon a charge filed on June 26, 1964, by the International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the General Counsel, acting through the
Acting Regional Director for Region 11, issued a complaint on September 10, 1964,
in which it was alleged that General Electric Company, Automatic Blanket Plant
had engaged in conduct which violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In its
answer, Respondent admitted certain allegations in the complaint, such as the com-
merce allegations , but denied having committed any unfair labor practice.
Thereafter, pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
Rosanna A. Blake at Asheboro, North Carolina, on November 23 and 24, 1964. All
parties were represented and were given full opportunity to present evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present oral argument , and to file briefs.
The parties waived oral argument. Thereafter, counsel for the Charging Party filed
a brief as did counsel for Respondent.
On December 18, 1964, i.e., after the November hearing, the Union filed a new
charge and a new complaint was issued on, February a, 1965, alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (3), (4), and (1) of the Act by reprimanding and disciplining
four employees who were witnesses for the General Counsel at the November hear-
ing. In its answer, Respondent challenged only the unfair labor practice allegations
of the complaint.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 137 1
Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel moved to reopen the record and the
motion was granted over Respondent's objection. Or February 24, 1965. the
Regional Director issued -an order consolidating the two cases. Pursuant to due
notice, a hearing was held in Asheboro, North Carolina, on April 27, 1965. All
parties were represented and were given full opportunity to participate in the hearing.
After the hearing was closed, counsel for the Respondent filed another brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, the briefs, and from my observation of the
witnesses wh3 e testifying, I make the following: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT ; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Electric Company. Automatic Blanket Plant , herein referred to at times
as the Company , is a New York corporation with an office and plant at Asheboro,
North Carolina , where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric blankets,
heating pads , vaporizers , and baby food warmers. In the 12 months prior to the
issuance of each of the complaints , each being a representative period, Respondent
purchased and shipped directly to its Asheboro plant, from points outside of the
State of North Carolina, raw materials valued in excess of $ 100,000. During the
same period , Respondent shipped finished products valued in excess of $100,000
directly from its Asheboro plant to points outside the State of North Carolina.
Upon the foregoing , undisputed facts, Respondent admits and I find that at all
times material herein, it was and is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers. AFL-CIO, herein
referred to as the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union's organizational campaign
The Urion activity at the Asheboro plant, the only one involved herein, began in
the spring of 1963. Meetings were held. an employee organizing committee was
set up, and handbills were distributed. The Union lost an election conducted by
the Board on -March 26, 1964. No objections were filed.
However, an unfair labor practice charge had been filed, a complaint was issued,
and a hearing was held. At the outset of the first hearing in the-instant case, counsel
for the General Counsel asked me to take administrative notice of the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision in that case (Case No. I1-CA-2260), which has since been affirmed
by the Board, involving the same parties, the same plant, and some of the same in-
dividuals.2 In that case, the Board found that Supervisor T. E. "Slim" Ward en-
gaged in surveillance of a union meeting held at the home of employee Jewel
Sheppard on May 28, 1963: that Supervisor Vuncannon engaged in surveillance
of a union meeting held on August 27, 1963; that Supervisor Kauffman and Lanier
interrogated employees "regarding their union membership, activities, and desires
and those of their fellow employees." The Board also affirmed my finding that
Respondent did not violate the Act by, inter alia, reprimanding employee William H.
Bailey about talking to other employees during working hours, admonishing employee
Mozelle Hepler about using the restroom too frequently, making changes in her
machine and rates and by laying her off for 1 week. For the sake of convenience,
Case No. I1-CA-2260 will be referred to herein as the Hepler case.
In June 1964, Respondent laid William Bailey off for 1 week, the Union filed
another charge, another complaint was issued, and the first hearing in the instant
case was held. This hearing will be referred to herein as the Bailey hearing. The
reopened "caring will be referred to as the "witness" hearing.
B. The allegedly discriminatory layoff of Batley
William Henry Bailey began working for Respondent in 1952. He attended the
union meeting at the home of Jewel Sheppard, this being the first meeting and the
one kept under surveillance by T. E. "Slim" Ward who is Bailey's supervisor .3 Bailey
i All credibility determinations made herein are based in part upon my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.
2General -Elect' ie Company, Av-toniatzc Blanket Plant, 150 XLRB 829.
a It is undenied that ward and others referred to herein as supervisors are supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attended later meetings , was a member of the organizing committee, and his name
appeared in a letter to the Company and on the handbills distributed by the Union.4
At the time of the Bailey hearing, Respondent employed about 350 employees.
Most of them are women who work on production lines in variotrs departments.
Although it appears that most of the departments are separated only by aisles, there
are a few which are enclosed.
There are two shifts. Thy' first begins at 7 a.m. and ends at 3.40 p.m. and the
employees have 40 minutes o:f for lunch. Lunch periods and breaks are "staggered"
which means that some employees are working while others are on their breaks or
lunch periods.
Bailey is a maintenance employee and the daytime fire chief. His duties take him
all over the plant and "from the highway to the back of the lot" as well.
On Friday, June 12, 1964, Bailey's lunch period ended at 12:30 p.m. Just after
Bailey returned to work, his brother-in-law, Leon Ledwell, who was still on his lunch
period, met Bailey and told him that a relative had died in Charleston, west Virginia 5
(Bailey was on his way to the carpenter shop. The record does not disclose in what
department Led-well works.) Bailey asked if Ledweil knew when the relative would
be buried, Ledwell said that he did not know but that his wife knew. Bailey and
Ledweli walked over to Mrs. Ledwell, who was still on her lunch period. Bailey
asked Mrs. Leda=veil when the relative had died and when she would be buried. Mrs.
Ledwell could not answer Bailey's questions and asked if Bailey knew the relative's
last name and her address. Bailey said he had the information in his truck and
went out and got it. When he returned, Mrs. Ledwell's lunch period had just ended
and Bailey held up a piece of paper so that she could see it, saying "this is it" Mrs.
Ledwell suggested that they should send flowers. Bailey said "good," and returned
to work.6 Mrs. Ledwell testified without denial that the latter conversation lasted
"not even a minute."
On Monday morning, June 15, Supervisor Ward took Bailey to the supervisors'
conference room where Ralph E. McAdams, the Company's manager of employee
and community relations, was waiting. Supervisor Ward told Bailey that it had been
reported that he had talked to his sister-ine lase on Friday, that he had been in the
cord-set area for 10 minutes, and that he had broken a company ruler Bailey started
to explain what the conversation was about but Ward said "it didn't matter" what it
was about, that Bailey had still broken a company rule. Bailey commented, "how
cheap can you get?" explained that the conversation was occasioned by a death, and
observed that "it is a pity when you can't even report a death in your family."
Ward reviewed the reprimands given Bailey about a year earlier for talking and
other activity. These incidents are set forth infra and Bailey asserted vigorously,
both at the time and at the hearing, that he was not guilty of some of the things he
was alleged to have done in 1963. (As set forth infra, Respondent offered no evi-
dence to refute Bailey's testimony that he was not guilty of much of the conduct of
which he was accused in 1963.)
Because of Bailey's belief that he had been accused falsely in 1963, he felt that
certain supervisors were not to be trusted . When those incidents were referred to in
his layoff interview, Bailey speculated that the report of his conversation with the
Ledwells had come from "that little pimp in the cord set" (Supervisor Allison) and
that "everybody knows what he is, nothing but a pimp." Bailey also stated that he
4Although Carl K. Kauffman, who was manager of employee and community relations
in 1963, denied that he knew that Bailey attended the union meeting at the Sheppard
home, he admitted that "very shortly" after the meeting, he heard rumors "from one of
our supervisory people" that Bailey was present Kauffman was able to recall the names
of only two employees who were reported to have attended the meeting: Bailey and
Sheppard.
e Ledwell and his wife, Alta Ledwell. have the same lunch period and had heard the
news when they went home to lunch. Dirs. Ledwell and bars. Bailey are sisters
6 The above findings are based on the undenied and credited testimony of Bailey and
Alta Ledwell. Dirs. Ledwell testified that her supervisor. Carl Allison, told her that he
did not see Bailey talking to her but that he saw Bailey, asked another employee to whom
Bailey had been talking, and the employee said Bailey had been talking to Mrs. Ledwell.
Neither Allison nor the employee testified and the latter was not identified. Respondent's
witness Pauline Lanier, who works in the personnel department, testified that she talked
to Dirs. Ledwell the next week and that airs. Ledwell said that "Carl Allison had always
been her favorite foreman up to that point but he wasn 't any more , because if he said
[Bailey) was there for ten minutes, that he did not tell the truth."
7The Company 's rule against visiting is set forth infra. It is undisputed that Bailey
was aware of the rule.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1373
"wouldn't trust" Supervisor Graham Cain, referred to his conversation with Cain
the year before (see infra), adding that Cain knew that he "lied" (in 1963), that
Cain "wouldn't even look" Bailey "in the face for months," and that he was "just
now beginning to have the nerve" to speak to Bailey again.8
Ward told Bailey that he was laying Bailey off, that he would call Bailey on Thurs-
day and tell him "when" he could come back to work and "if" he could come back.
Ward told Bailey that he had no choice but to take disciplinary action in view of
Bailey's repeated violation of the rule against talking and visiting and warned Bailey
that if he was "caught talking to anyone else [he] would be fired." Bailey asked
Ward what had "gotten into him, that he just didn't act the same anymore and he
didn't treat '[Bailey] the same way anymore." Ward answered that he treated Bailey
"as good as anyone else or better" and Manager of Employee and Community Rela-
tions McAdams said he "wished" Bailey would not think he was being laid off "just
because '[he] was talking about a death." Bailey's answer was that that was the
reason given him by Ward .9
The following Thursday. June 18, Supervisor Ward called Bailey and the latter
returned to work on Monday, June 22. On June 22, Ward and Plant Engineer Pike
met with Bailey. Dike told Bailey that he had been warned repeatedly about the
rule regarding visiting employees durmg their working hours, that, prior to his
layoff, he had been asked to obtain permission from his foreman or various work
foremen before going to their areas, that he was laid off because he violate"] that rule,
and that he was to understand that if he violated the rule again, he would be disciplined
up to or possibly including discharge.'°
Bailey testified without denial that he had never been told that he had to get
permission to go to various areas of the plant, that he has keys to all areas, except
the calibration room, and is under $10,060 bond. Bailey explained that as daytime
fire chief, be is authorized to go everywhere necessary, except the calibration room,
to check fire equipment. In addition, he is a maintenance employee which means
that his work takes him all over the plant.
Bailey was also warned about certain "derogatory and disrespectful remarks" he
had made about members of management, was told that such remarks were con-
sidered "a degree of insubordination," that "these comments" and this "attitude"
would not be tolerated, and that if they continued, Bailey would be subject to dis-
ciplinary action. Bailey stated that he had been trying to obey the rules and was
told to return to work.
Nothing was said to the Ledwells about their part in the June 12 incident although
they started it. However, on Friday, June 19, Alta Ledwell had a conversation with
her foreman, Supervisor Carl Allison. Apparently, the Ledwells were blaming them-
selves for Bailey's layoff because they were "involved." According to Mrs. Ledwell's
undenied testimony, Allison told her to "quit worrying about it," that the Ledwells
were not "involved" and that "it wasn't [their] fault at all."
C. The Company's rules
In April 1962, Respondent distributed to all employees a handbook which states,
inter alias
The individual is not to visit departments other than his own during working
hours without permission...
Selling, taking orders, distributing literature or any form of soliciting during
working hours are not permitted except when approved by Employee Relations.',
A second, similar handbook was distributed in March 1964. In September 1962,
Production Superintendent James W. Martin sent a memorandum to various super-
visors asking them to remind the employees that they were not to "visit other lines
that are operating." Such visiting, the memorandum said, "not only distracts the
8 McAdams. Respondent 's manager of employee and community relations in 1964 , testi-
fied that the Bailey-Ledwell conversation on June 12 was reported to Manager James Mar-
tin by Supervisor Carl Allison . Allison was not a witness at the Bailey hearing.
9 As stated supra, Ward was not a witness . McAdams testified briefly about the above
meeting and his testimony generally corroborates that of Bailey.
10 Compare this statement with the one made to Bailey on the day he was laid off.
u These rules are listed under "Plant Practices." Another section headed "About Your
Responsibilities" states that the "following rules," if disregarded . could mean discharge.
The rules deal with such matters as reporting for work under the influence of liquor,
gambling, fighting , stealing , falsifying records, and habitual absence or tardiness.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operator who is working but could have a serious effect on some of our quality prob-
lems." A similar memorandum was distributed in April 1963, and still another in
May 1964. The Company newspaper dated February 13, 1964, stated that an
employee who engages in union organizing activity during his working time or solicits
other employees during their working time will be subject to disciplinary action up
to and including discharge.
Employee Bailey admitted that he had read the handbooks and most if not all of
the memoranda although he admittedly refused to initial the last of them; i.e., the
one distributed in May 1964.12
D. Bailey's alleged violations of company rules in June-July 1963
1. Bailey's interviews before his vacation
Probably about May 30, 1963, i.e., 2 days after Bailey attended the union meeting
which Supervisor Ward kept under surveillance, Ward called Bailey to the office and
told Bailey that it had been reported that Bailey was talking on company time and
that Wardywanted Bailey to quit it. Ward did not give Bailey any details concerning
his alleged conversations, such as the subject, the place, or circumstances, and no
evidence concerning the alleged incident or incidents was introduced at the hearing.13
However, Ward told Bailey that ".he was going to stop everyone from talking on
working time" and explained that Bailey could talk before he came to work, after
work was over, during breaks and lunch periods. Ward warned Bailey not to talk
to people who were working anywhere in the mill unless he was working on a
machine where another employee was working. Bailey said that he would be careful.
A day or two later, Bailey was again called to the office. Supervisor Ward began
the interview by complimenting Bailey on the fine job he had done putting out a fire.
Ward went on to say that Bailey had been called in to discuss his talking to and
bothering other employees and stated that it would have to stop. Ward also pointed
out that Bailey had been warned on a previous occasion and again reminded Bailey
about the plant rule against visiting and bothering other employees. The then
manager of employee and community relations, Carr K. Kauffman, told Bailey that
it had been reported that, about 3 p.m. the day before, Bailey had gone around in-,,-t-
ing people to a union meeting and had talked to four different girls for 5 minutes
each. Although Bailey said that the report was not true, he was not told to whom
he was supposed to have talked." None of the "girls," was a witness and Respondent
introduced no evidence that Bailey had in fact done what he was accused of having
done. Bailey asserted that he had cut down on his talking but thl'at he might not
have quit altogether, adding, however, that he "wasn't talking on company time. ..."
Bailey again agreed to follow the plant rule.
At a third meeting, this one probably occurring on June 13, Bailey was reminded
of the previous meetings but he insisted that "all of them times wasn't true. I was
accused but it wasn't so." This meeting started in Ward's office with Ward and
Kauffman present. It was transferred to another office when Bailey asked that
Manager C. H. Pace be present. The subject discussed was again Bailey's alleged
talking. Kauffman told Bailey that he had seen Bailey talking and Bailey, in tun,
L One of the union leaflets stated that employees may not "get together and talk about
the Union or sign up people during working hours ." The Union also gave the employees
oral instructions about the periods during which they could and could not solicit employees
to join the Union.
l2 Thus , Bailey was not told whether he was supposed to have made a special trip to
talk to the employees or whether he had merely said something as he was going to or from
a job assignment. Indeed, his conversations could have been with other maintenance
employees.
"I assume that Kauffman and Ward were referring to the same incident . Kauffman
testified that his first meeting with Ward and Bailey was "around about May 31, 1963."
Plant Engineer David Pike was present at one of the meetings and it may have been this
one. It is clear that the subjects discussed at the various meetings in May and June 1963
were similar but they had occurred more than 17 months prior to the hearing and Bailey's
prehearing afidavit is dated in November 1963 ; 1 e. approximately a year before the hear-
ing. Under these circumstances , it is understandable that Bailey 's recollection of the
exact dates and precisely what was said at each meeting and what was included in his
affidavit may- not be entirely accurate. However, Respondent presented comparatively
little direct evidence concerning the meetings although it had written "contact" reports
in its possession . Instead, it chose to rely primarily upon Bailey 's answers on cross-
examination . I assume that if Bailers answers had not been generally accurate , Respond-
ent's witnesses would have given their version of what was said.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1375
denied the accusation. However, Kauffman, who was a witness for Respondent, did
not testify that he had seen Bailey talking to anyone. Manager Pace, who was not a
witness, asked Bailey why he did not admit having done the things he was being
accused of and Bailey replied that he "didn't admit to a lie for anyone," that "it wasn't
true" and that he "didn't admit it." Pace asked what had been "irritating" Bailey for
the last several days and Bailey pointed out that he had been called to meetings,
falsely accused, and "nagged at" about just one thing and another.
During the interview, Bailey asserted that Kauffman had never liked him and that
Supervisor Cain "used to be a nice fellow but for some reason had it in for [Bailey]
and was- telling lies." 1 Bailey also expressed the opinion that the plant "used to be
a good place ... to work" but that it had "changed considerably." In addition, Bailey
claimed that management had people "trailing" him in order to watch every move he
made during working hours, a charge which management told him was "ridiculous." is
Bailey was told that if he did not quit talking, the Company would have to do
something and Kauffman told Bailey that Mr. Williams, the union representative up
at the motel, could not "help" him on something like this. Bailey replied that he
did not expect Williams to help him. It is undisputed that Ward told Bailey that "the
reason" the Company did not want him talking to people was that it was "afraid
[he] would ask someone to sign a union card." 17
2. The alleged calibration-room incident
The main report discussed en or about June 13 was one to the effect that Bailey
had been in the calibration room at 3 p in. on Monday, June 10, talking to employee
Paul McCloud. Bailey denied the report but said that on an earlier occasion, prob-
ably Monday, June 3, he had gone to the room before work to talk to McCloud.
Bailey said he was "willing to stake his job" on the fact that he was not in the
calibration room at 3 p.m. on June 10. Management said that they had some girls
"sign" that he was there but did not say who they were. The women were not
identified at the hearing, were not called as witnesses, and no statements signed by
women were offered into evidence by Respondent.ls
The calibration room has a sign on the door reading "Authorized Personnel Only."
The reason for the restriction apparently is that it is necessary to keep the temperature
in the room constant which would be difficult to do if the door is opened res Bated°y.
However, according to Bailey's undenied testimony, the maintenance employees have
to go into the room "lots and lots of times" when there are breakdowns in the air
conditioners or other equipment. -
Both at the meetings with management and at the hearing, Bailey insisted that he
was not in the calibration room at 3 p.m. on June 10 and he asserted a*_ the hearing
that he could "prove' that he was not there and e^--pressing the belief that he could
get McCloud as a witness. Bailey further testified that he had asked McCloud if he
[Basle:; was in the room on June 10, the date alleged, and that McCloud said that
Bailey -had not been there and that if Bailey "needed" hi-n, he could call him.
I The basis for Bailey's charge in the latter respect is set forth infra.
le Although counsel for the General Counsel was not permitted to question Bailey or this
subject on direct examination, he was questioned by Respondent's counsel about his claim
that he was being "trailed" and Bailey answered that Ward "even watched me of a morn-
ing before seven o'clock, he would just walk around and look at me, I couldn't talk to
nobody or do nothing without him watching [me]" Bailey went on to say that he had
seen Pike "trailing after me three or four different times." Bailey added that Ward and
Pike "would kind of give me time to get around the corner and then they would come and
try . . . to catch me talking to somebody, and if I would walk around the corner and
stop, they would be there in a second." No :witness for Respondent testified that there
was no basis in fact for Bailey's belief that he was being followed.
'7 The above findings are based on Bailey's credited testimony. Manager Kauffman's
version differs somewhat although he denied none of Bailey's testimony and neither Ward
nor Pike was a witness. Kauffman admitted that he told Bailey "something to the effect"
that if he got himself into trouble by breaking the rules, his friend at the motel would
not be able to help him. Kauffman testified that Bailey complained about pay scales. that
he had been passed up for promotion. and that he bad to do all kinds of maintenance
jobs. According to Kauffman. Bailey said that the Company was "picking on" him be-
cause he was active in the Union and Kauffman assured Bailey that what he did on his
own time was his own business but that he was expected to obey the rules on Company
time. Kauffman was one of the supervisors who, it was found in the Hepler case. in-
terrogated an employee about the Union activity.
18 Kauffman admitted that Bailey asked who had complained and that he was not given
that information.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bailey expressed the opinion that McCloud was a "good Christian boy" who would
not lie for anyone.
Bailey was never told that McCloud signed a statement, dated June 17, 1963, which
stated that Bailey came to the calibration room about 3 p.m. on June 10 and
invited him to a union meeting. Instead , Bailey was told that the report had come
from Supervisor Graham Cain, McCloud's supervisor; however, Cain was never
brought into a meeting so Bailey could "face it out" with Cain.19 As a result, Bailey
went to the plant one night and asked Cain if he had made the report. Cain answered
in the affirmative 20 Cain agreed that his conversation with Bailey would go no
"farther," that it was just "man to man.', 21 Thereafter, Cain reported the conversa-
tion to Kauffman and, according to Bailey, this is the reason why he accused Cain of
being untruthful. The Company later claimed that Bailey violated a rule by going
to the plant at night. However, the employee handbooks contain no prohibition
against returning to the plant and Respondent introduced no evidence that any such
rule had been announced orally. -
Supervisor Cain testified that employee Lucy Snyder told him that Bailey was in
the room talking to McCloud "for several minutes." 22 Snyder was not a witness.
Cain did not testify that Snyder told him what the conversation was about. Cain
reported the incident to Kauffman and later told McCloud that the Company "knee.'
that Bailey had been in there . . . and asked McCloud if he would sign a statement
to that effect 23 Cain did not claim at the hearing that McCloud told him the subject
of Baileys conversation with McCloud. Subsequently, McCloud was asked to sign a
statement and signed the one set forth below and gave similar testimony at the hearing.
The statement is dated June 17, 1963, and reads:
On Monday, June 10, 1963, at sometime about 3:00 p.m. Bill Bailey came
into the thermostat Calibration Room and asked me to come to a union meeting
that right. I told him I was not interested and he then left.
He contacted me again Friday morning before work, June ld, 1963 outside
the mill. He said he wanted to get straight when he was in the calibration room.
He mentioned Monday, June 3, 1963. That was the end of the conversation.
Having considered the entire record and having observed the demeanor of the
witnesses, I am convinced and find that Bailey was not in the calibration room at
3 p.m. on June 10. For one thing, if Bailey had been there, I do not believe that he
would have been as certain as he appeared to be, McCloud would be a witness on
his behalf, and he could "prove" that the accusation was false. Moreover, McCloud
did not deny Bailey's testimony that he told Bailey that the latter was not in the
calibration room on June 10 and that Bailey could call him if Bailey needed him.24
Furthermore, McCloud's account of his second conversation with Bailey, as set
forth in his statement and at the hearing, is both sketchy and conclusionary and I am
convinced that he intentionally failed to tell the whole story; i.e. what Bailey said and
what he said. However, to the extent that McCloud does give details, he corroborates
Bailey 's testimony; i.e., that after Bailey was accused of being in the calibration room
zs Kauffman testified that Bailey said that "if anyone was making this accusation . . .
he would like to sit down and discuss it with him ... face to face ... .
2u According to Cain, he told Bailey that he had "three reliable sources" that Bailey
had been in the calibration roam. Cain did not identify the three but claimed that his
statement seemed to "shake [Bailey] up a bit." Respondent would attribute Bailey's shock
to knowledge that his guilt could be established . On the other hand, it would be something
of a shock to Bailey to hear that there were "three reliable" witnesses to an event which
he knew did not happen. -
21 Bailey , who admitted some of the accusations and whose testimony is generally ma-
denied. impressed me as a conscientious and truthful witness and I credit his testimony
in this respect and discredit Cain's contrary testimony.
22 According to McCloud . Bailey "asked me to came to a union meeting and that was
it, and he turned around and went out." Thus , McCloud's version makes it clear that the
conversation, even if it occurred , was very brief.
23 Kauffman testified that Cain talked to Grace Ogglesby (who was not a witness) and
he thought Snyder gave Cain a statement. If so, it was not offered by Respondent. Ac-
cording to McCloud, Snyder heard what Bailey said.
21 Respondent argues that Bailey went to McCloud . whose name had not been mentioned,
because 'Bailey knew that he had talked to _McCloud on June 10 . This argument ignores
the fact that Bailey admittedly had talked to McCloud in the calibration room the previous
Monday (June 3) before work and went, by McCloud's own admission, to try to get -the
dates "straight."
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1377
on June 10, Bailey talked to McCloud outside the mill before work, sought to
straighten the matter out, and claimed that he had been in the room the previous
Monday; i.e., June 3 .25 In addition, if Respondent was interested- only in obtaining
the truth, it is difficult to understand why Bailey was never told about the McCloud
statement and was never confronted with McCloud, Cain, and Lucy Snyder. Finally,
I am convinced that if the Company could have produced firm and unimpeachable
evidence in June 1963, that Bailey had engaged in union activity on company time,
after repeated warnings, it would have taken at least some disciplinary action which
it did not do.
In sum, all of- -the facts set forth above, particularly Respondent's failure to dis-
cipline Bailey n June 1963, and McCloud's failure to deny Bailey's testimony that
McCloud agreed that Bailey was not in the room on June 10, cause me to credit
Bailey's testimony that he was not in the calibration room on June 10.2E I also note
that Respondent introduced -no evidence at all with respect to the other "talking"
incidents-in June 1963, which were denied by Bailey. I am therefore convinced and
find that Respondent had no probative evidence, either in June 1963 or at the time
of the hearing, to support its June 1963 accusations and that, as Bailey claimed, he
was accused of' a number of things of which he was not guilty. Needless to say, the
fact that the Company made statements to Bailey does not prove that they were true
or that the Company had reasonable grounds for believing that they were true.
There is nothing in the record and there was nothing in Bailey's manlier at the
hearing which suggests that he is so ardent a union member that he would risk his
job by campaigning on its behalf during working hours. Nor did he appear to be
the type who would have the temerity to persist in his defiance of management by
continuing to talk especially when he believed, correctly or incorrectly, that he was
being watched closely. Moreover, I doubt that Bailey would have been rash enough
to make a special trip to an area where he could not explain his presence if he was
observed, and to an area which is restricted so that his presence would almost certainly
attract attention, and, having arrived, engage in union activity on company time in
the presence of a witness; i.e., Snyder.
3. Bailey's conduct just before he went on vacation in July 1963
Bailey's 1963 vacation began after work on a Friday in July. During working hours
that day, he took his car to be serviced. He testified that he looked for a supervisor
from whom he could obtain permission and that when he failed to find one, he left
without permission. His explanation was that he "felt justified" because he frequently
"worked on the boss man's car, Mr. Reece's car at the house," and "put up television
antennas and cleaned out the gutters," and used his truck for company work without
being paid. Bailey's testimony that he had performed these services is undemed.
Also undisputed are his further claims that others left work without permission and
that he was told "all [of us] are guilty of it, but we will have to quit it now."
25 McCloud admitted that he and Bailey had talked a "whole lot" about church work
and church meetings. McCloud testified that Bailey asked him to go to the union meeting
on July 10, not June 10. and pointed out, "that is what the paper said." When counsel
for the General Counsel suggested that the incident happened in June, McCloud said that
counsel was "wrong" and repeated that it happened in July. At times, McCloud's testi-
mony concerning the incident seemed to be based on what was set forth in the statement
and not on his independent knowledge. Although testimony concerning this alleged inci-
dent was adduced at the Hepler hearing in April 1964, the Union correctly asserts in its
brief that Respondent did not call McCloud as a witness at that hearing and did not
introduce the above statement into evidence. When asked the date on which he gave the
statement, McCloud's answer was both vague and evasive.
21; At one point, Respondent's counsel suggested that Bailey went to McCloud to get the
latter to change his testimony. However, nothing in McOloud's statement or testimony
supports such a suggestion. As a matter of fact, it is not too clear that at the time, man-
agement accused Bailey of having invited McCloud to a union meeting on June 10. On the
contrary, it seems that he was being accused merely of having been in the room talking to
McCloud. Cain testified that Snyder told him that Bailey "was in there talking to [Mc-
Cloud] and talked to him for several minutes." According to Respondent's witness Kauff-
man, Bailey was told on June 10 that "he had been observed in the thermostat calibration
room on the pad line." Cain did not claim that Snyder told him what Bailey was talking
about but testified only that Snyder told him Bailey "was in there talking" to McCloud.
Thereafter, in Cain's words, "I discussed with [McCloud] that ... it had been reported
to me that Bill Bailey had been in there and I asked [_MIeOloud] if he knew that [Bailey]
was there, and he repeated that he had been there." Unfortunately, the record does not
show whether or not there was a union meeting on or about June 10.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Probably that same day, Bailey admittedly talked fora few minutes with employee
Ernest Russell- about a man who had committed suicide near Russell's home.2'
Bailey's testimony indicates that it was Russell who began the conversation and Bailey
contended that it was very brief; according to the Company, it lasted 7 =ninnies.
Russell was not a witness -and there is no evidence that be was reprimanded for his
part in the conversation.28
Again, that same day, Supervisor Carl Allison asked Bailey what he was doing in
the relay room and Bailey said that he was checking the fire extinguisher. Bailey,
who is the daytime fire chief, testified- without denial that his foreman, Ward, had
told him to make a complete check of the fire extinguishers and fire hazards and that
Ward told him "to check wherever [he] needed to go, and that there was no place
restricted." Bailey further testified without denial that he went to the relay room
and found no fire extinguishers and that, as he started out the door, employee Jackie
Burgess asked what he was doing in the room and Bailey told her he was checking for
fire extinguishers and added, "You don't have one" and asked, with a laugh, what she
would do if she had a fire . (Burgess was not a witness.)
About that time, Supervisor Allison "stuck his head in the door" and wanted
to know what Bailey was doing there and said if there was any fire equipment to be
checked in that room to tell him and he would do the checking. Bailey replied that
Allison did not know how to check the fire equipment -whereas the- maintenance
employees were "trained" for such work. Allison, in turn, said Bailey had no business
to be there, that he was "off limits." However. Bailey testified, again without denial,
that he had never been told that the area was "restricted" as far as he was co ncerned.L9
Bailey asserted that Allison started swearing and shaking his finger in Bailey's face,
that he told Allison to stop, to take his finger down, that he did not swear at anyone,
and that Allison was not going to swear at him. Bailey told Allison _t would be
best to stop it before we [have) trouble." As noted supra, Allison was not a witness
at the Bailey hearing.
Later that same day, Bailey reported the relay-room incident to Plant Engineer
Pike, who Bailey described as his "supervisor's supervisor." Bailey told like that
this was the first time that he knew that maintenance employees were "lestricte
and could not check fire equipment over the entire yard. Respondent introduced no
evidence to the contrary. Pike was not a witness.
Later on, Allison asked Bailey if he had notified Supervisor Ward that there were
no fire extinguishers in the relay room and Bailey said it had been taken care of.
Probably that same night. Bailey went to the plant and exchanged some seat-belt
bolts for some bolts owned by the Company. He admitted that he was not given
permission to go- to the plant or to exchange the bolts. His assertion that "-,Nobody
ever _gets permission to go in there after working hours at night" is undenied as is
also his claim that the Company got the "good end of the deal" on t h
of bolts.
e exchange
The day Bailey returned from his vacation, i.e., in late July 1963, r autinan and
Ward talked to him about his actions just before he left onvacation. Among the
z; Bailey's testimony that this Was the subject of his conversation with Russell is un-
denied and credited.
zs
Cain testified that he checked the time on the clock when the Bailey-Russeli conver-
sation began and ended and reported the incident to Russell 's foreman . Cain asserted
that he had reported other employees for "bothering" his employees but could not recall
any particular one. (Of course, neither Bailey nor Russell works for Cain.) Cain ad-
mitted, however, that he had never before obtained a signed statement about a conver-
sation as he allegedly did in the case of the disputed Bailey-McCloud incident He also
admitted that it was not his usual practice to tine conversations although he said that he
had timed others. However, he did not identify which employees were involved or when
the incidents occurred . Ernest Russell , who should not be confused with Hoyt Russell.
was not among those listed by McAdams as having been reprimanded for talking. The
only real conflict in Baileys testimony and his prehearing affidavit is his denial at the
hearing that Ernest Russell was on the Union 's organizing committee whereas his affidavit
names Russell as a member of the committee. Bailey had no motive for making a false
statement , either to the Board agent or at the hearing , about Ernest Russell 's place on
the committee and I am convinced that the statement in the affidavit is an inadvertent
error on someone's part.
=) Bailey testified without denial that there was no "Restricted " sign on the door at the
time of the incident but one was put there afterward. He said that he thought that it
had since been removed . Respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.. ALJ TOIIATIC BLANKET PLANT 1379
things mentioned were Bailey 's conversation with Ernest Russell, his presence at the
plant at night,30 about leaving the plant without permission to have his car serviced,31
and his conversation with Supervisor Allison about the fire extinguishers. Although
it is undisputed that Supervisor Ward had told Bailey to' check wherever necessary,
Bailey was told during this meeting that he had no business in the relay room for
anything.
During the interview, Respondent withdrew Bailey's permission to work during
his lunch period every Friday and quit a half an hour early so that he could sell
doughnuts for the church to employees as they left work. Respondent claimed that
Bailey sold doughnuts in the mill the Friday before vacation. Bailey testified without
denial that he did not go into the mill on that Friday but mostly stood about 50 feet
from the back door and a man came out and bought, a dozen doughnuts. He did
admit that he called in the back door, asked an employee if he wanted some dough-
nuts put in his truck, and the man said no.
Bailey was told that he would be subject to serious disciplinary action if he
violated any of the rules again and was told that "they were watching him." 32
The next incident in which Bailey was involved was his conversation with the
Ledwells in dune 1964; i.e., 11 months later, which was followed by a 1-week layoff.
E. The manner in which the rule was enforced
Bailey testified without denial that on August 22, 1964, he and Supervisor Ward
were walking through the plant and that he saw employee Hoyt Russel, who works
around the yard, standing talking to and laughing with employee Thelma Sellers.
Bailey estimated that he and Ward were about 15 feet away from Russel and Sellers
and stated that Ward did not say anything to either of them. According to Bailey's
undisputed testimony, Russell can be seen talking "about any time of day"" and that
such conduct by Russell is a frequent occurrence 33 Bailey testified that Hoyt Russell
told him once that Ward had called him in and reprimanded him about talking and
Respondent's witness McAdams testified that on December 15, 1963, Russell was
"cautioned by his foreman that he shouldn't be violating our rues by talking and
visiting employees, and was asked to stop."
Bailey also testified dihout denial that the week before the hearing, employee
"R. D. Jarrett was across the aisle from his work. machine talking to Vonetta Foust
and . . supervisor . . . Kitchell was there with him, and they were laughing and
talking." [Emphasis supplied.] Neither Kitchell nor Foust was a witness at the
Bailey hearing.34 Bailey also testified without denial that on September 28. 1964.
he saw Hoyt Russell talking to employee lia Rich but stated that he did not see a
foreman in the area. Bailey asserted that a "lot" of employees "didn't pay [the rule]
no mind" and that some of them "up there in the front talked to us all as well as
the women.."
Bailey further testified without denial that at the time of the Daytona races in
July 1964, he went to the tooicrib and was there 4 or 5 minutes. When he arrived.
Supervisor Ward and moldroom "fixer" Lewis Davis were reading the newspapers
and they, along with toolcrib attendant David Cooper, were talking about the races.
According to Bailey's undenied testimony, the three men were still there when he left.
In addition, Bailey testified without denial that when someone dies, arrangements
for Powers are made during working time "all over the mill." He testified without
denial that when David Cooper's mother died "the other day," the employ ees "made
up money, and most of it was on worktime. Mr. Ward told us to go ahead and make
it up . . . we do it at every funeral ... it happens all the time and always has there
in our group."
"I Bailey testified without denial that he had not been told before this meeting that he
was not supposed to go to the plant during nonworking time. As noted supra, Respondent
introduced no evidence of a rule against going to the plant after an employee's shift ended.
Bailey testified, without'denial, that he was told that all [have been] guilty" of
leaving without permission but "we will have to 'quit it now."
32 Bailey's testimony on which the above findings rest is also undenied. According to
Respondent 's witness Kauffman, Bailey said that Supervisor Ward had given him permis-
sion to deliver doughnuts "in" the plant and that it had been his practice to do so.
Kauffman did not claim that Ward denied either of Bailey's assertions and, as noted
supra, Ward did not testify.
3^o Compare Hepler 's similar testimony set forth iaifra. Bailey also asserted that there
are "oodles" of employees who talk during working hours "every day.-
34 Superintendent of Production Martin testified that Joe Kitchell is "foreman of the
baby food warmer and punch press sub assemblies."
212-809-66-vol. 155-88
"1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alta Ledwell testified without denial that the week before the hearing she bought
a candy bar from her "leader" and that at least part of the transaction occurred during
working hours.
Employee Helen Garner, who is a member of the Union's organizing committee,
testified without denial to numerous conversations on work time by employees. On
some occasions , no foreman was in the area and on others , a foreman was present.
She asserted that she talked to other employees on the job "everyday " and that her
foreman, Red Murray, was in the area "part of the time." On one occasion, she
said, engineer Jack Gore was talking to Vonetta Foust "in baby dish" and pad line
Supervisor Cain was "nght on the other side of Vonetta's machine talking to some-
one..... She asserted that she talked to other employees "everyday" and described
one occasion w,l:en she left her job to go over to Virginia Southern 's table to get some
parts and "we were laughing and cutting up and I was real tickled and [Supervisor]
Red ---Murray, the foreman, was coming down behind me and saw me, but I didn't
see him because I had my head laying on some blankets laughing.'' There is no
evidence that either employee was reprimanded by Murray who was not a witness.
Garner also testified:
Well, I have seen engineers] Jerry Hardin and Chet Boyd talking to Vonetta,
and I have seen Shirley Wright on the pad line talking to Betty Spencer and
Louise Parks. And I have seen Ken Vernon talking to Louise Southern-
Souther, and Grace Ogglesby and Nettie Lee Turner from the pad be talking
to Betty Weaver on the blanket line.35 Well, it is just something that goes on
everyday. [Emphasis supplied.] -
Garner admitted that she did not hear what Hardin, Boyd and Foust were talking
about but added, "they were usually laughing and talking, just laughing a whole
lot." The last time she heard Hardin and Boyd talk to Foust, Garner said, was "this
past Thursday and Friday." 36
Employee Jewel Sheppard, at whose home the first union meeting was held, testi-
fied without denial that she had "seen Doris Jean Leach and Louise Jones talking
every morning about time for, I guess Louise must be on her break, she will come by
and stop and speak to Doris Jean and then Doris Jean gets up and they go off
together to the restroom, and then in the afternoon, it is common every day about
the same time." '[Emphasis supplied.] She added that she had seen. Louise Jones
"go over to" Doris Jean's machine and "talk to her from the alley way," and "I have
seen Doris Jean get up and go over to the alley and talk to Louise, in the morning
about 8 o'clock and at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon." [Emphasis supplied.]
Sheppard also asserted that this happens "about every day" and that she had seen a
foreman in the area during the time that Jones and Leach were talking.
Sheppard further testified without denial that she had seen time-study employee
John Martin from a different department talking "a lot to Bonnie Green, and last
week he brought [a copy of the Company newspaper] and stood and talked to
Margie Nelson, and Etta [Arella?] Presnell and they were laughing and carrying
on and you could hear them just like they were having a party." Sheppard explained
that she would not have seen Martin, Green, and Nelson "if they hadn't been laugh-
ing as if they were having a gay party. I looked around." She said she looked to
see "what the excitement was about." Sheppard added that she had seen Supervisor
Allison "around when they were laughing and tal'king." Sheppard also asserted
without denial that she had seen Bill Brady, an inspector in "baby dish," talking and
laughing with employee Florence Morgan at the end of the control line when the
latter was working and that Supervisor Odell Shaw was across the table from them.
a; Weaver was telling Ogglesby and Turner that she had been transferred to a job she
did not lake. Ogglesby and Turner are group leaders but Superintendent Martin testified
that leaders do not "take over" for a foreman when the latter is absent and there is no
evidence that they are supervisors.
None of the above employees, except Virginia Souther who corroborated Garner's testi-
mony , was a witness. Supervisor Cain testified that he knew Garner and said that he
talked to various employees the week before the hearing about `work but denied that he
had talked to Foust But Garners testimony about- the conversation the "past Thursday
and Friday" identified the participants as Hardin , Boyd, and Foust . She did not identify
the date on which engineer Jack Gore talked to Foust while Cain was on the other side of
Foust's machine and did not claim that Cain was involved in the conversation. However
Cain did not testify that he had never heard a personal conversation on company time.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1381
According to Sheppard's undenied testimony, she had- seen electrician Max Bullock
talking and laughing with Margie Nelson and Verona Green and that "this is just
something common everyday." Sheppard went on to say that "a lot of times [the
conversations ] last from 5 to 10 minutes." In addition Sheppard described without
denial conversations involving employees Dot Williams and Louise McNeal when
the latter was working. The supervisor, according to Sheppard, is there and sees the
talking "a lot of times" that he "is just in and out, we just look up and see him and
he is gone, most any time you will look up, you will see him coming through or
going through back." Sheppard explained that visiting outside assigned areas "has
been going on for 12 years" and she had never heard about the rule '`too much until
since the union tried to get in." Sheppard also stated without denial that she did
not recall any employee being "fussed at" for talking before the union campaign
began but admitted that she had been reminded of the rule on a few occasions 3r
Virginia Souther testified that she had talked to employees on other Lines" on her
working time, sometimes about work and sometimes about "personal things." She
named some of the employees she had talked to and said that it happens "every day."
She further testified without denial that engineer Ken Vernon had-talked to her on
the job about personal matters and that she had seen him talk to other empioyees.38
She added that she had never received a "warning" concerning her talking on the job
but that a note "about talking on the job" was sent to the employees and that they
initialed it.
Employee Mozella Hepler testified without denial that she had seen R. D. Jarrett
go to Vonetta Foust's working area during working time and talk to her, adding that
this happens everyday and that a foreman is often present.39 Hepler also testified
without denial that Hilda Bower, the plant nurse, and Randy Boyer, the farmer's
brother-in-law, talked several times a day and that it had been going on for about
2 years. She described one conversation between the Bowers on July 15 after which
Hilda Bower then talked to her [Heeler] and another one in which Bower was telling
the employees about going to the club house for a hot dog dinner. Healer said that
her foreman, Joe Kitchell, was in the area. Hepler also asserted without denial that
engineer Hardin talked to employees "off and on 8 hours a day," that she had seen
Chester Boyd talk to Vonetta Foust, and Hoyt Russell, the yard boy, talk to Charlene
Riley and Caroline Bower. According to Hepler, Russell would talk for 3 or 4
minutes to the others and that he had talked to Hepler herself on several occasions.
She had also seen R. D. Jarrett from a different area talking to Billie Kivett and
stated, "This is a common thing that has gone on for 12 years that I have been there
and people-just about everybody is guilty of it."
Not a single person named by Bailey, Garner, Sheppard, Souther, and Hepler
as having been guilty of talking took the stand at the Bailey hearing to deny their
testimony and no witness denied their claim that talking was an everyday occur-
rence. No supervisor testified that he knew of no personal conversation or inter-
departmental visits during working hours or that if such had occurred, it was the
exception rather than the rule and that the employees were promptly reprimanded.40
It is no doubt true that the supervisors are not aware of every personal conversation
and that some conversations are entirely about work. But the extensive, frequently
specific, and wholly undenied testimony set forth above makes it clear that other
conversations start about work and then turn to personal matters and that others deal
entirely with personal matters such as races and hot dog dinners. The undenied
testimony also establishes that many of the conversations are marked by consider-
able laughter. I find, therefore, that personal conversations and interdepartmental
visits are a common occurrence and, in the absence of testimony to the contrary,
find that this widespread, open , and notorious conduct must have been and was
87 Sheppard began working at the plant in June 1952 . She testified that she had not
talked to employees "away from [her ] work station" since she started "wearing her
Union badge."
88 It seems probable from Souther's testimony that Vernon would first talk about work
and then about personal matters.
ss Respondent brought out that Foust opposed the Union.
° At the Bailey hearing, Respondent pointed out the rule on visiting, the fact that the
supervisors are not always on the floor, and that it is frequently necessary to talk to
employees about their work. As pointed out infra, Respondent's position at the Bailey
hearing and in its Bailey brief was that if talking occurred, it was infrequent and that
management did not know about it.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATION AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
known to management . I also find that the rule against visiting and talking is not
generally enforced arid-that reprimands for violations are the exception rather than
the rule.41
The findings set forth in this section are based on the testimony- in the record at
the close of the Bailey hearing. As set forth infra, Respondent asserted at the
second hearing in the instant case that conversations between employees in the same
department are not prohibited.
F. The December 1964 interviews
1. Background
According to Ralph McAdams, Respondent' s manager of employee and com-
munity relations in 1964, it was decided on December 2, 1964, to "review the Rule
on visiting" with employees Mozelle Hepler, Helen Garner, Jewel Sheppard, and
Virginia Souther. These are the four employees who, in addition to Bailey, testified
at the Bailey hearing that talking was a common thing during working hours.
Although the "idea" of the interviews originated with McAdams, he was not present
during them. On the contrary, each interview was conducted by the employee's
supervisor who thereafter made a "contact report" for the employee's personnel file.
McAdams testified that 'We use a contact report simply as a record of conversa-
tions with the foremen and the employees for any reason of discipline." (Emphasis
supplied.] Although he also said that a contact report is never the basis for discipli-
nary action, he agreed that a "warning would generally be given '[an employee] after
a series of conferences ... we might record these conferences on contact reports"
and after there were a series of violations, the employee might be warned that some
disciplinary action might be taken. He admitted that a "warning" is also recorded
on a "contact slip" although, he said that an employee might be given a warning
without a prior contact report if the Company "had some grounds for immediate
discharge, if it were a serious offense."
McAdams also admitted that the Hepler-Garner-Sheppard cases were reported in
the company newspaper and that it was pointed out in an "attachrnent_" that Bailey
was not laid off "until he had been given four contact slips." Nonetheless, McAdams
asserted that a contact report is not considered a "part of the disciplinary procedure."
Supervisor Joseph Kitchell, who interviewed employee Mozelle Hepler, testified
that he had given contact slips but had never given an employee a "commendation"
contact slip. Supervisor John C. "Red" Murray has been a supervisor at the Ashe-
boro Plant since it opened a little more than 13 years ago. He said that he had given
five or six contact slips in the "last year" for such things as personae= problems and
quality rejects. Although he had given some oral "pats on the back," he was "not
sure" but might have recorded one of them on a contact slip. Murray's :canner a and
his testimony convince ?e that he had given no such contact slips and I so find.
41 McAdams testified that Mrs. Blanch Smith was talked to by her foreman on Novem-
ber 29, 1963, "about straying from her work area and visiting other employees" : on
June 12, 1963, Carson Cranford was talked to about having conversations with operators
and using profanity on the job; on August 19, 1963, Henry Sphinx was talked to by his
foreman because he parked his truck in an aisle and had conversations with girls on his
work time: in November 1963, Tommy Calcutt was talked to because he dropped by before
the beginning of the shift and talked to employees while they were still working ; on
December 1a, 1963, Hoyt Russell was cautioned that he should not be violating the rules
by talking and visiting employees,- and was asked to stop ; on February 4. 1964. Iran
Johnson was talked to for staying over at the end of his shift and visiting with employees
who were still working ; on June 12, 1964, two salaried employees, Linda Alridge and
Virginia May, were talked to about stopping and chatting with employees, also in June
1964, Ruby Foster was asked by her foreman not to talk to employees and visit during
their working time ; on July 27, 1964, Vaughn Van Cannon was asked to get his foreman's
permission before he went into a work area to give his wife the ca-r keys ; on July 30,
1964, Donald King was asked not to stop in the cord set area and have a conversation with
employees. The first three employees listed above, Smith, Cranford. and Sphinx, were on
the union committee. In view of the undenied testimony that talking was common, these
reprimands do not add up to a particularly impressive number. I also note that all of the
reprimands except the one given Cranford on June 12, 1963, followed Bailey's June 1963
interviews when Respondent had a reason to establish that employees other than Bailey
were reprimanded. I also note that Cranford's reprimand was based in part on the use
of profanity.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1383
Supervisor Allison, who was in the hearing room while Kitchell and _Murray testified,
said that he had prepared two favorable contact slips during the past year. Allison's
manner, his failure to identify the employees, and Respondent's failure to produce
any such slips make me very doubtful that he gave any laudatory slips. (Cf.
McAdams' testimony that a contact slip is a record of an-interview "for any reason
of discipline.")
Although it was important to Respondent's case to establish that contact slips do
not necessarily mean that anything unpleasant has happened or may happen in the
future, no commendatory slips were offered into evidence. I am convinced, there-
fore, that if favorable ones are given, which I doubt, the critical ones far outnumber
the favorable ones and that the employees generally regard them as something to be
avoided.
In short, if a contact slip is not a part of the "disciplinary procedure" in the eyes
of the Company, I am convinced and find that the employees so regard the slips and
the very company newspaper which carried the story about the Hepler-Garner-
Sheppard interviews noted that Bailey was not laid off until he had four contact
slips, or, as the employees would probably read it, was laid off after there were four
contact skips in his file.
2. The interviews
According to McAdams, the four employees were interviewed because:
It was my impression ... from the previous hearing that the witness misunder-
stood our plant rule and I suggested to [their] foremen that they talk to these
ladies and tell them that the rules was against visiting in other a*eas. It did not
pertain to casual conversation with fellow employees on the job, as long as it
didn't distract them from, their work. And since they had testified that they had
violated the rule, I thought that [the foremen] should talk to them to clarify
the rule, and show them lust exactly what the rule was, and to indicate ... that
we were not imposing any disciplinary action or recommending any for their
testimony. But, lust being sure that they understood the rule, that the rule
should be read to them and they should be told if they violated the rule in the
future, that they would be subject to disciplinary action.42 [Emphasis supplied.]
McAdams testified that he based his suggestion that the employees be interviewed
on the notes he took at the Bailey hearing and that he had not received the Bailey
transcript. He did not explain why he did not wait until he had received the
transcript.43
Only three of the four women (Hepler, Garner. and Sheppard) testified concern-
ing the interviews and the testimony of their supervisors, Joseph M. Kitchell, John C.
"Red" Murray, and Carl Allison about what they said and their contact slips indicate
that their remarks generally followed McAdams' "suggestions' or instructions. They
read or showed the employees the rule on "visiting" in the handbook, warned them
that disciplinary action would be taken if they violated the rule in the future, and
slated that a contact slip would be placed in the employee's file. Kitchell admittedly
told Hepler that "casual" talking within the employee's own -department was per-
missible if it did not become "excessive" and "did not interfere with production."
Murray admittedly told Garner that the rule did not mean that she could not talk
within her work area if it did not -interfere with her work.
Mozelle Hepler was interviewed on December 3 by Supervisor Kitchell in Super-
visor Ward's office in the presence of personnel department employee Pauline Lanier.
It is clear from Hepler's testimony that she understood that Kitchell was referring to
her testimony that she had talked on company time and had not been reprimanded for
it. (Since Hepler had not testified that she had gone to other departments, it is natural
that Kitchell's statements concerning violations of the visiting rule would make little
sense to or impression upon her.) She did ask Kitchell if he had seen her talk in other
departments and Kitchell said that he had not, that if he had, he would have done
something abort t. Mrs. Lamer said that the employees were not expected not to say
anything and Hepler answered that she was "glad' because "it was impossible for a
woman to sit eight hours ... a day and not have anything to say."
°' McAdams appears to be saying that although the employees were mistaken jr. believ-
ing that they violated the rule, that if they did violate it in the future , they would be
subject to disciplinary action without further warning or additional contact slips.
s3 As noted supra., the decision to interview the four employees was made on December 2.
The Board 's transcript of volume II of the Bailey hearing is stamped : "Received-YLRB
11th Region-'64 -Nov. 30-A.11. 10:01-Winston Salem, \.C"
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Helen Garner was also interviewed on December 3. She was called to the con-
ference room where she found John C . "Red" Murray , her supervisor , and Lanier.
Like Hepler, Garner had not testified that she had visited other departments and she
understood that Murray was referring to her testimony that she had talked on com-
pany time and had not been reprimanded.
Likewise , neither Hepler nor Garner recalled a statement that her testimony at the
Bailey hearing would not be the basis of any disciplinary action but both recalled
being told that a contact slip would be placed in her file and that disciplinary action
would be taken in case she violated the rule in the future.
Jewel Sheppard had admitted at the Bailey hearing that she had visited other depart-
ments before she started wearing her "union badge" which was probably in May
1963; i.e., about 18 months earlier 44 As a result, she recalled that when she was
interviewed by Supervisor Carl Allison on December 7, Allison referred to visiting as
well as to talking during working hours. Lanier told her , as she had told Hepler, that
the rule did not mean that Sheppard could not talk to the employees in her own
department . Sheppard asked if Allison had seen her in other departments since she'
had been wearing the union pin and he said "no," that if be had, she would have been
"called in for discipline..
An examination of the testimony of Hepler , Garner, Sheppard , and Souther at the
Bailey hearing , set forth supra, reveals that they indicated that other employees fre-
quently left their own departments and talked to and laughed with employees in other
departments 4s There is no evidence that any of those named by the four witnesses
(and Bailey ) was interviewed after the Bailey hearing and was reminded about the
visiting rule or that , after the Bailey hearing, a notice was posted or distributed calling
attention to the rule.
Furthermore , although McAdams was at the Bailey hearing, took notes, and testi-
fied, neither he nor any other witness for Respondent testified at that hearing that the
four women evidently misunderstood the rule and that "casual ," intradepartanental
conversations were permitted . On the contrary, the gist of Respondent 's case at that
hearing was that it was necessary for the time-study men, engineers, etc., to talk to the
employees about work, that the witnesses did not know what most of the conversa-
tions were about, and that the supervisors were so often away from the work areas
that they could not have known about the conversations.
In sum, not a word was said at the Bailey hearing which indicated that the Com-
pany distinguished between intradepartmental and interdepartmental talking. Then,
at the witness hearing, the Company at least impliedly claimed that it had no objec-
tion to most of the laughing and talking described at the Bailey hearing but objected
only to interdepartmental visiting and talking, no matter how brief or what was dis-
cussed if the subject was not work. However, this was not the position taken by
Respondent in its Bailey brief. On the contrary , in that brief , Respondent sought
only to explain away or minimize the undenied testimony of the four witnesses.
Thus, Respondent argued:
The Union witnesses attempted to leave the impression that employees visited
and talked at will during working time and that the Company 's operation resem-
bled a sewing circle with production as a by-product ....
The testimony of the union witnesses must be analyzed in terms of the rule to
determine whether a violation occurred . These questions must be asked:
(1) Who was the conversation between? Employees , an employee and
group leader, an employee and foreman , or an employee and technical
employee such as an engineer.
(2) Was the conversation heard by the witness? Was it work related or
personal
(3) When did the conversation occur? During working or nonworking
time?
44 As set forth supra, the first union meeting was held at Sheppard's home on May 28,
1963.
45 For example, Garner testified that "on July 28th, Grace Ogglesby and Nettie Lee
Turner. both group leaders (nonsupervisory employees) on padding came over and were
talking to Betty Weaver on the blanket line." Sheppard described many conversations,
accompanied by laughter, between employees who do not work in the same department.
Souther testified, inter aba. to personal conversations with Ken Vernon who did not
work in her department. Hepler testified about many conversations between the plant
nurse and the nurse's brother-in-law adding that the nurse had talked to Hepler about
a hot dog dinner, and that "yard boy" Hoyt Russell talked to Hepler and others.
Bailey also testified to having seen Hoyt Russell talking to nonyard employees.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1385
(4) Was the incident observed by a foreman?
(5) Was the incident reported to a foreman?
When the testimony of Bailey , Garner , Sheppard , Souther and Hepler is
analyzed in terms of these five questions , specific violations of the rule are mini-
mal and are confined to four foremen 's departments out of the 11 ....
The respondent does not claim that every violation of the rule was in fact
observed by the foremen and indeed, they could not have watched all the employ-
ees as an estimated average of 30 hours per week was spent by the foremen sitting
at their desks working. [Emphasis supplied.]
In short , nothing in the Bailey record or in Respondent 's Bailey brief suggests that
much of the testimony of the four witnesses was immaterial to the Bailey case because
most of the conversations described were intradepartmental and that Bailey was not
disciplined for talking, per se, but because he visited "other" departments. However,
it argues in its second brief, correctly I am sure, that Hepler and the others "apparently
felt that talking was not permitted." Respondent further asserts in its later brief, that
"There is no reason, of course, why an employer cannot announce his intention to
enforce a company rule in the future," a statement which seems to indicate that the
"change" was a matter of enforcement rather than a "misundersanding " concerning
the nature of the rule.
It is thus abundantly clear that it was not until the interviews that Respondent con-
ceded, at least tacitly, that it had always known that the employees frequently laughed
and talked. It is equally clear that it was not until long after the Bailey hearing that
the Company claimed that talking between employees in the same department did not
violate any rule and, by implication, argued that Bailey's conduct was distinguishable
from most of that described at his hearing. Moreover, Respondent has not yet
explained why Bailey's brief conversation with the Ledwells, who began it, was so
much more disruptive of production than the frequent and often hilarious conversa-
tions to which Bailey, Hepler, Garner, Sheppard, and Souther testified without denial.
(It must be kept in mind that Bailey, unlike most of the employees, did not work in
any one area but that his work, as a maintenance employee and daytime fire chief
takes him all over the plant. In other words, he could talk to nonmaintenance employ-
ees without making a special trip for the purpose.)
For the reasons set forth infra, I do not believe that the interviews were a good-faith
effort to correct a "misunderstanding" and doubt seriously that management in fact
has no objection to conversations of the type and frequency described at the Bailey
hearing. Concededly, the Company objects to "excessive" talking and, as Respondent
pointed out in its first brief, the [undenied] testimony of the witnesses at the Bailey
hearing makes it appear that the "Company 's operation resembled a sewing circle
with production as a by-product ...."
G. Analysis and conclusions
1. The layoff of William H. Bailey
It is undisputed that Bailey did not begin the conversation with the Ledwells on
June 12, 1964, although he continued it once it was started. As noted, supra, there is
no evidence that the Ledwells were reprimanded for starting the conversation with
Bailey on his working time, and, apparently, away from their work areas. On the
contrary, Mrs. Ledwell was told later by Supervisor Allison, who reported the con-
versation to Manager Martin, that the Ledwells were not to worry, that they were not
"involved" and it was not their "fault at all." It is also undisputed that the conversa-
tion was very brief and concerned a death in the family.
The record contains no evidence of any other conversation by Bailey since the pre-
vious July (11 months earlier) when he and employee Ernest Russell talked about a
suicide in the latter's neighborhood. (As noted supra, there is no evidence that Russell
was reprimanded for his part in that conversation although Bailey's testimony sug-
gests that Russell began it and the record shows that Supervisor Cain reported it to
Russell's supervisor.) Since Bailey's job takes him all over the plant, he has many
opportunities to talk and his 11-months silence is a pretty good record especially when
considered in the light of the undenied testimony that talking about personal matters
during working hours is an everyday occurrence and the later claim that intradepart-
mental talking is permitted if not excessive and if it does not interfere with production.
Why, then, did Respondent lay Bailey off for a week after 11 months of silence
when he continued a brief conversation about a death in the family, a conversation
which was started by two other employees who were not reprimanded?
Bailey's first reprimand for talking (May 30, 1963) followed by only a day or two
his attendance at the union meeting which Supervisor Ward kept under surveillance.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bailey was on the Union's o_r_ganizing committee and was the only employee who
Respondent's witness Kauffman could recall attended the meeting except the employee
at whose home it was held. Bailey's layoff in June 1964,-occurtdd about 6 weeks after
he was a witness for the General Counsel in the Kepler case. Although the Union lost
the election in March 1964, the record discloses that the organizing committee con-
tinued to meet which means that the threat of a renewed union campaign still existed.
After Bailey's first interview in May 1963, he was called in three more times in the
next 2 months. The second time, he was told that it had been reported that he had
gone around inviting employees to a union meeting and that he had talked to four
different girls, 5 minutes each. Although Bailey vigorously denied the accusation, he
was not told the names of girls and they have never been identified and, of course, did
not testify at the hearing. As noted supra, since Respondent failed to adduce any
evidence in support of many of the accusations, it is clear that Bailey was telling the
truth when he insisted that "all of them times wasn't true. I was accused but it wasn't
so." 46
The interview on June 13 concerned primarily the alleged calibration-room inci-
dent which, it has been found, never took place. Again Bailey was not told that
McCloud had given the Company a statement and was refused the opportunity to
"face" his accusers so that he might "straighten" out what had really happened. It is
undisputed, however, that Bailey was told in this interview that the union representa-
tive could not help him in situations such as this and was told that the reason the
Company did not want him talking to people was that it was "afraid" he would ask
them to sign union cards. Surely, the implication of this remark is that what manage-
ment objected to was not that Bailey was talking or that he was away from his "depart-
ment" but the suspected subject of his alleged conversations.
Bailey admitted that in July 1963, he left the plant without permission to take his
car to be serviced but pointed out, also without denial, that he had done considerable
work for management representatives at their homes and had used his truck for com-
pany business without pay. When Respondent later talked to Bailey about this inci-
dent, it is undisputed that Bailey was told "all of us are guilty" of leaving the plant
during working hours "but we will have to quit it now." On at least two occasions,
Bailey went to the plant at night but Bailey testified, again without denial, that he
had never been told, prior to about July 22, 1963, that he was not supposed to go to
the plant after his shift was over unless he got permission. On the second occasion,
he exchanged a few bolts which Respondent does not claim to have regarded as a
serious matter.
Bailey also admitted that he called to an employee , inside the plant in July 1963
to ask if the latter wanted some doughnuts but denied, without contradiction, that
he went into the plant.47 As noted supra, Kauffman admitted that Bailey pointed
out that Supervisor Ward had given him permission to deliver doughnuts in the
plant and that it was his custom to do so. Ward was not a witness and Bailey's
assertions are u-ndenied.
As for the fire extinguisher incident in July 1963 Bailey again testified without
denial that he had been directed by Supervisor Ward to check fire eq_aipment, that
he was to check wherever he needed to go, and that no place was "restricted." As
daytime fire c beef, Bailey would have to have authority to check generally to make
sure that fire prevention rules were being observed and that extinguishers were
available and in working condition. A fire chief surely does not have to obtain
permission to enter an area and it seems unlikely that a maintenance man does either.
Under these circumstances, Bailey had reason to believe that he was being accused
falsely, was being "nagged at," and he knew that in one case he was reprimanded
for doing something that Supervisor Ward had directed him specifically to do
(the fire extinguisher incident). As a result. Bailey made some uncomplimentary
remarks about several supervisors. Although Bailey certainly should have kept his
opinions to himself, he was speaking under stress and after considerable provocation
and his remarks must be considered in the light of all of the circumstances.
Hoxcver, the real issue is the reason why the Company decided to lay Bailey off
nearly a year later under the circumstances described above.
46 Respondent's failure to produce evidence in support of most of its 1963 "talking"
accusations s of major significance since it contends that Bailey's disciplinary lay off
was- based in large part on his [alleged] past violations of company rules . In view of the
total absence of evidence in support of any of the denied, 1963 talking accusations, except
the calibration room accusation, I conclude that Respondent was making charges which
it knew were without foundation.
1 Compare Alta Ledwell's testimony that she had bought a candy bar from her "leader"
and part of the transaction occurred during working hours. _
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., AUTOMATIC BLANKET PLANT 1387
Employees are paid to work and -their employer can validly require all employees
to work 8 hours for 8 hours' pay. However , if the employer permits other employ-
ees to use considerable portions of his time laughing and talking about personal
matters such as car races and a hot dog dinner , and reading newspapers, and then
criticizes and penalizes an active union adherent who, he suspects , may be (but who
is not) talking about the Union, it is clear that what he objects to is not that the
latter is wasting time for which he is being paid (or where he is wasting it) but the
subject about which he suspects the penalized employee is talking as
As the courts have said, "While union membership is no bar to the discharge of
an employee, it sometimes discloses the real motive actuating an antiunion employer
in discharging such employees, notwithstanding other asserted reasons." North
Carolina Finishing Company v. N.L.R.B., 133 F. 2d 714, 718 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. V.
W. `C. Nabors, d/b/a W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 275 (C. A. . 5), cert.
denied, 344 U.S. 865. Furthermore, when the disciplined employee is a "key"' em-
ployee in an organizational drive, even general opposition to the Union on the part
of the employer "may supply shape and substance to otherwise equivocal circun
stances." Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Davidson Rubber Co., 305 F. 2d 165, 169 (C.A. 1).
Having considered all of the facts. including the 11 months that had passed since
Bailey had violated any rule, the fact that talking about nonworking subjects is
common and, at this stage, allegedly is permitted between employees in the same
department, that reprimands for violating the rule, whatever it may be, are the
exception rather than the rule, the -fact that the subject of his conversation with the
Ledwells was unknown to management at the time it decided to lay him off, the
fact that the Ledwells were-absolved from all blame for their part in the June 12,
1964, conversation although they started it, the absence of any evidence in support
of most of the 1963 "talking" charges against Bailey. Respondent's hostility to the
Union, its knowledge of Bailey's role in the union campaign, its admitted fear in
1963 that the Union was the subject of Bailey's conversations, the timing of the 1963
reprimands and his layoff in June 1964, I conclude that Respondent seized upon
Bailey's part in a conversation started by the Ledwells as a pretext to lay off a known
active union adherent. It follows, -therefore, and I find that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Idaho Potato Processors,
Inc., 322 F. 2d 573, 575 (C.A. 9), enfg. 137 NLRB 910, 911. Cf. Time-O-lVlatic,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 264 F. 2d 96, 102 (C.A. 7).
As noted supra, the implication of Respondent's position at the "witness" hearing
was that much of the testimony at the Bailey hearing about conversations on com-
pany time is immaterial to his case because employees are permitted to talk to other
employees in the same department whereas Bailey talked to employees in depart-
ments other than his own. However, as noted supra, this distinction, was not pointed
out by any witness at the Bailey hearing. Instead, Respondent argued in that case
that if the employees talked at all about personal matters on company time, their
talking was minimal and the supervisors were unaware of it.
Thus, the Bailey transcript discloses that the basic charge against Bailey was that
he talked to other employees and that, with the exception of the calibration-room
incident, the place was either never mentioned or mentioned only incidentally.49
As set forth supra, when Bailey was laid off, he was told that he had talked to
Mrs. Ledwell, that he was in her area for 10 minutes, the emphasis being on the
time spent rather than on the place, and that it did not matter what the conversa-
tion was about."° Moreover, Supervisor Allison, not being present, could not know
that their conversation was not about work or that Bailey had not stopped on his
way to or from a job to say a few words. Bailey's contact reports are not in evi-
dence but it is clear that Bailey. and Mrs. Ledwell understood (as I did and as
Respondent's counsel did at the Bailey hearing) that he was laid off because he
talked to Mrs. Ledwell on company time and not because of the place of the con-
versation.51 Indeed, Bailey testified without denial that McAdams said he hoped
4s As a matter of fact, Respondent did not know, when it decided to lay Bailey off, that
he had not been talking about work.
49 As noted supra, the calibration - room is "restricted" because of its special dualities
and even in that case, the Company relied to a large extent on the subject of alleged
conversation ; i e., that Bailey had invited _McCloud to a union meeting.
ED Compare Mrs. Ledwell's undenied testimony that the conversation at her place of
work lasted "not even a minute." Moreover, Supervisor Allison did not see Bailey talking
to Mrs. Ledwell and did not know how long the conversation lasted ; yet he reported that
it lasted for 10 minutes.
° Compare the summary and analysis of the Ledwell incident in Respondent ' s brief
which emphasizes only that it occurred on "working time."
1388 DECISIONS- OF NATION-UL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Bailey did not_think he was being laid--off- because he talked about, a death- in
his family and there is no evidence that anyone corrected Bailey when he said that
that was the reason given him by Supervisor Ward.
In addition, most of the reprimands in 1963 concerning alleged reports that Bailey
had talked to other-employees contain no reference to the place.? Thus, Super-
visor Ward told Bailey about May 30, 1963,, that it, had been reported that he had
been talking on company time, place unspecified, and Ward told Bailey that "he
was going to stop everyone from talking -on- company time," not that he was
going to "stop" interdepartmental conversations. Respondent brought out on cross-
examination that Ward also told Bailey that he could talk before and after work and
-during breaks and lunch periods.53
A day or two later, Ward called Bailey in to discuss his talking to and- bothering
other employees, places unspecified, and to tell Bailey that it would have to stop.
Bailey was reminded on this occasion about the -visiting rule but the main subject
was the report that Bailey had gone around the day before inviting employees to a
union meeting and had talked to four different girls, 5 minutes each. (As noted
supra, Bailey denied the report and none of the "girls" was called as a witness.)
Likewise, the Company's complaint about the Bailey-Russell suicide conversa-
tion in July 1963 was clearly based on the amount of time spent and not that either
employee was out of his department.
Final proof that the Company's basic complaint about Bailey was his talking and
the amount of it and not where he was when he talked, is revealed by the follow-
ing questions asked and answered by Respondent's witness Kauffman on cross-
examination at the Bailey hearing. (Kauffman's position in 1963 was the one held
by McAdams in 1964.)
Q. Did you have reports on other employees misbehaving the same way as
Mr. Bailey had been? -
A. For talking?
Q. Yes.
A. We have had other reports, but they had never reached the seriousness
of Mr. Bailey's situation, no sir. [Emphasis supplied-]
Furthermore, as previously noted, Bailey had no. "department" in the sense that
the production employees do. Instead, his work takes him all over the plant
which means that when he goes to various places in the plant, he is not out of his
"department." And finally, as also noted, Respondent has not explained why Bailey's
conversation with the Ledwells was a more serious offense than the intradepartmental
conversations which it now contends do not violate any rule. Surely, the laughing
and talking described at the Bailey hearing, even if it were confined to employees in
the same department, is as disruptive of production as Bailey's brief conversation
with the Ledwells on June 12, 1964.
In sum, Respondent's belated recognition that employee talking is permitted and
is equally belated attempt to distinguish between Bailey's talking and that of the
other employees provide further support for the conclusion that Bailey was not dis-
charged for talking but that his talking was but a pretext seized upon by Respondent
to discipline him for some other reason.
2. The interviews -
An examination of the testimony at the Bailey hearing makes it difficult to believe
that McAdams' "notes" indicated that Hepler, Garner, and Sheppard, at least, had
talked to employees in other departments.} None was questioned at the Bailey
hearing in terms of the "rule" but was asked only to describe what she herself had
52 The relay-fire extinguisher incident in July 1963 cannot be considered because Bailey
testified without denial -that Supervisor Ward had told him to make a complete check of
the fire extinguishers and fire hazards and had told him "to check wherever [he] needed
to go, and that there was no place restricted." On that occasion, he spoke only when asked
by employee Burgess what he was doing in the relay room.
Is That the basic charge was Bailey 's talking and the suspected subject ( rather than
the fact that he talked to nonmaintenance employees) is further indicated by Respondent's
introduction of evidence at the Bailey hearing concerning the statements in the company
newspaper and in the Union's handbills and at union meetings that union activity on
company time is prohibited.
54 Sheppard did admit that she had left her department on occasion- some 18 months
earlier. And at least some of Souther 's testimony concerned conversations which she did
not begin.
G uJ L> Tl c CO-i ;AjTOE&T> )3 LANKET. .PLANT 1389
done and what she had seen and/or heard others-do. However, their testimony (and
that of Bailey) did indicate that other employees had talked to employees in depart-
ments other than their own, such as "yard boy" Hoyt Russell and Plant Nurse Hilda
Bower; yet none of the others was called in for a "review" of the rule although-they
had clearly violated it even as now interpreted. -
As indicated supra, the testimony of the four witnesses that talking was common
constituted substantial evidence in support of the General Counsel 's claim that
Bailey must have been laid off for some other reason than his "talking ." Since their
testimony was undenied , they could not be reprimanded for having taken it; i .e., for
having told the truth . Moreover , the witnesses could not be disciplined for their
own conduct because the Bailey hearing made it clear that their supervisors must have
known, generally , that the employees laughed and talked everyday . In other words,
the Company must have known that charges would -be filed if it disciplined the wit-
nesses and did nothing about the other employees who were equally , if not more
guilty, and also did not reprimand , at the very least, the supervisors who had allowed
employees to talk and laugh practically at will.
However, Respondent could "discredit" the women and their testimony in the
eyes of the employees by making it appear that they had dope something "wrong"
and had committed some offense against the Company. Assuming , arguendo, that
the women themselves still did not regret having appeared and testified truthfully,
though in a manner prejudicial to the Company , it is reasonable to conclude that
other employees would hesitate to testify truthfully in any future Board proceeding
involving the Company lest they, too, be called in, accused of wrong doing and
given contact slips.
As the above comments indicate , I am convinced and find that the Company was
not acting in good faith when it had each of the four witnesses interviewed in the
manner previously described . This conclusion is based on a number of facts. One
is Respondent's clearly unsupported claim that a contact slip is not a part of the
disciplinary procedure (compare McAdams ' testimony that the Company uses a
contact slip as a record of a supervisor -empolyee conversation "for any reason of
discpline"). Another is the fact that the interviews were reported in the company
paper together with a reference to Bailey 's four contact slips and his subsequent
layoff. (Respondent does not claim that every contact slip is reported in the news-
paper and I think it even less likely that an "attachment " is always added calling
the employees ' attention to the discipline imposed upon an employee who had
received four contact slips.)
In addition , as previously noted, two of the four had not testified to interdepart-
mental conversations , and one of the others had indicated that most of the conversa-
tions she described were intradepartmental. Furthermore, I do - not credit the
Company's claim that the Company objected only to a small proportion of the
conversations described and that the employees were called in because their testi-
mony revealed that they "misunderstood" the rule. Finally, I have considered
the fact that none of the employees guilty of similar, or as Respondent would have
it, of "actual" violations of the rule , were called in and that no notice was posted
or distributed "reminding" the employees of the distinction now made between inter-
departmental and intradepartmental talking. Finally , I have given special weight to
Respondent's failure to point out at any stage of the Bailey case the distinction now
asserted and its contrary contention in that case ; i.e. that if the employees talked
about personal matters, they did so only infrequently and the supervisors did not
know it.
These same facts, as well as the damaging nature of the testimony to Respondent's
defense in the Bailey case and its corresponding support of the case presented by the
General Counsel, the Company's failure to wait until it had received the transcript
so that it could be sure that all four had testified that she engaged in mterdepait-
mental talking , Respondent's hostility to the Union , including its surveillance of
union meetings, its interrogation of employees concerning the Union, its layoff of
Bailey because of his union activity, I conclude that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the allegation of the complaint that Respondent reprimanded and took dis-
ciplinary action against Hepier, Garner, and Sheppard becausethey gave testimony
in the Bailey case and because of their union membership and activity in violation of
Section g (a) (3), (4), and (1) of the Act 55
55 I find it unnecessary to make a finding with respect to the interview with Souther
who was not a witness and whose contact report is not in evidence . ( The order and
notice would not be different were such a finding made .) However McAdams' testimony
makes it clear that the decision to have her interviewed was made at the same time and
allegedly was based on a distinction not pointed out at the Bailey hearing.
1390 DECISIO-STS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE,1 AT1_0 S - BOARD
- - IIL = -REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , it will be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take the usual affirma-
tive action recommended in such cases . Any backpay found to be due William H.
Bailey will be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company , 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1.- Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By laying off William H. Bailey because of his union membership and activity
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By reprimanding and taking disciplinary action against Helen Garner, Mozelle
Hepler, and Jewell Sheppard because of their union membership and activity and
because they gave testimony at the Bailey hearing, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3), (4), and (1) oftheAct.
5- The unfair labor practices set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. -
meani g
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
United Mineral & Chemical Corporation and United Mechanics'
Union Local 150F, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CA-9959,
2-Cg9959-2, 2-C-4-99-59-3, and 2-GA-10122. December 8, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 26, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease. and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as Set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging
Party, and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs.
The Board I 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 this case, and finds merit in certain of the exceptions filed. We
therefore adopt the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations, with the following additions and modifications.
IPursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning. Brown, and Zagor-lal.
155 NLRB No. 132.