Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 475 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LUHR JENSON & SONS
Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc. and International Chemical
Workers Union Local 109, AFL-CIO. Case
36-CA-1817
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On May 12, 1969, Trial Examiner John P. von
Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as modified below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as
modified below in the margin , and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc.,
Hood River, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so
modified.'
475
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John P. von Rohr, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and
an amended charge filed on October 17 and November 22,
1968, respectively, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 36 (Seattle, Washington) issued a complaint on
November 29, 1968, against Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging
that it had discharged employee Geneva Meyers in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 51 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the
allegation of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner John P. von Rohr in Hood River, Oregon, on
February 4, 1969. All parties were represented by counsel
and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to file briefs.
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and
from the Respondent and they have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Oregon corporation with its
principal office and place of business located in Hood
River, Oregon, where it is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of fishing lures and equipment. During the year
preceding the hearing herein, the Respondent sold and
shipped goods manufactured at its Hood River plant
valued in excess of $50,000 to points and locations outside
of the State of Oregon. During the same period it made
purchases of goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which goods and materials were shipped to it
from points located outside of the State of Oregon.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Chemical Workers' Union, Local 109,
AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
'We note that the Union's organizing campaign began in the spring of
1968, rather than 1967 as stated by Trial Examiner , and, as pointed out by
the Respondent, that in In . 4 of his Decision the Trial Examiner reversed
the number of ballots challenged by each of the parties , i.e., in fact
Respondent challenged one and the Union challenged seven . Furthermore,
all references to Dorothy Fahlgren in connection with Meyers' assignment
to making "gooey bobs" should have been to Gloria Glascoe . However,
these inadvertent errors do not affect the Trial Examiner 's conclusions or
our adoption thereof.
'In section IV of his Decision the Trial Examiner recommends, inter
aiia, that employee Meyers receive backpay for a period beginning October
18, 1968 . No reason appears , however , why the backpay period should not
begin on October 4, 1968 , the date on which she was discharged, as is
customary . Accordingly, in computing the amount of loss as required by
par. 2(a) of the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order , we hereby order
that she be reimbursed for her losses for the period beginning on October
4, 1968.
A. The Termination of Geneva Meyers
Respondent's plant is located in Hood River, Oregon
(population approximately 3,850) where it is principally
engaged in the manufacture of artificial baits and fishing
lures (Luhr' s lures). The officers and principal
management of the Company consist of three brothers,
Philip, David, and Luhr Jensen. Commencing operations
in about 1960 with approximately 20 employees, the
Respondent presently employs approximately 125
employees.
Geneva Meyers, the alleged discriminatee herein, was
hired in Respondent's plastics department as a production
employee on December 6, 1967. She was terminated on
October 4, 1968.
177 NLRB No. 72
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union began an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees in the early spring of 1967.
Meyers, Donna Johnson and Gloria Glascoe were the
principal three employees to engage in the organizing
activities . These employees obtained union authorization
cards while accompanying each other visiting the homes of
the employees. Meyers credibly testified that together they
thus contacted all of the employees , including Barbara
Mann . Mann , who refused to sign a card , acted as relief
supervisor for Laura Jeffries, the supervisor of the plastics
department, on those occasions when Jeffries did not
report to work.'
A representation election was held on August 2, 1968, a
Friday.' Meyers testified without contradiction that
Jeffries came up to her on the following Monday and
stated, "Well, it got in all right. It's too bad they had to
lie and cheat to get in." When Meyers asked who had lied
and cheated, Jeffries responded, "Well, do you think it
was fair that my vote was challenged?" Meyers thereupon
stated , "Yes, there was nothing lying or cheating about it,
and I think it was fair since you were running around,
terrorizing the girls before the election, and you definitely
had something to do with how they voted." The
conversation thus terminated with Jeffries making no
further response.'
Meyers and three other employees (Gloria Glascoe,
Gayle Navarett, and Barbara Thrig) testified as union
witnesses at a hearing on challenged ballots held on
September 11, 1968.' Meyers ' testimony , it may be noted,
was adverse to the position taken by the Respondent that
Jeffries was not a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.' Dorothy Fahlgren, an employee in the plastics
department, testified that in the afternoon after the close
of the hearing she saw Jeffries in the lunchroom and
observed that Jeffries "was all shook up" and that
something was wrong . She said that she thereupon asked
Jeffries what was wrong. According to Fahlgren, Jeffries
responded that "she (Jeffries) didn't know what Geneva
(Meyers) was doing to her, and that if the Union went
through, the boys would fire her." Jeffries did not deny
making the foregoing statement to Fahlgren and from my
observation it appeared that Fahlgren truthfully testified
concerning this conversation .' Accordingly, I credit her
testimony concerning it.
Meyers was terminated on October 4, 1968 . Two other
employees who worked in the plastics department (Janet
Walters and Bonita Minor ) were laid off at the same time.
Meyers testified that she was working alongside these
employees when Phil Jensen came up and stated that the
three of them were being laid off because work was
running low . Jensen agreed that he spoke to the three
employees at the same time but testified that he first
'As more fully dealt with in a succeeding section, I find that Jeffries,
contrary to Respondent's contention , is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
The tally of ballots reflect that there were 42 votes cast for the Union,
37 against the Union , and 8 challenged ballots There were at this time a
total of 99 eligible voters
'It is difficult to see where this conversation adds anything to the
General Counsel 's case While he does not contend any violation of Sec.
8(a)(l), neither do I regard any of Jeffnes comments in this conversation
as reflecting union animus by the Respondent.
The Respondent challenged the ballots of seven voters, the Union of
one.
'Although the objections testimony of the other employees was not
introduced in evidence , as was Meyers', it may be presumed that their
testimony also was adverse to the Respondent.
'In fact, Jeffries, although called as a Respondent witness, did not allude
to or testify at all concerning this conversation with Fahlgren
advised Walters and Minor, who had worked for the
Company only for 4-6 weeks, that they were being laid off
because they had been hired for a specific project (the
making of Alaskan plugs) and that this project had now
been completed. However, Jensen testified that shortly
thereafter he told Meyers that "her layoff was more of a
termination nature because she did talk too much,
couldn't get along, couldn't fit in, and her production was
very low."'
In view of the alleged discrimination against Meyers, it
is relevant to note here that at the time of Meyers'
termination on October 4 the Respondent retained at least
10 employees in the plastics department who had less
seniority than Meyers. Thus, Meyers testified without
contradiction that there were only five employees in the
plastics department, including himself, at the time when
she was hired in December 1967, and that there were
approximately 20 girls working in the plastics department
at the time of her termination.' Since 5 employees left
Respondent's employee on October 4 (these include the
three who were terminated, plus two who quit on the same
day) it is clear that Meyers had greater seniority than 10
of the employees who were retained.'
B. The Rehire of Meyers
Within a week or two following Meyers' discharge the
Union advised Respondent that it would file unfair labor
practices unless she was restored to her job. Phil Jensen
testified that in order to avoid this problem it was decided
that she be called back to work. Pursuant to such notice,
Meyers reported to the plant on October 16. However,
Meyers, who had previously worked on the day shift, at
this time was told that she was to work on the night shift.
She was also advised that another employee, Wanda
Scheer, had been transferred to the night shift so that she
could ride with Scheer. Scheer, however, resided just on
the other side of the bridge which crosses the Columbia
River whereas Meyers resided approximately another 10
miles beyond this point. Meyers testified that the road to
her home was curved and hilly and that she was reluctant
to drive it alone at night during the winter. Accordingly,
Meyers advised Jensen that she would let him know the
next day if she would accept the offer to work on the
night shift. That evening Meyers consulted with Tom
Drew, the union representative, and was advised by him
not to accept the job. She accepted this advice and the
next day advised Jensen that she would not work on the
night shift but that she wished to be restored to the day
shift.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge on
Meyers' behalf on October 17, 1968. Phil Jensen testified
that some time thereafter his attorney advised him that
the charge would be dropped if he put Meyers back on the
'In view of Jensen' s testimony , it may be assumed that Meyers'
termination in fact was a discharge rather than a layoff
The plastics department was located next to Respondent's main building
when Meyers was first hired This department was later moved to a
downtown building Meyers testified that there were five employees in the
plastics department before the move . Although Jeffries testified that there
were nine employees in this department before the move, she did not refute
Meyers' testimony that Meyers was one of five employees in the plastics
department when Meyers was first hired, nor did she or any other
Respondent witness refute Meyers' testimony that there were
approximately 20 employees in the plastics department on October 4, 1968
'Although Meyers testified that there were five employees, including
herself, when she first started, it undoubtedly appears that she was the fifth
employee to be hired in the plastics department
LUHR JENSON & SONS 477
day shift . Meyers was rehired on the day shift on
December 3, 1968. Jensen testified, "We put her back to
work on the good faith that the suit would then be
dropped and we wouldn ' t have to go to this expense and
bother."
Meyers worked on the day shift for 5 days making lead
cinches." Although she had never performed this job
before, Meyers testified without contradiction that Jeffries
told her she was doing very well in this work. However,
after working on cinches for 5 days Meyers was
transferred to the job of making gooey bobs , this a lure
made of plastic . The record leaves no doubt that this is
the most undesirable of all production jobs in
Respondent' s plant . The production of this item is
confined to a separate room and since only one employee
is involved in this operation , this employee must work
alone . Basically a baking operation , the employee must
first mix powder and oil and pour the mixture into a
mold. The mold is then placed in an oven and baked at
600 degrees . The material is inflammable and on occasion
catches on fire when removed from the oven ." The room
in which this operation is performed is frequently
pervaded by smoke and fumes and a strong and
unpleasant odor prevails . It is undisputed that the reason
given to Meyers for her transfer to this job was that
Dorothy Fahlgren , the girl who regularly performed this
work , would be off on a 1 week vacation. However,
Fahlgren was also experienced in the making of Alaskan
plugs . Jensen testified that there was an increased demand
for this product and that therefore Fahlgren was assigned
to this job when she returned from vacation. Accordingly,
Meyers was kept on the gooey bob job and has remained
in this position as of the time of the hearing.
C. Respondent 's Defense: Conclusions
During the 10-month period prior to her termination on
October 4, 1968, Meyers was principally engaged in the
jobs of bagging cinches and snubbers , and stringing egg
drifters. It is undisputed that these were routine jobs and
required relatively little skill. As heretofore indicated, five
girls were terminated from Respondent ' s employ on
October 4, 1968. 12 In view of Jensen ' s unrefuted testimony
that at this time there was a seasonal slack in work, it
may be assumed that Respondent had legitimate cause to
lay off five employees in the Plastics Department at this
time. The question remains, however, whether
Respondent ' s selection of Meyers to be included in the
layoffs was motivated solely by legitimate considerations.
Phil Jensen cited several reasons for Meyers'
termination the first of which was that her production was
low. Indeed, at one point Jensen testified , "Her rate of
production was much less - I would say as much as fifty
per cent less than the people that worked with her, and
the ones that worked alongside of her . . ." Even if it be
assumed that Meyers was somewhat of a slow worker, I
am convinced that this testimony was a gross exaggeration
of the fact. For one thing , it is undisputed that
Respondent did not keep production records of the
"Meyers described this product as a small rubber tube filled with lead
which has a swivel attached to it.
"Meyers described the operation further as follows: "Then, you have to
pick that die up, holding It away from you because its hot. It's a hot,
sticky, bubbly liquid, which keeps spitting at you, and when it cools, you
remove it from the die, clean the die, and start over again . You have two
dies and you just continue with them."
"In addition to Meyers these include the lay off of two other girls and
two quits.
employees' work in the plastics department prior to
Meyers' discharge. Accordingly, there is no objective
evidence in this record pertaining to Meyers' production
prior to her termination." Jensen testified that he spent a
good deal of time in the production department and that
his assessment of Meyers' work output was based upon
his personal observation . Such observation , he testified,
"was substantiated by observations of many other
people." He did not, however, elaborate by identifying the
other people or by relating any reports he had received
from them concerning Meyers. While I shall hereinafter
have further comment with respect to Meyers' alleged low
production , it is significant to note here that the evidence
reveals there to be only one occasion during Meyers'
employment when she was actually given any warning
concerning her production. This occurred about 2 weeks
after the election when Jensen had Jeffries tell Meyers
that he did not think she was working fast enough and
that "we're going to have to watch you for the next couple
of weeks and see if you can't speed up your work." In the
afternoon of the same day, however, Jensen spoke to
Jeffries again , following which Jeffries told Meyers, "Phil
said it looks like your speeding up your work now, I think
everything is going to be all right." Meyers credibly
testified that she never received any further criticism of
her work.
Although Respondent permits employees to talk to
each other while working, Jensen testified that when
Meyers talked she talked with her hands and that this
would interfere with her work. Jensen and Jeffries also
testified that Meyers would talk about such subjects as
"reincarnation" and that this would be disturbing to other
girls . Although Jeffries testified that three girls asked to
be moved from Meyers vicinity for this reason, she could
not recall whether she reported this to Jensen.
Accordingly, it is doubtful Jensen took this into account
at the time he determined Meyers be discharged. Jensen
also testified that he observed Meyers to slump in her
chair rather than to sit up straight while working and that
he spoke to her about this on several occasions . Assuming
this to be true, I could scarcely regard this as a serious
warning . Indeed , much of Jensen' s testimony concerning
Meyers' alleged deficiencies was of such a generalized and
rambling nature that I am constrained to given it little
weight . For example , when asked if he could relate any
specific occasion when he spoke to Meyers ' about her
alleged work deficiencies, Jensen responded as follows:
I think pretty specifically - well, reasonable
specifically I remember because I - it's kind of a
general thing. I say this to lots of girls. I would perhaps
watch them for a moment or two and then come up and
I'd come down rather quietly beside them, kneel down
and, talk to them, because it's not - I had no reason to
em6arass them in front of their fellow workers, and I
would ask them - generally, I would say, "Please," to
see if she can't sit upright and take more of an interest
in her work and talk a little less, and in this way,
without any more effort, get up her production.
In testifying as to his reasons for discharging Meyers,
Jensen gave as a further and final reason that "she was
""I have considered the conclus,onary testimony of Laddie Leminger, a
maintenance man and a Respondent witness, that Meyers ' work was slow,
as well as similar conclusionary testimony by Donna Johnson, a General
Counsel witness , who testified that Meyers' work was "real good" and that
she was "real steady." However , and particularly in view of the other
evidence in this case, I do not rely on the aforesaid opinion testimony of
either of these witnesses
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fairly unreliable in her work attendance" and that she had
"a very spotty record" in this regard. Concerning Meyers'
alleged excessive absenteeism , the only evidence put in by
Respondent consisted of a reading into the record the
dates on which Meyers did not report to work during her
first tenure of employment. However, the General Counsel
established on rebuttal that with possibly three or four
exceptions these absences either occurred on holidays or
were the result of Meyers being ill. Thus, the record
reflects as follows: Meyers was absent 3 days in April, 2
of which were due to illness; she was absent May 30 and
31, both of which were regarded by Respondent as
holidays;" absent on July 5, a Friday (see fn. 14); absent
on July 20 and 27; absent on August 14; absent for about
a week in September (for which she was excused) due to
dental surgery . Later in his testimony Jensen conceded
that he did not know if Meyer had a greater absentee
record than the other employees and he finally testified."
"I wasn ' t trying to make too much of an issue of
[Meyers'] absentee record, although it is part of - one
facet of the overall thing."
Turning to my conclusions, I first of all conclude and
find that the General Counsel, in his presentation of the
evidence , established a prima facie case that Respondent's
selection of Meyers for termination was violative of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Thus, the evidence
reflects that Meyers actively solicited for the Union by
visiting the homes of all of Respondent ' s production
employees, including that of the relief supervisor , for the
purpose of soliciting union authorization cards . She also
openly discussed the union with other employees at the
plant . In view of the extent of this activity , the smallness
of the community , as well as the smallness of the plant
itself, I think it can be safely surmised that Meyers'
organizational activities came to Respondent ' s attention.
Apart from the foregoing, Meyers subsequently testified in
a hearing before the Board . That Respondent resented
Meyers' participation therein as a union witness is clearly
reflected in Jeffries ' statement to employee Fahlgren that
she (Jeffries) did not- know what Meyers was doing to her
but that "the boys" would fire Meyers if the union got in.
When this is considered with the fact that Meyers was
terminated in a layoff which occurred but 3 weeks later,
notwithstanding the fact that she had seniority over 10
other employees in the same department , a persuasive case
has been made that Meyers was discharged for her
substantial union activity. As to Respondent ' s case, I am
impelled to find that the testimony offered by it in support
of its assertion that Meyers was discharged for the alleged
work deficiencies does not stand up under scrutiny. In the
absence of production records, I find it incredible to
believe Jensen's assertion that Meyers ' production was 50
percent less than the employees who worked with her. If
this were the case , it may reasonably be assumed that she
would have been terminated long prior to the lay off on
October 4, 1968. Indeed, the record reflects that she was
given only one warning concerning her work. This came 2
weeks after the election and in effect was retracted before
the day was over . Respondent also cited excessive
absenteeism as a reason for the discharge . As has been
noted , that this was but an afterthought was in effect
conceded by Jensen when it was brought out later in the
hearing that Meyers in fact was not excessively absent and
"Thus, Meyers testified without contradiction that Respondent' s policy
was to permit its employees, if they wish , to take a day off on any Friday
that follows a holiday . May 31 was a Friday which followed May 30,
Memorial Day.
there was no evidence to show that her record was any
better or worse than any of the other employees. There is
yet a further facet of Jensen's testimony which gives me
serious doubt as to the believability of his entire testimony
concerning his asserted reasons for Meyers' discharge.
Thus, it will be recalled that on October 16, 1968, Meyers
was offered a job on the night shift. It is undisputed that
at this time two girls worked on this shift. One operated a
plastic machine, the other a sonic welder. According to
Jensen, Meyers was not qualified to perform either of
these operations. Yet he testified on direct examination,
and repeated this testimony on cross-examination, that
Meyers was offered a job on the evening shift because
"she could at least be there and be company to the people
that were running that evening shift."" Without
belaboring the point further, it would strain one's
credibility to believe that Respondent would compensate
Meyers, or any employee, merely for the purpose of
standing by and keeping company with other employees
while they were working.
In sum, and even assuming that Meyers had certain
shortcomings as an employee," for the reasons stated
above I conclude and find that Meyers' discharge on
October 4, 1968, was in substantial part prompted by
Meyers' union activity and the fact that she testified as a
union witness at the Board hearing on challenged ballots."
Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
D. The Supervisory Status of Laura Jeffries
Although Jeffries and 10 other employees were
officially named supervisors by the Respondent in October
1968, Respondent contends that only the three Jensen
brothers were supervisors within the meaning of the Act at
the times material hereto."
During the summer of 1968, Respondent employed
approximately 115 production employees, these including
a minimum of 14 up to a maximum of 27 employees in
the Plastics Department. Respondent concedes that Luhr
Jensen, although an officer of the Company, does not
engage in any supervision of the production employees.
Although Phil Jensen testified that David Jensen "on
many occasions" gives orders to the employees, the record
does not disclose where he is located in the plant. Phil
Jensen is Respondent ' s sales manager and treasurer.
Although he travels on occasion, the majority of his time
"Although he vaguely qualified this by stating that the machine would
have to be operated if one of the girls were absent, he continued to insist
that, "I didn ' t say she [Meyers] was going to run the machine because, in
fact, she can't run the machine "
"As an indication that Meyers was able to perform reasonably well
when assigned to a new job, the record reflects that during the 5 days after
her rehire when she worked on the day shift making lead cinches, her
production increased from 23 dozen on Monday to 43 dozen on Friday As
previously noted, Jeffries at this time told Meyers that she was doing "very
well " Indeed , Phil Jensen testified, "Most all of the girls coming in to the
[plastics] department are able to do most all of the jobs. Some can't do
any " Moreover, although Jensen testified that Meyers still had not
reached the production norm of Gloria Glascoe in the making of gooey
bobs (he said she was up to 90 percent of Glascoe's production), he
testified ". it's heartening that Geneva is trying very hard , and she's
doing better "
"Although two other employees who testified were not discharged, it is
well settled that the retention of some union adherents does not exculpate
Respondent for discrimination against others N L R.B v. W C Nabors
Company, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (C A 5)
" The official changes referred to above occurred subsequent to the
discharge of Meyers on October 4, 1968
LUHR JENSON & SONS
is spent at the plant . Phil testified that he gives orders
directly to employees, although usually he does this
through Jeffries, and that prior to Meyers' termination he
spent considerable time in the Plastics Department.
However, as he testified, while in the Plastics Department.
he was primarily engaged in a project devoted to the
development of new plugs and lures.
Jeffries did not, during the times material hereto,
participate in the hiring or termination of employees, this
being the function of David and Phil Jensen. It is
undisputed , however , that Jeffries assigns work to the
employees, directs them in their work, has authority to
transfer employees from one job to another within the
Plastics Department , and has authority to grant
employees time off from work." Significantly, it is also
evident that Jeffries had authority to warn employees.
Thus, it will be recalled that on one occasion Jeffries told
Meyers that she was not working fast enough."
In view of the foregoing , r conclude and find that
Jeffries possessed authority to responsibly direct the
employees in the Plastics Department and that she
therefore was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Moreover , since Phil and David Jensen at the times
material hereto are alleged by Respondent to be the only
supervisors in a plant of over 100 employees, an
abnormally high ratio of employees to supervisors would
exist if Jeffries were not found to be a supervisor.2i I am
convinced that Jeffries performed this function in the
plastics department.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , which occurred in connection with the operations
of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (4) of the Act by its discharge of Geneva Meyers,
I will recommend that Respondent offer her immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any
loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her , by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she normally would have
earned as wages from October 18, 1968, to the date of her
reinstatement on December 3, 1968 ,=' less her net earnings
during such period , with backpay and interest thereon to
be computed in a manner prescribed by the Board in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
"Jeffries testified that when the girls came up and asked to take time off
she usually told them to "call up the office and tell them " However, it
was the credited and unrefuted testimony of employee Dorothy Fahlgren
that she would ask permission of Jeffries when she wanted time off.
"As previously noted , this warning was relayed from Phil Jensen
through Jeffries . I doubt whether Jensen would have given these
instructions to Jeffries if Jeffries were just an ordinary employee
"Applied Research , Inc., 138 NLRB 870.
"It appears that Meyers received the same wage rate when she was
rehired on December 3. However , having found that within 5 days of her
rehire she was assigned to a less desirable job (the making of gooey bobs)
the above recommendation contemplates that she be offered a job on the
day shift in the plastics department.
479
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Chemical Workers Union Local 109,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment of Geneva Meyers, thereby discouraging
membership in the above-named labor organization, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of
the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of International Chemical Workers Union Local 109,
AFL-CIO, by laying off, discharging, or in any other
manner discriminating against its employees with respect
to their hire, tenure, or any other term or condition of
employment, because of their union activities or because
they gave testimony under the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Geneva Meyers immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her 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 determine the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Hood River, Oregon, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent , shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of International Chemical Workers' Union,
Local 109, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging or laying off any of our employees or in
any other manner discriminating against our employees
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Geneva Meyers immediate and ful
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss
of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her.
All our employees are free to become , remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
Dated By
LUHR J ENSEN & SONS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.