Hartford Faience Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 15, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

HARTFORD FAIENCE COMPANY Hartford Faience Company and Allen R . Lawrence, Sr. Case 1-CA-6898 June 15, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Arthur M. Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hartford Faience Com- pany, Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' ' Subsequent to the issuance of the Trial Examiner 's Decision herein, a charge was filed and a complaint issued in Case l-CA-7041 alleging that this Respondent violated the Act by discharging another employee at the same time and for the same reasons as it discharged Lawrence Thereupon, the General Counsel filed a motion to remand the case, reopen the hearing, consolidate the cases , and amend the complaint We have denied that mo- t,on as lacking merit by Order dated May 4, 1970 Inasmuch as we are, in this Decision, adopting the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order, which will remedy fully the unfair labor practice litigated in this proceeding, we see no purpose in reopening the record herein or in consolidating this proceeding with that in Case 1-CA-7041 ' The notice which the Trial Examiner recommended that the Respon- dent be required to post at its plant is hereby replaced by the attached notice which we order the Respondent to post in the manner set forth in par 2 ( d) of the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order 347 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge any employees because of their participation in or leadership in a work stoppage for a purpose protected by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. Since the Board found that we violated the law when we fired Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., WE WILL offer to Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., full rein- statement to his old job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and WE WILL pay him for any loss that he suf- fered because we fired him. WE WILL notify Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Mili- tary Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to engage in con- certed activities for their mutual aid and protection within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act or to refrain from such activities. HARTFORD FAIENCE COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Mas- sachusetts 02203, Telephone 617-223-3300. 183 NLRB No. 42 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Based on a charge filed on October 31, 1969,' by Allen R. Lawrence, Sr. (herein called Lawrence or the Charging Party), the complaint herein issued on December 9 alleging that Hartford Faience Com- pany (herein called the Respondent or the Com- pany) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Respondent allegedly violated the Act by discharging Lawrence on October 10 because of his concerted activities for a wage increase .2 Respon- dent denied all material allegations of the com- plaint. All parties participated in the hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, on January 6, 1970, and were af- forded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present oral argument. Oral argument was waived and briefs were filed by General Counsel and the Respondent. - Based on the entire record in the case, my read- ing of the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Hartford Faience Company, a Connecticut cor- poration, with its principal office and place of busi- ness in Hartford, Connecticut, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of high voltage electrical porcelain products. In the course and conduct of its business Respondent annually receives at its Hartford plant materials valued in ex- cess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Connecticut, and annually sells and ships from said plant products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Connecticut. The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for assertion of its jurisdiction. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Respondent's employees were not represented by a labor organization at the time of the events herein nor was any union seeking to represent them. Respondent is a speciality manufacturer of high voltage distribution transformer bushings. The parts Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1969 ' The pertinent parts of Secs 7 and 8 are Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any are made of porcelain. After being extruded in a blank the parts are shaped on a lathe and a hole is bored. Among Respondent's work force of between 135 and 140 employees, some 32 to 35 work in the turning department where the parts are shaped and bored. This department is located on both the first and second floors of the plant. Supervision of the turning department is shared by Joe Santoro, who is responsible for production, and Joe Wilcos, Sr., who oversees quality. The plant is managed by Gerald T. McGrath, who is company treasurer as well. McGrath reports directly to Respondent's president. Most employees in the turning department are compensated on a piece-rate basis and average 60 hours per week of work. Piece rates are adjusted from time to time upon the recommendation of the foremen and with McGrath's approval. Some 2 to 4 weeks before October 7 Lawrence had asked for an increase in the piece rate on a par- ticular operation but his request was denied on the grounds that the current rate was adequate. On October 7, during the regular lunch period between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m., Lawrence,3 Bill St. Amand, and three other turning department em- ployees met at the timeclock. St. Amand com- plained that the piece rates had not been changed for a long time and that every time the employees asked for a raise they were told to produce more pieces. Lawrence suggested that the employees get together at 2 p.m. in the lower part of the turning room and speak to management. The others agreed with this course of action. Lawrence then spoke to Joe Wilcos, Jr., son of one of the turning depart- ment foremen, who in turn spoke to his brother Gary and word of the planned stoppage spread. Carried along by its own momentum the meeting began at 1:30 p.m. rather than the later time planned. All turning department employees assem- bled other than St. Amand, who remained at his work station on the second floor. Lawrence sug- gested to the assembled employees that they ask for an increase in piece rates of 2 cents for boring large holes and 1 cent for small holes. Ten or fifteen minutes after the employees as- sembled, McGrath, alerted to the stoppage by the department foremen, approached the group. Mc- Grath, who was angry, berated the men in a loud voice for having stopped work and demanded to know who had organized the meeting. No one an- swered. McGrath then addressed a number of em- ployees by name, mentioned the wages they were earning, and demanded to know their complaints. Joe Wilcos, Jr., replied that every time they asked for a raise they were told to make more pieces. or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) Sec 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (I) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, ' Lawrence is Joe Wilcos, Sr s son-in-law HARTFORD FAIENCE COMPANY Finally, McGrath ordered the men to return to work or go home and said he was going to his office where the men could bring their individual problems, saying that his door was always open. Joe Wilcos, Jr., and Gary Wilcos accepted Mc- Grath's invitation and came to his office. Joe, Jr., complained that some time before he had asked for an increased piece rate on a changed operation but had not received an answer. Gary complained about the inability of the blower system to remove the dust from his work station. McGrath told Gary his problem was being worked on. At that point the telephone rang and Gary left. Gary testified that he had planned to bring up the question of his wages but left when the phone call interrupted his talk with McGrath. While performing his duties in the plant that af- ternoon, McGrath was told by employees that Joe Wilcos, Sr.'s "kids and his son-in-law had been going around to the machines" before the stoppage. Another employee told McGrath that St. Amand had been among those behind the stoppage. Wednesday morning, October 8, about 9 a.m., McGrath asked Lawrence and the Wilcos brothers to come to his office. McGrath placed a number of blue slips (a form the State of Connecticut requires an employer to give to a discharged employee) on the table, saying they were there in case he needed them. McGrath then said that stoppages were il- legal and demanded to know who had started the demonstration. Joe Wilcos, Jr., replied that Mc- Grath had the wrong man. McGrath said he might have the wrong man but he did not think he had the wrong men. Lawrence and Gary Wilcos admitted that they had gone to a few machines before the stoppage. After some questioning by McGrath, St. Amand's name came up as the man who was always complaining. The employees stated that the men were upset that St. Amand had not joined in the stoppage. McGrath testified that he did not ask what the purpose of the stoppage had been. This meeting lasted approximately 1-1/2 hours. After this meeting on October 8 McGrath went to the second floor and spoke to St. Amand. Mc- Grath told St. Amand that he had been named as the man who had actually led the others to the decision to stop work. St. Amand denied that he had been active in the work stoppage but admitted that he had been complaining about different things and might have been responsible for the men getting the idea to stop work. However, St. Amand said he had not joined the stoppage because he did not feel it was the proper way to do things, prefer- ring to take his problems to the company office. McGrath testified that St. Amand's complaints cen- tered on more vacation time, more paid holidays, and the fact that the piece rate on the job he was performing had not been raised for some time. During the morning of October 9 McGrath met with Lawrence, Gary Wilcos, and St. Amand. Mc- Grath told St. Amand that Lawrence and Gary Wil- 349 cos had said that St. Amand had been active in con- nection with the stoppage. St. Amand repeated that he had told the others he would not go along with them because the right way was to go to the office. After some time Lawrence spoke up and said that he was the one responsible for the stoppage. Mc- Grath concluded the meeting saying that the men would be hearing from him again. McGrath testified, "I'd say that I felt possibly on Thursday when these two boys and Bill St. Amand got in there [sic] discussion about rates that this was probably the reason for the stoppage." Following this meeting with Lawrence, Gary Wil- cos, and St. Amand, on October 9, McGrath called his attorney, brought him up to date on the events, what McGrath had done to learn who had been in- volved, saying he had gone far enough with his in- vestigation and asked for advice. McGrath was told to terminate the men, giving them the option of resigning or being fired. On Friday afternoon, October 10, about 4 p.m., McGrath called the three men to his office. Speak- ing to the men individually, McGrath offered each the chance to resign so that it would be easier to obtain other employment but stating that in any event they would be terminated. St. Amand chose to retire and his "blue slip" was marked ac- cordingly. Lawrence replied that he did not choose to resign and Gary Wilcos left the choice to Mc- Grath. Both were fired. Prior to calling the men to the office McGrath had all blanks on the "blue slips" filled in except for the reason for termina- tion. He then completed the forms for Lawrence and Gary Wilcos checking the box next to the words "Discharged for Wilful Misconduct" and ad- ding "Fired for organizing a work stoppage to pres- sure for higher piece work." On the employee record maintained by the Company for Lawrence the following notation appears, "Fired wilful misconduct Organizing work stoppage 10-10-1969." McGrath testified he specified this reason for discharge because "When I was through with my investigation, this is what I felt, well, this is why I put it down." When Lawrence was handed his "blue slip" he said that he never thought he would be fired for this. McGrath testified in response to my question: Q. There's no question [Lawrence] was fired for organizing the work stoppage, right? A. That is correct, yes. In the week following his discharge Lawrence called the plant a number of times asking for reem- ployment. McGrath refused to rehire Lawrence and advised him to seek other employment.4 Conclusions and Findings The discharge of an employee because of his leadership of an employee work stoppage for higher 'Gary Wilcos subsequently changed his mind about resigning rather than being fired and at his request was issued a new "blue slip " 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wages violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5 This is true even if the employees stage their work stop- page in the plant instead of leaving the Company's premises .' And the fact that the employees fail to present a specific demand at the time of their work stoppage "does not cause their [stoppage] to lose its protected status. As the Supreme Court said in N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 14 (1962): `The language of Section 7 is broad enough to protect concerted activities whether they take place before, after, or at the same time such a demand is made."'7 Lawrence and his fellow employees in the turning department stopped work on October 7 with the purpose of securing high piece rates. The work stoppage involved neither a seizure of the plant nor a refusal to leave the premises. As admitted by Mc- Grath, Lawrence was discharged for organizing the stoppage. Certainly by the end of his meeting on October 9 with Lawrence, Gary Wilcos, and St. Amand, McGrath had determined that Lawrence was the leader of the protest and that the stoppage had been for the purpose of pressuring for higher wages . This is evidenced by McGrath's testimony at two points, first when he testified: I'd say that I felt possibly on Thursday when these two boys and Bill St. Amand got in there [sic] discussion about rates that this was probably the reason for the stoppage. At another point McGrath explained that he had stated on the "blue slip" that Lawrence was "fired for organizing a work stoppage to pressure for higher piece rates" because "When I was through with my investigation, this is what I felt." Mc- Grath's investigation ended with his October 9 meeting with the three employees. It was after that meeting that McGrath contacted his attorney and the final determination to terminate the three em- ployees was made. Any question that McGrath knew of the purpose of the stoppage at the time of the actual termina- tion is answered by the notation McGrath made on Lawrence's "blue slip" at the discharge interview. On the basis of the foregoing I conclude that the discharge of Allen R. Lawrence, Sr.,' because of his leadership in the work stoppage constituted an un- fair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the Com- pany's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship ° Hanes Hosiery Division , Hanes Corporation, 168 NLRB 856, enfd 413 F.2d 457 (CA 4) ° N L R B. v Hanes Hosiery Division , 413 F 2d 457, 458 (C A 4) ' Electromec Design and Development Company v N L R B., 409 F 2d to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act, in- cluding the offer of reinstatement to Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., with backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. "Since the discharge of an em- ployee in reprisal for his participation in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in the Act affects the very basis of such rights, the cease-and-desist provisions should be appropriately broad." Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corporation, 168 NLRB 856. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hartford Faience Company is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging employee Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., in reprisal for his leadership in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Hartford Faience Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees because of their leadership or participation in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori- 631,634 (CA 9) ° Of the three employees involved only Lawrence filed a charge of unfair labor practice HARTFORD FAIENCE COMPANY ty or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the provisions of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Allen R. Lawrence, Sr., if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and give effect to the backpay requirements hereof. (d) Post at its Hartford, Connecticut, plant In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na- 351 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.1o tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 101n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Regional Director for Region 1 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "