H. L. Meyer Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC. 565
H. L. Meyer Company , Inc. and Teamsters Local
838, Warehouse and Mail Order Union , affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America . Cases 17-CA-3480 and 17-RC-5637
June 30, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On August 1, 1968, Trial Examiner William
Seagle issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further recommended that the election conducted on
March 1, 1968, in Case l7-RC-5637, be set aside.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and supporting
brief, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the
extent they are consistent with our Decision, Order,
and Direction of Second Election.
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner,
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
unlawfully interrogating and threatening its
employees in the following manner and
circum stances:
As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the record shows that on January 22,
1968, Plant Manager Pat Dwyer asked Charles
Kennybrew, an employee active in the union
campaign, what complaints he had against the
Company. After Kennybrew enumerated several,
Dwyer warned that Kennybrew could get into a
"whole lot of trouble" by following the lead of
Harry Taylor, an outspoken union advocate. Dwyer
proceeded to tell Kennybrew that he should be
working at the union hall if he was not satisfied,
that a woman could handle Kennybrew's job, and
that he could easily be replaced by someone willing
to work at the minimum wage. During the same
conversation Dwyer stated that if the employees got
"that damn union there" he could make the work
standards so high that Kennybrew and his fellow
employees would have to "work like dogs to get it
[production] out or be fired." In that same vein, he
also warned that employees who took their
vacations when they wished could be replaced, and
supervisors would not be allowed to operate the
machines if employees were on vacation thus
perhaps necessitating the closing down of the plant.
No testimony was offered to contradict these
threats, although the Respondent tried to dilute the
import of these remarks by styling them as
"concessions" the employer would be willing to
make. Contrary to the Respondent, Dwyer's
remarks plainly constituted unlawful interrogation
and threats violative of Section 8(a)(1).
The Trial Examiner found a further violation of
Section 8(a)(1) based on Dwyer's "hope" that the
Union would get in so that he could "fire all them
son-of-bitches and make the company some
money." This remark, addressed to employee
George Smith, was overheard by Jannie Rollins,
another employee. At the hearing Dwyer submitted
that all he said was that he hoped the matter was
settled soon so that he could get the plant back to
normal. The Trial Examiner credited the testimony
of Rollins. As we find no reason for reversing the
Trial Examiner's credibility finding in this regard,
we hereby adopt his finding that Dwyer's remarks
constituted a threat of loss of employment should
the Union come in and, therefore, violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In addition to the foregoing, it appears that
approximately 1 week before her discharge, while
attending to some personal business, Jannie Rollins
noticed a group of employees gathered around Pat
Frazier and Frances Terranella, the latter being a
forelady in the bagging department. Frazier, in the
presence of Terranella, accosted Rollins and
queried, "What are you going to do when they close
the plant door and you'll be outside with signs, how
much are they going to pay you?" Rollins replied,
"I don't know." Frazier retorted, "Well, you seem
to know everything else." Terranella did not dispute
Frazier's statement about the plant closing but
rather remained silent. Rollins credibly testified that
Terranella overheard the remark and Terranella did
not deny it, but instead claimed that she did not
remember. While not alleged in the complaint as a
violation of Section 8(a)(1), this matter was fully
litigated during the course of the hearing. We
believe that Frazier's remarks clearly constituted a
blatant threat to Rollins' job security as well as an
implied threat of a plant shutdown should the Union
prevail in organizing Respondent's employees.
Supervisor Terranella did not rebuke Frazier or
correct her in any way. Instead, she remained silent,
thus leaving the unmistakable impression that
Frazier was speaking the truth and was, in fact,
speaking for Terranella and the Respondent.
Accordingly, we find that Terranella's silence and
tacit approval of Frazier's clear threat of job
177 NLRB No. 75
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
security and possible plant closing constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
As alleged in the complaint, the record further
shows that in mid-December, shortly after Jannie
Rollins had signed a union authorization card,
Foreman Bill Kelly approached her and asked if she
had ever belonged to a union. She replied in the
affirmative, whereupon Kelly asked her what the
union had done for her. Thereafter, a discussion
ensued as to the merits of union representation. We
conclude that although Kelly spoke of unions in
general, he was seeking to pry into Rollins' union
sentiments . While the Respondent sought to make
light of Kelly's inquiries, its arguments in this
regard lose considerable force, because such conduct
cannot be regarded as isolated or otherwise
excusable in view of the Respondent's pronounced
union animus and its clear disregard for the lawful
organizational rights of its employees as otherwise
found herein. Accordingly, we conclude, as alleged
in the complaint, that Kelly's inquiries as to Rollins'
union sympathies constituted unlawful interrogation
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner, in light of
Respondent's manifest hostility toward the Union
and the commission of numerous other unfair labor
practices, that the installation of a suggestion box
was designed to and did interfere with the
organizational activities of the employees and, as
such, was a separate violation of Section 8(a)(1). It
is true that the idea of the box originated with two
employees who were anxious to have the
Respondent's president, Waitman Meyer, clarify his
position on certain remarks he made during a
speech to the employees. However, in the context of
this case, that fact alone could hardly excuse the
subsequent use to which this device was put or
neutralize the harmful, prejudicial effect it had on
the election.' Where, as here, it appears that the
suggestion box was used to solicit and settle
employee grievances and to imply certain offers of
benefits should the Union be defeated, it is apparent
that the real purpose of the box was to interfere
with the organizational activities of the employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Replies to the questions and suggestions
submitted were posted on February 14 and 26, 1968.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that some
of these replies constituted separate violations of
Section 8(a)(l) in that they created the impression
that but for the pending union campaign certain
employee benefits granted at the Respondent's other
plants would have been initiated at the Kansas City
plant. Thus, the Respondent sought to shift the onus
for the delay to the Union and, at the same time, it
impliedly conditioned these wage and vacation
We have consistently held that it is no defense that the employer's
statements were prompted by questions from his employees Viking of
Minneapolis , Division of Telex Corporation, 171 NLRB No 7 See Heick
Moving & Storage, Inc, 150 NLRB 1124 , 1130, Radiator Specialty Co v
N L R 8, 336 F 2d 495, 498-499 (C A 4)
benefits upon defeat of the Union at the election. In
this regard, the questions and answers are as
follows:
Q. I heard that the employees of the other
plants that have been there 10 yrs. or over are
getting 3 weeks paid vacation. Is this correct.?
A. Yes. This year they will get 3 weeks pay,
but only 2 weeks off. During a Union
organization campaign the law prohibits us from
changing employees benefits; such is the case at
H. L. Meyer Co.
Q. As I understand that the other plants such
as Butler and Versailles get their raise prior to
Feb. 1st. Is there a possible chance that we the
employees of H. L. Meyer Co. would get back
pay if by chance the Union would be ruled out
come Mar. 1st.
A. Butler and Versailles got raises Jan. 1st.
Yes, back pay for H. L. Meyer employees is
possible, however, we can make no promise or
take any action until after the election.
In answer to the first question the Respondent, in
effect, stated that other plants received a broader
vacation allowance and implied that the same
benefit would normally apply at the establishment in
question. Reading the second question and reply in
context it appears that the Respondent conditioned
the backpay award on the Union's defeat and
clearly reserved its decision pending the outcome of
the election. Thus, taken in context, the employer
shifted the onus for the delay to the Union' while at
the same time holding out the possibility of backpay
if the Union lost the election. Further, from the
answer to an earlier question` it is evident that the
Respondent was reluctant to extend to the
employees existing benefits if the Union were elected
'By shifting the onus to the Union for delay in the awaited employee
benefits the Respondent violated the Act American Paper and Supply
Company , 159 NLRB 1243 The employer violates Sec 8(a)(I), if, while
an election is pending , he confers benefits for the purpose of inducing
employees to vote against the union N L R B v Exchange Parts
Company , 375 U S 405, 409 It is also an unfair labor practice if the
employer withholds benefits for the purpose of creating the impression that
the reason for the delay is the union ' s organizational activity See
American Paper and Supply Company, supra . See also McCormick
Longmeadow Stone Co , Inc, 158 NLRB 1237 In summary , the only
valid course the employer may follow in deciding whether or not to grant
employee benefits during the critical period of a representational campaign
is to proceed as if the union were not in the picture McCormick
Longmeadow Stone Co, supra, 1242
In this case the Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent placed the onus for the delay upon the Union Further we view
as inapposite our decision in Uarco, Incorporated, 169 NLRB No 162,
because in that case the employer in granting the wage increase followed
the mandate of the above rule, that is, we found that he initiated the
benefit pursuant to a well-established company policy and not for the
purpose of undermining the union campaign In the present case , however,
the Respondent ' s effort to maintain the " laboratory condition" of the
critical period preceding the election was exacted at a high cost, the
employer in withholding the wage increase pinioned the reason for the
delay in the union's campaign
'Q I If the Union goes in - do we pay our insurance)
A You may or may not pay your own insurance , this is a subject for
bargaining In any event the company would probably not pay on two
insurance policies, and has the option to terminate the present group policy
at any time
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC.
to represent the plant's employees. As a practical
matter, the employees could have assumed
reasonably that the vacation and backpay benefits
would also be jettisoned if the Union won the
election. Furthermore, as the Trial Examiner found,
the Respondent did not cure the prejudicial effect of
its answer to the backpay query by later answering
to another question that it could not take any
position on the backpay matter at that time.'
Indeed, the first series of answers remained posted
in the plant for 10 days and the later "clarification"
was too little and too late to revive the appearance
of neutrality.
Finally, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent, by use of the suggestion box, also
solicited its employees to submit their grievances to
management, and used the question box as a device
to adjust grievances as submitted.' We find that
Respondent's solicitation and settlement of
grievances during the pendency of the union
campaign and forthcoming election, in the
circumstances of this case, particularly in the light
of numerous simultaneous unfair labor practices,
interfered with the Section 7 rights of its employees
and constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act."
3. In regard to the 8(a)(3) allegation of the
complaint, the Trial Examiner concluded that Jannie
Rollins was discharged because of her union
activities and that the reason offered by the
Respondent for her discharge on February 1, 1968,
was pretextual. We agree.
During the 2 months prior to her dismissal
Rollins was extensively engaged in the union
campaign. She attended the two union meetings on
January 13 and 27, 1968, was one of the first to sign
a union card, and personally distributed 10
additional cards to fellow female employees. Rollins'
testimony on cross-examination was that in January
1968, the plant was in an "uproar"; that is, that the
lines were drawn between the prounion employees
and that faction antagonistic to the Union. As the
plant's towel washer, she was in a particularly
advantageous position to observe the mounting
friction between the two groups because by the
nature of her work she was permitted free
movement throughout the plant. In fact, it was for
this reason that in December 1967, she was
requested to distribute and collect the union cards.
She also credibly testified that as the election date
neared it became increasingly more difficult for the
'Q If the Union does not get voted in will we get salary raises back
to the date the others got theirs?
A Too, [sic] clarify the Company 's position , we cannot take any position
on any increases at this time
'Q When your supervisor brings your work back because of a small
mistake, I suggest they hand it back and not throw it back , because
someone might get hurt.
A To all supervisors do not throw the work back to employees To
all employees any conduct like this should be brought to the attention
of Pat Dwyer or myself immediately
'See, e. g., BaNas Egg Products , Inc, 121 NLRB 873, 880, enfd 283
F 2d 871 (C.A 6)
567
prounion employees to congregate and discuss the
campaign while at the same time the informal
gatherings of antiunion workers were condoned.
That the supervisory personnel, in particular
Frances Terranella, participated in these antiunion
discussions as noted above in connection with
Frazier's coercive remarks to Rollins is
uncontroverted.
Suspecting a general company hostility toward the
prounion employees including herself, Jannie Rollins
began to keep a record of recently hired employees
apparently in the belief that the Respondent was
attempting to dissipate union strength by employing
white girls instead of Negro girls. At the hearing
Rollins credibly testified that the last Negro women
were hired in early December 1967, and that in the
following month of January seven white women
were hired. Her testimony on this point was
unchallenged. The Respondent's work force of about
126 was roughly one-third Negro. Apparently
Rollins attributed a racially discriminatory hiring
policy to the Respondent but at the same time
surmised that union animus underlay the company
change in employment practice.
Whether or not there was in fact a policy of racial
discrimination being practiced to undermine the
union effort is impossible to deduce from the record
in this case. However, the finding of an 8(a)(3)
violation in this case does not rest on any conclusion
that the Respondent engaged in racial discrimination
with regard to its hiring policy; therefore, we deem
it unnecessary to decide the merits of this allegation
and, accordingly, disavow any inference drawn by
the Trial Examiner that would tend to imply that
the Respondent's hiring policy was discriminatory.
On balance, however, we agree with and hereby
adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the
discharge of Jannie Rollins was motivated by union
animus and that the reason given for her discharge
was pretextual.
From the record we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the Respondent was aware of Jannie
Rollins' union activities well in advance of February
1, 1968, the date of her discharge. The Trial
Examiner relied on three specific instances, and we
agree. The first of these occurred in December 1967,
shortly after Rollins signed her authorization card,
when Foreman Bill Kelly unlawfully inquired as to
her union sentiments, as found elsewhere herein. The
second instance focused on the events of January 27,
1968, when Rollins, and about 30 or 40 other
employees gathered at the Teamsters hall to confer
with union representatives who had handbilled the
plant earlier that day. Among those present were
Mickey Dwyer, a nonsupervisory employee and the
brother of Plant Manager Pat Dwyer, and a half
dozen or so of Mickey's friends. Unalterably
opposed to the union movement, Mickey Dwyer and
his friends went to see for themselves what the
Union had to offer. Rollins recalled the meeting and
credibly testified that Mickey Dwyer and his friends
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sat about four rows directly behind her. On the next
day, Mickey gave his brother Pat the names of 25
to 30 of those who had attended the union meeting.
Thus, by subtracting the names of those opposed to
the Union it is a reasonable conclusion that Pat
Dwyer, through his brother, learned the identity of
virtually all of the prounion employees, including
Jannie Rollins, who were in attendance at the
Teamsters hall. Whether or not there was indeed an
authorization or ratification of Mickey Dwyer's
activities is an issue we find unnecessary to resolve.
However, for the limited purpose of establishing
Respondent's knowledge of Rollins' interest in the
Union we find substantial evidence to support the
Trial Examiner's inference that Jannie Rollins'
name was among those known to be union
adherents. Finally, the confrontation between
Rollins and Pat Frazier in the presence of Forelady
Frances Terranella, noted above, provides additional
support for finding that Respondent knew of
Rollins' extensive union activities.
The circumstances surrounding Rollins ' discharge
on February 1, 1968, may be stated simply. On the
previous day Rollins was working at her machine
located near the employment office when a Negro
job applicant, Gladys Hall, emerged from the office
and asked Rollins if the Company was hiring. Hall
also said that she had just been informed by
personnel that there were no openings at that time.
Rollins, according to her testimony, already
suspecting that the Respondent was deliberately
refusing Negroes employment and hiring only whites
in an effort to discourage the union effort, and
having heard a rumor the day before that there was
a job opening in another department replied, "Yes,
quite a few white, no colored lately."' This remark
was repeated in the presence of Nina Brown, a
mutual friend of Hall and Rollins.
That evening Forelady Frances Terranella heard a
rumor of what had been said to Gladys Hall and the
following morning she began to substantiate the
story with the approval of Pat Dwyer. By the time
Terranella heard the rumor it was evident that
Rollins' remark had been communicated about the
plant. Finally, Hall and Brown were called into Pat
Dwyer's office and in the presence of Terranella and
the plant manager signed a statement that on the
previous day Rollins had told Gladys Hall that the
Company was "not hiring any colored." Shortly
thereafter, Rollins was summoned and told that she
had been fired. In fact Terranella and Dwyer had
decided to fire Rollins even before they called her to
the office and had also decided to give Rollins' job
to Hall. Indeed, they were not interested in Rollins'
'The Trial Examiner observed that in a preheating affidavit Rollins
deposed that she said "quite a few white but no colored" and did not use
the word "lately." Furthermore, Nina Brown and Gladys Hall signed a
statement, in evidence in this case, that Rollins simply said "they are not
hiring any colored girls." Whether or not Rollins actually used the word
"lately" is, in our opinion, of little consequence because it is clear that in
the context in which this remark was made she was obviously referring to
a present policy of Respondent
statement of what transpired, and Dwyer concluded
the meeting by saying that the matter could not be
allowed "to go to labor relations."
The Respondent contended that Rollins' remark
was inflammatory and, considerng the location of
the plant in a predominantly Negro neighborhood,
could cause community repercussions. Therefore, in
substance, it argues, inter alia , that it was only
taking precautions by discharging Rollins. Rollins'
version is simply that the Company in fact had not
hired a Negro worker in a month and a half and
during the same period seven white girls had been
employed and that by her remark she was only
disclosing a recent hiring pattern and nothing more.
Since she herself and about one-third of the other
employees were Negroes, she could hardly have
meant that job discrimination was an established
company policy, but only that there had been a
recent exclusion of Negro employees.
In sum , it appears from the record in this case
that the Respondent had indeed not hired any Negro
female employees in approximately 2 months while
during the same period seven white women were
hired. It also appears that Rollins knew this and
suspected an antiunion motivation underlying the
purported change in hiring policy because of the
intensified efforts of the Respondent to thwart the
union effort as evidenced by its complete disregard
of its employees' Section 7 rights as found elsewhere
herein. The plant was in an "uproar" and Jannie
Rollins, a known union advocate, was at the center
of the controversy. Her union activity had extended
over several months and she had been questioned
and threatened about her union suasions by, or in
the presence of, Respondent's supervisors.
Moreover, it is clear that the Respondent was not
interested in Rollins' defense, but had already
decided to discharge her before summoning her to
the office. Finally, any remaining plausibility in the
Respondent's defense is removed by its position that
in order to hush up the matter, the discharge should
not go through "labor relations"; for if the
Respondent was in fact concerned about correcting
or halting a malicious story pertaining to its hiring
policy, it seemingly would have explained to its
employees the true nature of its hiring policy.
Similarly, the discharge of Rollins, a longtime, well
known Negro employee who had been instrumental
in obtaining employment for others at the
Respondent's plant, could hardly have been viewed
as cementing cordial race relations in the
Respondent's plant or in the community. In these
circumstances, to seize suddenly upon the remark
made to a job applicant as grounds for discharge in
our view can only be a pretext concealing the real
reason - namely, Rollins ' union activity.'
'Even assuming arguendo , that Rollins' remark might constitute lawful
grounds for discharge this is not defense where the real reason for her
discharge, as here , was union activity protected by the Act N L R.B v
Ace Comb Co, 342 F.2d 841, 847 (C.A. 8). Accord, N.L R B. v. Symons
Manufacturing Co. 328 F 2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7); Portable Electric Tools v
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC. 569
4. In Case 17-RC-5637, six objections were filed
to conduct affecting the results of the election held
on March 1, 1968. The Regional Director, in his
Report on Objections, Recommendations, and
Order Directing Hearing, dated May 6, 1968,
recommended that objections 1, 2, 4, and that
contained in the second sentence of 5 be dismissed.
He ordered a hearing on objections 3, 6, the first
sentence of objection 5, and certain additional
matters not specifically alleged in the objections but
occurring within the critical period and contained in
the allegations of the complaint issued in Case
17-CA-3480, and consolidated the representation
proceeding with the unfair labor practice proceeding
for hearing before a Trial Examiner. Thereafter the
Union filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
Report.
In a notice dated May 29, 1968, the Board
deferred ruling on certain issues raised in the
representation case and decided that other matters
raised should be consolidated for hearing with the
complaint case. Through an inadvertence the Trial
Examiner did not specifically rule on the issues
herein raised with regard to the representation
proceeding.
Since we have already found that the conduct
objected to in objections 3 and 6 and the additional
matter referred to by the Regional Director, namely,
the installation of a question box for the purpose of
discouraging union membership or activity on the
behalf of the Union, implied promises of benefits
conditioned on the Union's defeat, shifting to the
Union the onus for the postponement of benefits,
threats of reprisal, and the discriminatory discharge
of an employee, constituted conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and/or (3), we also conclude, that
such conduct interfered with the election.'
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we shall set
aside the election of February 1, 1968, and we find
it unnecessary to pass on the remaining objections
and issues raised with respect to the conduct of the
election.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, H. L. Meyer Company, Inc., Kansas
City, Missouri, its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified.
1. Add the words "by discharging" to follow "or
any other labor organization of its employees," as
contained in paragraph 1(e) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
2. Substitute the words "by discharging or in any
other manner discriminating" for the words "nor
will we in any other manner discriminate" as
contained in the fifth indented paragraph of the
Trial Examiner ' s notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on March 1 , 1968, in Case 17-RC-5637, be, and it
hereby is , set aside , and that Case 17-RC-5637, be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 17 for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining
representative.
[Direction of Second Election "' omitted from
publication.]
"in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear, Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B. v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S 754 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 17 within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the
Regional Director. The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMEN"I OF THE CASE
WILLIAM SEAGLE, Trial Examiner: Upon a petition
filed on December 26, 1967, by Teamsters Local 838,
Warehouse and Mail Order Union, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter
referred to as the union), and a stipulation for certification
upon consent election entered into by the union and the
Respondent on January 23, 1968, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on March 1, 1968, in a unit agreed
to be appropriate by the parties' in order to determine
whether the unit employees desired to be represented for
the purposes of collective bargaining by the union. Of the
approximately 117 voters who were deemed eligible to
participate in the election, 45 cast valid ballots for and 64
cast valid ballots against the union.'
On March 6, 1968, the Union filed with the Regional
Director timely objections to the conduct of the election,
N L R B, 309 F . 2d 423 , 426 (C A. 7).
'Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782.
We have herein found that Kelly's remarks to Rollins constituted a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act . However , as these remarks occurred
outside the critical period , we have not considered them as grounds for
setting aside the election . Goodyeer Tire and Rubber Company, 138
NLRB 453
.The unit comprises all production and maintenance employees of the
respondent at its Kansas City, Missouri , plant, excluding office clerical
employees , professional employees, supervisors and guards as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
'One ballot was void and four ballots were challenged but the latter were
insufficient in number to affect the result of the election.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the objections being numbered consecutively from I to 6,'
and on April 23, 1968, the Regional Director issued a
complaint against the Respondent, in which violations of
Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act were alleged, the
complaint being based on charges filed by the union on
February 6, 1968.' Under date of May 6, 1968, the
Regional Director issued his report on the objections to
the election, in which he dismissed as unmeritorious
Objections 1. 2, and 4 and that part of Objection 5
contained in the second sentence thereof but set down for
hearing Objections 3, 6, and that part of Objection 5
contained in the first sentence thereof. At the same time,
the Regional Director consolidated for purposes of
hearing the issues raised by the objections not dismissed
by him with the issues in the complaint case
The issues in the complaint case are whether the
respondent interfered with, restrained or coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization and discriminatorily discharged Janine
Rollins, one of its employees.
I held a hearing with respect to the issues in the
consolidated proceeding at Kansas City, Missouri, on
June 4, 1968.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the
posthearing briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel
and for the respondent,' and in view of my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following findings of fact:
I. THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, H. L Meyer Company, Inc.
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as Meyer), a
corporation engaged in the manufacture of lenses for
glasses and other optical equipment, maintains several
plant and warehouses, including a plant in Kansas City,
Missouri, which is the only installation of the respondent
involved in the present proceeding.
In the course and cot:ou, of its operations at its
Kansas City, Missouri, plant, the Respondent annually
purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from suppliers located in States other than the State of
Missouri.
'Objection I related to alleged misrepresentations by the Respondent
with respect to the payment of union dues
Objection 2 related to the distribution of literature by the Respondent
alleged to be defamatory, in particular the legends on matchbooks, one of
which was of a vulgar nature, consisting of an excrementitious
exclamation
Objection 3 related to the posting by the Respondent on its bulletin
board of two series of questions and answers, allegedly based on questions
obtained from suggestion boxes installed by the Respondent
Objection 4 related to the posting by the Respondent of a letter dated
February 29, 1968, from its counsel, attempting to explain the discharge of
Floyd Clark, one of its employees
Objection 5 consisted of two sentences, the first relating to an alleged
suggestion by the Respondent that its employees resort to physical
violence, and the second relating to the delivery by the Respondent to a
captive audience of a speech during the 24-hour period prior to the
election
Objection 6 related to alleged promises of benefit made by the
Respondent to its employees prior to the election
'An amendment to paragraph 5 of the complaint was issued by the
Regional Director under date of May 3, 1968.
'In addition to his brief, counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion
to correct the transcript of the hearing in various respects The motion is
granted in all respects except as to the spelling of the name of Frances
Terranella. Counsel for the General Counsel would change the spelling of
her last name to Tarranella wherever it occurs in the transcript but he
has failed to show why this spelling would be correct In the brief of
counsel for the respondent the name is spelled "Terranella "
T'"e Respondent admits that at all material times it has
bc„ i an employer engaged in commerce within the
flied rung of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and I so find.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION I\^OI'ED
Teamsters Local 838, Warehouse and Mail Order
Union, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization that has sought to
organize the production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Organizational Background
In the latter part of October 1967, Harry Taylor, one
of the Meyer employees, who had been employed at the
plant for about 30 years, talked to some of his fellow
employees about unionization, and on or about November
8, he went to the Teamsters' hall to get some information,
literature and union authorization cards, which were
afterwards distributed to the Meyer employees and signed
by some of them. On January 13, 1968, Taylor held a
meeting of Meyer employees at its home, and there was a
second meeting of such employees on January 27, 1968
This second meeting, which was held at the Teamsters'
hall, was attended by 30 to 40 of the Meyer employees.
On January 24, apparently, in preparation for this
meeting Harry G. Kress, the union's business agent,
accompanied by Gayle Crawford, another union business
agent, handbllled the Meyer plant from about 3:30 to 5
p.m., during which they had an encounter with Pat
Dwyer, the Meyer plant manager , as hereinafter related.
As soon as Waitman Meyer, the president of the
respondent, became aware of the union campaign, he
launched an aggressive campaign of his own against it.
Some of the incidents of Meyer' s campaign are reflected
in the union's objections to the election, and others are the
basis of the charges of unfair labor practices. These
incidents include speeches by Meyer to the employees at
the plant before the election ; the perpetration of various
stunts, such as the distribution on the day of the election
of two paychecks, one of which was for 2 months' union
dues, and the distribution of the book matches, each of
which contained an antiunion message; the interrogation
by Pat Dwyer of one of the employees by the name of
Charles Kennybrew, and a threatening remark he made to
another employee after the union handbilling of the plant;
the injection of a Trojan horse into the union meeting of
January 27, in the form of Mickey Dwyer, the brother of
Pat Dwyer, the plant manager; the installation of a
suggestion box by the timeclock in the plant to encourage
the antiunion employees, and the subsequent posting on
February 14 and 26 of the series of questions and answers
allegedly based on the material in the suggestion box.
While the Regional Director found that much of the
respondent's antiunion propaganda, although in
questionable taste, did not furnish an adequate basis for
setting aside the election, all of it furnishes the necessary
background for the evaluation of the unfair labor
practices, which the respondent did commit, and which
culminated in the discharge of Jannie Rollins.
B. The Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
1. The coercive interrogation of Charles Kennybrew
Charles Kennybrew, who works for Meyer as a
shiner-polisher, has been employed for about 9 years, and
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC.
the evidence shows that he was one of the employees who
was active in obtaining union authorization cards.
On I Monday , January 22 , 1968, about 3 p.m.,
Kennybrew was approached at his work station by Pat
Dwyer, the plant manager , who engaged him in
conversation about the union . Dwyer asked Kennybrew to
tell him what complaints he had against the company and
the latter mentioned three , which were the arrangements
on vacations, insurance, and seniority . Dwyer then tried to
convince Kennybrew that he really had no complaints but
was following Harry Taylor who could get him "in a
whole lot of trouble ." Dwyer then went on to say that if
they got "that damn union in there" he could make the
work standards so high that Kennybrew would have to
work like a dog to get the work out , and if he did not get
it out, he could be fired. So far as insurance was
concerned , Dwyer told Kennybrew that they had the best
insurance in the country but the latter observed that one
could not get a room in a hospital on $12 a day. Dwyer
admitted this to be true but pointed out that Meyer, who
was a very busy man, did not know it . Kennybrew then
returned to the question of seniority , and mentioned that
when Floyd Clark had been discharged , someone had been
hired off the street to take his place . This reminded Dwyer
to tell Kennybrew that if the union did come in and he
had to hire someone to take the place of an employee who
went on vacation , this employees would be retained after
the vacationing employee returned if he worked out any
better than the latter. Another disturbing possibility
mentioned by Dwyer was that if the union came in,
neither he nor Foreman Bill Kelly would be able to touch
the machines , and if Kennybrew became sick , he would
have to close the shop until he returned . Dwyer threw in
for good measure that Kennybrew ' s job was so easy that a
woman could be hired to do it for $ 1.40 an hour, and he
also remarked to Kennybrew that he ought to be working
down at the union hall , and that if he did not like the way
the shop was being run , he ought to "just get the hell out
of here." At this point in the conversation , Dwyer was
called to the telephone , and the interrogation which had
lasted about three-quarters of an hour, came to an end.
As a witness for the Respondent , Pat Dwyer ' s tenure of
the witness stand was extremely brief . But while he was on
the stand he was not even invited to deny any part of his
conversation with Kennybrew , whose testimony thus
stands admitted. It hardly needs to be demonstrated that
this conversation which included threats to the job security
of not only Kennybrew but also to the other employees,
was coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The encounter between Kress and Pat Dwyer on
January 24
571
intention , Dwyer emerged from the plant again , and asked
Kress whether he could attend the union meeting . Kress,
although he evidently knew that Dwyer was the plant
manager , replied "sure, the meeting was open to
everybody" but then Dwyer also wanted to know whether
the union business agents would give him a ride, or get
him a ride. At this sally, Kress just laughed, and
remarked that everybody was welcome to come to the
meeting whether they had signed union authorization
cards or not . Dwyer went back into the plant again, and
reported to George Smith: "They didn't fall for that."
Dwyer further remarked to George Smith, however, "I
wish they would hurry up and get that union in so I can
fire all of them son-of-a-bitches and make the company
some money."
This remark was overheard by Jannie Rollins who
testified to the making of it. Dwyer himself, after
testifying that he did not know whether he had had a
conversation with George Smith at this time, denied
nevertheless making this remark , and testified that all he
merely said was that he wished the union would hurry up
and come in "One way or the other so my factory could
get back to normal ." I credit , however , Jannie Rollins'
version of the remark , which is far more in harmony with
Pat Dwyer's derisive conduct during the whole incident,
and his conduct as a whole, much of which is still to be
related. Indeed, I rate the credibility of Pat Dwyer so low
that I only credit his testimony when it is consistent with
that of the General Counsel' s witnesses. Counsel for the
respondent strives to discredit Jannie Rollins' version of
the remark but on grounds that are strained and
implausible, and do so accurately reflect her testimony.
She never testified that Dwyer told George Smith that the
union representatives had told him that he could not
attend the union meeting . She merely testified that Dwyer
told George Smith "They didn't fall for that," which
could refer to picking Dwyer up and driving him to the
union meeting . I also fail to perceive the relevance of such
circumstances as that Rollins did not make the remark
but merely overheard it; or that she may or may not have
been eavesdropping - actually there is nothing to show that
she did not overhear the remark by chance, or that the
remark may have been made near quitting time ; or that
Jannie Rollins may have been near the timeclock when
she overheard it. I am also unable to understand the force
of the suggestion made by counsel for the respondent that
counsel for the General Counsel should have called
George Smith as a witness . The latter was quite evidently
a crony of Pat Dwyer. If anybody should have called
George Smith as a witness, it should have been counsel
for the Respondent.
In making the remark about firing all the union
supporters, Pat Dwyer violated, of course Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The suggestion boxes and the posting of the
questions and answers
As already mentioned , Pat Dwyer had an encounter
with Kress , the Union ' s business agent while the latter was
handbilling the Respondent 's Kansas City plant on January
24. When he observed the handbilling , Dwyer remarked to
George Smith , one of the Meyer employees , that he would
go out and get one of the pamphlets . He did so, and took
the pamphlet back into the plant - apparently , to read it.
As he entered the plant he told George Smith that the
union was going to have a meeting , and that he would go
back outside , and ask the union business agents to pick
him up and take him to the meeting. Carrying out this
After Waitman Meyer had made one of his speeches to
the employees in the plant towards the end of January
1968, it seems that two of the female employees, whose
names are Berline Bruce and Sarah Scott, suggested to
Frances Terranella , the forelady who supervised inspection
in the bagging department , that a suggestion box be
installed , so that they could put questions to Meyer that
they had been unable to think of after he had made his
speeches . The suggestion was duly adopted and a
cardboard suggestion box was put on a table in the lunch
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room . This rather makeshift box was replaced within a
week by a more permanent wooden box which had a lock
on it . There probably had been suggestion boxes in the
plant before but at least a year had elapsed since the last
one had been removed.'
This time the suggestion box was not neglected by the
employees . Actually, the term "suggestion box" in this
connection was a misnomer . It was really a question box,
and the employees bombarded the management with
questions that were raised in their minds by the union
campaign that was in progress , for the questions related to
the securing of better pay and working conditions than
were in effect in the Kansas City plant , and to the
removal of grievances that obtained there . The questions
were stimulated , moreover by the fact that in January
1968, the respondent had informed its employees that it
had increased wages and other benefits at its other plants
but that these benefits would be withheld at its Kansas
City plant pending the outcome of the union election
campaign.'
The questions and answers posted on February 14 were
as follows:
Q. If the Union goes in - do we pay our insurance?
A. You may or may not pay your own insurance,
this is a subject for bargaining . In any event the
company would probably not pay on two insurance
policies , and has the option to terminate the present
group policy any time.
Q. I heard that the employees of the other plants
that have been there 10 yrs . or over are getting a 3
week paid vacation . Is this correct?
A. Yes. This year they will get 3 weeks pay , but only
two weeks off. During a Union organization campaign
the law prohibits us from changing employees benefits;
such in the case at H. L. Meyer Co.
Q. Should the Union go through and this plant
should strike , do we get paid?
A. 1. The company does not pay employees on
strike.
A. 2. Employees on strike cannot draw
unemployment compensation.
A. 3. You probably will not receive any strike
benefits the first two weeks - you may or may not
receive any strike benefits from the Teamsters at all. In
one case the Teamsters promised $25.00 per week strike
benefits to the people ; the Teamsters won the election
and after that there was a strike and the Teamsters did
not pay off. The employees had to sue the Teamsters
for 2 million dollars in damage they claimed to have
occured [sic] because of Teamsters not meeting their
promise . The court held the Union ' s promise that if the
employees went Teamster they would receive strike
benefits was not an enforceable contract under federal
law.
`Harry Taylor testified that during the 30 years of his employment he
had never seen a suggestion box Frances Terranella, whose tenure at the
plant was almost as long , being 25 years, testified that there had been
many years ago a suggestion box that was unmarked It is no wonder that
Taylor was unaware of its exitence ! Terranella also testified however, that
there had been a suggestion box, which was marked as such, during the
regime of the previous plant manager, whose name was Jerry DeSchepper
and who had left before April 1967. DeSchepper had removed the
suggestion box after it began to be used for love notes.
'This is manifest from references in the questions themselves , as well as
from the testimony of Terranella who, when asked when she became aware
of the union campaign, replied that it was "when I was informed that we
had to stop , when we had discussed that we were going ahead with some
raises and that I was told that we had to forget it "
Q. When your supervisor brings your work back
because or a small mistake , I suggest they hand it back
and not throw it back, because someone might get hurt.
A. To all supervisors - do not throw the work back to
employees. To the employees - any conduct like this
should be brought to the attention of Pat Dwyer or
myself immediately.
Q. As I understand that the other plants such as
Butler and Versailles got their raise prior to Feb 1st. Is
there a possible chance that we the employees of H. L.
Meyer Co. would get back pay if by chance the Union
would be ruled out come Mar. 1st.
A. Butler and Versailles got raises Jan. 1st. Yes,
back pay for H. L. Meyer employees is possible,
however, we can make no promises or take any action
until after the election.
Q. Some of the girls are under the impression that
by voting for the Union they are getting back at the
supervisors, can you explain to them that the Union
will not affect our supervisors attitude.
A. Management and Supervisors still retain the right
to hire and Fire. Supervisors are not subject to
negotiation or bargaining with the Unions.
The second series of questions were in the form of a
letter from a group of employees who subscribed the letter
as "Concerned Employees Form 12th Street," and the
letter read as follows:
Please read our mere suggestions as to how we feel
the administration of Meyer's might better be handled.
1. Male supervision such as we had in 1950 is needed
upstairs. One capable man could replace 35% of the
women upstairs.
2. Seniority would also be a helpful tool in
considering your employee's wages. One feels cheated
after working for 20 years for the same salary as a new
worker. Is this really fair? We should be treated as
individuals for our own human dignity. Give us
something to work for.
3. Unfair Treatment and Poor supervision has made
us feel insecure. Where can we find security if not with
our job? Unions and leaving our jobs would not be
necessary if we were treated fairly. We believe that you
would rather treat us fairly than to be involved with a
union have to waste time training new employees.
Keep us! We want to stay! Consider our worth to
you and your obligation to us.
These are mere suggestions. In no way are they
threats. Help
The Respondent's answers to the question contained in
the letter were as follows:
A. 1. The Company is always looking for good
supervisors both male and female but good supervisors
are hard to find. We know of no union who can change
this or help this problem. As far as replacing 25% of
the women upstairs, the Company has always tried to
provide continuous job security for all employees. We
do not intend to change this policy. We do not intend
to replace employees with either new supervision or new
equipment.
A. 2. The Company very often gives no credit to
seniority in wage increases but we know NO Teamster
contract that does so. Teamster contract simply provide
for classifications and rates of pay without regard to
wage increases due only to seniority. We know of no
exception to this. Many times in union contracts the
older employees are lower paid than new employees.
We agree that you "Should be treated as individuals for
your own human dignity" but this is directly contrary
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC.
to the way unions operate, where often employees are
simply a dues paying classification in a contract and the
majority rules without regard to the individual.
A. 3. If there has been unfair treatment I do not
know; about it. The only way 1 can correct it is if I
know the facts. We do not tolerate unfair treatment of
our employees by anybody. Your security is only with
the company. No union can make your jobs more
secure. Only the continued operation of this company
can do that.
Q. 4. Why don't you let somebody beat Harry
Taylor up or down? Let me please.
A. 4. Our employees have a federally protected right
to engage in union activity or to refuse to engage in
activity. We intend to protect both of these rights.
Q. 5. If the Union gets in here they are going to let
the older help go. Does the Union have the right to hire
and fire?
A. 5. No. Only the Company has the right to hire
and fire.
Q. 6. If the Union would go in and I was out on
strike can I be replaced?
A. 6. Yes, even if the Company continued to operate.
Q. 7. If the Union does not get voted in - will we get
salary raises back to the date the others got theirs?
A. 7. Too [sic] clarify the Company's position, we
cannot take any position on any increases at this time.
The installation of the "suggestion box," as well as the
posting of the questions and answers, are charged as
unfair labor practices in the complaint. The Board has
held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when during the pendency of a union election campaign he
solicits his employees to submit their grievances. This
solicitation may take various forms, such as the
suggestion that the employees form a shop or plant
grievance committee to deal with management,' or that
they deal individually or directly with management.' Such
suggestions are interferences with the Section 7 rights of
the employees even when there is no union with majority
status on the scene, especially when the suggestions are
accompanied by the commission of other unfair labor
practices."' In principle, the installation of a suggestion
box for the purpose of ascertaining the grievances of the
employees while the union election campaign was in
progress would seem to be no different from any other
form of suggestion, and it is no defense, moreover, that
the box may have been installed at the suggestion of two
of the employees."
Since the Respondent did not confine itself, moreover,
to the installation of the suggestion box but proceeded to
post answers to the suggestions or questions received from
employees, it compounded its unfair labor practice. Some
of the Respondent' s answers were, to be sure, mere
antiunion propaganda, and the record contains no
evidence from which it can be judged whether it was true
or false. But most of the questions related to benefits or
working conditions in the Meyer plant, especially as
compared to those in the other Meyer plants, and in
answering these questions, the Respondent made promises
'See, for instance , Gallas Egg Products, Inc., 121 NLRB 873, 880, enfd
283 F.2d 871 (C.A. 6); Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697,
699-700; Alberto Culver Co., 136 NLRB 1432, 1433. Delight Bakery. Inc.,
145 NLRB 893, 902-903, enfd . 353 F.2d 344 (C.A. 6).
'See, for instance , Cactus Petroleum , Inc. 134 NLRB 1254, 1256, 1261.
"See Cactus Petroleum , Inc , supra , 1261; Engineered Building Products,
162 NLRB No. 54.
"See Viking of Minneapolis, Division of the Telex Corporation, 171
NLRB No 7, in. 8, and other cases there cited.
573
of benefits, although in veiled terms, by implying that
better wages, vacations and working conditions in general
would follow once the union campaign was over, and the
union had been defeated. It raised these implications by
stating what the vacations and wages were in its other
plants and by informing the employees that no action
could be taken while the union election was pending.
Furthermore, in handling at least one of the questions, the
one relating to the possibility of the Meyer employees in
Kansas City securing backpay "if by chance the union
would be ruled out come Mar. 1st," the Respondent
plainly stated that such backpay was possible, although it
could make no promises or take no action "until after the
election." The Respondent itself apparently realized that
this came close to an explicit promise of benefit, for in the
second series of questions and answers it undertook to
"clarify the Company's position" by stating that "we
cannot take any position on any increases at this time"
(emphasis supplied). When this "clarification" took place,
however, the previous question and answer had remained
posted for at least 10 days, and the damage had been
done.
By seeking to shift to the union the onus for the
postponement of wage increases and other benefits for the
employees at the Kansas City plant, and by attempting to
create the impression that the union was responsible for
their failure to obtain the benefits, which had been granted
by the Respondent at its other plants, the respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.12
It should be noted, moreover, that this violation was
aggravated in other ways. In answering the question
whether it would not be a good idea to beat up Harry
Taylor, the leader of the union drive among the
employees, the respondent expressed no indignation and
did not deal very firmly or forthrightly with the question.
It contended itself rather with the rather equivocal legal
formula that its employees had the right to engage in or
to refuse to engage in union activity. It is also worth
noting that in at least one respect the Respondent actually
removed one of the grievances of the employees which
concerned the practice of some supervisors to throw work
back at the employees, and that in discussing the status of
the supervisors in answer to another question, it
incorrectly informed its employees that the powers of the
supervisors were not subject to collective bargaining.
C. The Discharge of Jannie Rollins
1. The circumstances of the discharge
Jannie Rollins is a member of the Negro race who had
been employed by the respondent in October 1966 as a
towel washer. As the term implies, it was her job to wash
and launder the dirty towels of the plant, and to distribute
them. Her work station was in the hallway just off the
12th Street entrance of the plant where the timeclock was
also located, and her hours were from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
every day of the week, except Saturdays and Sundays.
Her immediate supervisor was Pat Dwyer, and from her
work station Rollins could see anyone who went into or
came out of his office. Because of her strategic location
near the 12th Street entrance and near the timeclock,
"See McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co, Inc.. 158 NLRB 1237, 1238;
American Paper and Supply Company, 159 NLRB 1234, 1243. Counsel
for the Respondent relies on Uarco Incorporated. 169 NLRB No. 162, but
this case is inapposite, for the employer in that case was obviously neutral
between the union and his employees.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rollins became an important cog in steering applicants for
employment to the right place to get their application
blanks, and she had herself been instrumental in getting
jobs for a number of Negro girls. Because of the location
of her job and her unofficial activity as a recruiter of
personnel , she knew quite accurately who was being hired
at any particular time.
Rollins was one of the early union supporters. She
signed her union authorization card on December 7, 1967.
She was one of four employees who had received union
authorization cards that day from another employee
whose name was Louis Mobley. At lunch time Rollins
took the three other employees who had received the
union authorization cards to her home where all of them
signed the cards, and gave them to Rollins to transmit to
Louis Mobley. For some undisclosed reason , however,
Rollins' authorization card did not immediately reach the
union and on December 9 Charles Kennybrew came by
her house and had her sign another union authorization
card." At the request of Harry Taylor, Rollins also passed
out union authorization cards to five other employees
whose names were Eleanor Brooks , Frances Vowell,
Katherine Long, Mary Lovingood, and Dorothy
Breashears, who, in turn also passed out union
authorization cards to other employees. All of the cards
so signed were given to Rollins who turned them over to
Harry Taylor.
Shortly after she had signed her union authorization
cards Rollins had a conversation with one of the foremen
whose name was Bill Kelly. The latter approached Rollins
and asked her if she had ever belonged to a union ." When
Rollins replied to this question in the affirmative, Kelly
asked her what the union had done for her, and she
explained to him that her boy friend worked at a place
where there was a union , and where the employees
received "five weeks with pay and a retirment." This led
Kelly to remark to Rollins: "Well, my dad-in-law worked
at Butler, and when he retired they only gave him $3,000
and nothing after that and he belonged to a union."
Needless to say Rollins, as one of the earliest and
staunchest union adherents attended the meeting at Harry
Taylor's house on January 13. She also attended the union
meeting held at the Teamsters' hall on January 27. The
importance of her attendance at this meeting is that it was
also attended by Michael (Mickey) Dwyer, who is the
brother. of Pat Dwyer, the plant manager, and who seems
to have practiced industrial nepotism on a generous scale,
for he not only had his brother Michael working at the
plant but also his mother and his son . Michael Dwyer was
not a supervisory employee but he was employed at the
plant in a twofold capacity, both as a polisher and a
maintenance man, working at these two jobs about 10
hours a day. His job as a maintenance man in particular
afforded him frequent opportunity to move about the
plant and the evidence suggests that Pat Dwyer made use
of his brother Michael, as well as another antiunion
employee, Pat Frazier, in countering the activities of the
union . Pat Dwyer had already made use of both of them
in distributing to the employees a few days before the
election the antiunion book matches conceived by
Waitman Meyer, the president of the company. Unable,
himself, to attend the union meeting of January 27, much
as he desired to, he was not in the end left without
"Both the card signed by Rollins on December 7 and the card signed by
her on December 9 are in evidence as G C Exhs. 5-A and 5-B
"Kelly was not referring , apparently, to Local 838 of the reainsters but
to unions in general
information concerning the attendance at the meeting.
Michael Dwyer went to the meeting, accompanied by half
a dozen other antiunion employees, and he considered that
notwithstanding his close relationship with the plant
manager" he had a right to attend the meeting, since
everybody had been invited to attend. While Michael
Dwyer was not exactly a stickler for the truth, any more
than his brother was," he was somewhat more candid than
the latter, and he readily confessed that after the meeting
he had given his brother Pat the names of the employees
who had attended the union meeting of January 27 to the
extent that he could remember them. He did in fact a
pretty effective job of remembrance, for he testified that
he named to his brother 20 to 25 of the approximately 30
to 40 employees who were pfesent at the meeting.
Deducting the antiunion cohort headed by himself, this
would mean that he supplied to Pat Dwyer the names of
virtually all the prounion employees who were present at
the meeting. There can hardly be any doubt that among
these was the name of Janine Rollins, who was sitting
only a few rows in front of him. Michael Dwyer made
quite a point of testifying that he supplied his brother with
the names of the employees who had attended the union
meeting of January 27 although his brother did not ask
for them. If this were indeed true, it could only have been
because his brother had no need to ask for them.
If there can be the slightest doubt, however, that the
Meyer management not only knew that Jannie Rollins
had attended the union meeting of January 27, but also
that she was one of the more active prounion employees,
that doubt must be regarded as entirely dispelled by an
incident that occurred about a week before she was
discharged. On this occasion, Frances Terranella, the
forelady in the bagging department, and Pat Frazier were
talking about the union to a number of the female
employees, who included Annette Hill, Bonnie Hayes, and
Katherine Long. Rollins was passing by on her way to her
work station after returning from an errand, and Pat
Frazier remarked to Rollins "What are you going to do
when they close the plant doors and you'll be outside
walking with signs, how much are they going to pay you?"
Rollins just looked at Pat Frazier and replied: "Well, I
don't know, you seem to know everything else." It is not
recorded that Terranella rebuked Pat Frazier in any way,
although she was right there, and overheard Pat Frazier's
remarks. Terranella, when cross-examined about the
incident, did not deny it. She took refuge rather in a
complete lack of memory.
The significance of this incident arises from the fact
that Terranella appears to have been extremely active in
influencing the female employees against the union. Her
office was located right outside the lunchroom, and she
often ate with the girls and undoubtedly talked to them
about the union. There can also be little doubt that they
on occasion would report to her on the prounion
"The evidence of Janine Lollms shows that Michael was constantly in
and out of his brother's office, and that the two of them lunched together
v'rtually every day I do not credit Pat Dwyer' s testimony that he lunched
with his brother "Maybe once a week if that much," or Michael Dwyer's
testimony that he lunched with his brother "twice in a month, at the
most." Both brothers grossly understated the number of times a day that
Michael was in Pat's office
"This is apparent alone from the attempts to minimize the degree of
their intimacy There is also a significant discrepancy in their testimony
concerning the distribution of the book matches . Pat Dwyer testified that
he did not see his brother pick up the book matches in his office but
Michael Dwyer testified that his brother was present in his office when he
took some of the book matches in order to distribute them
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC.
employees . Although she denied any antiunion animus or
activity, iI do not credit her denials. In the end it was
Terranella who took the lead in getting Jannie Rollins
fired, and in the very beginning of her story concerning
the discharge she betrayed her true relationship with the
female employees, so far as the union was concerned, for
,he begat} her testimony about the event as follows:
Well, on the evening before Jannie was fired Mrs.
Annette Hill (one of the employees who worked in her
department) was riding home with me and she said,
"Do you know what Jannie Rollins is up to nowP"
[Emphasis supplied.]
The evening before Rollins was fired was January 31,
1968, 4 days after the union meeting had been held.
Riding home with Annette Hill that evening Terranella
had heard a truly interesting piece of gossip. It was that
Jannie Rollins had told a colored applicant for
employm nt that Terranella did not hire colored help.
Annette Hill had had this piece of gossip from Kay Loria,
who had had it from Bernice Neice, who had had it from
Shirley I-ilton, who had had it from Nina Brown, who
had had it from Gladys Hall, all except the last being
female employees of Meyers, and the last being the
colored applicant for employment, who was from out of
town - from California
About 7 a.m. the next morning Terranella picked up
Kay Loria, Annette Hill's informant, and asked her-
"Kay, do you have something to tell me?" Kay did, and
told Terranella that she had heard that Jannie Rollins had
told a colored applicant for employment that she "didn't
hire colored." Although it is apparent that Terranella was
still far from the ultimate source of the rumor, she
hastened to Pat Dwyer to tell him what she had heard
about Rollins and that she intended "to check it out
further" He agreed, and as soon as Bernice Neice had
reported for work, she went to the latter and ascertained
that the ultimate source of the rumor was Nina Brown,
who was a friend of Gladys Hall, the applicant for
employment. After receiving confirmation of the rumor
from Nina Brown, and after obtaining Gladys Hall's
application for employment, which she had not theretofore
seen, she, took Nina Brown to Pat Dwyer, so that she
could repeat the story to the latter. Terranella then asked
vin., Brown to bring her friend to the plant , and in a
couple of hours Gladys Hall appeared. Nina Brown was
then called into Pat Dwyer's office again, and in her
presence, Terranella asked Gladys Hall: "You were
looking for a job yesterday and I want you to tell me just
what went on." According to Terranella, Gladys Hall
replied: "Well, I met a colored woman out in the hall
there and she told me 'Honey, they aren't hiring any
colored.' " Pat Dwyer and Terranella then had Nina
Brown and Gladys Hall sign a statement reading as
follows:
Gladys Hall came in on January 31, 1968, to fill an
application, as she was waiting for her friend, whom is
employed here, Jannie Rollins said to her, honey they
are not hiring any colored girls.
Before interviewing Nina Brown and Gladys Hall, and
obtaining their statement, Pat Dwyer and Terranella had
decided that if Gladys Hall confirmed the remark
attributed to Jannie Rollins they would give Gladys Hall
the job of Jannie Rollins, who would be discharged. In
fact Pat Dwyer ordered the bookkeeper to prepare
Rollins' final check before she was called in to be told of
her discharge, or given any opportunity to give her version
of the remark she had made to Gladys Hall, or to attempt
to explain it.
575
After Nina Brown and Gladys Hall had left Pat
Dwyer's office, the latter and Terranella congratulated
each other, according to the latter, on "how fortunate we
were to have caught this before it got out any further."
Their joy was, however, shortlived, for Reno Lewis, the
plant porter, walked in just then, and having overheard,
apparently, what Pat Dwyer and Terranella had been
saying, remarked to them: "Are you talking about Jannie
Rollins telling colored applicants that you don't hire
colored?" Terranella replied in the affirmative, whereupon
Reno Lewis told them: "Well, you didn't stop it. It is all
over 12th street," and offered to go across the street and
to get more evidence. But Pat Dwyer and Terranella
declined this offer, the former remarking to Lewis: "I
don't believe we need any more witnesses from 12th
Street."
The final paycheck of Jannie Rollins having been
prepared, the culprit was summoned to Pat Dwyer's office
about 3 p.m. that day. There are two main accounts of
the discharge interview, one, that of Terranella, and the
other, that of Rollins. Terranella testified as follows:
Jannie, I just don't know how to tell you this, and she
looked astonished . I said , "but I have been investigating
all day and I find that you have told a colored applicant
that we didn't hire colored." She said, "I didn't say
anything, I don't talk to the applicants." And then in
her next breath she said, all I said was you hadn't hired
colored lately."
Asked to explain the circumstances leading to her
discharge, Rollins testified that when Gladys Hall, who
was a friend of Nina Brown's, whom she had helped to
get a job at Meyers, asked her if "they were hiring," she
remarked to her "Yes, quite a few white, no colored
lately," and that she based this remark on the fact that no
colored help had been hired to work in the plant since two
colored girls, Nina Brown and Mabel Hensley, had been
hired early in December 1967.
As for what happened and what was said during her
discharge interview itself, Rollins testified as follows:
Well, Frances Terranella was standing near Pat's desk,
he was sitting at the desk, and she told me that a source
had told her that they heard me say they didn't hire
colored, and I say, "Don't hire colored" What am I,
standing here colored as I want to be. She said "that's
what I can't understand." I said, "You go get your
source and bring them to me." She said, "Well, I can't
do that." So then I said, "Well, so you all believe them
other than me." So they didn't say anything, so I
looked over at Pat Dwyer and I said, "So you believe
them other than me. You do what you know to do." So
then he replied to me "I am going to have to let you go
because I can't let this get to labor relations," and he
handed me my check and I came out the door.
2. Concluding findings
Both Pat Dwyer and Frances Terranella made quite a
point of emphasizing in their testimony relating to the
discharge of Jannie Rollins the circumstances which
seemed to them to make her discharge absolutely
unavoidable. They pointed out that the Kansas City plant
of the respondent was located in a predominately Negro
neighborhood; that the plant was also located only 9
blocks from the local office of CORE; and that a
considerable percentage of the plant's employees - from30
to 40 percent -were Negroes. The impression that they
sought to create was that the failure to discharge Rollins
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after her malicious remark to Glady' s Hall, a Negro
applicant , would have had the most serious consequences
for the respondent.
It is true that the Meyer plant in Kansas City is in a
Negro neighborhood , in which CORE is also located, and
that it has a sizeable complement of Negro employees.
But I am neither convinced that the discharge of Jannie
Rollins involved a situation which left the respondent with
no option, nor that the remark made by her to Gladys
Hall was false or malicious , and I am forced to conclude
that whatever justification for the discharge of Rollins
there may have existed, it was only a pretext for getting
rid of her because of her union activities and the union
situation.
The pronounced antiunion animus of the respondent is
clearly established by the record, whether one looks at its
antiunion propaganda or at its actual unfair labor
practices . In addition to the unfair labor practices directed
at its other employees , there are , moreover , unfair labor
practices involving Jannie Rollins herself . Counsel for the
respondent seeks to make light of her interrogation by
Foreman Bill Kelly, who was not called as a witness either
to deny or explain his conduct, and if this were the only
unfair labor practice charged against the respondent, there
might be some force in counsel's argument . This would
be, however , because the conduct could be regarded as
isolated rather than as excusable . Despite the fact that
Kelly spoke of unions in general without specifically
referring to Local 838 of the Teamsters , he was seeking to
pry into a matter that did not concern him. It is true that
the incident cannot be regarded as a basis for setting aside
the election," since it occurred before the filing of the
union ' s petition , but it is all the more significant in
relation to the discharge of Rollins, since it shows how
early the Respondent knew or suspected that she was a
union supporter . It is even more significant that
Terranella was the forelady who was present when Pat
Frazier interrogated and threatened Rollins' job security,
since Terranella was the one who went out of her way to
secure the discharge of Rollins. By failing to rebuke Pat
Frazier, Terranella clearly ratified the latter's conduct,"
and the Respondent must be charged with still another
unfair labor practice, which, although not alleged in the
complaint , was fully litigated at the hearing.
There can be equally no doubt that the Respondent had
full knowledge of the union activities of Jannie Rollins at
least a week before her discharge. The contention to the
contrary made by counsel for the respondent is specious,
if not frivolous, in view of the Bill Kelly and Pat Frazier
incidents , the presence of Pat Dwyer's brother at the
union meeting of January 27, and the encyclopedic nature
of the information concerning the attendance at the
meeting transmitted by the latter to Pat Dwyer." It is also
clear that the union activities of Jannie Rollins were very
substantial if not extensive , and that counsel for the
Respondent is again engaged in specious argument when
he characterizes her activity as "minimal."
"Objectionable conduct occurring prior to the filing of'the petition may
not be considered under the Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company.
134 NLRB 1275.
"See Viking of Minneapolis, Division of the Telex Corporation. supra,
and other cases cited in fn . 5 to the decision.
"In desperation counsel for the respondent is driven to argue that
Mickey Dwyer must have attended a meeting early in December prior to
the filing of the union 's representation petition , although this is contrary to
the clear and definite testimony of Harry Taylor and Jannie Rollins. The
basis for the argument of counsel for the Respondent is not only Mickey
Dwyer's alleged superior credibility but also his nearly perfect memory.
To be sure, if despite the Respondent's demonstrated
union animus , and its knowledge of the nature and extent
of Jannie Rollins' union activities , it were shown that she
had given expression to a false and malicious slander of
the Respondent ' s employment policies , there would be
considerable force in the argument that the Respondent's
decision to get rid of her was not motivated in any way by
her prominence in the union movement.
The testimony as to what Rollins said to Gladys Hall is
conflicting , and a good deal of time was spent at the
hearing exploring the question whether Jannie told Gladys
that the Respondent did not hire colored help, or was not
then hiring colored help. Although Rollins testified that
when Gladys Hall asked her, after filling out an
application, whether "they were hiring." She replied,
"Yes quite a few white, no colored lately," this was only
an exegesis of what she had said, for in her prehearing
affidavit she had deposed that her remark to Gladys Hall
was "quite a few white but no colored." She did not use
the word "lately" but it is evident from the context of her
remark that what she meant was that Meyer was not then
hiring colored help. This is apparent indeed from the
testimony of Terranella herself, as well as from the text of
the statement that she obtained from Gladys Hall and
Nina Brown. It is apparent also, of course, from the
obvious fact that Meyer did have colored help, including
Jannie Rollins and Nina Brown , the friend of Gladys
Hall.
What Rollins told Gladys Hall therefore, in answer to
the latter 's direct inquiry , was that Meyer was not then
hiring colored help . She did not volunteer this statement
and it was not made in malice. Indeed, Rollins made the
statement because she sincerely believed, as she testified,
that the Respondent had deliberately adopted the policy,
after the union had appeared on the scene, of not hiring
colored help, in order not to augment the union forces.
The Respondent could easily have shown that it was
hiring colored help, notwithstanding the union, by
producing its employment records but it did not do so,
and offered no other convincing evidence on the subject.
There is no basis, therefore, for questioning the testimony
of Rollins that the Respondent did not hire any more
Negro girls , although some applied, after two such girls,
Nina Brown and Mabel Hensley, had been hired early in
December 1967, and that in January 1968, it had hired
seven white girls. From the vantage point of her work
station , and in view of her role in steering applicants
around, Rollins was in a peculiarly good position to know
whereof she spoke. Of course, the failure to hire any
colored help for a period of approximately 2 1/2 months
could have been mere coincidence but in a plant where 30
to 40 percent of the help was colored the coincidence may
be doubted. If Rollins was fired for telling the truth about
the respondent's current labor policy, it would be a per se
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, since this policy
had an antiunion motivation.
The circumstances of Rollins' discharge strongly
suggest, moreover, that the respondent knew that she was
speaking the truth but for that very reason was eager to
seize the pretext of getting rid of her. Shortly before her
discharge Pat Dwyer had taken her to task for allegedly
tampering with the timecards but when she was able to
show that she was only looking for the address of an
Yet when he was asked to fix the date of the union meeting attended by
him the best that Mickey Dwyer could do was to testify: "Oh, "I'm not
quite sure , February somewhere - no,not February . It would be December
or January . I'm not quite sure what date it was."
H. L. MEYER COMPANY, INC.
employee to whom she had sold children ' s panties Dwyer
had been forced to stay his hand. He could not restrain
himself, however, when Terranella rushed to him with the
story of Rollins' remark to Gladys Hall. They now
proceeded with obvious relish and enthusiasm, and
betrayed their true motive with every step that they took.
It is evident that they were not embarking on an effort to
ascertain the truth but to convict Rollins of malicious
conduct before they had even heard her side of the story,
for the 'testimony of both Pat Dwyer and Terranella is in
agreement that they had decided to discharge her before
they had even talked to her. Indeed, Pat Dwyer admitted
that he had at once ordered Rollins' final paycheck to be
prepared not only before talking to her but also before
talking to Nina Brown and Gladys Hall. It was only after
these two had signed their statement that they decided to
give Gladys Hall Rollins' job,"' and this obviously was a
reward for her cooperation, since Gladys Hall had been
denied a job before, and Terranella had not even bothered
to review her application. When Rollins was finally told of
her discharge, everything was obviously a foregone
conclusion, and nothing that she could have said in her
own defense would have mattered. When in the course of
the discharge interview, Rollins asked Terranella that she
be confronted with the source of their information, the
latter refused her request.
It is particularly significant that when Pat Dwyer and
Terranella learned from their porter while they were still
in the midst of their machinations, that Rollins' remark
was all over 12th Street that this knowledge did not give
them pause. Despite the obvious advantage of trying to
hush up the fact that they would not hire a Negro girl
from distant California, who, for all that appears to the
contrary was not complaining to anyone, except to her
most intimate friend, of the refusal to hire her, they
decided to embrace the risk of spreading the scandal by
going through with their discharge of Jannie Rollins. If
indeed she were being fired for launching a malicious
story concerning the employment policy of Meyer, one
would expect that the respondent would either have called
the employees together to explain to them why Jannie
Rollins had been fired, or that it would have at least
posted an explanation . It is a reasonable inference that it
did not do so because such a frank explanation would
have had no value in helping to intimidate the union
supporters, and would have deprived it of the benefit of
the discharge.
In the last analysis the most damaging element in the
case against the respondent is, of course , the fact that
Jannie Rollins herself is, of course , a Negress. To
discharge a Negro girl to better relations with the Negro
community seems an odd way to establish cordial race
relations. Although Waitman Meyer did not testify or
even appear at the hearing in this case , I should judge
from the evidence concerning his activities , which include
the excrementttious match books, that he would be the
last person in the world to be attuned to the delicate
nuances of race relations.
IV. THE REMEDY
Since the discriminatory discharge of an employee
tends to undermine one of the basic guarantees afforded
to employees by Section 7 of the Act, and since the
"Actually they did not carry out this intention According to Terranella,
a job had become vacant in the meantime in Bill Kelly's department, and
they decided to give her that job.
577
Respondent has also committed other serious unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend a broad form of cease and
desist order designed to effectuate all of the guarantees of
Section 7 of the Act.
To remedy the discriminatory discharge of Jannie
Rollins , I shall also recommend, by way of affirmative
relief, that the Respondent offer to her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed by her, discharging, if
necessary any new employee hired subsequent to the date
of her discharge in order to replace her. I shall also
recommend that the Respondent make Jannie Rollins
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason
of her discriminatory discharge by payment to her of a
sum of money equal to the amount which she would
normally have earned as wages from the date of her
discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less her net earnings during the said period.
The amount of backpay is to be determined in accordance
with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and interest is to be computed
on the amount so determined in accordance with Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co, Inc., 138 NLRB 716.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, H. L. Meyer Company, Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce, or in an industry
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities; by threatening the job security of
employees; by inviting the suggestions of employees
concerning the removal of grievances after the launching
of the union election campaign; by seeking to shift to the
union the onus for the postponement of wage increases
and other benefits for its employees; and by promising
benefits to its employees contingent upon the defeat of the
union , the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By discharging Jannie Rollins for the reason that she
had engaged in union activities, and by refusing to
reinstate her thereafter, the Respondent discriminated with
respect to her hire and tenure of employment, and thereby
committed an unfair labor practice affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that the Respondent, H. L. Meyer
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities.
(b) Threatening the job security of its employees.
(c) Inviting the suggestions of its employees concerning
the removal of grievances while any union election
campaign is in progress.
(d) Seeking to shift to the union the onus for the
postponement of wage increases and other benefits for its
employees at its Kansas City, Missouri, plant and
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promising benefits to its employees contingent upon the
defeat of the union.
(e) Discouraging membership in Teamsters Local 838,
Warehouse and Mail Order Union, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating against them with respect to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Jannie Rollins immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay she
may have suffered by reason of her discriminatory
discharge, in the manner and to the extent set forth in
section IV of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying all
payroll records and other data necessary to give effect to
the back pay requirement.
(c) Post at its plant in Kansas City, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."2' Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 17, of the Board, shall, after having been duly
signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to assure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the result of the election
held on March 1, 1968, be set aside, and that the
Regional Director be directed to arrange for a new
election to be held as soon as, in his judgment, the effects
of the Respondent's unfair labor practices have been
dissipated.
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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 coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten the job security of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT invite the suggestions of our
employees concerning the removal of grievances while
any union campaign is in progress.
WE WILL NOT seek to shift to Teamsters Local 838,
or any other labor organization of our employees, the
onus for the postponement of wage increases and other
benefits for the employees at our Kansas City,
Missouri, plant, nor will we promise benefits to our
employees contingent upon the defeat of the union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters
Local 838, Warehouse and Mail Order Union, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization of our employees, nor will
we in any other manner discriminate against them with
respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, 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.
WE WILL offer to Jannie Rollins immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss
of pay she may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any
labor organization, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated By
H. L. MEYER COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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, 610 Federal
Building 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 374-5282.