Mt. Vernon Telephone Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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' Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist and support Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, by soliciting employees to become members thereof, or in any other manner.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate employees because they have engaged in
activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist Amalgamated Lace Operatives of America, Levers Auxiliary Section, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively with representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining, members of any labor organization.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, in order
to provide places for these individuals, all persons hired on and after July 16,
1963, and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by
reason of our unlawful refusal to reinstate them.
Mary R. Betrand Sophie M. Defosse Yvonne Pollard
Linda Bettez Clara Fischer Vivian Rockwell
Vivian Carlson Estelle C. Fontaine Philomina Tivey
Lucy Correia Lena Fontaine Beatrice Verrier
SUPREME DYEING & FINISHING CORP.,
VALLEY MAID CO., INC.,
Employers.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Mt. Vernon Telephone Corporation and Communications Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases ,Nos. 8-CA-3028-2 and 8-
.CA-3293. June 29, 196.E
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his De-
cision 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 Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. V
147 NLRB No. 125.
MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1105
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Mt.
Vernon Telephone Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec-
ommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The initial charge herein was served upon Respondent on January 11, 1963, and
the consolidated complaint' issued on October 30. The case was heard before
Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman on December 9 and 10, 1963, and on January 9
and March 24, 1964. Of the various issues litigated, the only ones not settled during
the hearing 2 were those relating to the alleged discrimination against Sanford on
July 25, 1962, and on January 15 and August 15, 1963. After the hearing, all
parties filed briefs.
Upon the entire record 3 and. my observation of the witnesses, I adopt the following
findings and conclusions:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mt. Vernon Telephone Corporation, hereinafter called Respondent, is an Ohio
corporation, based at Mt. Vernon, Ohio, where it is engaged in supplying telephone
service to local subscribers. Respondent's annual gross receipts exceed $100,000,
including more than $20,000 from toll calls to points outside the State of Ohio.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction here.4
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO , hereinafter called the Union,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by demoting Sanford on July 25, 1962, and by
laying him off on January 15 and August 16, 1963. The answer in effect admits the
demotion and layoffs, but denies that they were discriminatory.
'The charge in Case No. 8-CA-3028, which was consolidated with the other cases
herein for the purposes of hearing, was withdrawn during the course of the hearing, as a
settlement of that case (involving employee Rinehart) was effected. For the same reason,
the General Counsel withdrew from the consolidated complaint certain allegations relat-
ing•to discrimination against Ridenbaugh, leaving in issue only the allegations of dis-
crimination against Sanford.
2 See preceding footnote.
3 See attached Appendix B for corrections of the record. . .
'Raritan Valley Broadcasting Company, Inc., 122 NLRB 90.
756-236-65-vol. 147--71
Q
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Sequence of events
Except for 2 years in the military service (1951-53), Sanford worked continu-
ously for Respondent from October 1948 to January 15, 1963. On May 1, 1961,
he was transferred to the "switchroom" where, as a "switchman," he maintained
central office equipment. Early in 1962, he became active in the Union's campaign
to organize Respondent's employees, attending the initial union meeting in January
1962, where he signed a union card, and thereafter soliciting several other employees
on behalf of the Union. On June 29, an election 5 held among the Respondent's em-
ployees was won by the Union'.e On July 25, Sanford was demoted from switch-
man to cable helper. From September 1962 to the following February, Sanford
served as a member of the Union's bargaining committee and, on January 15, 1963,
while so serving, he was laid off, allegedly for lack of work. On May 1, Respondent
executed a contract with the Union, and on July 15 Sanford was recalled as a switch-
man, pursuant to the terms of the contract. On August 8, he was nominated to the
office of president of the Union, and was again laid off on August 15. He has not
since been recalled.
B. Discussion
The General Counsel contends that Sanford's initial demotion and his subsequent
layoffs were due to his union activity. Respondent counters that its various per-
sonnel actions with regard to Sanford were based solely on economic considerations.
In support of his contention, General Counsel adduced the following evidence
of Respondent's union animus:
' Employee Blubaugh testified that in April 1962, Quatman, Respondent's president,
told him that within a year he would be rid of the Union and all those who had
anything to do with it. While Quatman disputed this, I credit Blubaugh, on the
basis of demeanor. Young, a former employee, testified without contradiction, and
I find, that early in 1962 Lahm, Respondent's manager, asked him if anyone had
solicited him to join the Union, and whether he knew of any employees who had
signed union cards. Young added that in November 1962 Lahm made a remark
to the effect that the Respondent would accelerate the introduction of certain labor-
saving equipment ("bucket trucks") because of the advent of the Union. I credit
Young, notwithstanding Lahm's denial, as Young was a reluctant witness for the
General Counsel, testifying under subpena.
Sanford testified without contradiction that in February or March 1962, during
the early, stage of the union campaign, he was asked by Director of Personnel Cole-
man about the reason for the dissatisfaction among the switchmen, and a discussion
ensued about working conditions, which culminated in a promise of a raise for
Sanford.
.I find, also, on the basis of Sanford's uncontradicted testimony, that in June 1962,
shortly before the Board election, Smith, Respondent's plant superintendent, asked
him why all of "you guys upstairs" (referring, presumably, to Sanford and his
fellow switchmen) wanted the Union, and that, when Sanford sought to ascertain the
basis for Smith's assumption that the switchmen were pro-Union, Smith retorted only,
"Oh, we know." Moreover, there is no contradiction of Sanford's testimony that
a few days before the election of June 29, Tanner, Respondent's district manager,
expressed the hope that the Union would not prevail in the election. Tanner, in
addition, on November 29, 1962, admittedly wrote President Quatman a letter dis-
cussing the qualifications of various employees for promotion to a job as switch-
men at the Mt. Gilead exchange,7 and, after dwelling on the merits of one employee
(McDonald), Tanner stated that the "only bad thing" about him was that he was
a brother of a laid-off employee of Respondent, who "we think was on the union
side," and that, although "Curts" 8 was confident that McDonald would be "Company
minded regardless of what his brother did at Mt. Vernon," Tanner hesitated "to,
take a chance on anyone," in view of recent developments at Mt. Vernon. The
letter concludes with a recommendation that the vacancy be filled by another em-
ployee who was "a good company man."
The Respondent's preoccupation with the union activity of its employees is fur-
ther evidenced by the fact that, (1) Coleman, Respondent's personnel director,
admittedly maintained a list of Respondent's 29 male employees, which had opposite`
5A previous election, held on April;27, which the Union lost, had been set aside by stipu-
lation of the parties.
B The Union was certified on August 8, 1962.
'The Mt. Gilead exchange was operated by a corporation affiliated with Respondent.
Curts is identified in the.•letter only as the one recommending McDonald for promotion..
MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1107
each name 9 a notation, denoting that he'was either "Company" or "other," 10 and
(2) on August 16, 1963, Lahm was observed to have in his possession a list of the
employees, including Sanford, who had been nominated for union office a week
before.
Respondent nevertheless contends that Sanford's demotion on July 25, 1962, from
switchman to cable helper resulted solely from the decision of the Respondent to
reduce the number of Respondent's switchmen for economic reasons and that
Sanford was selected on the basis of seniority.
To prove its economic motivation Respondent adduced testimony by Manager
Lahm that I or 2 weeks pridr to July 25, 1962, President Quatman instructed him
to reduce the number of switchmen from four to three, and that, after ascertain-
ing that Sanford had the least seniority among the switchmen, Lahm notified San-
ford that he had been selected for layoff, advising him of his right to displace one
of the cable helpers on the basis of seniority. (Sanford elected to exercise this
right thereby accepting a reduction in pay from the rate of $2.08 an hour to $1.78
an hour.)
Confirming that he had instructed Lahm to reduce the switchman force, Quatman
asserted that he did so because he believed it was overmanned. However, a syn-
thesis of the credible testimony of Quatman, Lahm, and Daily (one of the switch-
men) reveals the following facts, which cast doubt on the veracity of the reason
cited by Quatman for-the foregoing reduction in force.
Between 1956 and 1961, there had been only three switchmen at Mt. Vernon.
However, during that period there was a constant increase in the amount of equip-
ment serviced by the switchmen, and Lahm repeatedly importuned Quatman to add
another switchman to handle the increasing workload. Finally, in May 1961, Quat-
man yielded and authorized the transfer of Sanford to the switchroom. Since that
date there :have been further additions to the equipment in the switchroom, and, in
fact, at the very time that Sanford was demoted, Respondent was 'in the process of
installing certain long-distance dialing equipment, which required the exclusive serv-
ices of one switchman for either 4 hours a day (according to Lahm) or 6 hours a day
(according to Daily).
It thus appears that Quatman's decision in July 1962 (after the advent of the
Union) that he 'needed only three switchmen represented a reversal of his decision
a little more than a year earlier (before the advent of the Union) to add a fourth
switchman. 'The only explanation advanced by Quatman at the hearing for this
change of mind was that it came to his attention fortuitously for the first time in
July 1962 that the operating costs of the switchroom were excessive in relation to the
workload. But if this was apparent in July 1962, it must have been even more
apparent in May 1961, when there was even less equipment in the switchroom. Yet,
at that time Quatman, after lengthy consideration and debate of the matter, authorized
the addition of a switchman. Thus, Quatman's foregoing testimony fails to supply
any credible explanation for the reversal of his 1961 decision to add a switchman
unless one is willing to assume, as Quatman's testimony implies," that, in.evaluating
Lahm's pleas in 1961 for an additional switchman, Quatman gave no consideration
to the operating costs in the switchroom in relation to the workload-which would
appear to be the only relevant economic factor bearing on the issue. This is a
patently untenable assumption.
Accordingly, I do not credit Quatman's alleged reason for reversing in July 1962
his 1961 decision to add a fourth switchman.
O The only exception was Bush, whose name bears a.question mark.
lo Coleman admitted at the hearing that "other" denoted union adherence.
11 Quatman testified as follows, under examination by the Union's counsel:
Q. You didn't ask for a reduction in force in 1961, did you?
A. I did not ask for any reduction in force until it came to my attention in 1962.
Q. Now, what particular thing came to your attention in 1962 that caused you to
ask for a reduction In force?
A. My study of my financial statement which I make ' of all my companies and I
saw this particular phase of operating cost was too high.
Q. But you knew you were over-staffed all these years previously, didn't you?
A. Well, I should have known, I should have had the knowledge but I don't know
how many girls are in the kitchen and every place else.
Quatman's foregoing claim of ignorance of the staffing situation in the switchroom prior
to 1962 is belied not only by the matters discussed In the text, above, but also by his own
letter of October 1, 1962, rejecting Lahm's plea for a replacement for Sanford. In this
letter Quatman asserts , in effect, that he had regarded the switchroom as overstaffed from
1953 to 1956. ( During this period there were four switchmen.)
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
The Respondent offered evidence that Quatman's decision to revert to three switch-
men has been vindicated by subsequent events, including the fact that the switchroom
has since Sanford's demotion continued to operate with three switchmen, and with
even less overall overtime than theretofore. In rebuttal, the General Counsel
adduced uncontradicted testimony by Daily that this has been accomplished by
reducing preventive maintenance below the point prescribed by Quatman himself in a
published manual. This is corroborated by the fact that in a letter written by Lahm
to Quatman a few months after Sanford's demotion reference is made to the inade-
quacy of the maintenance work being done and to the need for replacing Sanford
to remedy this condition.
Moreover, Daily testified that after Sanford's demotion there was a substantial
increase in the preventive maintenance work performed in the switchroom by outside
maintenance men, referred to in the record as "TSI men." 12 This is at least partly
confirmed by Respondent's records, which show a dramatic increase in such work
.by the TSI men during the 5 months after Sanford's demotion as compared to the
preceding 7 months, the total increase amounting to 560 hours over the 5-month
period. It thus appears that, at least with respect to such 5-month period, Respond-
ent was forced to compensate for the loss of Sanford by increased use of TSI men.13
In any event the central question here is not justification but motivation. Accord-
ingly, even if it be assumed that, viewed from hindsight, Sanford's removal from
the switchroom was economically justified, it would still be necessary to determine
whether Quatman genuinely believed that to be the case in July 1962, when he
ordered the reduction in force, and whether he was motivated by such belief rather
than by antiunion considerations.
On this point, as already noted, the record shows that in May 1961, after lengthy
debate of the matter with Lahm, Quatman was persuaded that a fourth switchman
was needed, and the only relevant economic developments in the interim had been
(1) an increase in the workload in the switchroom, including the addition of one
item of equipment which required at least 20 man-hours of maintenance work per
week, and (2) the filing of a complaint with the Ohio Public Utility Commission by
a group of subscribers citing various types of malfunctions in Respondent's central
office equipment.14 Quatman could hardly have inferred from these developments
that his earlier decision to add a switchman was wrong and that a reduction in force
was warranted.
I find, therefore, that the Respondent has offered no credible explanation for the
fact that it waited until a few weeks after the Union's victory in the election before
deciding to dispense with Sanford's services as a switchman. In view of this un-
12 These were employees of Telephone Services, Incorporated , a corporation affiliated
with Respondent, which performed various services for it.
13 As further proof that the efficiency of Respondent's operations did not suffer from
lack of maintenance after Sanford's demotion , Respondent offered in evidence the findings
of a mechanical testing device during the period April 1963 through February 1964, which
indicate that Respondent's equipment operated with a relatively high degree of efficiency
during that period. In rebuttal, testimony was adduced concerning the limitations of this
testing device; and the Union offered in evidence (Union's Exhibit No. 9) a copy of an
"Opinion and Order" of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission issued on December 6, 1962,
finding that the efficiency of Respondent's operations did not conform to acceptable mini-
mum standards in various respects, and that this was in a large degree attributable to
inadequate maintenance. At the hearing I reserved ruling on the admissibility of the
exhibit under the doctrine of official notice. I have determined to receive this exhibit.
See Mitchell Plastics , Inc., 117 NLRB 597, 598. In evaluating its significance , it should be
noted that the deficiencies found by the commission apparently relate to a period prior to
Sanford's demotion, as it appears from the exhibit that the hearing on which the com-
mission's findings are based was held prior to August 28, 1962. It would seem then that,
even while there were four men in the switchroom, Respondent's maintenance of Its cen-
tral office equipment was deemed substandard by a regulatory body. If, as seems likely,
the proceedings before the commission were pending at the time of Sanford's demotion, it
becomes all the more difficult to comprehend how Quatman, in the face of such an in-
vestigation of complaints of inadequate maintenance, could have concluded that the equip-
ment was receiving too much maintenance.
14 See preceding footnote. As there noted, the commission subsequently found that lack
,of proper maintenance was to a large degree responsible for these malfunctions.
MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1109
explained coincidence in timing, and the abundant uncontroverted proof of Re-
spondent's union animus, including its repeated interrogation of Sanford about his
union sentiments and those of the other switchmen, and, as it is clear from Smith's
statement to Sanford in June 1962 that Respondent then 15 regarded all four switch-
men as union adherents, I find that the decision to eliminate one switchman on
July 25, 1962, was prompted by union, rather than economic, considerations.
This finding is strongly reinforced by the fact that on November 29, 1962, while
Sanford was still working for Respondent as a cable helper, Tanner, as already noted,
wrote Quatman a letter discussing the qualifications of various employees to fill an
expected vacancy 16 as switchman in an exchange operated by one of Respondent's
affiliates, and, while discussing the merits of other employees who had never worked
as switchmen, Tanner made no reference to Sanford. As the Respondent does not
question Sanford's competence as a switchman, contending that he was selected for
layoff on July 25 only on the basis of seniority, it may not be assumed that this
omission was due to any reservations as to Sanford's ability. That the true reason
for such omission was Sanford's union activity is manifest, moreover, from the fact
that, as already related, Tanner vetoed one prospect merely because he was the
brother of a suspected union adherent, and approved another (employed at Mt.
Vernon) because he was "a good company man."
I find further that, as the decision to retrench was prompted by the employees'
union activities, the demotion of Sanford, pursuant to that decision, violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of theAct.17
The Layoff of January 15, 1963
Sanford worked as a cable helper from July 25, 1962, to January 15, 1963, when
he was laid off. Lahm testified without contradiction, and I find, that this layoff
was necessitated by the introduction of new, Labor-saving equipment, which elimi-
nated the jobs of Respondent's cable helpers. Accordingly, if this layoff were to be
considered in isolation, it would be necessary to find that any loss of employment
resulting therefrom was not due to any unlawful action of Respondent. However,
as I have found that the demotion of Sanford from switchman to cable helper was
discriminatory, and since, but for such discrimination, Sanford would not have been
exposed to the vicissitudes of employment as a cable helper, I find that his loss of
employment on and after January 15 was traceable to Respondent's initial discrimina-
tion against him on July 25, 1962.
The Layoff of August 15
Sanford was in layoff status from January 15 to July 15, 1963, when he was re-
called as a switchman. He was again laid off on August 15. General Counsel con-
tends that this second layoff was also discriminatory.
As already noted, Respondent and the Union on May 1, 1963, entered into a
contract. It provided, inter alia, for recall of laid-off employees in "inverse order
of layoff," and on June 27, 1963, Sanford was notified that he was being recalled as
a switchman pursuant to the contract. According to Sanford, upon receiving this
notice, he asked Lahm how long the job would last, and Lahm professed uncer-
tainty. Lahm's version was that Sanford was recalled to fill in during the vacation
period, and Sanford's testimony confirms that he was used as a vacation substitute
throughout this last period of his employment by Respondent. However, Lahm
admitted that, when asked by Sanford whether the job would continue beyond the
vacation period, he answered that he did not know, and he was frank to confess at
the hearing that he did not in fact know, when he recalled Sanford, how long he
would be retained. Moreover, Lahm was unable to explain plausibly what sub-
1e Coleman's "checklist" indicates some doubt about the union sentiments of one of the
switchmen (Bush). However, as this list was prepared by one of the employees after the
date of Sanford's demotion, It does not necessarily conflict with the finding in the text
as to management 's views prior to that date.
1e So far as the record shows, this vacancy did not in fact materialize.
17 In view of this finding, I do not deem it necessary to consider General Counsel's fur-
ther contention that , even if the retrenchment decision was for economic reasons, the selec-
tion of Sanford rather than one of the other switchmen was discriminatory.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sequent events resolved this uncertainty about Sanford's tenure.18 General Counsel,
on the other hand, points to the fact that on August 8 Sanford was nominated to
the office of union president, and to undisputed evidence that his name appeared
on a list of nominees for union office which was seen by employees on Lahm's
desk on August 16 and 20. Absent any other explanation, I am constrained to find,
in view of the timing of the August 15 action in relation to Sanford's nomination,
and in view of the prior discrimination against him, that at the time of his recall
Respondent was considering retaining him as a fourth switchman beyond the vaca-
tion period but abandoned this plan when it learned that he had renewed his union
activity, winning nomination to the highest office in the Union. Accordingly, I
find that, by again laying off Sanford on August 15, 1963, Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and (l) of the Act.
In any event, even if it be assumed that Respondent intended to recall Sanford
only for the vacation period, and that he was laid off on August 15 because of the
expiration of such temporary assignment, it is clear that his recall for temporary
work would not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement,19 and any backpay accru-
ing as a result of the initial discrimination against Sanford on July 25, 1962, would
be tolled only for the month that he was so reemployed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having.been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it-be
directed to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate. the policies of the Act.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to make Sanford whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned, absent any discrimination, from July 25, 1962, less his net earnings
(Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498) during said- period. Such net back-
pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum shall be added to backpay, in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As the Respondent's unfair labor practices found herein go to the heart of the
Act, it will be recommended that the order contain a broad injunction against any
form of restraint or coercion by the Respondent.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I adopt
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3s When pressed to clarify his testimony about his uncertainty regarding the duration of
Sanford's recall, Lahm stated that he was not able to predict how long Sanford would re-
main because of the possibility that one of the other switchmen would leave during the
vacation period, in which case Sanford would be retained as a permanent replacement.
However. there is no"evidence or contention that Lahm had any reason to believe that any
of the other three switchmen, all of whom had been on the job for at least 10 years, would
quit during the 5-week vacation period, and, in view of the remoteness of such a con-
tingency, it seems unlikely that Lahm would have given any consideration thereto in esti-
mating the duration of Sanford's assignment. Moreover, if that was in fact the reason
for Lahm's uncertainty, it is not clear why he failed so to state to Sanford or to mention
It during his "initial, direct. examination on this point.
11 Squaw Valley Development Corp. and/or Squaw Valley Lodge, 128 NLRB 9, footnote 1.
MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CORPORATION, , , 1111
3. By discriminating against Robert L. Sanford because of his concerted activities
on behalf of the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6).and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-.
sions of law, it is recommended that Respondent , Mt. Vernon Telephone Corpora-
tion, Mt. Vernon, Ohio, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall be required
to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Communications Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discriminating against employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right is affected by the
provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
. 2. Take the following affirmative action , which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Robert L. Sanford immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make whole the said employee , in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner 's Decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination or copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its establishment in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region , shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not
altered , defaced; or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region , in writing , within-'20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith 2i
20 If 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."
21 If 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 A
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 Rela-
tions Act. we hereby notify our employees that:
a
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Communications Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such
activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by the provisos to
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Robert L. Sanford immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position , and make him whole for any loss
of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By--------- ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley
Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland , Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
In addition to the corrections already ordered at page 379 and pages 436 through
443 of the transcript , the transcript is hereby ordered corrected as follows:
1. Page 373, line 18 , change 1963 to 1962.
2. Page 379, line 415 , change "benches" to "banks".
3. Page 441 , line 20 , change this sentence to read : page 303 , line 5 , insert "the
work" after "that".
4. Page 461 , line 6, "Appleton" for "Bush".
5. Page 463, line 7, "Colgin" for "Coleman".
6. Page 464, lines 11 and 12, this sentence should read : "Did the equipment de-
crease after he put Sanford on?"
7. Page 464 , line 18 , insert "was demoted" after "Sanford".
8. Page 465, line 20 , "Colgin" for "Coleman".
9. Page 484, line 17, change "This" to "Apart from this".
10. Page 485 , line 13 , strike "not".
11. Page 486, line 18, insert "to" after "previous" and strike comma.
12. Page 495 , line 7 , "exhibit" for "contract".
13. Page 507 , line 4, "did" for "do".
14. Page 518 , line 23, "he" for "you".
15. Page 520 , line 11 , "well" for "for".
16. Page 522, line 20 , "Do" for "If".
17. Page 527, line 24 , "Lahm" for "Long".
San Antonio Machine & Supply Corp . and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 23-CA-1651. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
147 NLRB No. 114.