Pacific Electricord Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 521 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY 521
Pacific Electricord Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Employee Committee. Case
No. f1-CA-5715. June 25,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 18, 1965, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged 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. The Trial Exam-
iner further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. The General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party each filed exceptions thereto ; the General
Counsel filed a supporting brief. The Respondent filed an answering
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, 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, the briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclu-
sions, and recommendations 2 with the following modifications.
The Trial Examiner found that the proponderance of the evidence
failed to support the allegation that Richard Kaguk was discrimina-
torily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. We
agree. However, we find merit in General Counsel's exceptions to the
failure of the Trial Examiner to find that the discharge of Kaguk con-
stituted an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
As a member of the Employee Committee, and in concert with other
employees, Kaguk had persistently, over a period of many weeks pre-
ceding his discharge, complained about the revised production stand-
1 The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner 's failure to consider an alleged
variance in the application of Respondent 's seniority system with respect to the layoffs of
Marlene Immel and Thomas Taylor. Robert Hamel , Respondent ' s vice president, testified
that necessary layoffs were made by individual departments and governed by overall plant
seniority , and that interdepartmental "bumping" is not permitted The record demon-
strates that this policy was followed with regard to the layoffs of Immel and Taylor.
2The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and (2) of
the Act. No exceptions having been taken in this regard, we adopt pro forma those
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner which pertain thereto.
153 NLRB No. 37.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ards or incentive system which had caused a substantial drop in his
earnings as well as in the earnings of other employees. Clearly, Kaguk
was thus engaged in a concerted activity relating to working conditions
which was protected by Section 7 of the Act. The record further
demonstrates that the Respondent became irritated with Kaguk's con-
stant complaints regarding the incentive system and that this irrita-
tion was a motivating factor in Kaguk's discharge, as the Trial Exam-
iner himself found. By this discharge of Kaguk for engaging in a
protected concerted, rather than union, activity, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and we so find.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Richard
Kaguk, we shall, in accordance with established Board policy, order
the Respondent to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of such action by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned
from the date of his discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement,
less the amount he actually earned during that period, in the manner
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and with interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing cC Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Pacific Electricord Company,
Gardena, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified :
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(c) to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and redesignate present paragraph 1(c) as 1(d) :
"(c) Discharging any employee for the reason that such employee
engage in or is engaging in protected concerted activity."
2. In redesignated paragraph 1(d), strike out the words "like or
similar" and insert in lieu thereof the word "other."
3. Add the following as paragraphs 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d), the pres-
ent paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) being consecutively relettered:
"(b) Offer Richard Kaguk immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, with prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY 523
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of his discharge. The
backpay ordered herein shall be computed as set forth in the section of
the Board's Decision entitled `The Remedy.'
"(c) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
"(d) 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 which
may become due and the rights of employment under the terms of
this Order."
4. In the third indented paragraph in the Appendix attached to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, third line, strike out the words "like or
similar" and insert in lieu thereof the word "other."
5. Add the following immediately after the third indented para-
graph in the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision :
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Richard
Kaguk to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of his discharge.
6. Add the following immediately below the signature line at the
bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision :
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 application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
7. The telephone number for Region 21, as given below the signature
line at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, is amended to read : Telephone No. 688-5229.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter 1 was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Los Angeles,
California, on September 29 and 30, and on October 1, 1964. At issue is whether
Pacific Electricord Company, herein the Respondent, has dominated and interfered
'Charges filed December 24, 1963, and on March 18 and April 15, 1964. Complaint
issued June 11, 1964, and amendment to complaint September 14, 1964.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the formation or administration of Employee Committee, herein the Committee;.
has discriminatorily discharged its employees Richard Kaguk, Jesus Zapata, Thomas
Taylor, and Marlene Immel; has discriminated against employee David Darr by
withholding a production bonus; and has by the above conduct, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is engaged in Gardena, California, in the manufacture of elec-
trical products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint the Respond-
ent sold services and products valued in excess of $50,000 and shipped them from its
plant in Gardena, California, directly to points in States of the United States other
than California. During the same period the Respondent purchased and caused to be
delivered to its California plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points in other States. I find, as is conceded, that the Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
IBEW, and the Committee are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
IN. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Committee
Following its formation in 1956, the Committee has functioned as a representative
of Respondent 's employees . It has never assessed or collected dues and has con-
ducted no membership meetings . Following the usual practice , on August 27, 1963,.1
an election was held among employees at Respondent 's plant to nominate persons
for service on the Committee . The ballots were prepared by Respondent 's employees
using its equipment and supplies . They were distributed on its time by Eileen
Boyle, the personnel manager, and two others . The 14 receiving the most votes are,
if they consent , the nominees from which by vote on the next day the 5 who are to
serve as the Committee are selected. The voting on August 28 was conducted in
substantially the same manner as that taken on the previous day.
Committee meetings and such meetings with management were held during work-
ing hours and on Respondent 's premises . Meetings with management frequently
extended beyond working hours and Committee members in attendance were paid
as if at work including penalty overtime . Minutes of meetings were typed and
reproduced by Respondent 's office personnel using Respondent 's facilities and were
distributed to all employees at Respondent 's expense.
On September 20 Richard Kaguk, who had been elected to the Committee on
August 28 , was discharged . The Respondent called a meeting of the Committee to
convene that afternoon to hear the Respondent 's reason for letting Kaguk go. Prior
to the meeting , H. Robert Hamel, Respondent 's vice president , prepared a written
explanation of the discharge and had it mimeographed for distribution to the employ-
ees. Additionally the employees were told, in this fashion , that the vacancy thus
created on the Committee would be filled by another employee, Ethyl Withers,
because she had "received the next highest number of votes in last month's
election...."
Arnold Schott, Respondent 's president , testified that in May the Committee
requested a wage increase. Schott answered that the financial condition of the
Respondent would not then permit an increase but promised that the question would
be reviewed when the financial statement for the first half of the fiscal year endine
July 31 was available . On October 8, Schott met with all of Respondent 's employees
and showed them figures and charts to explain why the Respondent was unable to
grant a plantwide wage increase . Schott testified that he told the employees on this
occasion that as soon as the profits reached 5 percent and, in any event, by Febru-
ary 1, 1964, a general wage increase would be given.
2The unopposed motion by counsel for the Respondent to correct certain errors in the
transcript Is granted.
8 All dates are in 1963 except as otherwise stated
PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY 525
Louise Wallace, chairman of the Committee , testified that Schott's promise was to
raise wages in about 6 months. Employees Carlton Allison and Verna Korwes testi-
fied that they recalled the promise about wages to be tied to profits without any date
for action being set . It is evident enough that on this occasion Schott held forth
some hope of wage improvement but that no date earlier than February 1 was
mentioned.
In November the IBEW filed a petition seeking certification as bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent 's employees . On December 5, a consent -election agreement
was executed scheduling the election for December 12. When called as an adverse
witness by counsel for the General Counsel at the outset of the hearing , Schott testi-
fied that in late November he learned that October profits had reached or exceeded
5 percent . Later, when called as a witness for the Respondent he explained that he
-was mistaken about the date and that this information was not confirmed to him until
December 9. Meeting that day with others in management it was decided , he testified,
-that no wage announcement should be made in consideration of the imminent elec-
'lion At 7:30 in the morning of December 10, Schott met with all of the employees
in the plant . The meeting lasted 5 hours . Schott answered a number of questions
which had been submitted in writing and there was some discussion among those
present about the advantages and disadvantages of IBEW representation Schott
read to the employees a question which he said had been submitted inquiring about
when a wage increase might be forthcoming Schott asked his counsel (not the
attorney appearing in this matter for the Respondent ) if he could answer. When he
received an affirmative reply with the provision that any wage announcement must
not be conditioned upon the election result, Schott told the employees that because
he had promised to answer all questions he would reply to this one despite his hope
that it would not be raised . Schott then went on to say that the Committee had
pursued the matter of a wage increase with him from its first request the preceding
May; that in October he had promised to raise wages when profits permitted; and
that he was happy to tell them that no matter how the election resulted wages would
be increased 5 cents an hour on January 1.
In late 1963 the Committee decided that its bylaws , which then existed only in the
memory of management and Committee members , should be printed . To meet this
expense, employees were asked to contribute . The necessary sum was not thus
forthcoming , however, so $5 to cover the deficiency was obtained from a fund
managed by an employee , Florence Steeves . This fund which is used to provide
gifts for employees on special occasions , supplies for the lunchroom , and for other
miscellaneous purposes , is derived from profits resulting from various vending
machines located on Respondent's premises . It is Respondent 's benevolence which
permits the fund to exist.
Obviously the Committee is dependent upon the Respondent for its existence. It
has no funds and on the only occasion described in the record when it sought to
obtain financial assistance from the employees , it was unable to reach its goal. The
services supplied to it by the Respondent are not extravagant but they are beyond
the Committee 's means. The typing , duplicating , and mailing of Committee reports
represent costs for which the Committee has no funds to pay. Although an employer
is not prohibited from paying employees for time spent in conferring with him, to pay
him for time spent in their own meetings is an act of assistance . The status of the
Committee both in the minds of its members and in the contemplation of the Respond-
ent is exemplified by Vice President Hamel's written announcement to the employees
naming the successor to the discharged Committee member Kaguk. I have no doubt
that Hamel thought that he was following the Committee 's bylaws in taking this
action even though at the time the bylaws had not been reduced to writing . It is not,
however, the function of management to make such determinations and much less
to do so without even consulting the Committee . The Committee exists only as an
extension of Respondent 's personnel office and is no more than a convenient channel
through which the Respondent can speak to its employees and to listen to their wishes.
The Committee wears the clothing of a labor organization but is one dominated by
the Respondent.
Assuming that Schott 's recollection of what he said about a wage increase to the
employees in October is accurate , he was under no compulsion to make the announce-
ment he did make on December 10. But he could not resist the opportunity to demon-
strate to the employees that the Committee had accomplished something for them
thereby suggesting that they should bear this in mind in the election choice facing
them . This was an act of assistance to the Committee and Schott intended that it
should be.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that by the conduct set forth above, the Respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of the Committee and has contributed financial and
other support to it. The Respondent has thereby engaged in the commission of unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
B. The alleged discrimination
In the summer of 1963 the Respondent brought about a series of changes in its
production operations and altered substantially the incentive standards affecting
employee earnings. A number of employees, who before these changes were made
could sometimes double their nominal hourly earnings by producing in excess of the
quotas then effective, found that their earnings were seriously lessened by the imposi-
tion of new standards and quotas. Some of them testified that their wages were cut
as much as 40 percent.
Of course this brought about much unhappiness among the employees affected
Richard Kaguk, who started work for the Respondent in February, testified that he
protested almost daily to someone in management about the new production stand-
ards. On August 28, Kaguk was elected to the Committee and on September 3, in
that capacity, met with representatives of the Respondent in a session scheduled for
the purpose of discussing plant problems. Kaguk and another employee, William
Cadie, earlier had prepared and signed a letter to management which the chairman
of the Committee, Louise Wallace, read at the meeting. The letter in general con-
stituted a protest against the revised quotas and standards but also included a state-
ment to the effect that Kaguk and Cadie, at least, would not disclose to management
any methods of doing the work which could result in greater production. Kaguk's
attitude in the matter was, in sum, that if he could find a way of operation which
permitted him to earn premium wages he must in self-protection keep it a secret from
management for fear that the standards would again be changed to his disadvantage
Kaguk seems to have been a satisfactory employee. His hourly rate was increased
by 5 cents on April 1 and on May 27, and by 10 cents on August 15. But his extreme
unhappiness with the new standards caused him to regard management with some
bitterness. On September 9, he had some difficulty with his supervisor, Daniel Kolat,
because Kaguk was away from his work station helping another employee. About
September 15, Kaguk refused to demonstrate his working techniques for one Norm
Mallrich who was then engaged in making a time study of some operations. On
September 19, Kaguk engaged in a heated argument with Supervisor Kolat over
a work assignment. It is possible that on this last occasion Kaguk was acting in a
representative capacity as a member of the Committee but I consider the record to be
inadequately developed to support such a finding. That evening he was notified by
telegram of his suspension for 5 days as a matter of discipline.
On September 6, the occasion having been arranged by Kaguk, he and a few other
Respondent's employees met with representatives of the IBEW. Kaguk, Cadie,
and others then set about obtaining employee signatures to IBEW designation cards
during lunch hours and rest periods at the plant. Kaguk carried a supply of cards
partially exposed in his shirt pocket. Shortly after this activity began, according to the
uncontradicted and credited testimony of Kaguk, his supervisor, Kolat, asked him who
the IBEW agents were. Kaguk told him. On the September 15 occasion when
Mallrich spoke with Kaguk concerning work operations, Kaguk told Mallrich that
if the IBEW organized the plant there would be some "compromise" in connection
with the production standards.
Although aware by means of the telegram of his layoff, Kaguk came to the plant
before worktime in the morning of September 20. Entering the plant with William
Cadie he continued to converse with the latter at Cadie's machine. A moment after
the starting signal was sounded at 7:30, Vice President Hamel took Kaguk by the
arm, told him that he was discharged, and led him from the plant. Respondent asserts
that Kaguk was fired because he was in the plant in violation of a longstanding rule
against such visits by persons not actively employed.
Hamel testified that he was away from the plant until late in the afternoon of
September 19; that upon his return he learned from Henry Clark, assistant plant
manager, and Kolat, of the argument that had taken place earlier in the day between
Kaguk and Kolat. After discussion, Hamel testified, and without knowledge on the
part of Hamel, that Kaguk was involved with the IBEW, Hamel decided to issue a
written warning to Kaguk and to suspend him for 5 days. The next morning, accord-
ing to Hamel, seeing Kaguk in the plant in violation of a rule against visiting by
persons not actively employed, he decided to and did discharge him. The rule
invoked reads:
Former employees or other visitors may be permitted on the Company's
premises, but only with the permission of the Plant Manager. They may enter-
only through the front office.
PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY 527
Kaguk had not sought permission to visit the plant and had not entered through the
front office. In explaining the discharge to the Committee, Hamel said that he did
not know that Kaguk was doing any organizing for the IBEW. In announcing it to
the employees, the Respondent said that Kaguk had been discharged because of
"repeated insubordination and violation of long-standing Company rules."
I do not credit Hamel's explanation of the reason for discharging Kaguk. The
interpretation he says that he gave to the visiting rule is a strained one as applied to
Kaguk. Other employees as well as Kaguk were unaware of its existence. I have no
doubt but that Hamel, angered and annoyed by Kaguk's persistent complaints about
production standards and impatient with Kaguk's contentious attitude toward super-
vision, seized upon Kaguk's visit to the plant as a convenient occasion for discharge.
His decision to take this action may of course have been hastened by information
that Kaguk was an IBEW supporter but evidence to support such a motivation is
extremely tenuous. It exists almost exclusively, if not entirely so, upon an evaluation
of the circumstance that the Respondent had a comfortable relation with the Com-
mittee and did not want it to be disturbed. I find that the evidence does not support
by its preponderance the allegation that Kaguk was discriminatorily discharged.
On September 26 the Respondent was notified by a letter from the IBEW that
employees David Darr, Thomas Taylor, Geraldine Limon, Jesus Zapata, and William
Cadie were members of the IBEW organizing committee in the plant. Immediately,
these individuals were warned in writing over the signature of President Schott:
Please be certain that you comply with all Company rules and regulations;
otherwise you will be subject to disciplinary action.
It is not argued that the Respondent may enforce any lawful rule or regulation
attending the employment relation but it is obvious here that IBEW supporters were
singled out for special attention in that connection. By accepting membership on the
IBEW organizing committee, these individual employees did not gain any immunity
from discipline but neither did they subject themselves to the imposition of more
stringent requirements of rule observance than any other employee. By informing
them that because of the circumstance of their union preference they must act with
particular circumspection, the Respondent set them apart from the other employees
and in effect told them that they would be watched. I find that by this warning letter
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced these employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Jesus Zapata had two periods of employment with the Respondent. First hired in
April 1961 he was discharged four months later. Rehired in October 1962, he was
discharged for the second time a little more than a year later. Zapata was apparently
an excellent producer and before the standards were changed to affect his incentive
earnings, he regularly far exceeded the quota set for his job with the result that his
wages were high. The changed standards resulted in a serious loss in earnings to
him and he resented and deplored this development. There are hints in the record
that after the change, Zapata made no effort to meet the new standard. He denied
that this was so and I credit him. He did, however, protest the continuation of the
changed standards and complained that his supervisor, Kolat, harrassed him. On
some occasion in the fall of 1963, in the course of a dispute with Kolat, Zapata called
Kolat an s.o.b. Strangely, this had no effect upon Zapata's tenure-at least not at once.
In September Zapata was given a written warning by one of his supervisors. I am
not sure from the record what brought about this action but it may have been a wage
garnishment. On October, he was told to remain away from work and given a notice
reading in pertinent part:
Warning and disciplinary layoff. 2nd warning for garnishment. As a third
written warning for current misconduct in violation of Co. rules, you shall be
subjected to five day disciplinary lay-off pending case review effective Oct. 24,
1963 at end of shift.
The occasion for this discipline is asserted to be the service of a garnishment notice
upon the Respondent. Zapata concedes the fact of the garnishment but asserts that
it was somehow a mistake. The Respondent, however, was not thereby relieved of
its obligat=^n to honor the writ. Before the expiration of the 5-day layoff, Zapata
received notice of his discharge.
Zapata was on the IBEW organizing committee and the Respondent knew this to be
so. On September 26, Zapata had been notified that he must obey all plant rules
scrupulously or invite discipline. I have found that this warning in the circumstances
of its issuance was a transgression upon Section 7 rights.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is of course the burden of counsel for the General Counsel to establish that
Zapata was discharged upon discriminatory considerations. The fact of the garnish-
ment proceeding is established and there is no evidence that the Respondent tolerated
and continued in employment other workers whose wages were subjected to such
process. In sum there is no evidence to support a conclusion that Zapata was treated
in the circumstances existing in any different manner or suffered any greater discipline
than another would have. True, he had been warned to watch his step and the warn-
ing was issued because he was on the IBEW committee, but I do not find the record
to establish that the Respondent used the garnishment matter as a pretext to rid
itself of an IBEW supporter. Had it been seeking such an occasion it was surely
supplied to it when Zapata applied the mentioned insulting description to Kolat. I
find that the allegations of the complaint in respect to the discharge of Zapata not to
be sustained.
Marlene Immel testified that upon the occasion of her hire in August 1963, Person-
nel Manager Boyle asked what she thought of a union. This testimony is undenied
and I credit it. It suggests that the Respondent may have been wary of taking into its
employ those who might want representation other than that supplied by the Com-
mittee. Immel later signed an IBEW card. In late October, still according to Immel's
undenied and credited testimony, her supervisor, Dorothy Goulden, asked her why
she was in favor of the IBEW. Immel admitted that she desired the IBEW to succeed
but refused to discuss the matter further. Thereafter, Immel testified, she was
assigned by Goulden to the least desirable work in her unit; work which made it a
practical impossibility for her to qualify for incentive bonuses.
In early November, learning of Inimel's unhappiness, Louise Wallace, chairman of
the Committee, arranged a meeting in the office of Plant Manager Eggert to explore
the question. Immel told Eggert that Goulden was giving her all of the "dirty work."
Eggert replied in effect that [mmel was paid to work. Immel then went on to say
that the work was being distributed unfairly. Goulden broke in to say that Immel
had more than ordinary competency in repairing defective cords and that she was
used on that work for that reason. Eggert testified that the meeting ended upon
Goulden's assurance that there would be no discrunination against Immel and that
he heard no more about the matter.
In early December, Immel was notified that because of curtailed production she
would be laid off at the end of three days for an indefinite period. A day later, Ann
Terzo was transferred to Immel's unit from another part of the plant. Immel was
laid off and Terzo was retained .4 Terzo, it appears was hired about a week before
Immel came to work. It is contended that Immel was laid off because she supported
the IBEW. The Respondent asserts that it had a need to reduce its personnel in
Immel's unit and that she rather than Terzo was let go because Terzo had been
working at the plant longer. Eggert testified that he determined who should be laid
off and who retained. There just is no evidence of any substantial nature that Immel's
involvement with the IBEW played any part in Eggert's decision. I do not find that
Immel was laid off or terminated for any discriminatory reason.
Thomas Taylor was hired in June and laid off November 14. He was one of those
on the IBEW organizing committee and the Respondent knew it. For some time
prior to November 14, Taylor, after finishing his regular shift in a production depart-
ment, had often worked on an overtime basis in the receiving department. When
notified of his layoff, Taylor asked Eggert why he could not be shifted to the receiving
department where one or more employees junior to him were being retained. Eggert
explained that seniority in the department where the layoff took place was what
counted. Two other employees in Taylor's department were laid off at the same time.
One of these was senior to Taylor. In late February 1964, the Respondent sent a tele-
gram to Taylor asking him to telephone about employment. Taylor did not receive
the telegram, so of course did not respond. A few days later he was informed by
mail that because he had not answered the telegram he was terminated. Taylor did
not protest this action and did not tell the Respondent that the telegram had not
reached him.
I see nothing in the layoff of Taylor to lead to a conclusion that he was the victim
of discrimination. He lacked the seniority in his department necessary for retention
and there is no evidence that the Respondent had at any time permitted "bumping."
The complaint as to Taylor has not been sustained.
4 There is no evidence that Terzo was or was not an IBEW adherent.
PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY 529
David Darr was hired in July 1961 and is still employed. To the knowledge of the
Respondent he was on the IBEW organizing committee and was the IBEW observer
at the December 12 representation election. Darr testified without contradiction and
credibly that after his identification with the IBEW became known, his foreman,
Victor Mormile, was no longer as pleasant in manner toward him. On February 6,
1964, Darr was given a written "reminder" to the effect that if he persisted in habits
of tardiness he would be transferred to work where others would not depend on his
presence. On March 3, 1964, Mormile told Darr, in writing, that he was not display-
ing the proper job attitude and that because of tardiness and absences he was being
deprived of his "indirect bonus" for 30 days. This penalty was later reduced to 15
days.
There is no question but that Darr was late on occasion and that other employees
were affected by his absence. There is a complete absence of evidence to indicate
that Darr was treated differently than any other employee in respect to tardiness and
absences, and I find no evidence of discrimination against him. The complaint as to
Darr has not been sustained.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has dominated and contributed financial and
other support to the Employee Committee, it will be recommended that the Respond-
ent be required to withdraw all recognition from the Employee Committee and to
disestablish it as representative of its employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The IBEW and the Employee Committee are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the timing of a wage increase, by domination, and by contributing financial
and other support to the Employee Committee, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By the conduct described in subparagraph 3, above, the Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unf:. it labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The evidence by its preponderance does not establish that the Respondent has
discriminated against any of its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is hereby recommended that Pacific Electricord Com-
pany, Gardena, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or contributing financial or other support to the Employee
Committee.
-j-027-66-vol. 153-35
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) By the timing of a wage increase encouraging support for the Employee Com-
mittee or discouraging support for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO.
(c) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from and completely disestablish the
Employee Committee or any successor thereto as representative of any of its employ-
ees for the purpose of dealing in respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
(b) Post at its plant in Gardena, California, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken in
compliance.6
5 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event the Board's Order be 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".
I In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT dominate or contribute financial or other support to the
Employee Committee.
WE hereby permanently withdraw recognition from the Employee Committee
and disestablish it as a representative of any of our employees for the purpose
in whole or in part of dealing with us or discussing grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
WE WILL NOT by the timing of wage increases or by dominating or assisting
the Employee Committee or in any like or similar manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to join or support
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, or to refrain from doing so except to the extent that such right
may be affected by any contract lawfully made in accordance with Section
8(a)(3) of the Act which may require membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment.
PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY,
Employer.
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, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.