Platte Valley Telephone Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

I
In the Matter of PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE CORPORATION and, LOCAL
UNION B-843, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ' ELECTRICAL PORK-
ERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-9247:Decided September 30, 19/
Jurisdiction : 'telephone industry 1 ,
Unfair Labor Practices.
In General: employees who had- no absolute authority to hire or discharge
but who were in large part responsible for the advancement of the other
employees, found to represent management.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogating employees as to their union
membership; inducing employees to withdraw from union by announcing
new schedule of wages and automatic raises ; threatening employees with
reprisals if they joined union
Discrimination: discharge of most active union employee
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded
Mr. Robert S. Fousek, for the Board.
Mothersead and Wright, by Mr. Floyd E. Wright, of Scottsbluff,
Nebr., 'for the respondent.
Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed on April 27, 1942, by
Local Union B-843, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the Union, ,the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas
City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated May 12, 1942, against
Platte Valley Telephone Corporation, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was 'engaging in
unfair,labor practices affecting commerce, within 'the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that:
(1) on or about June 15, 1941, the respondent terminated the employ-
44 N L R. B., No. 117.
632
PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE CORPORATION 633
ment of Mrs. William Leach (nee Margaret Bell) because of her
membership in and activities on behalf of, the Union and at all times
thereafter has failed and refused to reinstate her; (2) the respondent
by various enumerated acts beginning on or about June 7, 1941, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Prior to May
28, 1942, the respondent filed its answer wherein it admitted certain
allegations of the complaint but denied that it had engaged in any
unfair labor practices.
,Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May' 28, 1942, at Gering,
Nebraska,' before, Thomas, S. Wilson, the Trial Examiner duly desig=
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings
on numerous motions and on ,objections to the admission of evidence.
On June 1, 1942, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner,
The Board has reviewed the rulings 'of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were, committed. The rulings are hereby
1 11affirmed. .
The Trial Examiner thereafter filed his"Intermediate Report, dated
July 2, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recom-,
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative'
action deemed necesary to effectuate the policies of the Act. On
July 24, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions to' the Intermediate
Report and a brief in support of such exceptions. The parties did
not request oral argument before the Board. 0
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to.the Inter-
mediate Report and the brief in support thereof and,,insofar as-the
exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, finds them to be without merit.,
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Platte Valley Telephone Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Investors' Telephone Company located in Chicago, Illinois:
I The notice of hearing specified that it would be held in the Scottsbluff County Courthouse,
Scottsbluff, Nebraska The Scottsbluff County Courthouse is located in Gering, Nebraska
The respondent waived this misdescription at the hearing
U
1
634 DECISIONS" 0F;NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
The responden't has:been since June 6, 1927, a Delaware corporation
having its general offices in ' Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and has-been
licensed to do business in. Nebraska` and Wyoming since July 1, 1927.
It furnishes local and -long e distance , telephone service in the • North
Platte Valley; and territory' adjacent thereto from Guernsey, Wyo=
ming, to Orgallala, Nebraska, and 'Chappell; Nebraska. It maintains
5,558 stations -and- 13 local exchanges of which 3 exchanges and-708
stations' are -located in the State of Wyoming, the remainder being
located in the State of Nebraska. During the year 1940, the re-
spondent purchased $46,796!01. worth of materials and supplies of
which 90, percent; originated' in States other than the State of
Nebraska. During the same year it earned a 'gross revenue in the
amount of $260,130.83 of which 28- percent originated at points with-
out the State of Nebraska.
The respondent has-contracts with the Northi esterii Bell Telephone
Company, and,transmits' telegraph, =cablegram, and radiogram-; mes-
sages for the-Postal Telegraph Company. It leases wires -for the pur-
pose:of-transmitting sound for commercial radio broadcasts and for
transmitting news by teletypewriter. The dollar volume 'of the busi '
ness with Northwestern Bell Telephone Company and in' commercial
radio broadcasting amounted $55,920.28 in 1940. The respondent's
operations are synchronized to maintain a continuous flow 'of com-
munications from and through the States of the United States and
are. essentially connected with-and are dependent upon,purchases, sales,
shipments, services, facilities, and operations 'outside the. State of
Nebraska.- , The above-described operations of the Company are a
part of, a national unified -system, of distribution of, intelligence by
electricity and- occur iii the course of and affect commerce among the
several States. • . ' . 1 - -7,
II.,,T HE;ORGANIZATION,INVOLVED
v
Local Union B-843, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, is a labor. organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting, to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES -
A. Interference,.restraint, and coercion
The respondent maintains one of its principal telephone exchanges
in Scottsbluff where some 30 telephone operators are employed. Otto
Fuerst,.the respondent's vice president and general manager, makes
his, headquarters•in the Scottsbluff office., Ruth M. Stevens occupies
the position of traffic superintendent for the respondent. -As-traffic,
superintendent, 'Stevens is responsible' for all traffic and telephone
.. PLATTE :VALLEY-TELEPHON'E 'CORPORATION__'-- -635
service over the district, including the hiring, discharging, and super-
vising of-all telephone operators. Ada E. Cox is,the chief'operator
under Stevens in charge of the training and 'supervising of the tele-
phone operators at - Scottsbluff. ' Although Cox does not have - the
authority to hire or discharge without the approval of Stevens, she
is in large part responsible for the advancement of the operators.
Fuerst, Stevens, and Cox clearly represent the'management.
Sometime in May 1941, Margaret Leach, who occupied a minor
supervisory, position 2 as night chief operator, and two or three other
operators at Scottsbluff, became alarmed over certain recent events in,
the office. They decided that the employees of the respondent needed.
the protection of a union. They went to Alfred Keller, president of
Platte Valley Central Labor Council, for assistance in forming a
union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. With Kel-
ler's aid, a meeting attended by 8 or 9 operators, including Leach, was
held forthis purpose about the iiniddle of .May. On, Fr-iday,..June 6;
1941, between 20 and 22 operators recruited by Leach and others at-
tended a second organizational meeting. Most of the girls who at-
tended the meeting .signed authorization cards that evening. By
about -June 10, 22,or 23 girls had joined the Union. , I ,
Although Leach and others, had, done considerable organizational
work for the Union, the respondent had no knowledge of the presence
of the Union until,the afternoon of Saturday, June 7. Sometime
that afternoon, Robert K. Garrity, an organizer for the A. F. of L.;
called upon Fuerst, told him that a majority of the operators' had
joined the Union, and requested that the respondent recognize;-the
Union. Fuerst replied that he had no, authority to do so but promised
to consult his superiors in Chicago 3
About 4 o'clock that same afternoon, Minor the respondent's
cashier, informed Chief Operator Cox that she had heard that there
had been a big union meeting and wanted to know what Cox knew
of it. Cox had no information but ;immediately inquired of. one of
.the operators who told Cox that the operators were fully organized
and also about the meeting of the previous evening. Cox thereafter
telephoned this information to Traffic, Superintendent Stevens.'
Although Saturday, was a holiday for -Stevens, she arrived at the
office about 6 p. in. We find, in accordance with .the,-testimony of
Leach, whom we credit as did 'the Trial Examiner, that, Stevens
appeared in the operators' room, went directly to the desk at which
2 As night shift operator Leach was subject to Cox's authority when both were on duty
at the same time. .
- 8The findings in this paragraph are based on the ' testimony of Fuerst . He further testi-
fied that he then consulted,his superiors in Chicago and 1 week later informed Garrity that
the respondent would consent to the holding of an, election and if the Union received a
majority the respondent would recognize and bargain collectively with the Union
4 The findings in this paragraph are based on Cox's testimony.
636 DECISIONS"OF.'NATIONA>1':LABOR.,RELATIONS BOARD
Leach was seated, and said, "I want a list of the girls who attended
the meeting last night." Leach replied that, she did not have to
give her that information. Stevens replied, "Oh, I know, I' have
seen your gentleman." When Leach .failed to answer, Stevens stated
that Leach was the "instigator" of the union mo"vement.° It is un-
denied that Stevens then picked up a pad and pencil, walked -to the
switchboard and inquired of each operator at the board if she had
attended the union meeting, recording each answer as it was given.
It is also undenied that, after completing these inquiries, Stevens
telephoned the home of two of the other operators, made the same -
inquiry of them and recorded their answers. She then left the room.
About three-quarters of an hour later, Stevens returned to the
operating room, called as many operators in groups from the board
as could be spared, and took them into the rest room where she
talked to them.' During these talks Stevens stated that she had no
authority to tell them what to-do about the Union, that it made no
difference to the respondent whether the operators joined a union or
not, that it was all right with the Company if the employees had
the power to organize,,,and that -whatever, tile. operators did she would
be for them 100 percent.. Stevens continued further by saying that
the girls 'were all rather young and did not know what they were
-doing and that she was merely counseling them. She,turned to Leach
and asked, "Do you know what you are doing?" After speaking in
this fashion to several groups, Stevens left the building.'
An hour or so after Stevens had departed,'she called Leach by tele-
phone and- said, "Starting Monday morning I want you to work
8: 00 to 12: 00 and 1: 00 to 5:'00."- As this order meant that. Leach
would be working on the day shift under Cox, it also meant that she
had -been demoted from her position'as night chief 'operator. Her
wages were not reduced. We shall consider in detail in subsection B,
hereinafter, the, incident which brought about the demotion of Leach.
Several operators testified; and 'despite' Stevens' denial," We find
that-during the ensuing few days;=both Stevens and Cox.,interrogated
5 Although Stevens admitted inquiring of some of the girls as to whether they had attended
the union meeting , * she denied that she -had accused Leach of being the " instigator "
Operator Drake's testimony corroborated that of Leach We ci edit the testimony of Leach
and Drake , as did the Trial Examiner
° ° Stevens denied talking to the operators in groups However , as this denial was con-
tradicted by the testimony of several of the operators and is inconsistent with other conduct
of Stevens , we cannot credit Stevens ' denial
7Stevens testified that she said only that whatever the operators (lid she would bc, for
them 100 percent The findings contained in this paragraph aie based on testimony of
Leach and ' Drake which we credit.
9 The Trial Examiner , who heard and observed Stevens on the witness stand did not
credit her testimony We agree with his evaluation of Stevens as a witness Her anti-
union activities were described in detail by several Board witnesses Stevens herself ad-
mitted interrogating the operators on June 7 . Moreover some of her testimony is dis-
credited by the testimony of Cox and Fuerst , witnesses called by and on behalf of the
respondent See footnotes 18 and 22 , and related text
PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE ' CORPORATION' ' 637
the various-operators as to *their attendahce at the June 6 meeting and
as to their membership in the- Union: On. one of these, occasions,
Stevens inquired of Operator Cowan if she had joined the Union and
if she had paid anything. After receiving affirmative answers to
both questions, Stevens remarked that "it was too bad that [Cowan]
had been influenced, into joining the Union." A day or. so after this
conversation, Cox inquired of Cowan if she wanted to withdraw
from the Union. In answer to Cowan's query as to what the other
girls were doing, Cox stated that two or three of them had withdrawn.9
About June 10, the operators delegated Leach to tell Cox that they
were-not trying to injure her in any way by forming the Union.
After delivering this message to Cox at Cox's home, Leach stated that
she thought that she had gotten' more of a "black eye" out of her union
activities than any of the other girls. Cox agreed. Leach also stated,
"I believe Mrs. Stevens thinks that I am entirely to blame 'for it,"
Cos answered, "Well, aren't you?" Leach remarked that she thought
that Stevens was largely responsible for the operators' working condi-
tions. Cox suggested that the operators should have a-meeting with
Fuerst and that he would probably give them the things they wanted
without the necessity of a union. Leach stated that she believed that
a union was necessary in order to secure a binding contract. Toward
the conclusion of the conversation, Cox warned,"You know, of course,
they are going to try and break it up, don't you? . . . They will at-
tempt to find things on the girls so'they will have a reason to dis-
charge them." Leach replied, "Yes,.I suppose they will."ao '
.On the basis of Leach's testimony we find that 2 clays later, on June
12, Stevens approached Leach in the rest room and asked Leach to
tell her what mistakes she had made and what she could do to improve
the relation between herself and the employees: Stevens also said
that this inquiry had no connection- with the Union whatever. That
same evening. Cox called Leach by telephone and 'asked, "Did you
and Mrs. Stevens reach an agreement?" Leach replied that there
had been no mention whatsoever of all agreement and that the opera-
tors'were still going on..with the Union. This was the last day on
which Leach worked for the respondent. She had the next\ 4 day's
off and on June 17, when she returned to work, Fuerst informed her
that she was discharged." -On June 13, the Union had its third
meeting at which only four operators appeared. Operator' Morrell,
one of the respondent's witnesses,'testified on cross-examination that
the girls were "scared," and "we didn't know. what was going to hap-
pen and most of us were working because we had to, and we wanted
o Koller testified that the Union had received only one letter of resignation
10 These findings are based upon the testimony of Leach whom the Trial, Examiner cred-
ited. Cox's•version of the conversation was somewhat different. The Trial Examiner
evaluated Cox as an evasive witness at this point and we. agree. -
11 See infra, subsection B.
638, DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL.', LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to know if, we were going to lose our jobs;" and that because of. their
fear they did not attend later. union meetings.
It is not denied that sometime near the middle of June, Cox told}
Operator Brown that.she had heard that the operators were going
to receive a wage increase- and then added that if the operators con-
tinued with.the Union their wage increase would be dropped and
that they, would have to "fight for what they got."
On July 1, 1941,. the 'respondent announced it new schedule of
wages and a schedule of automatic raises. These schedules resulted
in increased; wages for the operators. Although, these schedules had
been under discussion apparently'for some time prior to the Unions-
organizational effort and were dictated in part by the provisions'of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is clear from the reference' which
Cox made to them that the respondent employed the wage increases
in an attempt to induce the employees to abandon membership in
the Union.12
Fuerst testified that about 6 months prior to June 7 'he had
instructed his supervisors to be neutral in regard to union activity
among the employees. Both Cox and Stevens, the supervisors at the
Scottsbluff station, testified that they had received no, instructions
in regard,to;.union activity of employee, We find, as did the Trial
Examiner,' that no instructions were given to any supervisors in-
volved in this proceeding.
In its brief, the respondent argued: (1) that the actions of Stevens
and Cox in interrogating the employees regarding, their union meni-
bership and in discouraging that membership were rectified when
Stevens informed the operators that it made no difference to the
respondent or to herself whether they joined the Union' or not; (2)
that there was "absolutely no evidence" that the operators were
intimidated or coerced; and (3) that statements of Stevens and Cog
were not authorized by the respondent. These contentions are not
borne.,out by. -the record. Stevens, and ;Cox were recognized officials
of the respondent. Their open hostility toward the Union, and their
warning of the consequences of continued union membership 13 fol-
lowed by the subsequent discriminatory discharge of Leach, consti-
tuted. a flagrant encroachment upon the freedom guaranteed to em-
ployees under the Act. Although Stevens at one point indicated that
the employees were free to join the Union, her conduct'both before
and after this statement completely nullified its effect.14
I Cf M. H Ritzwoller v. N 'L R B , 114 ' F . ( 2d) 432 (C C. A. 7 ) 1940 , N L R B v.
Dix;e Motor Coach , 128 F ( 2d) 201 ( C. C A 5) 1942.
13 We note in passing .that the statements and conduct, of Cox and Stevens, coupled with
the discharge of,Lcach , resulted in the coniplete breakddwn of the Union- as' evidenced by
the lack of attendance at union meetings after Leach ' s dismissal `
14 Leach's testimony that the 'girls did not believe Stevens ' isolated expressions of
neutrality is corroborated by the testimony of Operator Brown , referred to above '
'PLAT--VALLEY , TELEPHONE CORPORATTON::.:,x ' 639
We find that by the above-described activities and statements: of its
supervisory employees the respondent has interfered with,: restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharge of Margaret Leach
About August 1937, the respondent employed Margaret Leach (nee
Bell)15 as a student operator at 23 cents per hour. She had `had no
previous telephone experience. After about 11/.2 years', training,
Steveiis'p'ronioted' Leach, then a ed °19, to the positioh of night -chief
operator at 32 cents per hour: As night chief operator, Leach super-
vised'the operators on the evening shift but did not-have the `author=
ity to'hire or`discharge. By'May 1941, Leach was earning 40'cents
per hour:
On Thursday, June 5, the day prior to the second union meeting,
Attorney Elliott of Scottsbhiff placed a long-distance `call 'to a Mrs.
Selby 16 and specifically requested' Operator Brown that 'the location
of the place to which the call was being made should be kept strictly
confidential.' After completing the connection, Brown called Leach
and told her of Elliott's request but did not note the request upon the
toll card for the call.- A few hours later an individual called who,told
Leach that it was imperative that'he•reach Mrs. Selby, that Mrs: Selby's
mother was dying, and that he understood that someone had just put
through a call to Mrs. Selby. This individual, later revealed as Mrs.
Selby's husband, requested that under these circumstances Leach give
him Mrs. Selby's address as revealed by the preceding telephone call.
Leach did so and immediately offered to place the call. Selby refused
the offer and said he would call back in a few minutes to place it. In
fact Mrs. Selby's husband was using this story as a ruse to obtain
Mrs. Selby's address. Almost as soon as Leach had divulged this
information, she realized that Elliott had requested that'it should be
kept confidential. Upon discovering that she had been tricked into
divulging this information in violation of the company rules as well
as Elliott's request, Leach immediately telephoned Cox, told her of
the mistake, and was advised by Cox' to report the matter to Stevens.
Leach was unable to locate Stevens.
About an hour later, Elliott telephoned and told Leach that the in-
formatibn which he had requested to be' kept confidential. had been
disclosed, that he was quite angry, and that the disclosure had "put him
on the sprat." Leach apologized" and explained how the error.had been
made. -ERiott then requested that Leach explain the, matter to Mrs.
Selby's brother, which she. proceeded to do. At the conclusion' of the
' She became Mrs William R Leach in , August' 1941.
16 Elliott , represented Mrs Selby in adivorce proceeding
640 DECISIONS- OF. NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS, BOARD
explanation both Elliott and the brother appeared to be satisfied, agree-
,lng that, no particular harm had been done. Then Leach informed `Cox
by telephone of her conversation with Elliott and the brother., _ Cox
concluded the conversation by saying, "Don't be too worried about it.
I think it is a mistake that probably anyone could make under the
circumstances." 17 By early Friday morning both Fuerst and Stevens
were told the facts of the Elliott telephone,call.
Following her regular period off duty on Friday, Leach returned
to work 'as night chief operator on Saturday evening, Jude 7: This
was the day'on which the responent first learned of the Union's.organ-
izational activity. As found heretofore, Stevens returned to the office
about 6:00 p. in., inquired of each operator if she had attended the
union meeting, and accused Leach of instigating the union movement.
About an hour after Stevens had left the building she telephoned to
Leach' to tell her that she was to work the day. shift beginning on
Monday, June 9. On Monday, Leach asked Stevens in the rest, room
why she had been demoted. Stevens replied, "I understand you gave
out "some-information you shouldn't haye." Leach said, "Certainly,
that occurred in the middle of last, week and this is Monday." Stevens
answered, "Well, I just heard about it Saturday night." ?$
Also, about Monday evening,19 although no complaint had; been made
t o the respondent about the Elliott telephone call, Fuerst telephoned
Elliott and asked him about the incident. In answer to Elliott's in-
quiry as to how Fuerst had discovered the matter, Fuerst said,,"I, have
various and devious ways of finding,out this information." 20 Fuerst
then told Elliott that he was very sorry that the incident had occurred,
that he was calling to secui;e the facts in.the matter and would be
guided by Elliott's desires in regard to the disciplining, of Leach. He
also informed Elliott that Leach had been demoted. Elliott answered,
"Well, the harm has been clone, and . . . the girl made a mistake,
and ..: maybe you just better, skip it." Elliott explained that he
had been provoked but after thinking. it over had "cooled off" and
did not want to, make any complaint about,the matter. Fuerst,ex-
plained that divulging such information was against the rules and
'then stated, "We will just work her out in some other department."
As we have heretofore found, on June 10 Leach spoke to Cox and
was advised by her to drop the T7nion. When Leach refused to do
so, Cox warned her that the respondent would attempt to "find things
on the girls so that'they will have,a reason to discharge them." Leach
continued to work on the day shift,to'and including Thursday, June
"Cox testified that she was unable to recall making this statement. We credit, as did
the Trial Examiner, the testimony of Lech •-^
18 However, it is clear that Stevens was told of the call on Friday morning _ See footnote
.20 infra This is another indication . of Stevens ' unreliability ,
10 Neither Elliott nor Fuerst was able to give the exact date-of this occurrence.
20 Actually the report was made by Cox to Stevenson June 0 who relayed it to Fueist.
PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE CORPORATION - 641
12. As heretofore indicated , on, Thursday , in conversation with Cox,
Leach reaffirmed her determination to continue with the Union. Due
to the work schedule , Leach did not have to . report for duty, after
June 12 until June 17. 1
On Friday , June 13, Howard F. Outson , representing the Union,
went to Fuerst's office and introduced himself as the Union 's business
agent.' At this time Fuerst informed Outson that he would have to
discharge Leach for divulging information in order to prevent the
filing of a lawsuit against the respondent .21 When Leach returned to
work on June 17 Fuerst informed her that he had to discharge her
because she had given out information about the Elliott telephone call.
The following day Leach returned to the office and received her sepa-
ration slip for the Nebraska Unemployment Compensation Division
which - was signed by Fuerst and read in part as follows:
Employee was discharged on account of divulging information
on long distance call passing through switchboard.
We recommend that this employee be given all possible assistance
and encouragement. for employment as she has always otherwise
proven a good employee.
Between June 13 and 1G the Union held a third meeting, but only
four operators attended. Arrangements were made for another union
meeting during the following week, but no operators appeared at
this meeting. • -
The'respondent's-answer pleaded affirmatively that:
[Leach] was discharged because of repeated violations of the rules
of the company, insubordination on many and divers occasions
and general inefficiency and neglect of duty and was only dis-
charged after being repeatedly admonished as to her course of
conduct. . -
Stevens testified , and we find , that it was she who actually deter-
mined to discharge Leach , ' and that Fuerst merely carried out her
desires in the matter . Fuerst testified that the respondent discharged
Leach because she divulged information and because of "this only."
Stevens , however, insisted that the Elliott incident was merely the
culmination of a long line of repeated violations by Leach which
necessitated her discharge. The record is silent as to any alleged
"repeated ," violations of the rules , as to "insubordination on many
and divers occasions ," and as to "neglect of duty" and "repeated"
21Elliott testified that after Fuerst had called him , Elliott cent either Mrs Selby or tier
brother up to see Fueist Fuerst testified that Mrs Selby's brotlrar came to see him several,
days after Leach 's discharge Flow-ever , the respondent admits that at no time was any
threat made by Elliott , Mrs Selby, or Mrs Selby s brother to commence legal proceedings
against the respondent.
487498-42-vol. 4 4--41
642 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admonitions.22 We find that Stevens' attempt to bolster her position
in discharging Leach by magnifying somewhat insignificant prior
incidents indicates an attempt to hide her true motive in discharging
Leach. In view of the whole record, including the -promotion of
Leach to the position of night chief operator, her increase in wages
from 23 to 40 cents per hour, Stevens' numerous expressions of satis-
faction, and the notice to the Nebraska Unemployment Compensation
Division, we find that Leach was a competent employee and was so
considered by the respondent.
Both Fuerst and Stevens testified that Leach's union activities had
nothing to do with their decision. In its brief the respondent also
makes the point that Fuerst did not know which employees were
active in the Union. However, Stevens, who made it a part of her
business to determine who were active members in the Union and
who knew Leach was the "instigator" of the lnovenlent, made the
decision to discharge Leach. It is clear from the fact that Fuerst
mentioned the discharge of Leach to Outson, the business agent of
the Union, that Fuerst himself had definite knowledge that Leach
was active in the Union, and we so find.
The issue presented by the,above-found facts is whether Leach, was
discharged for violating company rules in divulging information
regarding the Elliott call, or whether she was in fact discharged
because of her union activity.
Company rules 23 prohibit any employee from divulging any in-
formation learned in the, course of duty. The respondent also had a
rule that the operators were to expedite death messages as much as
possible. With respect to the call Leach testified that an hour or
two after Elliott had called, "some gentleman called in and he sounded
very excited and he was panting and sounded very disturbed, and he
said, `I have just gotten word that my wife's . . . that a woman's
motlier is dying and I have to get word to her right away, and I
know there was a call placed to her this evening. I wonder.if you
would be so kind as to tell me where you reached her?' And I said,
a2 The only evidence to supr)ort the allegations of the answer was an incident that occurred
3 months or moie prior to June 1941 Leach, through a misunderstanding and without
distinct orders, had transferred calls to ceitam loeil-doctor, to a secretai it service estab-
lished for that purpo'e L'ach testified that Steffens told her that both the respondent
and Leach were eyua'ly to blame, the respondent for not having issued iratiuctions and
Le ich for not making an inquii y prior to tiinsferi ing the calls Stevens testified that on this _
o cis_on she threatened to dischaigo Leach In iiew of the general unreliability of Stevens'
testimony and ;n view of the uncontradic_ted endence that on many occasions Stevens
expres-ed to Leach her satisfaction with Leach's work and on one occasion had recommended ^*
Leach for an increase in wages,, we credit the testimony of Le•ich It is clear from Fuerst's
testimony that this incident played no part in the dischaige of Leach
Cox testified that Leach was mexpeiie.•ced and inefficient due largely to her youth Cox's
test mony, hoiievei, was general and contained no specific instances of inefficiency • In
adlhtion, Cox's memory was o poor on, the (let ils involved in her testimony that little
p.o'-a'ive sigmhcarce can be attached thereto _
23 l'ec eral and state statutes tie to the same effect
PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE CORPORATION 643
`Surely., ", Leach then looked up Elliott's call, told Mr. Selby where
Mrs. Selby could be reached, and then said, "I will take the call
now.?" And he said, "No, I will call back in a few minutes." We
therefore find that Leach was faced with a decision requiring her to
break one or the other of the respondent's rules.
Although Fuerst testified that such a breach of the rules, warranted
immediate discharge, the respondent failed to take any action' to,
punish Leach for a period of 48 hours after it had been fully advised
about the incident. In fact the only mention of the incident to
Leach was Cox's immediate reaction that the error was a mistake
anyone could have made. However, within a few hours 'after the
respondent had determined that Leach was the "instigator" of the
move toward unionization, a step of which the respondent disap-
proved, as indicated by the prompt reaction of both Stevens and-Cox,.
'Leach was demoted from her supervisory position. This demotion
ostensibly was caused by Leach's breach of the rules. For a week
thereafter this demotion appeared to be the sole punishment to be
meted out. Fuerst testified, in explanation of the lapse of time
between Leach's demotion and her discharge, "We weren't hasty iix
taking, action until we could get enough information to satisfy our-
selves that this incident had really occurred"; and, again "I felt
while we were trying,to get some information on-this she shouldn't
be supervisor in there any longer. We didn't want to discharge her
until we got further information on her." However, the circum-
stances are not such as to lend credence to the above statements.
Leach had admitted her error ii unediately, and Stevens and Fuerst
were, unquestionably, immediately aware of the nature of the offense.
Indeed, apart from the call to Elliott, Fuerst made no investigation.
prior to June 17 when Leach was discharged. Fuerst's conversation
with Elliott supplied no reason for further punishment of Leach,
for Elliott stated that he did not want to lodge 'a complaint and at
no time did he threaten to sue the respondent. Operator Brown was
never questioned,-nor did Fuerst ever talk to Leach about the incident.
We find that the respondent determined' to discharge Leach only
after Cox's warning on June 10 that Leach should give up the Union
on pain of discharge, after Stevens' inquiries as to whether Leach
was ready to give up the Union, and after Leach remained steadfast
in her support of the Union following a week of the, respondent's
coercive tactics, and then not until receiving a call from the Union's
business agent. The circumstances establish; and we find, that while
perhaps the respondent actually did demote Leach because 'of her
error in judgment,' it discharged her 10 days later as an integrad
' The complaint does not allege that the demotion was discriminatory
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABORe RELATIONS BOARD
part of its plan,to discourage membership in the Union and in order
to deprive the Union of its most steadfast member as well as its
leader:,. We,find that the respondent made use of the incident in an
effort'to conceal the real reason for the discharge of Leach.
We find that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Margaret Leach, thereby discour-
uging; membership in the. Union and has thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
• IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the'respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed' 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
rand the'fre:e 'flow of commerce. '
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist 'therefrom and take
certain affirmative action.'which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act. .
We have found that the respondent discharged Margaret Leach
r^nd thereafter refused to' reinstate her for the reason that she joined
and assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities
for; the purpose of collective bargaining an'd other mutual aid and
protection.. We shall therefore order the respondent to offer her im-
mediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equiv-
alent position as day operator in the respondent's Scottsbluff Exchange.
We shall further order the respondent to make her whole for any loss
of pay she has suffered by reason of her discharge, by payment to her
of a sum. of money equal to that amount which she would normally
'have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of
her offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings 25 during said period.
21 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and-working else-
-where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal , or other work -relief projects shall
be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v National Labor Relations
Board , 311 U S. 7.
f
PLATTE VALLEY TELEPHONE CORPORATION 645
Upon the-basis of-the foregoing findings of fact and upoii•the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
I I r 1
CONCLIISIONS OF LAW ,
1. Local Union B-843, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Margaret Leach, thereby discouraging membership in Local.
Union B-843, International Brotherhood of Electrical Worker's, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of • the Act, the
Iespondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.'
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Platte Valley Telephone Corporation, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local Union B-843, International
Brotherhood of'Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its
employees or any term or condition of their employment;'
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
Join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Margaret Leach immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b),Make whole Margaret Leach for any less of earnings she may
have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against her,
by payment to her of 'a sum of money, equal to the amount she would
normally have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the
slate of , the offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings during said
period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its office at Scotts-
bluff , Nebraska , and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting , notices to its employees stating :
.(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
at is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this
Order; ( 2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3)' that the
respondent 's employees are free to become or remain members of Local
Union B-843, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in
or activity on behalf of that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.