International Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 496 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Typographical Union and Janice
Churchill , Local 64, Office and Professional Em-
ployees International Union , Charles A. Scheible,
June Large , Frieda Clark , and Margaret Jones.
Cases 27-CA-2695, 27 -CA-2702, 27-CA-2754,
27-CA-2764, 27-CA-2809-2, and 27-CA-2824
June 17, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On February 17, 1970, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster 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.
The Trial Examiner further found that Respondent
had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended that the
amended complaint be dismissed with respect to
these allegations. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a sup-
porting brief, and a brief in answer to the General
Counsel's cross-exceptions. The General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions to the Decision, a supporting
brief, and 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 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, the
cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer , with the following modifications:
1. The Trial Examiner found that Supervisor
Ona Roll Cloud did not create the impression of
surveillance when she told the employees in her in-
dustrial pension plan section, at a meeting of all the
section's employees on March 22, 1969, that she
had heard from three unnamed sources that em-
ployee Willie Bruntzel had contacted the Union
about the work problems in the section. We do not
agree.
' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript so
that the word "can" which appears as the second word on 114 of p 129 be
corrected to read "can't," which the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to
rule on, is hereby granted
The Trial Examiner relied on the fact that Cloud
did not initiate any action of surveillance. But how
Cloud received the information is not determina-
tive. Whether or not an employer in fact spies upon
the employees' union meetings, if he creates the im-
pression in their minds that he is keeping their
union activities under surveillance, it is as in-
timidating and as coercive as surveillance itself.2
Viewed in this light, we find that Cloud's statement
that she knew of the complaints about her made to
the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
creating the impression of surveillance.
2. The General Counsel has excepted to the
Trial Examiner's recommendation, in paragraph 2
of "The Remedy," that Charles A. Scheible's estate
be made whole only for any loss of pay that he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him . The General Counsel contends that the
estate should also be compensated for any other
losses suffered as a result of Scheible's discrimina-
tory discharge, as, for example, the proceeds from
life insurance or health benefits. We agree.
The backpay award is designed to restore the dis-
criminatee to the position he would have had but
for his unlawful discharge. Where the discriminatee
dies, as here, the Board has long held that the
estate of the deceased discriminatee is entitled to
receive a sum of money equivalent to the amount
of bonuses, emoluments, insurance, or other death
benefits which the estate would have received had
the discriminatee been employed by the employer
at the time of his death, less any similar benefits
received by the estate as a result of employment by
the discriminatee subsequent to his wrongful
discharge, and less any insurance premiums the dis-
criminatee would have paid his employer had he
not been discharged.3 Accordingly, we hereby cor-
rect The Remedy to award Charles A. Scheible's
estate the proper amount due under established
Board law, as described above.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Add the following as Conclusion of Law 6 to the
Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law and renumber
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"By telling its employees that it heard that an
employee had contacted the Union about work
problems, Respondent has created the impression
of surveillance and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
x Moore's Seafood Products, Inc , 152 NLRB 683
Raymond Pearson, Inc , 115 NLRB 190, Glen Raven Silk Mills, Inc ,
101 NLRB 239
183 NLRB No. 60
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 497
Delete Conclusion of Law 7 of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Conclusions of Law and substitute the fol-
lowing:
"Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices as alleged in paragraphs V(c), (e), and
(h) through (n), paragraphs VI(a) and (e), and
paragraph VII(d) in the complaint in Cases
27-CA-2695, 27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and
27-CA-2764. Respondent has not engaged in an
unfair labor practice by the discharge of Margaret
Jones as alleged in the complaint in Case
27-CA-2824."
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 as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(d) and re-
letter the present paragraph 1(d) as 1(e):
"(d) Creating the impression of surveillance of
union meetings by telling the employees that it had
heard that complaints had been made to the Union
about work problems."
2. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the fol-
lowing:
"(a) Offer to Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nel-
son immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled `The Remedy.'
"Pay to the estate of Charles A. Scheible a sum
of money equal to the amount Scheible would have
earned from the date of his discriminatory
discharge to the date of his death, less net earnings,
computed in the manner set forth in the section of
the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled `The
Remedy.' Also, pay to Scheible's estate a sum of
money equivalent to the amount of bonuses, emolu-
ments, insurance, and other death benefits, to
which such estate would have been entitled upon
Scheible's death, had he not been wrongfully
discharged, less the amount of similar benefits
heretofore paid or now payable as a result of
Scheible's employment elsewhere subsequent to his
discharge, and also deducting therefrom the
amount of premiums Scheible would have paid
Respondent from the date of his discharge to the
date of his death."
3. Delete the last paragraph of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, beginning "IT IS
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that ..." and substitute
the following:
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that paragraphs V(c),
(e), and (h) through (n), VI(a) and (e), and VII(d)
of the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695,
27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764, and
that the allegations of an unfair labor practice as to
Margaret Jones in Case 27-CA-2824, be
dismissed."
4. Add the following as fourth indented para-
graph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision:
WE WILL NOT create the impression of sur-
veillance of your union meetings by informing
you that we have heard that employees have
contacted the Union about work problems.
5. Delete the last indented paragraph of the Ap-
pendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and substitute the following:
WE WILL offer Janice Churchill and Suzanne
Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer ex-
ist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and we will make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
WE WILL pay to Charles A. Scheible's estate
a sum of money equivalent to the amount he
would have earned from the date of his dis-
criminatory discharge to the date of his death,
less any net earnings, plus any money which
Scheible's estate would have received had he
not been wrongfully discharged, as insurance
benefits, less any premiums Scheible would
have paid.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case,
with all parties represented, was heard at Colorado
Springs, Colorado, on September 23, 24, 25, and
November 12, 13, and 14, 1969, on complaints of
the General Counsel and answers of International
Typographical Union, herein called Respondent.
The complaints were issued on June 12, September
5, and October 29, 1969, on charges filed April 15,
April 24, July 16, August 5, and October 9 and Oc-
tober 23, 1969. The complaints allege that Respon-
dent discriminatorily discharged employees, dis-
criminatorily reduced an employee's position and
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rate of pay, interfered with the administration of
the Union and contributed support to it, and in
other ways interfered with, restrained, or coerced
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3),
and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel
and the Respondent, and they have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of
the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent is an unincorporated association
with its principal office located in Colorado
Springs, Colorado, where it is engaged in the ad-
ministering, advising, and assisting of local labor or-
ganizations located in various States of the United
States, of which labor organizations Respondent is
the international administrative body. The Respon-
dent in the course and conduct of its business an-
nually receives at its Colorado Springs, Colorado,
offices dues and assessments in excess of $50,000
from its local unions located outside the State of
Colorado, and Respondent in the maintenance of
certain pension funds and health and welfare in-
surance plans annually disburses moneys in excess
of $500,000 to companies located outside the State
of Colorado.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
and in an operation affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 64, Office and Professional Employees In-
ternational Union , herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues and Prefactory Statement
1. Whether Respondent discharged Janice
Churchill, Suzanne Nelson, Charles Scheible, June
Large, and Margaret Jones because of their union
activities or for cause, and further whether Jones
was discharged for having given testimony under
the Act.
2. Whether Respondent demoted and reduced
the rate of pay of Frieda Clark because of her
union activities or for other reasons.
3. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2)
of the Act by the attendance and participation of
supervisors in union meetings and by their circula-
tion of petitions regarding union matters; whether
Respondent required employees to join the Union;
whether Respondent permitted circulation of union
petitions by supervisors but prohibited like union
activities by employees.
4. Whether a supervisor of Respondent told an
employee she would be denied a promotion
because of her union activities and told an em-
ployee that she was aware that grievances against
her were discussed at union meetings; and, if so,
whether such conduct constituted interference,
restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondent and the Union are and have
been for many years parties to collective-bargaining
agreements covering all office employees employed
by Respondent at its offices in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. On April 30, 1969, the contract which
became effective on May 1, 1966, expired.
Negotiations on a new contract commenced on
March 27, 1969, and on July 17, 1969, a new con-
tract was agreed on and signed following a strike by
the Union from July 7 to 17. At all times material
herein and until about June and July 1969, virtually
all of Respondent's 10 to 12 intermediate super-
visors were members of the Union and were
represented by it.
About August 1968, William Brandenburg was
employed by the Union as business manager. Bran-
denburg was a teacher in a local high school and
this was the first time that he had been employed in
the capacity of a business agent for a union. On
Monday, March 24, Brandenburg met with the em-
ployees at the noon hour in the library or lecture
room in Respondent's training center, and on the
next day he met at noon in the same place with
Respondent's supervisors who were members of the
Union. The purposes of the meetings were to let the
persons meet him and for him to get acquainted
with them and to find out their problems.
Brandenburg advised the supervisors that accord-
ing to the Union's constitution and bylaws a super-
visor was not eligible to participate or have a vote
in any of the Union's proceedings which affect the
wages and conditions of employment in the
establishment where he is employed as a supervisor.
Supervisor Sandra Frazee asked whether or not he
felt that supervisors should belong to the Union and
he answered that he did not. But he told them that
as they were members, he would represent them
and that they were entitled to the benefits of the
collective-bargaining contract.
B. The Discharges of Churchill and Nelson on
March 28, 1969
During the early part of 1969, Respondent made
some rather significant changes in the operations of
its offices, including the changeover from one type
of computer to another. Also, its workload was in-
creasing, particularly in the industrial pension plan
section. To meet the demands made by the in-
creased workload, overtime work was frequently
necessary. New employees had to indicate on their
applications for employment their willingness to
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
work overtime in order to secure employment.
Janice Churchill was employed on January 31,
1969, and Suzanne Nelson was employed on
February 3, 1969; both indicated a willingness to
work overtime . All new employees are on proba-
tion for a period of 90 days, and their probationary
period would have ended about May 1, 1969.
Apparently because of the increased workload
and the pressure that it exerted on the employees
and the supervisors, some of the employees became
disgruntled. About March 21, 1969, employee Wil-
lie Bruntzel called Union Steward Jessie Madison
about the situation and on the morning of Saturday,
March 22, 1969, she called several employees be-
fore work by telephone and spoke to others when
she arrived at Respondent's premises, and told
them that she had contacted the Union on the
matter of their problems in their section. At noon
on that day, the employees in the section discussed
this matter and agreed that they should meet with
the Union about it.
Shortly after the lunch hour, Supervisor Ona Roll
Cloud, who supervised approximately 15 em-
ployees, including Bruntzel, Churchill, and Nelson,
in the industrial pension plan section, called the
employees in her part of the section in to a meet-
ing. She informed them that she had heard from
three sources that Willie Bruntzel had contacted
the Union about the problems in her section and
that they were complaining about working too hard
and too much overtime. She stated that one reason
she was bringing the matter up at this meeting was
that they were discussing it on company time and
were wasting production hours. Cloud explained
that some of the confusion in the department was
because of the transition to the different type of
computer, the changes in jobs that were occurring,
and the employment of new people. She stated that
she anticipated that there would be problems in the
department because of the need to establish stricter
production controls to enable them to get the work
out. She stated that she wanted to analyze the
problems of each of them and see how terrible the
situation was. She then discussed each employee in-
dividually.
She stated that as to Gwen Guinnup, who has
worked for her for 6 years, there was no problem.
As to Clara Hunt, they had their differences but un-
derstood them. As to Margaret Jones, she was a lit-
tle problem child because she wanted to work on
one specific job only. As to Willie Bruntzel, she
stated:
Girls, I want you to know what you already un-
derstand, that both Willie and Clara [Hunt]
were in training with special privileges and spe-
cial responsibility, one later hopefully to
become supervisor, and the other to become
lead girl. In view of Willie's complaints, obvi-
ously made during working hours, consumed
production time, I am going to put her on a
' She received a $5 raise in wages when she was told that she would be
training as a supervisor
499
straight journeyman's job. This won't affect her
salary. I do wonder if all of you understand
that if I have mistreated Willie, I have also
given her some special considerations. She is
making more money than many of you girls
because she was raised to journeyman's scale.'
I have reprimanded Willie publicly for running
and walking too fast and explained to her that
this was unnecessary. . . . I cannot do my job
with conscience and promote anyone to a job
over and above a regular journeyman who is
using the time allocated for that job to repri-
mand me and other management for the things
we do, for the hours we work. These are all
necessary. I expect a girl who is drawing over
and above journeyman wages to be a leader
and to be helping me. Therefore, Willie, you
will sit at this desk from now on and do your
regular journeyman work. None of you are to
take your question to Willie. You take your
questions to Clara. I want you to understand
that just Thursday of last week I chose Clara as
supervisor. Maybe this is why Willie is so un-
happy.
Cloud explained that she had chosen Clara Hunt
to be supervisor because she had been asked by the
secretary-treasurer of Respondent on the Thursday
preceding that date to name a supervisor and she
chose Clara Hunt.
Cloud continued to comment about her relation-
ship with, or the problems of, each of the other em-
ployees who were present. As to Churchill and Nel-
son, she stated, "I am concerned about your con-
sistent refusal of overtime. Otherwise, your work
appears to be okay. "2
Cloud continued as follows:
O. K., girls, [ know this is rough. It's rough for
you and it's rough for me. I am hiring [new]
girls now, and I will continue until I hire about
four girls. The reason I am hiring them is
twofold. First, we have a big time-consuming
job for the Union Printers Home. Next, some
of you won't make it. Some of you can't take
it. Some of you will get discharged and some of
you will quit. Until the department stops this
rapid rate of growth and until our systems are
more stabilized, therefore, I will use the new
girls or any of you that I can spare on the
Union Printer Home work and cross train you.
I do not mean to threaten any of you with
discharge because attrition will take care of
that. If I am overhired for girls, there will be
enough normal quits or discharges for cause to
take care of it, so none of you who are doing a
job need worry about that. Getting back to
your complaints to the Union, you must un-
derstand that I don't fear the OPEIU. I can't. I
am a part of it. You are free, and there will be
no discriminations among you for attending
4I do not credit employee Bigelow's uncorroborated testimony that
Cloud also said Churchill was real bright
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 33
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any meeting or saying anything you want to...
. I have been in trouble only once in the 15
years I've worked here with the Union. I
discharged a little girl in Indianapolis , Indiana.
They followed the regular grievance procedure
in that case , and to my knowledge , I was the
only supervisor that was ever called upstairs
before a joint meeting of OPEIU officials and
the ITU Executive Council.
I don't intend to fire any of you unless I can do
that same thing . I would not want to embarrass
the Executive Council , and I have no interest
or personal antagonism towards any of you, so
that would be futile. You can expect problems
in a change like this. I remember back in Indi-
anapolis, Indiana when my sister worked for
me. She was made supervisor . Not by me. I
think Mr. Talbott raised her . When we
changed over from doing pre-list by the
manuel [ sic] system to doing it by data
processing equipment completely , she didn't
speak to me for three months. On the job, yes,
but not at home . We were very close and are
today . She, like you , had to pay me the cour-
tesy of answering my questions and cooperat-
ing on the job, but it did affect our personal
lives and yet I had to do that . I had to with her
during the changeover , and I'll have to with
you during this one.
As previously mentioned , on Monday and
Tuesday, March 24 and 25, 1969, Union Business
Manager William Brandenburg met with employees
and intermediate supervisors in a room at Respon-
dent 's offices to get acquainted and to find out their
problems . Following the meeting with the em-
ployees on Monday, March 24, five of the em-
ployees in Ona Cloud 's section , Churchill, Nelson,
Bigelow , Fence, and Trujillo , remained and spoke
with Brandenburg about their complaints . During
this time , Supervisor Clara Hunt and employee
Guinnup came to the door and observed them talk-
ing together . Brandenburg agreed to meet with
them on the following Tuesday evening, March 25,
to discuss and to write up their grievances; and on
Tuesday night , they met at the carpenter's union
hall and each of them signed papers setting forth
their complaints.
Very shortly thereafter and probably on the next
day, Brandenburg met with Assistant Secretary-
Treasurer F. E. McGlothlin regarding the contents
of these statements or grievances . He read to him
some of the statements that had been submitted.
The complaints concerned such matters as the su-
pervisor correcting an employee in front of other
employees , abrupt changes in work assignments,
working employees too hard, and generally Ona
Cloud's method of supervision . The names of the
employees making the complaint were not
revealed . McGlothlin explained that the industrial
pension plan section was at that time in a state of
turmoil due to a tremendous growth, the institution
of new systems, and the inexperience of some of
the employees. Brandenburg suggested that Ona
Cloud should find a more tender approach to the
employees and that McGlothlin should discuss the
matter with her. McGlothlin agreed to do so.
Shortly thereafter, he told Ona Cloud about the
complaints and that he thought there was perhaps a
misunderstanding by some of the people and that
they felt unappreciated and unloved. A few days
later , Brandenburg told McGlothlin that evidently
his talk with Cloud had done some good because
things were better.
Ona Roll Cloud was employed by Respondent in
1954 as a stenographer . Since October 1968 and
until July 1969 she has been a supervisor in the
data processing portion of the industrial pension
section and has supervised approximately 12 to 15
employees . Her section handled computer cards or
keypunch cards and the reports from employers
itemizing the individual contributions to the pen-
sion program. She is the wife of Respondent's
secretary -treasurer, William R. Cloud , and has been
for approximately 5 years. She had planned to
retire in 1968 but due to personnel problems on the
staff she postponed her retirement until July 1969.
Churchill and Nelson were discharged by Cloud
on Friday, March 28, 1969 , and the principal
reason assigned was that during their probationary
period , which would end on or about May 1, 1969,
they had shown a strong disinclination to work
overtime although they had expressed a willingness
to do so in their applications for employment, and
Cloud was fearful that after their probationary
period they would be less inclined to work over-
time. By this and the reports of supervisors and
trainers about their work performance , Cloud con-
cluded that they were disinterested in their work
and their jobs . Both Supervisor Clara Hunt and em-
ployee Gwen Guinnup, who was on the production
desk , complained about their work. About 3 weeks
prior to March 28 , 1969, Cloud terminated proba-
tionary employee Debbie Griffin because of her re-
peated refusal to work overtime.
Shortly after their employment , Churchill and
Nelson were asked to work overtime on a Friday
evening and a Saturday but both indicated that they
had made other plans . Cloud told them that she had
plans too and that her plans were to get the work
out and she asked them if they could not cancel
their plans , and they stated that they could not.
Churchill stated that she could work one day or one
night but not both . As they could not work both
days, they were excused from overtime work on
this occasion.
About 1 month before her discharge , Churchill
was asked by Supervisor Clara Hunt to work over-
time on a Saturday . She replied that she had a civil
service examination scheduled for that day. Hunt
took Churchill into Cloud 's office and told her that
she had taken time to train Churchill and now she
wants to take a civil service examination on Satur-
day. Churchill explained that she had applied for
the examination before she started working for
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Respondent. Cloud told Churchill that it cost
money to hire her and to train her and that she
could not train her for the Government; that she
was going to fire her at that time. Churchill began
to cry and stated that she needed her job badly and
would not take the civil service examination and
that if Cloud would give her one more chance-she
would give no more trouble. Cloud then retracted
the discharge and Churchill reported for overtime
work on the following day.
On another occasion in March 1969, Churchill
wanted to be excused from overtime work on a
Saturday to participate as a model in a fashion
show scheduled for that day. She had been taking a
modeling course and this was the occasion for her
first fashion show. Cloud told her that if she wanted
to work atjall she would have to work that Satur-
day. Churchill worked overtime on that Saturday
and did not model.
On they morning of Friday, March 28, 1969,
Churchill was called into the office of Cloud. Cloud
told Churchill that she would have to let her go;
that she was undependable and had made too many
mistakes; that Churchill thought civil service and
modeling were more important to her than her job.
On Monday, March 24, after Cloud's meeting
with the girls on Saturday, March 22, she told Su-
pervisor Hunt and employee Guinnup, who
operated the production desk, that unless they had
reason to prove that she should not do so, she con-
templated letting Churchill and Nelson go on
Friday; that she planned to watch them and observe
their work very closely and she asked Hunt and
Guinnup to cooperate; she asked for any comments
that they might have at that time or at any time
during the following days of the week.
Clara Hunt, who was a leadgirl prior to becoming
a supervisor in March 1969 supervised and helped
train Churchill. First, Churchill was placed on the
contributions desk which job consisted mainly of
filing . Hunt testified that her filing was very poor
and she transferred Churchill to another job called
"mailer six " at which six girls worked together. She
testified that Churchill was not very fast and held
the other girls up. Then she was placed on reports.
On this job, Hunt testified that she made many
mistakes.
On Monday, March 24, 1969, Guinnup, who
worked on the production desk, started keeping
complete production records. The errors of an em-
ployee are noted by the employee who does the fol-
lowing operation. During the period from March 24
to March 27, Churchill made 97 errors. The
records of several journeyman employees doing the
same type of work showed that for approximately
the same length of time, with each of the several
employees contributing parts of the work and of the
time, a total of nine errors were made . Guinnup
testified that she had reported to Cloud several'
times that she did not think the Company would af-
ford Churchill.
501
Bruntzel testified she told Cloud sometime prior
to March 22, 1969, that she thought Churchill was
above average in intelligence and was doing a very
fine job. As to Nelson, she told Cloud that some-
times she did not pay attention but was doing good
work and could learn.
On Friday, March 28, Hunt reported to Cloud
that Churchill's work had not improved during the
week.
Although Churchill's work was discussed with
her by Hunt on occasions, neither Hunt nor any su-
pervisor warned her that she would be discharged if
her work did not improve-other than the general
warning given by Cloud to all her employees on
March 22.
As to Nelson on the matter of overtime, and as
previously mentioned, she, along with Churchill,
declined to work overtime on a weekend when the
employees were requested to work on a Friday
evening and a Saturday. On another occasion,
Cloud asked Nelson to work overtime one weekend
and Nelson reported that she could not work over-
time as she was going out of town. On the Saturday
involved, Cloud observed Nelson in a drugstore in
Colorado Springs. This incident occurred about 1
month before Nelson's discharge.
On another occasion about 2 weeks prior to her
discharge, Nelson asked Cloud if she could be ex-
cused from working on a Saturday as she wanted to
drive to Denver to pick up her boyfriend. Cloud
told her that if she did not come to work on that
Saturday, she could not come to work the following
Monday. Nelson worked that Saturday.
About 9:45 a.m. on March 28, 1969, Cloud
called Nelson into her office. She told Nelson that
she was going to have to let her go; that Nelson did
not seem to like the way things were run around
there and was not interested in her work; that
Cloud needed a crew of girls who were going to be
interested and willing to do the work. Cloud told
her that she had asked her to work overtime on one
occasion and Nelson told her she was going out of
town and Cloud saw her downtown. Nelson ex-
plained that her plans fell through. Cloud also told
her that she had seen her staring off into space and
to her this meant she was not interested in her
work. As to overtime, Nelson stated that she had
worked during the past 2 weeks when she had been
asked. Cloud said she realized this. Nelson asked
Cloud why she had not told her that this was going
to happen 2 weeks ago when her boyfriend was in
town and she really needed to be off, and Cloud
replied that she did not know at that time that she
was going to fire her.
After talking with Churchill and Nelson on
March 28, 1969, Cloud called employees Pam
Dade and Judy Lopuh individually into her office.
She told Lopuh that she had let Churchill and Nel-
son go and that she knew Lopuh was against her for
some reason . Cloud told Lopuh that she was talking
about her behind her back and that if she had
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anything to say she should say it to her face. She
stated that she knew that the girls in the section
were complaining about her and that she was not
afraid of anyone.
Supervisor Clara Hunt told employee Mary
Matthews sometime during the week of March 24,
1969, that Cloud had told her she was going to
watch Churchill like a hawk all week as she was
going to find an excuse to fire her; that Cloud had
told Hunt that she was going to get rid of everyone
except Gwen Guinnup, Clara Hunt, and Mary
Matthews. 4
Guinnup, who worked on the production desk
prior to the time she quit Respondent in April
1969, testified that because of her position, she was
able to observe the type of work done by Nelson;
that it was easy for anyone to see that she was a
very disinterested worker; she would stare into
space and not pay attention. She discussed Nelson
with Cloud several times and recommended that
she be discharged. The last time she made this
recommendation was the day before she was
discharged.
C. Conclusions as to Discharges of Churchill and
Nelson
The issue is whether or not Ona Cloud ter-
minated Churchill and Nelson because of their ac-
tion in complaining about her to the Union, or
because they displayed during their probationary
period that they were disinterested employees.
Ona Roll Cloud is a very conscientious , loyal,
and dedicated worker and desires a high degree of
loyalty and dedication from those under her super-
vision . As manifested in her discourse to her em-
ployees on Saturday, March 22, 1969, however, she
strongly resents criticism of her actions and efforts
motivated by the above-mentioned attributes.
Among other things , she stated that because of
Bruntzel 's complaints to the Union she could not
promote her or anyone to a job over and above a
regular journeyman position .' She recounted a
prior incident of a discharge and a grievance over
the matter . As to Churchill and Nelson , she ex-
pressed concern about their consistent refusal to
work overtime , but stated that otherwise their work
appeared to be satisfactory.
On the following workday, Monday, March 24, at
noon, Churchill, Nelson, and three journeymen,
Bigelow , Fence, and Trujillo, of Cloud's section
' Cloud denied that she stated that she knew the girls were trying to get
rid of her, as Lopuh testified She acknowledged in her testimony, however,
that on March 22 she told her employees she knew they were making com-
plaints about her to the Union, and I find that these are the words she used
on this occasion
' Matthews was a reluctant witness and gave the above testimony only
after being confronted with her affidavit given to a Board agent on April
23, 1969, Hunt denied making a statement to Matthews that Ona Cloud
was going to discharge everyone except Matthews , Hunt , and one other
Cloud denied stating to Hunt that she was going to get rid of everyone ex-
cept the three named employees In view of the hearsay problem involved
in this testimony , I do not find that Cloud made the statement attributed to
met with Union Representative Brandenburg and
were observed in this meeting by Hunt and Guin-
nup. On the same day, Cloud informed Hunt and
Guinnup that she planned to terminate Churchill
and Nelson on Friday of that week and was going to
watch them very closely. She asked for the
assistance of Hunt and Guinnup. Guinnup that day
started keeping complete production records, and
both Hunt and Guinnup recommended their
discharges during that week.
If Churchill and Nelson were so close to
discharge on Monday, March 24, they certainly
should have been equally close on Saturday, March
22, when Cloud told them that except for their
overtime problem, their work was otherwise
satisfactory. Neither of them were warned by Cloud
or any supervisor of any imminence of discharge
because of work error or work habits, but had been
warned of discharge in the event of a refusal to
work overtime; and on the occasions where their
personal interests conflicted with overtime, they
abandoned their conflicting plans. Cloud
acknowledged this distinction between them and
Debbie Griffin who had been discharged in early
March 1969 for refusal to work overtime.
Of the five employees meeting privately with
Union Representative Brandenburg, only Churchill
and Nelson were in their probationary period, and
thus more susceptible to discharge. But their proba-
tionary period had another 30 days to run. The tim-
ing of the discharges-the proximity to the meeting
with Brandenburg and the complaints relayed to
Cloud through McGlothlin; the lack of proximity to
any overtime incident or other particular incident;
and the lack of proximity to the expiration of the
probationary period-is further indicia that Cloud
was motivated by the fact that Churchill and Nel-
son had utilized the Union to seek remedy for com-
plaints against her.' Cloud told Nelson on March 28
that she did not seem to like the way things were
run around there. On the same date, she also told
job applicant Carolyn Coker (see paragraph G(5) )
that she had troublemakers and that if there was
any trouble, her first loyalty was to her boss.
I find that Respondent discharged Churchill and
Nelson on March 28, 1969, because of their union
activities. I also find that Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees by Cloud's
statement to employees on March 22, 1969, that
Bruntzel would not be promoted and would have
restricted duties because of her complaints to the
her by Hunt, but, I do find that Hunt made the above statements to Mary
Matthews predicated on statements made by Cloud to Hunt, as previously
found , on Monday, March 24, 1969 Cloud told Hunt and Gumnup that she
contemplated letting Churchill and Nelson go on Friday and planned to
watch them and observe their work closely during that week
' She testified that the complaints were "obviously made during working
hours," but the testimony shows that it occurred in the evening , before
work , and during the lunch period
' Cloud testified that on April 7, 1969, she and her husband left on a trip
to Arizona , but I cannot find that this had a significant influence on the tim-
ing of the discharges, particularly since 10 days separated the two events
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Union about Cloud 's operation of the section. Also,
I do not find that Cloud's statement to employees
on March 22 , 1969, that she was aware of their
complaints about her to the Union , constituted im-
pression of surveillance . She stated she had heard
from three sources that complaints were being
made; thus, persons had informed her that day of
these facts . There is no indication that she had in-
itiated any action of surveillance.
D. Discharge of June Large
June Large was employed by Respondent in Oc-
tober 1966, and left its employ on January 31,
1969, on a leave of absence . Large wanted the
leave of absence to remarry her ex -husband and to
establish a home , and she wanted an opportunity to
return to work for Respondent in the event the
remarrige did not work out. The terms of the leave
of absence , as set forth in letter from Assistant
Secretary -Treasurer Francis McGlothlin and
acknowledged by Large in letter of January 31,
1969, were as follows:
1. Should you be desired to return to work on
or after August 4 , 1969, and should there be a
job opening on work you are competent to per-
form, you will be rehired . Should there be no
job openings you are competent to fill at that
time you will be offered the first opportunity to
fill a vacancy on work upon which you are
competent . This is with the clear understand-
ing in either case that your rehire will not
necessitate the unnecessary reassignment of
anyone employed at that time or a reduction in
the force in order to make room for you.
2. That should you subsequently return to
work under the conditions set forth above your
attendance record must show considerable im-
provement or the employer reserves the right
to terminate your employment.
On April 23 , 1969, Large returned to Respon-
dent and talked with McGlothlin about returning to
work . She told him that her marriage had not
worked out and that she was giving notice that she
definitely needed her job and was available for
work . She handed him her letter dated April 21,
1969, which states as follows:
As of the above shown date , I hereby notify
both you and my employer, the International
Typographical Union , that circumstances force
my return to work . Therefore , according to the
conditions set forth in my Leave of Absence, I
will accept any job opening that I am qualified
for which you have available for me in the fu-
ture.
You may contact me by mail at the new ad-
dress shown below my name . I will not have a
telephone immediately but I will let you know
the number as soon as I get one.
McGlothlin told her that there were no openings
and that he would let her know.
503
The General Counsel contends that Large was
denied reinstatement or reemployment thereafter
because of union activities engaged in by her prior
to her leave of absence when she was vice president
of the local union and because of her participation
in the strike in July 1969 . Respondent contends
that the position she left was filled by another em-
ployee who remains on that job and that there have
been no job openings in any positions which she is
qualified to perform as a journeyman; that although
employees have been hired , they have been em-
ployed as beginners and have been trained for the
positions they were to fill and received beginner's
wages rather than journeyman pay. Since Respon-
dent was not and is not opposed to union member-
ship by its employees , the issue is whether or not
Large was denied employment because of her par-
ticular activities on behalf of the Union.
At the time June Large commenced her leave of
absence , she was working on the applications desk.
Employee Peggy Whittenbeck was assigned this job
when Large left and is still on this desk. The em-
ployee assigned to this desk takes applications that
come from potential ITU members and processes
them , making cards for the keypunching operation.
There is only one employee assigned to this work.
When Large was employed in October 1966, she
was hired as a machine operator and worked on
one of the computers , the collator . She remained
on this assignment until September 1967, when she
was placed on the applications desk.
In March 1968 , Large became vice president of
the local union . In May of that year , during the
absence of Union Steward Jessie Madison , she han-
dled a grievance for the Union which concerned
the matter of an increase in wages for several new
employees . McGlothlin was the representative of
Respondent. Both Large and McGlothlin worked
out what they considered to be the amounts due.
Neither could convince the other of the correctness
of his computations . McGlothlin testified that
Large succeeded in exasperating him because of his
apparent inability to explain the matter in such a
fashion that she would understand it; that he finally
gave up and asked the chief accountant to explain
it to her. Large testified that he threw his pencil on
the desk and made some remark to her about her
thick skull. Further processing of the grievance was
left until the return of Union Steward Madison. On
Madison 's return , another meeting was held on the
matter . During the meeting , Madison asked for a
recess to make some computations . Large was
working on the figures when McGlothlin came to
her and said he had a complaint that she was taking
too much time away from her desk . She then
returned to her desk and her work , and did nothing
further on the grievance at that time.
On Friday , January 10 , 1969, during the noon
lunch period , Large called Respondent 's offices and
told an employee to tell her supervisor that she
could not return to work that day, that something
had come up and that she had to go out of town.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the following Monday morning, she called in
again and told an employee to inform her super-
visor that she was unable to return to work that
morning but that she would be in at noon. She re-
ported for work that afternoon and was called into
McGlothlin's office. He stated that he had been
checking her records and that she had a definite
record of time lost from her job. He reprimanded
her for being absent so much of the time. She
replied that she realized this, but that most of her
absences had been due to illnesses and surgery in
both 1967 and 1968. He also reprimanded her for
not talking with her supervisor when she called in
on Friday and Monday. She tried to explain that
that is the way she had done in the past when she
had been absent. McGlothlin told her that he was
not interested in her problems that brought about
the absences. She then stated that in that case it
would do her no good to ask for leave of absence.
He replied that he would not give her a leave of
absence under any circumstances.
During her rest period that afternoon, she talked
with Union Steward Jessie Madison and Union Pre-
sident Paula LeBaron about her problem, and they
agreed that she had sufficient reason to ask for a
leave of absence. She typed up a request for leave
of absence that evening and gave it to McGlothlin
the next morning. The following day, she received a
letter from him denying the request. She im-
mediately took the letter to Union Steward Madis-
on and they prepared a grievance on the matter.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent and the Union
had a meeting on the grievance. Union Representa-
tive Brandenburg, June Large, and Union Stewards
Madison and Shirley Avila were present for the
Union and Assistant Secretary-Treasurer F. R.
Norelius were present for Respondent. McGlothlin
presented Large's record of absences and pointed
out that she had been off sick 11 days during the
past 2 years. Brandenburg explained that she had
had considerable illness and surgery. McGlothlin
stated that he did not feel Respondent could grant
her a leave of absence because of her record; that
Large did not have to take a leave of absence; that
she could terminate her employment with Respon-
dent and be hired back; that Respondent had rather
pick someone with experience than to hire an em-
ployee off the street and train him. Large con-
tended that she wanted to have a job to come back
to if the marriage failed and for this reason she
wanted to take a leave of absence rather than a ter-
mination . Large explained that she had used up her
vacation time when she was in the hospital. Mc-
Glothlin then stated that he could not run a place
with the kind of record of absences that she had.
Large contended that other employees had been
granted leaves of absence; she asserted that one
who had worked for the Company less than 3
months had been granted a leave of absence after
an accident, and another leave of absence a short
time later due to an injury; another employee
whose husband was in the military service was
given a 3-month leave of absence to stay home with
her children during the summer months and later
was granted a week off to go to Hawaii to be with
her husband during a period of military rest and
recuperation.
McGlothlin and Norelius went outside the meet-
ing room to discuss the matter in private. On their
return, Norelius stated that they could give her a
leave of absence, but that it would be on conditions
that there was a job opening when she was ready to
come back and that her record of absences would
improve, and that she could not expect to come
back to the same job as it would be filled. Bran-
denburg asked if there had been any complaints
about her work, and McGlothlin replied that on
one occasion her supervisor had come to him and
complained about her being away from her work.
During the strike of July 1969, Large par-
ticipated in the picket line activity. On one occa-
sion on his way out, McGlothlin spoke to Large and
stated, "What a way to spend a leave of absence."
On another occasion during the strike, Norelius ap-
proached her and asked if she were not the lady
that he intervened for on a grievance. She stated
that she was and then said, "Well, I guess I made a
mistake."
Following Large's notification to Respondent on
April 23, 1969, of her availability for employment,
and until about September 17, 1969, Respondent
hired approximately 29 clerical employees in the
classifications of keypunch operator, miscellaneous
clerk, computer operator , and file clerk; 9 were
started as keypunch operators , 18 as miscellaneous
clerks, 1 as file clerk in archives , and 1 as a com-
puter operator. Twenty-one were hired before the
strike of July 7 and eight were hired thereafter. One
of those employed as a keypunch operator, Je-
anette Roberts, had previously worked for Respon-
dent and was a rehire . Each of these employees,
however, was employed at the beginning wage of
$72.50 a week, and after the new wage rate became
effective in July 1969, at $78.50 per week.
June Large testified that she expected to return
to work at a journeyman's rate of pay since she had
been with Respondent for 2-1/2 years, but that the
salary for her reemployment was not mentioned or
discussed at any time. Prior to her employment
with Respondent, she had worked as a keypunch
operator with the treasury department, and her first
period of employment with Respondent was in this
capacity. She testified that she thought she was up
to journeyman's pay when she transferred from that
work to the applications desk. She testified that she
also had some experience in some of the other posi-
tions at Respondent, where she worked when she
was not busy on the applications desk; this included
the setup desk, the Alpha Codes desk, card-o-matic
work, "non-match" work, and filing.
Jeanette Jones, who was hired in May 1969,
trained about 2 weeks for the work on the applica-
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
tions desk and then did this work while Peggy Whit-
tenbeck was on vacation. After that Jones was
placed on setup work.
It is Respondent's practice to start employees as
learners at a wage less than the journeyman's scale
with the expectation that they will reach jour-
neyman wages within 1 year. On rare occasions,
Respondent has started an employee at a wage
other than the beginner's starting wage and on oc-
casions has advanced employees to journeyman
status in less than 1 year, where it is quite apparent
that they are qualified. A keypunch operator must
be a competent keypunch operator at the time of
employment; Respondent does not undertake to
train a person to be a keypunch operator but to
learn Respondent's procedure.
Respondent employs approximately 110 clericals
and approximately 40 are in the industrial pension
plan section.
E. Conclusions as to Large
It is Respondent's contention that Respondent
has no obligation to Large under the leave-of-
absence agreement unless a job exists that she
could walk into and perform as well as a jour-
neyman performing that job, and apparently Mc-
Glothlin has been of the opinion that the applica-
tions desk is the only job in this category. A
number of Respondent's supervisors testified that
Large was not qualified to perform as a journeyman
any of the jobs in their sections, but this, of course,
is based on the facts that (1) one must become
familiar with any job assignment at Respondent in
order to do it properly and expeditiously, and that
(2) they, the testifying supervisors, have not ob-
served Large performing any of the positions in
their sections. Such was also the testimony of Hilda
Bauer , supervisor of the computer section. Large
worked in her section in 1966 and until September
1967-almost 1 year. But, Bauer testified that
Large operated the "collator," and at present, there
is no collator machine in her section; that in Janua-
ry 1969, there was a change in the work procedure
from cards to tape; that she now employs two com-
puter operators and two setup girls and that each of
their jobs requires 2 to 3 months of training or
familiarization.
It is true that unless Large went back to a job
identical to one that she had performed before, she
would have to familiarize herself with a new routine
or procedure. And it is apparent that on this basis
McGlothlin is taking a position that Large is not
"competent to perform" any of the positions that
were filled.
I find this to be an erroneous and discriminatory
' McGlothlin testified that he did not learn that Large claimed any com-
petence as a keypunch operator until he was visited by a Board investigator
in the investigation of the charge in her case He told the investigator that if
Large wanted to claim competence as a journeyman keypunch operator, he
would put her to work as she would then be qualified under the terms of the
leave-of-absence agreement But there has been no communication
between McGlothlin and Large on this point
505
interpretation of the leave-of-absence agreement.
Large had worked in the computer section for al-
most a year, and during the additional year and a
half that she had worked at Respondent on the ap-
plications desk, she had filled in from time to time
on other jobs. She was certainly "competent to per-
form" some of the positions for which approximate-
ly 29 employees were hired. She would, of course,
have to familiarize herself with changed procedures
or different machines , but other employees had had
to do this when changes occurred and also when
they were reassigned to new positions. Large had
had to do this when she was reassigned from the
collator to the applications desk. As McGlothlin
had said when trying to persuade Large to ter-
minate rather than go on leave of absence, it would
be more advantageous to Respondent to pick
someone with experience than to hire an employee
off the street and train him.7
But, of course, the paramount issue before me is
whether McGlothlin's interpretation of the leave-
of-absence agreement and failure to reemploy
Large were motivated by Large's union activities or
by her attendance record. The parties are in the
wrong forum for any remedy on the matter of con-
tractual obligation arising from the leave-of-
absence agreement. Recourse before the National
Labor Relations Board exists only if the discrimina-
tion were motivated by the "union activities" of
Large, and were calculated to discourage such ac-
tivities by employees.
Turning now to this point, I am not persuaded
that Respondent through McGlothlin, who handled
this matter, was so motivated. I find that his con-
cern and motivation was her attendance record. He
called her in for a reprimand about her attendance
record before her first mention of a leave of
absence and immediately after she had absented
herself parts of 2 days with only indirect notice to
her supervisor. At that time, McGlothlin expressed
his opposition to a leave of absence under her cir-
cumstances, but apparently was persuaded by
Norelius to allow it when the matter was presented
by the Union as a grievance.
All of this occurred approximately 7 or 8 months
after the "union activities" of Large, at which time
McGlothlin had become exasperated at her inabili-
ty to comprehend him. McGlothlin called Large in
on January 13 for a verbal reprimand and warning
only. She is the one who initiated the break in her
employment. Also, Respondent's reluctance to
reinstate or reemploy Large was clearly manifested
before the strike in July 1969, as by that time 21
clerical positions were filled with new employees.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to con-
There is some confusion in the evidence as to whether or not Large set
forth in her application for employment her prior experience and abilities
as a keypunch operator , but, irrespective of this, her record of employment
with Respondent in this capacity would certainly speak louder than a work
history on an application form
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clude ' that Respondent refused to reinstate or reem-
ploy Large because of union activities.
F. The Discharge of Charles A. Scheible
Scheible was first employed by Respondent in
March 1951 , as an accountant . Prior to that time,
he had been employed by an accounting firm that
did some work for Respondent . He was discharged
in August 1957, because of his absence from duty
during a convention in New York C ity. He was
reemployed by Respondent in June 1963 , after it
moved its offices to Colorado Springs , Colorado.
He was employed by Secretary -Treasurer William
Cloud, who had known Scheible since 1949. In
September 1963, Scheible was advanced to the
position of chief accountant but was demoted in
September 1964, to a junior accountant because of
his failure to be on duty at a critical time during a
.convention held by Respondent in Honolulu,
Hawaii . Because of his absence at this time, Cloud
summoned Roger Martwick , an accountant in
Respondent 's offices in Colorado Springs, and
returned Scheible to these offices . Cloud permitted
Scheible to remain with Respondent as a junior ac-
countant.
In February 1967, Dale Wilmeth became
Respondent 's chief accountant . Under him were
two accountants , Scheible and Martwick and four
clerks . The accountants are salaried personnel; they
are not paid for overtime hours nor is their pay af-
fected by time off for illness ; that is, they receive a
set salary irrespective of the need for overtime
hours or for time off due to illness . When Wilmeth
became chief accountant , he started keeping at-
tendance records on his employees. Scheible had
an extremely poor attendance record . In 1967, the
occasions on which he was late at least a half hour
or more totaled 21; on 8 occasions , he was absent
the entire day. In 1968 , there were 11 occasions
where he was absent as much as 45 minutes or
more and on 5 of these occasions , he missed the en-
tire day . In 1969, there were nine occasions when
he was absent for half an hour or more or missed
the entire day, up to and not including the incident
in July for which he was terminated . Most of the
times, Scheible would call in with an explanation,
but on some occasions , there is no record that he
called the office . The excuses ranged from personal
illness , appointments with a doctor , overslept, per-
sonal business , and on a few occasions no reason
was given.
In spite of this record, on only one occasion did
Chief Accountant Wilmeth complain to Cloud
about the matter . In April 1969, about 2 p.m.,
Scheible told Chief Accountant Wilmeth that he
had to go to the dentist but would make up the
time . Wilmeth asked if he had an appointment and
Scheible replied that he did not . Wilmeth suggested
that he call and make an appointment and then go
to the dentist and come back to work. Scheible
became upset at this and Wilmeth suggested that
they talk with Secretary-Treasurer Cloud. But
Cloud was absent that day and on the next day Wil-
meth mentioned the incident to him and recom-
mended that some action be taken. Cloud took no
action on the recommendation.
The union strike of Respondent began on Mon-
day, July 7, 1969. Scheible arrived for work that
morning at or about 8:55, approximately 5 minutes
before his starting time. He observed the presence
of the picket line and then parked his car and
joined the picketers. Also, on Tuesday, Wednesday,
and Thursday of that week, he joined the picketers
at Respondent's premises, but did not himself carry
a picket sign. About 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, July
10, he left the picket line area to get a jug of coffee.
In his mailbox, he found a note from Respondent,
dated Tuesday, July 8, 1969, and signed by William
R. Cloud as follows:
If you should desire to return to Indianapolis or
move to another location not in excess of that
distance, you will be entitled to transportation
and the cost of moving your household goods.
Should you desire to do this, I would suggest
that you get in touch with my office in advance
in order to allow sufficient time to make the
necessary arrangements.
Shortly thereafter, Scheible called Cloud and told
him that he would take the offer and asked that ar-
rangements for first-class passage be made as soon
as it could be done. Cloud agreed; transportation
was arranged, and a ticket was furnished to Schei-
ble.
At no time was Scheible told nor did he ask for
the reason for his termination. It is Respondent's
practice when a salaried person is employed from
another city to pay that person's transportation
back to that city or an equivalent distance upon his
termination.
On Monday morning, July 7, Wilmeth reported
to Cloud that he had no one in his section because
of the strike. Cloud checked around and a few
clerks were furnished to Wilmeth to help out with
his work. Accountant Martwick was on vacation.
On that day or the next day, Wilmeth called Mart-
wick and told him that he was shorthanded and
asked him if he could come to work and take his
vacation at a later date. Martwick reported to work
on Wednesday, July 9, 1969. Wilmeth was told by
other employees that Scheible was at the picket
line, although Wilmeth did not see him there him-
self when he reported for work or left work. How-
ever, Secretary-Treasurer Cloud did observe him
there. On Tuesday evening, July 8, 1969, Cloud
made the decision to terminate Scheible for the
reason that he did not report for work.' Cloud
testified that he expected his salaried employees to
report for work in the event of a strike. Cloud
8 Respondent 's personnel records on Scheible show a termination date of
July 7, 1969
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
testified that Scheible was a very talented accoun-
tant but had "an irresponsible streak." Apparently,
Cloud tolerated Scheible's poor attendance record
generally until the absence was caused by his par-
ticipation in the strike of the Union against Respon-
dent.
Although Scheible, as a salaried employee, was
not subject to the overtime and sick leave benefits
provided for in the Union's contract with Respon-
dent, nevertheless as an office employee and one
without supervisory authorities, he was in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit recognized by Respon-
dent.9
It seems clear that Scheible was terminated
because he chose to participate in the strike and
not to report for work during the week of July 7,
1969. Although Cloud had tolerated "an irresponsi-
ble streak" on the part of Scheible and for this
reason may have felt justified in expecting a higher
degree of gratitude and loyalty in return, and
although Respondent had sufficient cause to ter-
minate Scheible because of his attendance record
and neglected to do so until his participation on the
strike, nevertheless by discharging him because of
his union activity, Respondent has discriminated
against him within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
Scheible died on October 27, 1969, while the
hearing herein was in recess.
G. Respondent's Alleged Interference with the Union
1. Petition of April 15, 1969
At all times material herein and until June or July
1969, all of Respondent's intermediate supervisors,
being about 12 in number, were members of the
Union and paid union dues. Apparently, most of
them were members of the Union prior to their ap-
pointment as supervisors. There is no dispute as to
the fact that each possessed at least some of the
authorities of a supervisor as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act.
Section 14(a) of the Act sets forth that nothing
in the Act shall prohibit any supervisor from
becoming or remaining a member of a labor or-
ganization. The question is whether his attendance
at union meetings and/or participation in the nor-
mal activities or privileges of membership con-
stitute interference by Respondent with the ad-
ministration of the Union.
At his first meeting with the supervisors who
were members of the Union, Union Representative
Brandenburg told them that although they should
not be members of the Union, he would represent
them since they were and that they were entitled to
the benefits of the collective-bargaining contract.
A collective-bargaining agreement between
Respondent and the Union expired on April 30,
" It is difficult to see a distinction between him and Roger Martwick, the
other accountant in the section , yet the General Counsel has alleged and
Respondent admitted that Martwick is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act Martwick testified that he was classified as a supervisory employee
507
1969, and bargaining sessions commenced on
March 27. Other bargaining sessions were held on
April 17, 23, and 29, May 1, 20, 21, and 27, and
July 9, 11, 15, 16, and 17, 1969. At the first bar-
gaining session, a representative of Respondent ob-
jected to some of the language Brandenburg used in
his proposals. Brandenburg acknowledged that he
was not familiar with ITU terminology.
On April 15, 1969, following Brandenburg's
meeting with the supervisors on March 25 and fol-
lowing the first bargaining conference on March
27, and following a discussion of the matter with
other employees and supervisors, Supervisor San-
dra Frazee, who had been a member of the Union
since she started working for Respondent in 1963,
prepared a petition as follows:
We, the undersigned members of OPEIU # 64,
hereby petition and request that a special
Order of Business be called at the next meeting
of the Union, on April 22, 1969, at 7.45 p.m.
for the express purpose of rescinding previous
action of the Union in engaging the services of
a Business Agent, namely one William Bran-
denburg.
Our petition and motion to dismiss the services
of Mr. Brandenburg is based upon our
knowledge that Mr. Brandenburg has failed to
fully advise our members of current collective
bargaining procedures and because of his
known incompetence in faithful collective bar-
gaining practice.
She solicited the signatures of employees and su-
pervisors to the petition contending that Bran-
denburg was an amateur dealing with professionals;
that he was not a lawyer and did not know what he
was doing. Some of the solicited employees signed
the petition and some did not. Some of the solicita-
tion was done during working hours at Respon-
dent's offices and some of it was done after hours.
Employees participated in the idea of having such a
petition and also in the solicitation of signatures.
On the second day of the solicitation, Frazee, Su-
pervisor Charlotte Andersen, and two employees
were called into the office of Assistant Secretary-
Treasurer F. R. Norelius and he made it clear to
them that there would be no union business on
company time. Frazee then took the petition to her
residence.
On April 11, 1969, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
McGlothlin had sent a memorandum to Union
Steward Jessie Madison in which he advised her
that far too much office time was being spent on
union matters. He asked that such conferences,
meetings, discussions, etc., be confined to non-
working periods of the day. At the union meeting
held on April 14, the Union's president advised the
members of the contents of this memorandum. I
by Cloud after the convention of Respondent in 1964 Nevertheless, he
remained a member of the Union until June 30, 1969, when he was granted
an honorary withdrawal because of his supervisory capacity
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that there was no disparate treatment by
Respondent on this matter of union business on
company time. Frazee's union activities were also
,not permitted.
During the solicitation of signatures, Frazee sol-
icited the signature of employee Judy Lopuh, who
was a personal friend. She told Lopuh in words to
the effect that by keeping Brandenburg they
seemed to be going in the wrong direction, that it
was senseless to threaten a strike before you went
into negotiations, and that if they did not sign it
they might not have jobs.10 However, I find that this
was not a threat of discharge but her surmise as to a
likely consequence of their continued employment
of Brandenburg.
This petition was also signed by Supervisors
Clara Hunt, Joan Walls, Charlotte Andersen, Phyl-
lis Moreland, and Chief Accountant Dale Wilmeth.
Walls passed it on to one of the employees under
her supervision.
2. Supervisors at union meetings
Supervisors who were members of the Union
frequently attended union meetings, and on May
22, 1969, the meeting at which Respondent's con-
tract proposals were voted on, Supervisors Ona
Cloud, Charlotte Andersen, Joan Walls, Clara
Hunt, Phyllis Moreland, Sandra Frazee, and Rose
Lee Bulman were in attendance. At this meeting,
the membership voted to reject Respondent's con-
tract proposals by a vote of 38 to 36. The super-
visors participated in the vote on this proposal.
Supervisor Andersen attempted to speak on the
floor at one of the union meetings at which con-
tract proposals were being considered, presumably
this meeting, and she was refused by the chairman
and Union President LeBaron on grounds that she
was a supervisor. Prior to this occasion, she had
been able to participate at the union meetings, but
on the prior occasion, contract proposals were not
being considered.
Section 5(b) of the Union's constitution and
bylaws specifies that, "in the event any member
becomes a supervisor within the meaning of exist-
ing applicable legislation in the United States and
does not make application for and receive a
withdrawal card, such member shall not be eligible
to participate or have a vote in any of this Union's
proceedings which affect the wages and conditions
of employment in the establishment where he is
employed as supervisor."
In view of the past practice of participation by
supervisors in union meetings and the concern of
the supervisors as to the contract provisions, An-
dersen sought and obtained a clarification of their
role from the Union's International president, and
was advised that the supervisors who were members
of the Union were entitled to a voice and a vote in
contract proposals.
10 Frazee denied using the language about loss of job, but 1 find that
words to that effect were used As found hereinafter , she stated at a union
At the union meeting held on June 9, 1969, a
strike vote was taken. This meeting was attended by
Supervisors Moreland, Walls, Andersen, Bulman,
and Sandra Frazee, and supervisors were permitted
to express themselves. Supervisor Bulman spoke
about their responsibilities and the consequences if
they went on strike and told them in words to the
effect that they would lose themselves personally if
they went on strike as to benefits, wages, and so
forth. Supervisor Sandra Frazee also spoke at this
meeting and told the employees that it would do
them no good if they went on strike because
Respondent would bring in ITU men to do their
jobs. Also at this meeting , she voted on union con-
tract proposals for submission to Respondent.
3. Petition of May 1969
Following the union meeting of May 22, 1969, a
petition was prepared by someone with the follow-
ing caption:
We, the undersigned, members of OPEIU
Local 64, meeting the requirements as stipu-
lated by the laws of our International Union,
hereby petition that a special meeting be
granted on Wednesday, June 4, 1969, to
reconsider the contract proposals submitted by
the employer, the International Typographical
Union.
This petition was signed by the following super-
visors: Phyllis Moreland, Charlotte Andersen, Joan
Walls, and Sandra Frazee. Andersen testified that
she does not recall who gave her the document nor
to whom she gave the document. Walls received
the petition from an employee in her section one
morning before work; she signed it and passed it on
to one of the employees in her section.
4. Petition of July 9, 1969
On July 9, 1969, after the strike had begun, a
petition to the Union was prepared by someone and
circulated for signatures. The petition had the fol-
lowing caption:
We, the undersigned employees of the Interna-
tional Typographical Union, do hereby request
that the original proposal made by the Interna-
tional Typographical Union to OPEIU # 64 be
presented again for the purpose of voting on
this proposal.
This petition was signed by the following super-
visors: Sandra Frazee, Ona Roll Cloud, Joan Walls,
Phyllis Moreland, Clara Hunt, Rose Lee Bulman,
Charlotte Andersen, Roger Martwick, and Chief
Accountant Dale Wilmeth. After being signed by
Martwick, he passed the document to employee
Joanne Perue. After being signed by Walls in the
coffeeroom, she passed it to one of the employees
from her section who was standing beside her.
meeting in June 1969 that, in the event of a strike, Respondent would bring
in ITU men to do their jobs
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 509
5. Employees required to join the Union
The General Counsel offered evidence of one in-
cident within the limitation period of 6 months
prior to the filing of the initial charge, on the point
as to whether or not employees were informed that
Respondent required its employees to join the
Union. Carolyn Coker testified that when she was
interviewed for employment by Ona Cloud on the
afternoon of March 28, 1969, she was told that she
would have to join the Union. This is the date of
the termination of Churchill and Nelson. She
testified that Cloud told her she had several
troublemakers and asked if Coker were a
troublemaker; that if there were any trouble, her
first loyalty was to her boss.
Cloud denies making a statement about any
requirement to join the Union to Coker or to any-
one. She testified that she has told new employees
that they would be approached by the office work-
ers union to join and that membership in it is
voluntary as far as Respondent is concerned.
There is no union-security clause in the Union's
contract with Respondent, and not all employees
are members of the Union. Coker testified that she
had already been told by someone before she went
for the interview that she would have to join the
Union, and apparently she assumed that Cloud's
reference to union membership was the same. I find
that Cloud did not tell Coker she would have to
join the Union."
6. Conclusions
I find that Cloud's statement to Coker did not
constitute illegal support to the Union or inter-
ference with union activities.
As to the participation of intermediate super-
visors in union matters, this is not per se a violation
of the Act. It is a violation only where the employer
thereby interferes with the administration of a
union. Precedent divides cases with this issue into
two broad categories-where the supervisor is in-
cluded in the bargaining unit, and where he is not.
Generally, in situations where the supervisor is not
in the bargaining unit, even attendance at union
meetings, if uninvited, constitutes interference. But
in some bargaining relationships, and it is a practice
in certain industries such as the building and con-
struction industry, intermediate supervisors are
recognized as being in and are included in the bar-
gaining unit; that is, the union involved bargains for
them and contract terms are applicable to them. In
this category, it has been held that attendance at
union meetings, participating and voting on internal
union affairs, and holding of union offices, where
not instigated or ratified in fact or in appearance by
the employer, is not interference by the employer.
" In resolving credibility on this point, I have also considered the
testimony of witnesses about such remarks having been made to them by
supervisors, other than Ona Cloud, when they were employed at times
more than 6 months before the initial charge herein
" Allied Chemical Corporation, Wdputte Coke Oven Division, 175 NLRB
974, National Gypsum Company, 139 NLRB 916, Banner Yarn Dyeing Cor-
On the other hand , participation as a union
representative at the bargaining table with the em-
ployer has been held to constitute interference. 12
Supervisors of managerial level, such as job su-
perintendents , are in the category of supervisors
not in the bargaining unit and may not participate
in union matters with impunity."
In the instant case , the supervisors attended
union meetings , participated in and voted on in-
traunion matters and also on contract proposals.
The issues then are whether or not they are or were
in the bargaining unit, and if they were, then
whether or not their conduct was instigated or
ratified by Respondent
The facts are not sufficiently clear to fit the su-
pervisors neatly in one or the other category, but
from the preponderance of the evidence I find that
the intermediate supervisors were in the bargaining
unit and that Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wilmeth
were managerial level supervisors and were not.
There is no indication in the collective -bargaining
agreement itself that any supervisors were included
in the bargaining unit or covered by its terms. It
specified the bargaining unit as "all office em-
ployees engaged at [Respondent 's] International of-
fice in Colorado Springs, Colorado ." The only
reference to supervisors in the agreement was that
they were exempt from the provision allowing em-
ployees with more seniority to claim jobs in the
event of a reduction in force . However , as set forth
in the testimony of Supervisor Charlotte Andersen,
the supervisors received the same benefits that the
employees did, such as sick leave , insurance, vaca-
tions, and holidays. The contract contained no
wage scale ; it merely provided that "there shall be a
$3.50 weekly increase retroactive to May 1, 1966,
to employees still employed at the ITU." Ap-
parently the intermediate supervisors were hourly
paid; I base this on the testimony of Supervisor San-
dra Frazee that she was hourly paid. In the negotia-
tions for a new contract , Union Representative
Brandenburg proposed that all supervisors be
placed on a salary rather than hourly pay. He was
told on this occasion by Respondent 's representa-
tive, Lee , that he was not to worry about the super-
visors; that Respondent took care of its own people.
Brandenburg confessed that he really did not
know what to do with the supervisors . However, he
had a special meeting with them prior to contract
negotiations to get acquainted with them and to
find out their problems. He told them that he
thought they should not be in the Union, but as
they were , they were "entitled to all of the provi-
sions of the contract that have been negotiated and
all of the things provided in the constitution and
bylaws," and that he would represent them.
poration , 139 NLRB 1018, Nassau and Suffolk Contractors ' Association,
Inc , and its members , 118 NLRB 174
" Anchorage Businessmen 's Association , Drugstore Unit, 124 NLRB 662,
enfd 289 F 2d 619 (C A 9), Bottfield-Refactorte% Co, 127 NLRB 188,
enfd 292 F 2d 627 (C A 3), Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors,
126 NLRB 1381, enfd in part 287 F 2d 354 (C A D C )
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based on these considerations I find that the in-
termediate supervisors were in the bargaining unit.
This was a condition that had existed for a long
time, and I find that it was not instigated or ratified
by Respondent. Although the supervisors' par-
ticipation ( 1) in the intraunion petition seeking
dismissal of a business agent, (2) in the matter of
the acceptance or rejection of contract proposals,
and (3) in the matter of a strike vote, were calcu-
lated to exert an influence on the course of action
taken by the Union, nevertheless, under the cir-
cumstances that existed here, it was not conduct
engaged in by the Employer. And, it falls short of
the bargaining table confrontation held to be illegal
in the Nassau & Suffolk case. I find that by the con-
duct of intermediate supervisors as described
herein Respondent has not interfered with the ad-
ministration of the Union within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act and has not engaged in
surveillance or interference within the ' meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Also, I find that the re-
marks of Supervisors Bulman and Frazee at the
June 9 meeting constituted expressions of personal
opinion and were not attributable to Respondent.
As to Supervisors Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wil-
meth, the facts are not the same. From a preponder-
ance of the evidence, I find that they were not in
the bargaining unit, although they were members of
the Union. Cloud attended the union meeting of
May 22 and voted on Respondent's contract
proposals under consideration , she and Wilmeth
participated in the signing of a union petition dated
July 9, 1969, regarding the reconsideration of con-
tract proposals and Wilmeth also signed another
petition seeking the dismissal of Union Representa-
tive Brandenburg dated April 15, 1969,. 1 find that
they were both staff members of Respondent.
Staff members may be employed only by Respon-
dent 's president or secretary -treasurer , whereas in-
termediate supervisors may be employed by a staff
member . Staff members are all salaried and have
more responsibility than hourly people , including
supervisors , and they are not subject to the terms
and conditions of the collective -bargaining agree-
ment . Their salary is predicated on the pay that is
allowed the elected officers of Respondent and has
no relationship to the union contract. Although
Cloud's status as a staff member is not as clear as
that of Wilmeth, she was salaried ; her wage was not
negotiated by the Union; at least one supervisor,
Clara Hunt, was selected by her to be a supervisor
and was under her supervision, Cloud's duties were
taken over by Staff Member Walter Meneilly when
she resigned; and she referred to herself in her
testimony as being in the category of staff mem-
bers. I find that Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wilmeth
were not in the bargaining unit and by their con-
duct described above, Respondent has interfered
with the administration of the Union in violation of
Section 8 (a)(2) of the Act.
H. The Demotion of Frieda Clark
Frieda Clark was employed by Respondent in
August 1964, as a dictaphone typist in the steno-
graphic pool in the president's department In June
1967, she was notified by memorandum from Harry
Reifin, an assistant to the president and director of
personnel, that she would be the assistant to Pool
Supervisor Betty Cahill. The pool has four to six
employees; in this capacity, Clark's duties were to
direct the work of the pool during the vacation, ill-
ness, or other absence of Cahill. She had no
authority to hire or fire or effectively recommend
such action. She received a $6 raise in recognition
of her added responsibilities.
On July 25, 1969, Reifin called Clark and two
other employees into his office and advised them
that while Cahill and others were away at a conven-
tion, no girl would be in charge in the pool, but that
an ITU staff member , N. D. Lee, an assistant to the
president, would be in charge. On October 1, 1969,
Clark was called into Reifin's office and informed
that as she was no longer operating as substitute for
Pool Supervisor Cahill, her pay was being reduced
from $126 to $100 per week. The following
memorandum was read to her:
It is my duty to inform you that, effective with
the week ending October 10, 1969, your salary
will be adjusted to reflect the fact that we are
no longer operating with a substitute for Mrs.
Cahill when she is away from the office. It has
been determined to be more practical to pro-
vide such supervision, when needed, by ITU
supervisory members of the staff.
The highest rate currently provided under our
OPEIU contract for Dictaphone Operators-
Stenographers is $93.50 per week. This rate,
plus the $6 general increase effectuated May 1,
1969, i.e., 99.50 per week, would be your rate
of pay as above indicated. We are rounding it
out to an even $100 per week.
On October 3, 1969, Clark resigned her employ-
ment with Respondent and did so by letter of that
date to President John J. Pilch.
The General Counsel contends that Clark was
demoted because of her union activities and
feelings. The Respondent contends that it was pur-
suant to a reorganizational program instituted by
President Pilch.
In April 1969, Clark refused to sign the petition
seeking the removal of Union Representative Bran-
denburg . Her signature was solicited by Ellie
Steiner , secretary to James Schell , an assistant to
the president and director of the Bureau of
Statistics . During this time, Clark also had a discus-
sion with Supervisor Sandra Frazee about the
matter. During the discussion , the possibility of a
strike came up. Clark asked Frazee whether or not
the people who crossed the picket line should be
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 511
considered rats and scabs by the Respondent. Clark
could not recall Frazee's answer. A few days later,
she had a conversation with Schell about this
matter. He asked her who she thought she was by
setting ITU policy; that in her position she did not
have the right to expound on or determine ITU pol-
icy. Clark asked what he meant and he referred to
her statement about the employees being con-
sidered rats and scabs by the ITU if they cross the
picket line of the Union. They had a rather lengthy
discussion, he inquired who was she to say that she
was going to the convention in Seattle that year; he
inquired why his secretary, Ellie Steiner, had not
been invited to the meeting the girls had had to
discuss the petition on Brandenburg. He also said
he thought that the Union should get rid of Bran-
denburg because he was not a union member and
was not qualified to represent the employees.
Sometime in May 1969, Schell told her he felt
that she had a chip on her shoulder against him.
Also in May, Cahill informed Clark that she
(Cahill) would be going to the convention in Seat-
tle, and it was indicated that Clark would not be
going because she was supposed to be in charge of
the pool during the absence of Cahill.
As previously mentioned, the Union's strike at
Respondent existed from July 7 to July 17, 1969,
when contract terms were agreed to and signed. On
July 25, Clark was notified by Reifin that during
Cahill's absence while attending the convention,
Assistant to the President Lee would be in charge
of the stenographic pool.
In August 1969, Clark took a vacation of 1 week.
On her return, Cahill was absent and in the
hospital. Reifin was supervising the pool in her
absence, and did so until Cahill returned. Cahill
returned from the hospital 2 days after Clark got
back from her vacation. Some of the girls asked
Reifin what was happening and he merely indicated
that he was taking over Cahill's duties when she
was gone.14
On October 1, 1969, Clark had a discussion with
Cahill about a new employee. Cahill had given
some copy work to the new employee and the work
was proofread by Clark and the new employee.
Clark questioned the right of the new employee to
put the OPEIU emblem at the bottom of the page
since she was not a member of the Union. It was
customary for a person doing typing to put her ini-
tial at the bottom of the page and "OPEIU No. 64."
Cahill contended that she thought it was permissi-
ble and Clark argued that conditions had changed.
Then, Cahill cut the "OPEIU No. 64" off the bot-
tom of the sheet.
Also on that day, Reifin had a long-distance
telephone conversation with President Pilch who
was out of the State on ITU matters. In this conver-
sation, President Pilch asked Reifin if he had
reduced the salary of Clark. Reifin told him that he
" I do not credit Reifin's testimony that in June 1969 he commenced
sitting at Cahill's desk to carry out her duties when she was not there His
testimony on this point is vague and general and is tied to no occasion that
had not done it, and President Pilch told him to do
it now. He testified that the reason he had delayed
this matter to this late date was because he did not
feel like reducing anyone's pay and was dragging
his feet.
Later that day, Clark was called into Reifin's of-
fice, and he read to her a handwritten copy of a
memorandum to the effect that she would be
reduced in pay from $126 a week to $100 a week
as she was no longer operating as a substitute for
the pool supervisor.
Reifin testified that in February 1968, Pilch
became president of Respondent and immediately
upon taking over these duties, he informed Reifin
that he wanted changes made in the operations in
the stenographic pools, that he did not want and
did not like the supervision of stenographers by
other stenographers. He also wanted individual
stenographers assigned to the different staff mem-
bers.
1. Conclusions as to Clark
I find that Respondent demoted and reduced the
pay of Clark because of union actions and expres-
sions that she made while she occupied a position
that placed her closer to management than a rank-
and-file employee. Clark was relieved from these
duties and her pay was reduced to that of regular
journeyman in the stenographic pool.
In April 1969, Clark had refused to go along with
Frazee's petition seeking the dismissal of Bran-
denburg; she made a sarcastic remark to Frazee
about Respondent's attitude as a union toward
those who crossed a picket line; she was repri-
manded by Assistant to the President Reifin for try-
ing to expound ITU policies on this matter; she
joined with the rank-and-file employees during the
strike in July 1969; and on October 1, 1969, she
took Pool Supervisor Cahill to task on the matter of
permitting a new employee and nonunion member
to use the union emblem on a letter that she had
copied or retyped.
Reifin's explanation for the delay in carrying out
President Pilch's changes are not tenable. The fact
that Reifin did not take any steps to carry out Pre-
sident Pilch's instruction on pool supervision given
him in February 1968 until after Clark's participa-
tion with the employees in the strike of July 1969
strongly demonstrates that it was her alignment
with the Union rather than with Respondent on the
strike issues that prompted the removal of her from
the nonsupervisory position of assistant to pool su-
pervisor And it appears to me that there might be
an inconsistency with President Pilch's instruction
in the retention of Betty Cahill as pool supervisor
rather than an ITU staff member. Also, it seems an
unusual coincidence that Clark was notified that
her salary was being reduced on the same day that
could have brought about his assumption of these duties, and there is no
evidence of any notification to Clark at that time that she was being re-
lieved of her position as assistant to Cahill
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she had a disagreement with Supervisor Cahill on
the use of the union emblem.
J. The Discharge of Margaret Jones
Jones was employed in August 1968, and ter-
minated on October 15, 1969 . During her entire
employment with Respondent , she worked in the
industrial pension plan section under the supervi-
sion of Clara Hunt and Ona Cloud.
She testified in this proceeding on September 23,
1969, as a witness for the General Counsel , and she
also participated in the Union 's strike in July 1969.
It is contended by the General Counsel that she was
terminated because of these activities. Respondent
contends that she was terminated because of her in-
ability to get along with other employees and
because of errors in her work.
When Jones was first employed , she was placed
on "look-up work." Because of crowded space,
Jones and about six other girls were moved into a
room on another floor . A short time later, three
employees , Helen Fence , Patty Scruggs, and Sandy
Bromer , complained to Hunt that Jones was caus-
ing trouble and that they were having difficulty
getting along with her. Then in the latter part of
October or in November 1968, she was transferred
to the position of a keypunch operator . She stayed
on this type of work until March 1969, when
Respondent changed to a different type of com-
puter . From that time on , Jones worked as a setup
girl on reports. As a keypunch operator, Jones did
not work with other employees.
Following the Union 's strike in July 1969, Jones
was in the hospital and did not return to work until
Monday, August 11, 1969. Jones had been absent
from work for more than 1 month and, on her
return , Supervisor Hunt told her that new instruc-
tions had been written and there had been changes
in the work . Jones stated that another employee
had explained these to her . During that day, three
employees, Sharon Ward, Mary Matthews, and
Claudia Jackson, told Hunt that they were having
difficulty getting along with Jones as Jones was try-
ing to tell them what was what and was bossing
them around.
On the next day as Hunt was checking the
production record of the employees in her section,
she found that Jones had not correctly filled out the
production forms that she had worked on the prior
day. She proceeded to show her how to complete
these forms. Also she told Jones that the girls did
not have any harsh feelings toward her for her
being on strike.
Later that day, Jones then went to see Walter
Meneilly, an assistant to the secretary -treasurer,
and she reported to him about her conversation of
that morning with Hunt . She complained to him
that she did not think Hunt should have mentioned
this matter to her and he replied that he would talk
to Hunt but possibly she was trying to be helpful to
Jones.
Later , Hunt was called into Meneilly 's office and
he told her that Jones had been in to see him.
Meneilly told her that he could understand Jones'
side as well as Hunt 's side because he had been on
strike on occasions and on other occasions he had
not been on strike when others had. He stated that
they should bend over backward to get through to
Jones and to help her with her problems. Hunt
stated that she would try and would do everything
that she could . Meneilly had been employed by
Respondent in the latter part of July 1969, and one
of his duties was to take over the work that previ-
ously had been done by Ona Cloud as supervisor in
the industrial pension plan section.
On the occasions thereafter that Jones made er-
rors, Hunt pointed them out to her, but Jones con-
tended that they were caused by the computer or
by another employee . For example , one employee
brought back a report that had been prepared by
Jones on which the total was incorrect . Jones con-
tended that another employee had typed it for her.
The other employee was confronted with the report
and stated that she did not type it and that the re-
port was in computer print; this employee also
stated that if she had typed it, Jones would have
proofread it before sending it out.
On the first day of the hearing herein , on Sep-
tember 23 , 1969, Jones was called as a witness by
the General Counsel and testified about (I) a con-
versation she had had with William Frazee, an
assistant to the secretary -treasurer, when she was
employed in August 1968, regarding her joining the
Union , ( 2) the solicitation of her signature on the
petition of April 15, 1969, by another employee
and a conversation on the following day by Sandra
Frazee soliciting her signature on the document,
and she testified about ( 3) the fact that several
named supervisors were present at the union meet-
ing on May 22, 1969. She gave no testimony about
Supervisor Clara Hunt other than that she was one
of the several supervisors who was present at the
union meeting on May 22.
On September 24, 1969, the day after she had
testified, Jones went into the office of Meneilly and
asked to speak to him . She complained about the
fact that Hunt had taken Barbara Bigelow off of the
production table and had put Mary Matthews on
this table and since certain employees were away
from work because of the hearing and illness there
was no one to train Matthews. Meneilly explained
to Jones that he had instructed Hunt that he wanted
at least three persons trained for each job. She then
stated that she had some concern for her job at that
time because she had testified at the hearing; that
she was having trouble getting along with Hunt; and
that Hunt seemed to be picking on her . Meneilly
then stated that "You can't testify against a person
one day and think they are going to love you the
next day." Meneilly had not been at the hearing on
the prior day and had assumed that some of the
testimony of Jones had been a reflection upon
Clara Hunt. Jones then told him that she had not
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
testified against Clara Hunt, that she had testified
against "the whole stinking mess." He then told her
that he knew of no plot to compile evidence to fire
any of the employees and as far as he could see, she
was doing a fine job.
On the next day, September 25, Meneilly ob-
served that there was a considerable amount of
conversation going on in the work area and he
asked Hunt what was going on. She replied that she
assumed they were discussing the hearing. Meneilly
then asked her to send three of the girls in, among
them was Jones. Among other things, he asked
Jones why she had such an apparent chip on her
shoulder and why she did not appear to be able to
get along with any supervisors. He told Jones that
he wanted it to be unmistakably clear that her at-
titude and overall approach to her work as well as
the quality of her work had to improve or she could
not continue in her employ with Respondent.
In the early part of October 1969, Hunt showed
to Meneilly some work that Jones had done incor-
rectly. She also told him that she had bent over
backwards and had tried to do the best she could
with Jones; that Jones was receiving journeyman
pay but some of the new girls were doing better
work; that not only was she not doing her work cor-
rectly and satisfactorily but she was causing tension
in the office and causing the other girls not to func-
tion at 100 percent. At this particular time,
Respondent had a systems analyst checking their
operations and these were reviewed with him. He
asked Hunt if the quality of Jones' work had im-
proved at all since his last conversation with her.
She replied that it had not. Meneilly then asked her
to compile a complete record so that he could
determine how her work compared both in amount
and quality with that of other employees doing the
same type of work. Also, Hunt reported to him that
Jones had made two girls cry. On one occasion,
Jones was proofing some work that employee
Beverly Eckles had set up . Eckles had made an
error and did not have her "message cards ." Jones
asked her if she knew she was supposed to make
them . Jones then left, went back to her desk and sat
down. Eckles then came over and Jones told her
not to worry about it, that she should look at her in-
structions because they say that she was to make
her message cards when she did the setup and
lookup work. Hunt came over and asked what was
going on. Eckles said that Hunt had not told her
these instructions and then left crying. On another
occasion , Jones and employee Sharon Ward had a
conversation regarding some cards that caused
Ward to cry.
A few days later after discussing Jones and her
performance further with Hunt, Meneilly decided
to terminate Jones. Jones was not present for work
on October 13 and 14, Monday and Tuesday, and
on October 15, he had her sent in to his office. On
her way, she asked Paula LeBaron, the union pre-
sident, to accompany her. He discussed her errors
with her and showed her and LeBaron some notes
513
that had been made on the matter. Jones asked him
about some of these errors and asked him if per-
haps some of them could not be blamed upon the
machines . He told her that in view of her bel-
ligerence and her errors he could see no other
course but to terminate her.
Besides alleged discriminatees, aproximately 13
employees were called as witnesses by the General
Counsel during the first 2 days of hearing. The
testimony of Jones was corroborative of other wit-
nesses and was not sifnificant in General Counsel's
case . On March 22, 1969, when Ona Cloud spoke
to all of the girls in her section about her relations
with them, she referred to Jones as "our little
problem child." Meneilly's handling of the Jones
matter was patient and considerate. I find that the
termination of Jones on October 15, 1969, was not
because of her testimony in the hearing herein on
September 23 nor because of her participation in
the strike in July 1969.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The International Typographical Union is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 64, Office and Professional Employees
International Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the discharges of Janice Churchill, Su-
zanne Nelson, and Charles Scheible and by the
demotion and reduction in pay of Frieda Clark
because of their union activities, Respondent has
discriminated against them to discourage member-
ship in the Union and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By the participation in union meetings and in
union matters by management representatives,
Respondent has interfered with the administration
of the Union and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. By threatening an employee that she would
not be promoted and would have restricted duties
because of her union activities, Respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and has thereby engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices as alleged in paragraph V(a), (c), (e),
and (h ) through ( n), paragraph VI(a) and ( e), and
paragraph VII(d) in the complaint in Cases
27-CA-2695 , 27-CA-2702 , 27-CA-2754, and
27-CA-2764. Respondent has not engaged in an
unfair labor practice by the discharge of Margaret
Jones as alleged in the complaint in Case
27-CA-2824.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate
the purposes of the Act.
I shall recommend that Respondent offer to
Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nelson immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them and Charles Scheible whole for any loss
of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by paying each a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the dis-
crimination to the date of reinstatement, or date of
death in the case of Scheible, less net earnings dur-
ing such period in accordance with the Board's for-
mula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, together with interest thereon at the
rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As Frieda
Clark has resigned her employment with Respon-
dent and did so prior to the effectuation of her
reduction in pay, no reinstatement or backpay will
be included in the recommended Order as to her.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record herein, I
recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, the Board issue the following:
ORDER
International Typographical Union, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 64, Of-
fice and Professional Employees International
Union, or any other labor organization of its em-
" 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-
ployees , by discharging or demoting or reducing the
pay of employees because of their union activities,
or in any other manner discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Threatening any employee that she would be
denied a promotion and would be given restricted
duties because of her union activities.
(c) Interfering with the administration of the
Union by participating through management
representatives in voting at union meetings or sign-
ing union petitions or by participating otherwise in
the activities of said Union.
(d) In any like or related manner , interfering
with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nel-
son immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make them and the estate of
Charles Scheible whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them , in the manner set forth in the section
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 , social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its offices in Colorado Springs,
Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. 11 15 Copies of said notice , on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27,
in writing , within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.16
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that paragraphs
V(a), (c), (e), and (h ) through ( n), VI(a) and (e),
and VII( d) of the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695,
27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764, and
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 "
1e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 27, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
that the allegations of unfair labor practice as to
Margaret Jones in Case 27-CA-2824 be dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Local 64, Office and Professional Employees
Internationed Union, or any other labor or-
ganization, by discharging employees or
demoting or reducing the pay of employees
because of their activities on behalf of the
Union, or by discriminating against employees
in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any. terms or conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with
demotion or restricted duties because of their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the administra-
tion of Local 64, Office and Professional Em-
ployees International Union, by the participa-
tion by management representatives in union
meetings or in any other types of activities of
said Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-or-
ganization, to form, join, or assist labor or-
ganizations, to bargain collectively through
515
representatives of their own choosing, or to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
WE WILL offer Janice Churchill and Suzanne
Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and we will make
them and the estate of Charles Scheible whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discriminations against them.
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
(Employer)
(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, Room 260, New Custom House,
721 19th Street, Room 260, Denver, Colorado
80202, Telephone 303-837-355 1.
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 34