Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 979 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 979
of Clark or Hall prior to their separation on September 7, I find the evidence in-
sufficient to warrant the inference that the Respondent possessed direct knowledge
of their union activities 24 Accordingly, as it necessarily follows that , without
knowledge of the union activity of Clark or Hall, it cannot be said that the Re-
spondent was unlawfully motivated in terminating their employment, I find that
the General Counsel has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination as
to the separation of either Clark or Hall .25
Notwithstanding the fact that subsequent to their separation the Respondent ac-
quired knowledge of their union activity, in view of my finding above coupled with
the fact that the record discloses that no employees other than two skilled operators
in Tru-Line Screw have been employed since September 7, 1961, I find that the
General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Respondent has refused to recall or rehire Clark or Hall because of their union
activity.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Tru-Line Metal Products Company and Tru-Line Screw Products, Incorporated,
are, as Joint Respondent , engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
of the Act.
2. Local 408 , International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Joint Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint.26
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
21 See Diamond Ginger Ale, supra, and S B. Thomas, Inc., supra; cf. Weise Plow
Welding Co, Inc, supra
251radlcy Manufacturing Company, supra, American Dredging Company, supra.
"At the close of the hearing I reserved ruling on Joint Respondent's motion to dismiss
the complaint. Consistent with my finding and conclusion that no unfair labor practices
were committed by the Joint Respondent, said motion is hereby granted
Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co. and Esther M. Hibbard.
Case No. 1-CA-3536. September 06, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1962, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his
Intermediate Report 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-
Inter-mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.' Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
1 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner' s dismissal of certain alleged viol.' Lions
of Section 8(a) (1).
138 NLRB No. 125.
662353-63-vol 138-63
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner as modified herein 2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Prince Macaroni
Manufacturing Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor
organization, by discriminating in any manner in respect to their
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, of
its employees.
(b) Dominating, assisting, contributing support to, or interfering
with, the administration of the Committee or any other labor organ-
ization of its employees.
(c) Recognizing the Committee, or any successor thereto, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of
employment.
(d) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies, activities, or desires.
(e) Giving the impression of surveillance to employees.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2 The Trial Examiner has found that Respondent assisted , supported , and interfered
with the administration of the Committee , in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
We agree with these findings However, contrary to the Trial Examiner's conclusion,
we find further that the facts detailed in the intermediate Report, which accurately
reflect the record , also establish domination of the Committee by Respondent, in violation
of Section 8(a)('2) See Holland Manufacturing Company, 129 NLRB 776, Lee-Rowan
Manufacturing Company , 129 NLRB 980.
For the reasons given in Isis Plum bing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, and in the
manner therein described , we shall order , contrary to the Trial Examiner and as requested
by the General Counsel , that the Respondent 's backpay obligation herein include the
payment of 6 percent interest on the backpay due Hibbard . Member Leedom, however,
for the reasons stated in the dissent in the aforementioned case, would not grant such
interest
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 981
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Esther Hibbard immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records and reports, timecards, personnel records,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the Committee, as
the bargaining representative of any of its employees, and completely
disestablish the Committee as such representative.
(d) Post at its plant in Lowell, Massachusetts, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
a In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an
Order"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees
that :
117E WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 2, Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging or in any other manner discriminating against them
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT dominate, assist, contribute support to, or inter-
fere with, the administration of Employees' Committee of Prince
Macaroni Manufacturing Co. of Lowell, Massachusetts , or any
other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize said Committee, or any successor there-
to, as the bargaining representative of any of our employees for
the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rate of pay, hours of employment, or other terms
or conditions of employment, and we will completely disestablish
the Committee as such representative.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their
union sympathies, activities , or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees if they engage
in union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through 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 or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Esther Hibbard immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and
we will make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of our discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become or remain, and to refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any
other labor organization.
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-If the above-named employee is presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, we will notify her of her right
to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone Number
Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO . 983
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge filed by Esther M. Hibbard on September 20
and October 4, 1961,1 respectively, the General Counsel of the National Labor
.Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massa-
chusetts), issued his complaint, dated November 3, 1961, against Prince Macaroni
Manufacturing Co., herein called the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor
practices, the complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in conduct forbidden by Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, and affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's answer,
as amended at the hearing, denied committing the alleged unfair labor practices but
admitted certain facts.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine at Lowell, Massachusetts, on December 13, 14, 19, and 18, 1961,
January 30 and 31, 1962, and February 1, 1962 All parties were represented at and
participated in the hearing, and were granted an opportunity to present evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral argument, and to file briefs.
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the stipulations of the parties, and
from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged at Lowell, Massachusetts,
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of macaroni, spaghetti, noodles, and
related products. Annually, it receives materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside Massachusetts and ships products valued in excess of $50,000
to points directly outside the Commonwealth. I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 2, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), and Employees' Committee of Prince Macaroni
Manufacturing Co. of Lowell, Massachusetts (herein called the Committee), are
labor organizations as defined by Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Many of the factual issues were sharply disputed and vigorously contested. In
those instances where conflicts arose in the testimony, I have, in this section III,
generally narrated only the credited evidence without discussing in detail why
particular evidence was credited. In a few instances, nevertheless, I have set forth
much of or all the evidence on an issue and briefly stated why I accepted that part
which was credited. In resolving matters of credibility, however, in some instances
I have accepted part and rejected part of the testimony of a witness where required
by my conclusions as to credibility.
A. The alleged Section 8(a) (1) violations
At sometime in 1961, the Union started to organize Respondent's employees. By
the beginning of April, many of Respondent's supervisors and officials, including its
president, Joseph Pellegrino, knew of such activity.
1. Interrogation of employees
On or about April 10, employees Esther Hibbard and Frances Ham engaged in a
conversation with Angela Dirubbo, their supervisor. During the course of it
Hibbard learned from Ham that President Pellegrino would resign if a union organ-
ized the plant. Hibbard remarked that there was a lot of fear in the plant and that
it was not fair to close the plant if a union came in. Shortly thereafter Dirubbo
I All events mentioned herein transpired in 1961 unless otherwise mentioned.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made a telephone call; and, when she had finished, she requested Hibbard to see
Pellegrino. Hibbard met Pellegrino in the plant manager's office; the latter also was
present.
While the plant manager was there, Pellegrino asked Hibbard what her problems
were. Hibbard replied that she and the employees felt insecure because they were
not assigned definitely to a particular job. Pellegrino promised to look into this.
Hibbard then asked Pellegrino to confirm or deny two rumors she had heard from
employees (1) whether Pellegrino would leave as president if the Union came in,
and (2) whether the plant would close the week of July 4 for the construction
of a new roof. Pellegrino denied both stories. A few moments later he asked
the plant manager to leave. Pellegrino then asked Hibbard in confidence to disclose
to him the names of,the employees who told her this. Although Pellegrino persisted
in this questioning, Hibbard declined to give this information. Pellegrino also
asked Hibbard how she felt about a union, and she replied that she was for it. I
find that the interrogation of Hibbard after the plant manager left exceeded permis-
sible limits and was coercive in nature, and therefore transgresses Section 8 (a)( I).
A day or two later, Irving Appel, a director of Respondent and general manager
of its subsidiary, Cleghorn Folding Box Co., came to Hibbard's workbench. With
Supervisor Dirubbo's permission, Appel invited Hibbard to the coffeeshop. There
he asked her, among other things, how she felt about the Union, and she replied that
she was for it. Thereupon he stated there were good and bad unions and offered to
take Hibbard and her husband to Florida to "prove the new cars the unions run
around in." In my opinion, this questioning of Hibbard, when viewed in the context
of Pellegrino's questioning of her, constitutes coercive interrogation, and I so find.
When employee Ernest Brunelle was hired on August 1, Supervisor Desilets said
to him in a joking way, "I hope you are not going to try to start a union." Brunelle
took this laughing as a joke. Desilets also, as part of his duties, (1) asked Brunelle if
the latter had a police record, and (2) informed Brunelle of the existence and
functions of the Committee. I find that none of these remarks of Desilets was
coercive; hence they cannot serve as a basis for finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1).
2. Surveillance
About May 31, Hibbard met with representatives of the Union at a diner during
her lunch hour. Upon returning, she talked to employees about the Union, and,
upon ascertaining that they were interested, she arranged to have them meet with
the Union at the diner. On or about June 21, Hibbard, accompanied by 12 to 15
employees, went to the diner during their lunch hour and met with union representa-
tives. When they returned Hibbard noticed that Respondent's personnel director,
Catherine Monson, was standing on the front lawn near the entrance to the plant,
and that Foreman Desilets was standing near the timeclocks where the employees
punched in. Other employees, engaged in clerical work in offices in the immediate
area, were able to observe Hibbard or anyone else punching the timeclock merely
by directing their eyes in that direction.
Monson explained her presence by stating that she was looking for lost keys, and
Desilets stated that he usually checked timecards to know how to plan the afternoon's
work, for some employees did not always return after lunch. I find these explana-
tions satisfactory. Even disregarding these reasons as given, I find that the General
Counsel's evidence is insufficient to establish surveillance. If Respondent wanted
to engaged in surveillance, it could have been accomplished readily without detection
by asking any of the clerks to report to it. Hence I do not find that paragraph
12(b) of the complaint has been sustained.
3. Impression of surveillance
On or about June 26, Personnel Director Monson spoke to Hibbard about certain
matters relating to July 4 holiday pay which are described elsewhere in this report.
In pertinent part, Hibbard asked Monson if the former had been called to Monson's
office "because of the union." Monson replied that "we know there were 12 girls
over at the diner and that you are to have a union meeting in Lowell at 8 o'clock
Tuesday night." Monson also asked Hibbard who among the girls was for the Union.
Although Hibbard refused to name them, Monson repeated the question without
success. Monson then told Hibbard that the latter would get into a lot of trouble
and would not benefit by it.
In this setting, i.e., seeking to obtain the identity of those favorable to the Union,
I am persuaded, and so find, that Monson gave the impression that Respondent had
the Union's meetings with employees under close watch. Hence I find paragraph
12(c) of the complaint established. I also find that this questioning amounted to
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 985
unlawful interrogation, although it was not pleaded as a violation. Since Respond-
ent did not object to this evidence or claim surprise, and the issue was fully litigated,
I conclude that the failure to plead this specific act of interrogation is not fatal.
New England Web, Inc., National Webbing, Inc., Tri-Dye Corporation, The Conrad
Manufacturing Company, Jarvis Manufacturing Corporation, 135 NLRB 1019.
4. Threats of discharge for union or concerted activities
As set forth more fully, infra, section III, C, Pellegrino spoke to the assembled
employees in June. During his talk he stated, among other things, that it was wrong
for an employee to serve two gods by acting for the Union while at the same time
serving as representative of the Committee, and that he could fire such person but
would not. I find that this constituted a threat to discharge Hibbard for engaging
in union or concered activity and that employees were put on notice that their jobs
were jeopardized if they performed similar roles. In my opinion it is no defense
that Pellegrino added that he would not fire such person, for the coercive effect that
he could do so was not removed thereby.
B. Domination, interference, and support of the Committee
The Committee has existed as -a labor organization at Respondent's plant since
1941. It was admitted by the Charging Party that the formation of the Committee
was perfectly lawful. Nor did the General Counsel contend otherwise. It was
spawned as a result of a strike in about June 1941. Pellegrino at that time suggested
to the strikers that they appoint a group to represent them in discussing the situation
with him. A body was so formed and, after talking over with Pellegrino the griev-
ances prompting the walkout, a written agreement was executed embodying the
mutual adjustment thereof by that body and Pellegrino. Although that group was
organized solely to settle the strike, it has continued to function as the Committee.
This continuance started immediately after the above-written agreement was signed
when the members of that body suggested to Pellegrino that they would like to
speak to him whenever "they had anything to take up with him," and he consented
thereto. It was thereupon given its present name and has existed ever since in the
plant.
It is composed of about nine employee members, called representatives, who are
elected .by the employees in the following manner. Each department elects one or
more representatives, as committee members. Such elections are held about every
6 months. Voting takes place during working hours on payday; with his paycheck
each employee simultaneously receives 'a ballot, made up and prepared by Respond-
ent, from the foreman of his department. Employees then deposit the completed
ballots in ballot boxes placed on the worktables in each department by the foreman.
The foreman is in charge of these boxes and they are fabricated at Respondent's
expense. The boxes then are sealed by the foreman and brought by each foreman
to Monson; the latter directs some part-time clerical help, who are not in the unit
and who do not participate in the election, to count the ballots. No observers are
present during the count. Results of the elections are then posted on the bulletin
board in each department by the plant manager's designee and at Respondent's ex-
pense. It is the plant manager's responsibility to cause ballots to be prepared, cir-
culated, and counted, and to have results posted. No employee loses pay for the
time taken during working hours to vote. By agreement between the Committee
and Respondent made recently (1) no committee member may serve more than a
year, and (2) within the last year, the membership of the Committee has been
increased.
The Committee has no officers, no treasury, and no bylaws, and does not impose
dues or initiation fees. Its so-called meetings are held monthly on Respondent's
property but only with supervisors, Monson, and Meicke present. Actually these
are joint meetings with management to discuss working conditions. No meetings
of the Committee alone have been held.
The Committee's functions are divided into two stages. In the first stage employees
convey their grievances, complaints, suggestions, ideas, or requests to a representa-
tive. It is not clear in the record how the representative transmits this information
to the members of the Committee; but the Committee as such does not meet to discuss
the same. At a later stage, the Committee meets with the plant manager, during
working hours, in Respondent's conference or meeting room to discuss these and
other matters with him. At these meetings Respondent's personnel manager, Kath-
erine Monson, also is present. Committee members lose no pay for time spent at
the latter stage meetings . If matters taken up at these meetings come to an "impasse"
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with respect to some matters not otherwise identified in the record, they are resolved
on behalf of Respondent by Joseph Pellegrino, its president.
Minutes of later stage discussions are made by Personnel Director Monson. These
,are later typed at Respondent's sole expense and posted on Respondent's bulletin
boards. It is the plant manager's duty to see that this ,is done, but he has delegated
this function to Personnel Director Monson. Monson testified that the Committee
negotiated wage increases. Nevertheless Respondent has not executed a collective-
bargaining contract with the Committee since 1941; wage rates are contained in a
booklet given,by Respondent to the employees, which also contains the plant rules.
These plant rules were negotiated by Respondent and the Committee. Notice of
forthcoming meetings is given to members of the Committee by the foremen of
each representative. Respondent's plant manager presides at meetings; either he
or the personnel director often bring up subjects to be discussed. At one meeting,
the plant manager stated that Pellegrino wanted three representatives instead of
one on the second floor and the Committee orally voted for it. Neither the plant
manager nor the personnel director have any voting power at these meetings.
The Committee also acts as an appellate body to review actual or recommended
discharges of employees. However, in such instances the recommendation of the
Committee is advisory only and need not be followed by Respondent.
Concluding Findings as to the Committee
Manifestly the Committee functions only because of the assistance given to it
by Respondent. This assistance, however, consists solely in Respondent's conduct-
ing, at its own expense, the election of members of the Committee. Such assistance
also interferes with the administration of the Committee. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent has unlawfully assisted, contributed to the support of, and interfered
with the administration of the Committee, contrary to the provisions of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act, only in these respects.
I do not find that Respondent attended, or participated in, or supervised, or pre-
sided over, or dictated to, the Committee in meetings of the Commitee. The
meetings which Respondent attended, as the record shows, were joint sessions of
Respondent and the Committee. No meetings of the Committee as such were
ever held, as far as the evidence reveals. Nor do I find Respondent's preparation,
'distribution, and posting of the minutes of these joint sessions to be unlawful, since I
,am of the opinion that an employer may inform his employees of what transpires
at conferences he holds with employee representatives. Accordingly, I find that
subparagraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), 'and (f) of paragraph 11 of the complaint have
not been established.
Nor am I able to find that Respondent has dominated the administration of the
Committee. While it is true that some of the indicia of domination are present,
there is lacking evidence of that degree of control over the Committee which is
essential to a finding rendering it a creature of or subservient to Respondent. While
the issue is close, I find no domination, even though it is manifest that the Committee
is "an inherently weak bargaining representative, and a feeble instrument for
conducting bitter economic warfare, as contrasted with a union affiliated with a
strong national labor organization " ('Magruder, C.1., concurring in Coppus Engi-
neering Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 240 F. 2d 564, 573 (C.A. 1).)
C. The discharge of Esther Hibbard
As noted above, Hibbard was interrogated by Pellegrino and Appel early in
April. At that time each learned that Hibbard was interested in the Union and was
a vigorous protagonist for it. Indeed, no other employee actively pushed for the
Union. Shortly after this meeting with Hibbard, Pellegrino spoke to the employees
in the girls' locker room during their lunch hour, and assured the girls, among
other things, that he did not intend to resign if a union came in, and that the plant
would not close for a new roof during the July 4 week. However, he did say that
although the employees could have a union if they wanted one, he would bow out
if he did not like the way it was run. He also mentioned that his health was ruined
by a strike which a union called at a New York plant where he was an officer.
On or about June 22, some of the girls on her floor asked Hibbard, who at that
time was an elected representative to the Committee, to ascertain when they could
go on vacation. Hibbard then spoke to Supervisor Dirubbo about this. Dirubbo,
however, directed Hibbard to see Plant Manager Giannini, who told Hibbard
that employees could select any period for their vacations provided it was agreeable
to their supervisor. On the next day, some employees who desired to take their
vacations during the week which included July 4 asked Hibbard whether they would
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 987
be paid for the July 4 holiday. Hibbard on the same day propounded this question,
on behalf of these employees , to Monson . The latter was unable to give an answer
immediately , but invited Hibbard to return later in the day, when Monson expected
to have an answer. Hibbard conveyed this information to the employees. When
Hibbard did call on Monson later in the day, the latter replied that she would have
the answer the following day.
Either on the next day or on June 26-the exact date is unimportant-Monson
spoke to Hibbard and accused the latter of telling employees that they would not
be paid for July 4 if it fell during their vacation week. Hibbard denied making this
statement . I find that she did utter it at least to one employee , Frances Ham.
Monson also insisted that Hibbard should not "put too much lace on it" in speaking
to the employees.
During the third week in June, but after the discussion with Hibbard, Pellegrino
again spoke to the assembled employees . Among other things , Pellegrino assured
the employees that those of them who would be on vacation on July 4 would be
paid for that day. He also remarked that one of the employees was serving two
gods by acting for the Union while at the same time serving as a representative of
the Committee . Pellegrino stated that this dual role was wrong and that he could
fire the person engaged in it, that he would not do it, but that he would talk to such
person to explain matters Although he did not mention the name of this person, I
find that Pellegrino had Hibbard in mind , that he intended to convey the impression
to employees that he was referring to Hibbard , and that many of those present
believed he meant Hibbard to be the employee he was criticizing . At this meeting
Pellegrino also mentioned that the employees could have a union or not as far
as he was concerned ; that no good can come out of unions ; and that if there was
any good he could do without having a union , the employees should talk to him and
he would see what he could do about it.
About the middle of July, Hibbard , accompanied by employee Ham, had a talk
with President Pellegrino . Prior to this meeting , Vice President Meicke spoke
to Pellegrino by long-distance telephone , when the latter was out of town, informing
the latter that rumors in the plant connected Hibbard with statements to some workers
that they would not be paid for the July 4 holiday if they were on vacation, and
discussed the possibility of discharging her. On another occasion , prior to the
long-distance call, Meicke had told Pellegrino that Hibbard had told some employees
not to work so hard but to slow down . These statements of Meicke 's were repeated
to Hibbard by Pellegrino at this middle of July conversation he had with Hibbard,
but at no time did Pellegrino mention or even hint that a possibility of discharge or
other disciplinary action existed. Hibbard mentioned that the Union could stop
Respondent 's deliveries , that the Union had been unfair to her, that it had hit
below the belt by stating that she was a paid organizer when she did not receive
any such pay , and that she was fed up with the Union . Pellegrino replied that he
had heard a rumor that Hibbard was a paid organizer . They also discussed a strike
which Pellegrino had on his hands in New York and how it affected his health.
Finally, in order to allay her fears of insecurity , Pellegrino offered Hibbard a steady
job but did not state its nature . Hibbard did not reply to this but some days later
she was transferred to another job which she liked better.
On or about September 7, Supervisor Dirubbo told Hibbard that Personnel
Director Monson was concerned that some girls were not doing their work and
others were coming in late, and that, as a result , Monson directed Dirubbo to
request Hibbard to watch these girls . The reason for this request was to inform
Hibbard, as a representative of these employees, of their unsatisfactory performance
when these employees were brought before the Committee "to be fired ." Among
others, Dirubbo specifically mentioned two employees whose work had been un-
satisfactory , Morin and Yandow , and that Dirubbo had talked to Morin and Yandow
about their unsatisfactory performances . (In fact Morin had previously received a
written warning from Monson that her work was cause for concern and possible
dismissal .) Hibbard replied that such overseeing was a function of management, but
that she would talk to Morin and Yandow to get them to improve.
Later that day employee Morin asked Hibbard to intercede on her behalf by
requesting Supervisor Dirubbo to transfer Morin from the box machine. Morin
had on prior occasions expressed her distaste for the job to Dirubbo, because Morin
"did not like the idea of rushing around and keeping up with the machines." When
Hibbard passed on this request to Dirubbo , the latter replied that this would be
accomplished as soon as a new boy was hired to do this work . In transmitting this
information to Morin , Hibbard also remarked to Morin that, if the work was too
hard , Morin should not kill herself , and that Morin should take her time, but
should also do her work "right ." Employee Yandow was present during this
conversation.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sometime during the same day Hibbard spoke to employee Yandow, telling her
to do her work because Supervisor Dirubbo would be watching. Yandow resented
this and commented that Hibbard was not the boss. The two had lunch together
that day, at which time Hibbard admonished Yandow that the latter was "goofing off"
and not doing her work. Hibbard also reminded Yandow that it was cheaper
for Respondent to fire girls making top pay for "girls who are not working," and
that girls coming in late or not doing their work were jeopardizing their jobs.
During the evening of September 11 Hibbard telephoned Yandow and inquired
of the latter whether she had reported to Personnel Director Monson that Hibbard
had told Yandow that the latter would be fired. When Yandow replied that she had,
Hibbard told her that it was not true that Hibbard had said that Yandow would be
discharged. I find that Hibbard did not tell Yandow that the latter would be
discharged.
Personnel Director Monson learned of the talk between Morin and Hibbard
from Supervisor Dirubbo. Monson then summoned Morin to the former's office.
Among other things, Monson stated that Morin was not doing her work well, to
which Morin replied that she did not like her job. Monson then assured Morin
that the latter would be transferred as soon as a boy was hired. Monson also said
that Hibbard was overheard telling Morin not to work hard so that Morin would
be taken off boxes. Following some more discussion, during which Morin was
very reluctant to talk about Hibbard, Monson coaxed Morin to sign the following
statement prepared by Monson in Monson's handwriting:
Sept 11, 1961 Did Esther Hibbard make this statement-that you should
take your time making boxes-so that you would be taken off as box maker?
Yes-Glenna Morin. [The words "Glenna Morin" are in Morin's hand-
writing.]
It was witnessed by Janet Cacula.
Sometime on September 11, Supervisor Dirubbo told Yandow that Personnel Direc-
tor Monson wanted to see Yandow in Monson's office. After a conversation lasting
about 11/2 to 2 hours, Monson prepared a statement in her handwriting and asked
Yandow to sign it. Without being made aware of the purpose of the state-
ment, Yandow would not sign it until she was assured there would be "no trouble."
Dirubbo was present when Yandow signed the statement. Later Meicke came into
the room and Monson asked Yandow to repeat the story to him after Yandow signed
the statement. It read as follows:
Friday, Sept.-8-1961 Esther Hibbard told me that if I said anything about
being dissatisfied,-or because the supervisor spoke to me-I would be turned
in and fired. She said that during this time we let people go so that we may
hire in others at a lower rate. That is how Prince gets their cheap labor. She
also said that even though I had left a message for Kay that the Supervisor
would not deliver the message. Signed-Judith Yandow [The words "Judith
Yandow" are in Yandow's handwriting.]
This was witnessed by Angie Dirubbo.
Neither Morin nor Yandow was told by Monson at the time or later why such
statements had been solicited from them by Monson.
On September 12, Hibbard was instructed by Dirubbo to go to a meeting in the
conference room but was not told why she was wanted there. The two then went
together to Respondent's conference room. After pausing outside in the waiting
room for awhile at the request of Monson, Hibbard then was asked by Monson to
enter the conference room. Before going in, Monson told Hibbard that a special
meeting was being held but not its purpose. However, Monson did ask Hibbard
for an explanation of the conversations the latter had with Yandow and Morin.
Hibbard gave her version of these talks. Monson and Hibbard then entered the
conference room.
Within the room, besides Monson and Hibbard, the members of the Committee
and Vice President Meicke were assembled. Either Meicke or Monson read off
charges, which had not been previously mentioned orally or given in writing to
Hibbard, accusing Hibbard of violating article 15 of the plant rules? One charge
2 There is testimony that these rules were adopted by Respondent at some time in the
past with the approval of the Committee. Article 15 thereof provides that "Threatening,
intimidating, coercing, or interfering with fellow employees or supervision on the premises
at any time" is punishable by "Subject to review of facts," and "subject to review of
facts" "requires meeting of Employees' Committee and supervisor in presence of employee
involved. This meeting must be held within 24 hours following infraction of rules. The
penalty may range from reprimand to discharge."
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 989
related to Hibbard's conversation with Yandow on September 11 and another in-
volved Hibbard's slowdown suggestion to Morin. None of the charges accused
Hibbard of spreading false stories about July 4 holiday pay, of threatening Morin
with discharge, or of anything other than the above subjects. After the charges
were read, Hibbard was asked if she had anything to say and she spoke briefly in
her defense, giving her version of her talks with Yandow and Morin.
After Hibbard spoke, Supervisor Dirubbo entered the room with Yandow and
Morin, whom she had ordered to accompany her to the meeting. Dirubbo did not
explain to them why they were being called to the meeting. Monson asked Yandow
if the contents of the latter's written statement were true and Yandow replied affirm-
atively. None of the committee members examined or cross-examined Yandow.
After Yandow so testified, Monson asked Morin if the latter's written statement was
true, and Morin reaffirmed it. No questions were asked of Morin by any of the
committee members. Then Meicke spoke, asserting that Hibbard painted a black
picture of Respondent and that she was a bad wolf telling stories as she did. One
committee member asked Meicke if Hibbard was being tried for union activity,
and he answered "No." Yandow, Morin, Dirubbo, and Hibbard were then asked
to leave the room. Thereupon Meicke recommended that Hibbard be discharged,
and the Committee orally -agreed. Then the vote of the Committee was reduced to
a typed document which Monson had typed by an office clercial, was signed by each
committee member, and witnessed by Monson, Meicke, and Giannini. This docu-
ment was suggested by a committee member in case Hibbard protested her discharge
to the National Labor Relations Board.
Hibbard remained outside the room during the deliberations. In about 10 minutes
Monson asked her to return inside. This was about 2:30 p.m. Meicke then informed
Hibbard that she was discharged and gave her an option to leave then or to finish
the day working. Although Hibbard elected to go then, Meicke handed her two
checks, which had been already executed, reimbursing Hibbard for wages to the
end of the day. In voting to approve the discharge, committee members were in
part influenced by Monson's statement to them, during their brief deliberations, that
(1) Hibbard had received a few previous warnings, and (2) "there was no other
way out" than discharge to discipline Hibbard. No description of the other warn-
ings was offered by Monson. At one time during the deliberations, Employee
Representative Duggan suggested that Hibbard's discipline consist solely of the latter's
removal from the Committee, but both Meicke and Monson rejected this result
with the comment that ",the damage had already been done."
According to Supervisor Dirubbo's testimony, Hibbard was "discharged first [by
management]; then, after that, the Committee met." Dirubbo testified that Monson
informed her of this fact. Dirubbo also spoke against Hibbard at the meeting of
September 12 but she was not asked any questions by committee members. At
the hearing before me, Dirubbo testified that Hibbard was discharged by manage-
ment for being a troublemaker and gave several examples of what Dirubbo con-
sidered to be "trouble." However, neither Dirubbo nor anyone else mentioned
these "troubles" at the committee meeting of September 12. Some of these examples,
given for the first time at the hearing as grounds for discharge, such as (a) the one
when Hibbard protested the speedup of the work as a representative of the em-
ployees, and (b) the alleged attempt of Hibbard to have employees go home on
an unusually hot day, sound like activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Dirub-
bo also testified that she sometimes discussed Hibbard's activities with Meicke, and
that Dirubbo had complained to both Monson and Meicke that Hibbard caused
"confusion among the employees and gave [Dirubbo] trouble with the girls." Some
of this "trouble" as testified to by Dirubbo, involved complaints about working
conditions.
According to Monson's testimony, management discharged Hibbard and then
only for the latter's talks to Morin and Yandow. However, in reporting the minutes
of the September 12 meeting, Monson posted on the bulletin board not only the
above conversations, but also a statement that Hibbard told Morin that Morin would
be fired. And in a letter to the Regional Office of the Board, Monson replied to
the charges herein, stating among other things that (1) the Committee recommend
"termination of" Hibbard, (2) the Committee's recommendation in part was based
on evidence that Hibbard was "mishandling ... Representative functions," and (3)
"management, as the enforcing officers, carried out the wishes of the Employees'
Committee."
Meicke testified that he decided to discharge Hibbard immediately after learning
of the Yandow and Morin statements, which was prior to the meeting of September
12, and without ascertaining Hibbard's version thereof, that the Committee could
not do any more than approve or disapprove his determination , and that he could
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disregard the Committee's disapproval if such was the case. However, Hibbard's
personnel record kept by Respondent discloses that Hibbard was "Terminated by
unanimous decision of the Committee under Article 15 of the Plant Rules." No
other notation appears on that record indicating prior dissatisfaction with Hibbard's
conduct or that she had been warned for misconduct or unsatisfactory deportment.
Foreman Desilets testified that prior to September 11 Personnel Director Monson
and Plant Manager Giannini had told him that Hibbard was the most active girl
in the plant for the Union, and that Monson or Vice President Meicke had informed
him that some employees were meeting with union representatives during their lunch
hour. Desilets also testified that long before September 11 he had discussed Hibbard
with his superiors and had recommended that she be discharged. But he did not
warn her at any time that her conduct warranted imposition of disciplinary measures.
Over objection, Respondent introduced in evidence a "Decision on Eligibility
for Benefits" of Review Examiner Mitchel T. Hickey of the Division of Employment
Security of the Commonweath of Massachusetts. Further reflection convinces
me that this evidence is admissible even though Hickey's decision has been appealed.
Cadillac Marine & Boat Company, 115 NLRB 107, 108; Mitchell Plastics, Inc.,
117 NLRB 597, 598. Hickey found that Hibbard was discharged for misconduct,
but apparently only the Morin and Yandow incidents are described in his very brief
"Decision." Accordingly, Hickey denied unemployment compensation to Hibbard.3
Concluding Findings as to Hibbard's Discharge
Although Respondent contends that Hibbard was discharged for violation of plant
rule No. 15, I find that she was terminated because she was a vigorous advocate of
the Union and a zealous protector of employee working conditions. It is likely
that, in advancing the cause of unionism and in espousing employee benefits, Hibbard's
outspoken manner antagonized some employees and supervisors; but I do not find
that such irritations, if they existed, were the efficient cause for her discharge. In
fact, although both Supervisors Dirubbo and Desilets disliked Hibbard for a long
time prior to September 11, probably because she irritated them by her attempts to
improve working conditions, and recommended her discharge, they did not either
warn Hibbard or note any irregularities of conduct on her personnel record. And
although Hibbard must have caused substantial consternation among some em-
ployees and supervisor with her remarks about the July 4 holiday pay, so that a
meeting of employees was called and addressed by Pellegrino to counteract Hibbard's
action in this respect, Hibbard was neither threatened with disciplinary action if
she did not mend her ways nor discharged for this reason then or at any other time
On the other hand, cogent evidence leads to the conclusion, and I find, that
Hibbard's statements to Morin and Yandow were seized upon as pretexts to release
her and that the real reason for her loss of employment was her union and other
protected activity. In this connection, I have, among other things, relied upon the
following evidence:
1. Dirubbo's distaste for Hibbard which developed as a result of Hibbards perhaps
robust efforts to obtain better working conditions. These efforts are recited above
in the summary of Dirubbo's testimony.
2. Desilets' dislike of Hibbard's efforts to obtain better working conditions, which
dislike culminated in his recommending that she be discharged. Notwithstanding
that this recommendation had been outstanding for several weeks, action was taken
on it precipitately on September 12
3. Hibbard's conduct was of sufficient magnitude or importance to be of concern
to top management. Thus, not only was a meeting of employees called regarding
the July 4 holiday pay, but in addition, (1) another meeting of employees was
called and addressed by Pellegrino to neutralize Hibbard's organizing activities (the
evidence shows that only Hibbard actively solicited on behalf of the Union), (2) Vice
President Meicke discussed Hibbard on at least one long-distance call with Pellegrino
when the latter was out of town, (3) Respondent's top management echelon and
supervisors discussed Hibbard and the union activity at the plant, and (4) Appel
spoke to Hibbard about the latter's union sentiment.
8 On March 28, 1962, the General Counsel filed a "Motion to request that Trial
Examiner take official notice of further evidence ," to which was appended a decision
dated March 23, 1962, of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . This latter decision , apparently an appeal from
Hickey's determination , grants Hibbard unemployment compensation benefits and is
subject to appeal to a higher forum Hibbard has joined in the motion The motion
is denied.
PRINCE MACARONI MANUFACTURING CO. 991
4. Morin did not complain to Respondent about Hibbard's statements to her.
Hence I do not find that she was upset by Hibbard's talk to her . It was only after
Respondent had called Morin about another matter not involving Hibbard and there-
after had extracted the "don't kill yourself" information from Morin that Respond-
ent elicited a written , and reluctant , statement from Morin . Even then Respondent
did not suggest to Morin why such statement was sought . This was not a complaint
by Morin against Hibbard, and I so find.
5. Nor did Yandow initially complain about Hibbard. Yandow was merely
interested , according to her testimony , in ascertaining from Monson whether she
would be fired or not. Yet before Yandow left Monson's office, Yandow had been
induced ( a) to lodge a written complaint against Hibbard, and even then only
reluctantly ( after she remonstrated that she wanted no trouble ), and (b ) to disclose
that Hibbard made a statement to Morin which Respondent quickly construed to
warrant an immediate discharge . Again, as in Morin's case , Respondent did not reveal
that Yandow's written complaint was being solicited to effect Hibbard's discharge.
6. Hibbard was not an officious intermeddler in speaking either to Morin or
Yandow. Hibbard as a commitee representative was first asked by Respondent to
observe Morin's work which the undisputed evidence reveals to be unsatisfactory
because Dirubbo expected to recommend Morin's discharge. Hibbard was also
asked by Morin to speak to Dirubbo about a transfer. There is no doubt that
Hibbard caned this request to Dirubbo and that Dirubbo told Hibbard that Morin
would be given another job as soon as a boy could be hired, and that Hibbard
conveyed this message to Moran. But Hibbard also told Morin not to kill herself.
This is not, in my opinion , an alarming statement . It does not suggest sabotage, slow-
down, insubordination, or an intentional refusal to perform work, especially since
it was accompanied by a caution to do the work right.
Similarly, Hibbard spoke to Yandow only because Dirubbo requested Hibbard to
watch Yandow's work which undenied evidence shows was quite unsatisfactory.
I find that Hibbard did no more than tell Yandow about this statement of Dirubbo's;
I do not find that Hibbard cold Yandow that the latter was going to be fired (although
Yandow may have so inferred from Dirubbo's conversation with Hibbard which
Hibbard brought to Yandow), or that she falsely represented to Yandow the
Company's policy in hiring and firing.
7. Meicke, Respondent's vice president, summarily decided to fire Hibbard, with-
out hearing Hibbard's side of the case, immediately upon the close of his talk with
Yandow. Thus Meicke had made up his mind to get rid of Hibbard without obtaining
Hibbard's explanation, and without regard to what recommendation the Committee
would make the next day.
8. Inconsistencies are discernible in connection with Respondent 's reasons advanced
for the discharge. Dirubbo thought that Hibbard was fired for all past misconduct,
some of which was not even mentioned at the September 12 meeting and which is
labeled as "background evidence" in Respondent 's brief. Monson claims that
the Committee recommended the discharge and that Respondent carried out the
"wishes" of the Committee . Meicke insists that he decided to fire Hibbard irrespec-
tive of what the Committee wished on September 12. Then again Monson stated
in the minutes of the September 12 meeting that Hibbard told Morin that Morin
would be discharged , but this did not appear in Morin's written statement on which
Hibbard was tried before the Committee . Nor was it used as basis for defending
against Hibbard's claim for unemployment compensation . Finally, Monson's letter
to the National Labor Relations Board refers to Hibbard 's "creating an emotional
problem among fellow workers which affected their work " and "causing dissension
among employees by misstatement of facts and mishandling of Representative func-
tions," although neither ground was alluded to at the September 12 meeting of the
Committee.
9 Dirubbo testified that Hibbard's work performance was good. On the other
hand, Dirubbo considered Morin and Yandow as unsatisfactory workers-in fact,
so much so that Dirubbo requested Hibbard, as a committee representative, to observe
their performance because Dirubbo had contemplated recommending their discharge.
Yet no disciplinary measures were taken against Yandow or Morin. In fact, Morin's
work habits had prompted Monson to notify her in writing that "This is your
second warning . . . Third offense will mean dismissal ." It may be that no
action was taken against Morin or Yandow because Respondent succeeded in extract-
ing from them written charges which it used against Hibbard.
10. Finally, Hibbard was discharged without even being given a chance to explain
her case to Meicke ( who made the decision to let her go ) or to prepare for a trial
before the Committee , the holding and nature of which trial was withheld from her
until the very moment that the trial opened.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of these findings, it has become unnecessary to comment on or analyze
evidence relating to whether Respondent adhered to or departed from its usual
practices in connection with the hearing on September 12, whether legal cause
existed for the discharge, or the effect of the notation on Hibbard's payroll card
that she received a "general increase" in pay on July 3, 1961. Nor have I overlooked
the decision of the Massachusetts Division of Employment Security. Absent evidence
showing the basis for the findings of the Division, I am constrained to place little
reliance on such findings. In any event, it does not conform to my evaluation of the
evidence herein, and I refuse to follow it. Nevertheless, it is significant that the
Division does not refer, as a ground for Respondent's defense, to Hibbard's alleged
statement to Morin that Morin would be discharged, as posted on the bulletin board
by Monson and which Monson claimed in her letter to the Board was one of the
reasons for Hibbard's discharge.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent as set forth 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
prohibited by Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the finding that
Respondent discriminated with respect to the tenure of Hibbard's employment, the
recommended order herein will require Respondent to offer immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or one substantially equivalent thereto, and to
make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned
as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of reinstatement or a
proper offer of reinstatement, as the case may be, less her net earnings during such
period; the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It will also be recom-
mended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, or its
agents, upon request, all pertinent records and data necessary to assist in an analysis
and computation of the amount of backpay due.
Since Respondent's discharge of Hibbard goes "to the very heart of the Act"
(N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4) ), and this, together with
Respondent's other unlawful activities, seriously impedes and hinders the self-
organization of its employees, the remedy herein should be commensurate with the
legislative objectives enacted in Section 7 of the Act. It follows that an order
designed to assure Respondent's employees of their rights as guaranteed in said
Section 7 is warranted.
In his brief counsel of the General Counsel urges with great ability that interest
be added to the principal of any backpay awarded, but refers to no authorities,
statutory or adjudicative, investing a Trial Examiner with the power to grant the
same. Nor have I been able to discover pertinent precedent or practice enabling me
to include interest. Cf. Indianapolis Wire-Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland
Veneer Company, 89 NLRB 617, 624 Note 26; Sifers Candy Co., 92 NLRB 1220,
1222. Accordingly, this request for the award of interest is denied.
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 Union and the Committee are labor organizations within the meaning of
Sections 2(5) and 8(a) of the Act.
2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and 8(a) of
the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Hibbard, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices as defined in Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union sympathies,
activities, and desires, and as to who authored complaints; by giving the impression
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ETC. 993
of surveillance to one of its employees ; and by threatening employees with discharge
if they engage in union or concerted activities , Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
5. By assisting , contributing to the support of, and interfering with the adminis-
tration of the Committee , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
and Local 639 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO and Bendix Radio Division of The Bendix
Corporation
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO;
and Local 639, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO and Ets-Hokin & Galvan , Inc. Cases Nos. 21-CC-
467 and 21-CC-467-2. September 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 1962, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the ex-
ceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
'Member Fanning notes that the instant dispute was the subject of a 10(k) hearing in
Cases Nos 21-'CD-106-1 and 21-CD-106-2, and that he concluded that no jurisdictional
dispute, within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (D ) and 10 ( k), was involved . Sec 138
NLRB 716 For this reason, the views set forth in his dissenting opinion in d: thur
Venners Company , 137 NLRB 828 , do not ' come into play. Member Fanning adopt . the
findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner , except Insofar as the
Trial Examiner found that an object of Respondents ' conduct, herein , was to force the
United States Signal Corps to cease doing business with The Bendix Corporation. In his
138 NLRB No. 105.