Globe Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1459 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1459
Globe Products Corporation and United Furniture Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Local #75
Globe Products Corporation and United Furniture Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 5-CA-2151 and
5-RC-3805. November 30, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the 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 Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and the recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the fol-
lowing additions and modifications.'
i The Trial Examiner credited Heck's testimony , corroborated by Moran , that at the time
of their discharge Production Manager Katz told them that they were being discharged be-
cause of their union activity , and then added that he also had reports that their produc-
tion was slow and they were fooling around . Respondent contends that this testimony
should have been discredited because subsequently Heck and Moran gave contradictory
accounts of their discharge to employees Feldman and Heuer and also to the unemploy-
ment compensation board. Feldman testified that Heck told Feldman and Heuer that the
discharges were predicated on lack of production and fooling around. Heuer testified in-
consistently that the only reason stated at that time was fooling around. Moreover,
Heck, who was otherwise credited by the Trial Examiner, testified that she told Feldman
and Heuer just what she testified to in the instant hearing as to the reasons given for
the discharges Accordingly, we credit Heck in this respect also, and we discredit
Feldman and Heuer . Both Heck and Moran admitted that in their statements to the
unemployment compensation board they did not state that Katz had told them they were
being discharged for their union activity, but they both testified they did not think it was
necessary to do so, and Heck testified that she did so in the actual hearing before that
board. Accordingly, we find no actual contradiction in this respect which might cast doubt
on the testimony of Heck and Moran in the instant case In any event, we do not over-
rule a Trial Examiner ' s resolution as to credibility except where a clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that such resolution was incorrect , and no such
conclusion is warranted with respect to the crediting of Heck's testimony, as corroborated
by Moran See Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362
(CA. 3). Nor is any such conclusion warranted with respect to the Trial Examiner's
other resolutions of credibility, which the Respondent also contends should be overruled.
139 NLRB No. 126.
672010-63-vol. 13 9-9 3
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order with the following additions and modifications :
1. Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to
the backpay of employees Heck and Moran to be computed in the
manner set forth in Isis Plwmbing and Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(Member Rodgers dissenting).'
2. The Regional Director is directed to open and count the ballots
of employees Amelia Heck and Ruth Moran cast in the election held
in Case No. 5-RC-3805, and also the ballot of employee Leonard Fore
the challenge to which has heretofore been overruled but which ballot
has not been opened and counted pending disposition of the challenges
to the ballots of Heck and Moran, and issue a revised tally of ballots
including therein the ballots of Heck, Moran, and Fore, and there-
after to proceed otherwise in accordance with Section 102.69 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
3. The notice to be posted by the Respondent is modified to read as
it appears in the attached Appendix.
2 For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Isis, Member Rodgers would not
award interest on backpay.
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 you that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local #75, or in any other labor
organization, by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of our employees, or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals
to discourage membership in any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may he affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1461
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer employees Heck and Moran immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantial equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
Union named above, or any other union, and they are also free to re-
frain from joining any union unless in the future we should enter into
a valid union-shop contract with a union that represents our employees.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Serv-
ice Act 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone
Number 752-8400, Extension 2100, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 25, 1962, the above-named Local #75 filed a charge in Case No.
5-CA-2151. Based upon that charge the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board on June 22 , 1962, issued his complaint and notice of hearing thereon,
alleging that the Respondent Employer had engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the Respondent on
April 19, 1962, unlawfully discharged employees Amelia Heck and Ruth Moran.
The Respondent duly filed its answer , denying the allegations of unfair labor
practices.
On July 13, 1962, the Board issued an order directing hearing in Case No.
5-RC-3805 which, among other things, directed that a hearing be held to resolve the
issue of challenged ballots of Heck and Moran, such challenges having arisen from
a Board-conducted election among the Respondent 's employees on June 8, 1962.
Said order also authorized the Regional Director for the Fifth Region to consolidate
the two cases . Pursuant to said authorization an order consolidating cases and a
notice of hearing thereon was issued and served on July 17, 1962.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Baltimore , Maryland , on August 13,
1962, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel , and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally , and to file
briefs. A brief has been received from the Respondent.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
Globe Products Corporation is a Maryland corporation, with principal office and
place of business in Baltimore , Maryland, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of venetian blinds.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint the Employer received at its
Baltimore plant, directly from sources outside the State of Maryland, goods and
supplies valued at more than $50,000. During the same period it shipped products
valued at more than $50,000 from its plant directly to points outside the State of
Maryland.
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Local #75, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Respondent Employer.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
The chief issue raised by the complaint (and the only relevant question posed by
the Board Order) is whether or not the Respondent Employer's discharges of em-
ployees Heck and Moran were violative of the Act. There is no dispute that they
were fired summarily on April 19 and that they have not since then been reinstated.
Both employees were dismissed the day following Heck's distribution of union
application cards to a few employees, including Moran.
B. The discharges
1. Relevant facts
Since both employees were discharged at the same time by the same management
official, Production Manager Katz, their dismissals will be considered together.
The following facts tend to support General Counsel's claim that both employees
were discharged to discourage union membership and activity:
(a) Amelia Heck was a leader of the union organizational efforts among the
Respondent's approximately 115 employees. She was visited at her home during
the evening of April 17, 1962, by two union representatives and given authorization
cards for distribution.
(b) At a nearby lunchroom the next noon, April 18, Heck distributed a number
of these cards to fellow employees, including Ruth Moran. Employee Evelyn Heuer,
a witness for the Respondent who admitted having informed management as to other
matters concerning both Heck and Moran, testified that she saw Heck giving out
cards at the restaurant that day. (This testimony was elicited by counsel for the
Respondent himself.)
(c) At closing time the following day, April 19, Katz called Heck and Moran
into his office, handed them their final paychecks and told them that he was going
to "let them go" because "we don't like the idea of our employees fooling around
with the Union" and he was going to "make examples of them." Katz hesitated,
then added, "Besides, we have got reports that your production is slow and you
have been fooling around at the table." When Heck asked him who had told him
that, Katz replied that her "supervisor," Gilliam, had told him. She asked to have
Gilliam called in for questioning. Katz refused.'
i The quotations are from the credible testimony of Heck, corroborated by Moran. Katz'
denial that he said anything about a union at this interview is not credited . The Trial
Examiner considers his unsupported testimony untrustworthy in many respects. For
example, he claimed that he "constantly " asked Gilliam ( who holds the title of "leader"
but whom the Respondent claims is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act) "why
he couldn't get production up in his department " and that Gilliam "kept telling me he
couldn 't do anything with Amy Heck and Ruth Moran " Yet according to his own testi-
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1463
As to management's claimed reasons for discharging the two employees, the
testimony is confused and unconvincing.
According to Katz, he told them at the discharge interview that he had "received
complaints about them telling the girls to slow down, not to work so hard." He
was not asked from whom he had received such "complaints." He admitted, however,
that in his sworn testimony at an unemployment compensation hearing after the
discharge he had assigned, as a reason for Heck's discharge, a report from Gilliam
that she had "told Miss Heuer to slow down." Heuer, previously identified as a
witness for the Employer, at first glibly claimed that she had had "production
problems" with both Moran and Heck "by them telling me to slow down and not work
so fast." Yet she readily admitted that she, operating a machine at one end of the
assembly line, was "working too fast for them to catch up with" her. Later in her
testimony she insisted that only Heck had asked her to slow down, and that she
had so reported to Gilliam. In a sworn statement to a Board agent, given prior to
the hearing, she had stated not only that another employee than Heck had "often" told
her to slow down, but that she had "never told Gilliam that Heck told me to slow
down." Gilliam, as a witness, made no claim that either Heck or Moran had told
Heuer or anyone else to "slow down" or that any such incident had been reported
to him by Heuer or anyone.
In this maze of confused, contradictory, and inconsistent testimony it is difficult
to discern the truth.
Nor is the evidence concerning the "production" records of either Heck or Moran
or both of a nature supporting the claims of Katz or Plant Manager Fradin as to their
failure to meet productive standards. The only document which purports to be a
company record covers a 2-week period before the discharges and 4 days thereafter.
This document itself refutes Fradin's claim that the records show "that after they
(Moran and Heck) left production on the conveyor picked up and also showed that
individual production picked up in the department." In the first place, the records
do not show "individual production," but only the total production for three-
or on I day four-employees. The records show not only that the total production
for the 4-day period ending on April 19 exceeded by more than 600 "headrails
assembled" the total assembled in the following 4 days, but also that the average
daily production rate for the employees on the conveyor dropped from 151.9 before
the discharges to 128.9 after the dismissals.
Since his testimony is discredited by his own records, Fradin's other claims un-
supported by credible evidence are not accepted as true.
2. Conclusions
In short, the Trial Examiner finds no merit in management's contentions as to the
reason for the discharge of Heck and Moran. Nor does he credit the denial that
management was aware of Heck's union activity, and of Moran's close association
with her, until after the dismissals. It is reasonable to infer that employee Heuer,
who had informed management as to other matters concerning these two employees
and who admitted having been present when Heck distributed the cards, also told
management about the card distribution. And, as found above, at the time of the
discharges both were told by Katz that an "example" was being made of them because
the Company did not want "our employees fooling around with the Union."
It is concluded and found that the Respondent discharged Heck and Moran on
April 19, to discourage union membership and activity, and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
mony he only spoke twice to Moran-once shortly after her hire in 1961 and again some
months later-and he testified to no occasion when he spoke to Heck about production.
On the contrary, he admitted that "most" of Heck's time was spent not on the production
line but operating a machine and that her production was "good " Again, as a witness
Katz claimed that Gilliam told him, the day before the discharges, that when he had
asked the two employees to increase their production they invited him to have Katz fire
them Although Gilliam later corroborated Katz' testimony on this point, the Trial
Examiner considers their testimony to be a pure fabrication, evolved long after the dis-
charge. In his sworn statement to a Board agent, after the charge in this case was filed,
Gilliam made no such claim Nor is there in the record any evidence that Katz before
the hearing, either to a Board agent or at an unemployment compensation hearing, had
ever made any such claim. It appears fundamental reasoning that had either or both
employees actually dared management to fire them, their dismissal would have been
prompt and based upon that challenge alone
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
About 3 weeks before the election (as noted above, held on June 8, 1962) Plant
Manager Fradin approached employee Margaret Jane Granrut and told her he had
had "complaints about you wanting people to join the Union and to sign up," and
warned her that if he "heard any more of it," they "would have to do something
about it." 2
Shortly before the election, while in conversation with employee Lillian McCauley
at the plant, Production Supervisor Brockey told her that "if the Union came in the
plant would move." (Brockey admitted having a conversation with this employee
about the Union but denied the statement about moving the plant. His denial is not
credited. The threat is consistent with management's plain hostility toward the
Union, as expressed by the discriminatory dismissals of Heck and Moran.)
Fradin's warning against union activity and Brockey's threat that the plant would
be moved if the Union won constitute interference, restraint, and coercion of em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employees Heck and Moran
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by payment to each of them of
a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned as wages from
the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board
formula set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local # 75, is a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against employees Heck and Moran , to discourage member-
ship in the above-named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Globe Products Corporation,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
2 In effect, Fradin admitted this warning, but claimed that his warning was limited to
"harassment" during working hours and that there was a rule against "solicitation" on
company time which he called to her attention Granrut denies that he said anything
about the "rule," and her denial is credited In any event, there is little dispute that
talking among the female employees is common practice and the alleged "harrassment"
consisted of no more than Granrut's asking another employee to attend a meeting
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1465
(a) Discouraging membership in United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, Local #75, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, re-
fusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of employees, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals to discourage membership in
any labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer employees Heck and Moran immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due and the right of reinstatement under these recommendations.
(c) Post at its plant in Baltimore, Maryland, copies of the notice attached hereto
as "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in
conspicuous places, and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .4
Having found that employees Amelia Heck and Ruth Moran were unlawfully dis-
charged on April 19, 1962, the Trial Examiner concludes that both employees were
eligible to vote at the Board election on June 8, 1962. It is therefore further recom-
mended that the challenges to the ballots of these two employees be overruled.
3In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
'If these Recommendations are adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify said Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this
Order as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and
in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage our employees from being members of
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local #75, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if the above-named union wins the
election.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union
activities.
WE WILL offer Amelia Heck and Ruth Moran reinstatement to their former
jobs and will give them backpay due them.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the Union named
above, or any other union , and they are also free to refrain from joining any union
unless in the future we should enter into a valid union -shop contract with a union
that represents our employees.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 707 North
Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone Number, Plaza 2-8460 , Extension
2104 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company and William Neville and Local
30, 30A, 30B, and 30C, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 92-CA-7791-7. November 30, 196f3
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 1, 1962, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices
and recommending that the amended complaint herein be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
' In dismissing the complaint , Member Leedom relies only on the Trial Examiner's
finding that the General Counsel has failed to meet his burden of proof in respect to
establishing a violation under the Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., case,
118 NLRB 174.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard at New York, New York, on March 26 and 27, 1962, upon
an amended complaint filed by the General Counsel and answers filed by the other
parties. The issue litigated was whether the Respondent , Jos. Schlitz Brewing Com-
pany, violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of .the Act by permitting John J. Gorman,
an alleged supervisor , to participate in union affairs.' The General Counsel and
1 The original charges in this case were served upon the Respondent on February 1,
1961, and as amended on March 29, 1961 . Thereafter this case was consolidated with a
number of other cases involving other employers as Respondents and a consolidated com-
plaint was issued . On June 6, 1961, Trial Examiner Whittemore held a hearing on the
139 NLRB No. 129.