Rawac Plating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1620 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rawac Plating Company and District Lodge 82, In-
ternational Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO . Case 9-CA-4277
August 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On March 28, 1968 , Trial Examiner Arthur E.
Reyman issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision.
Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and sup-
porting brief , the answering brief, and the entire
record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer , as stated below.'
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner , for the
reasons stated in his Decision , that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively in-
terrogating employees concerning union activities.
2. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging employees
George E . Price , James A. Carpenter , Carl W. Chil-
ders , Geraldine Holmes , Norma Jean Frost, and
Linda Shirk because of their union sympathy or ac-
tivity. Respondent excepts , contending that these
employees were discharged for cause . It argues that
the Trial Examiner improperly resolved credibility
issues and that the record is insufficient to establish
knowledge on Respondent's part of the dis-
criminatees' union adherence . For the reasons
stated below, we find no merit in these conten-
tions.2
Respondent is engaged in the plating of metal
parts for use as components by other companies in
the manufacture of finished products . Although
Respondent normally employs between 25 and 30
people , the rank -and-file work force at the time of
the discharge of the 6 discriminatees consisted of
only about 23 employees. Respondent had a prac-
tice of hiring applicants who either could not obtain
or would have difficulty in obtaining employment
elsewhere . The plant experienced an employee turn-
over rate exceeding 600 percent annually and
generally the level of performance by the work
force was low.
The facts found by the Trial Examiner show that
on Friday , April 28, 1967 , Childers contacted the
IAM and began distributing authorization cards
among Respondent 's employees . Later that day,
Carpenter , at Childers ' request , assisted in the so-
licitation of employee signatures . On the afternoon
of April 28 , Childers obtained signed cards from
Hensley , Frost , Holmes , Shirk , and Price ( all except
Hensley were discharged and are the subject of the
instant 8 ( a)(3) allegations). On Monday, May 1,
General Foreman Scott questioned Carpenter as to
whether he had signed a card , Carpenter replied in
the negative . Either on May I or 2 , employee
Skaggs, upon questioning by management officials,
reported that Childers and Carpenter were the
union leaders . Skaggs also testified that in response
to Supervisor Scott 's inquiry as to how far the or-
ganization drive had gone , he stated that as far as
he knew "[ Childers and Carpenter ] have the
cards." Skaggs further testified that when asked if
he thought everyone would sign in the shop, he
replied that he thought so. Skaggs also testified
that , in the course of this interview , he heard
management officials state that they would get rid
of Childers and Carpenter the next day - that there
were plenty of excuses , i.e., too much scrap, or
being late, or " being anything."
On May 2 , just 2 working days after commence-
ment of the organization drive , Price , upon report-
ing for work , was discharged allegedly because of
his poor attendance record . On May 3 the five
remaining discriminatees were terminated. Childers
was informed that his termination was based on his
overstatement of the number of units produced by
him on May 1, his responsibility for excessive scrap
on May 2 , and his generally poor work history. Car-
penter was told that he was discharged because of
lateness and a consistently poor work record.
Holmes and Frost were told they were being ter-
I Our affirmance of the Trial Examiner entails no reliance on the
testimony of employee Engle concerning his alleged interrogation by Su-
pervisor Scott
r Concerning the exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolu-
tions, it is the Board 's established policy not to overrule such findings un-
less the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
the resolutions of credibility were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for
disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case
172 NLRB No. 180
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1621
minated because of their part in the miscount of
Childers ' production on May 1 and because they, as
well as Shirk , had a practice of taking too long to
return to work after breaks.
Respondent admittedly was aware that an or-
ganization drive among its employees was in effect
prior to the discharges . Although Respondent de-
nied that it had specific knowledge as to the identi-
ty of those involved , the Trial Examiner discredited
these denials , finding on the basis of direct
evidence that Respondent knew of the role of Chil-
ders and Carpenter in the organization effort. Other
factors in our opinion support an inference that
Respondent either knew or suspected that the
others were also sympathetic to unionization, and
that Respondent 's action with respect to the entire
group was designed to suppress the organizational
interests of its employees . Thus , it is noted that
although Respondent experienced an exceptionally
high turnover rate , the various discriminatees had
been employed by Respondent for at least 1 year
prior to the discharges . Moreover , the discharges
not only involved two employees whose earnings
were among the highest hourly rates paid by
Respondent , but consisted of a substantial segment
of the then active work force . Considering these
circumstances in light of the timing of the
discharges in relation to Respondent 's admitted
knowledge of the union campaign generally, and
the reasons assigned by Respondent for the
discharges , which , as set forth below , we find to be
pretexts , we reject as without merit Respondent's
contention that the absence of direct evidence that
it knew of the union activities of Shirk , Holmes,
Price , and Frost requires dismissal of the complaint
as to them.
In affirming the Trial Examiner 's finding that
Respondent 's assigned grounds for the discharges
were pretextual , we rely essentially on the reason-
ing stated in his Decision as supplemented by the
factors mentioned above , but wish also to note that
Childers and Carpenter were terminated shortly
after Respondent , through the coercive interview
with employee Skaggs, acquired specific knowledge
of their leadership role in the union campaign.
Furthermore , while Childers ' miscount of May 1, if
Respondent 's testimony is to be believed,
represented a gross dereliction , Foreman Scott
chose not to discharge him upon his discovery of
that incident , nor did he even report it to Compton,
Respondent 's president , at that time . On the other
hand , Respondent cited Childers ' miscount as the
primary basis for discharging Frost and Holmes.
The emphasis placed upon the miscount in the case
of Holmes and Frost , coupled with the evidence
that Price and Shirk were discharged and did not
quit , when considered with the timing of the
discharges and the factors establishing Respon-
dent 's knowledge of the discriminatees ' union ac-
tivity , are all supportive of the Trial Examiner's
reasoning and conclusion that the discharges were
motivated by antiunion considerations.
Accordingly , we find that the total circumstances
support the inference that Respondent had
knowledge of the union sympathies of the dis-
criminatees and that Respondent discharged them
to thwart the Union 's organizational campaign in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Rawac
Plating Company , Springfield , Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Order, as herein modified.
Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and reletter
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States , of their right to full reinstatement,
upon application , in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act , as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR E . REYMAN, Trial Examiner : On May 19,
1967,' District Lodge 82 , International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein sometimes called the Union or the Charging
Party, filed a charge in which it was asserted that
Rawac Plating Company , herein sometimes called
the Company or the Respondent , "has engaged in
and is engaging in" unfair labor practices affecting
commerce as set forth and defined in the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S . C. Sec.
151, et seq ., herein called the Act . Thereafter, on
July 21 , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, on behalf of the Board , by the Re-
gional Director for Region 9, pursuant to Section
10(b) of the Act and of Section 102 . 15 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as
amended , issued a complaint and notice of hearing,
' Unless otherwise noted , all dates mentioned herein are for the year
1967
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint alleging that by certain acts and
conduct the Respondent "has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices as defined in section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, affecting `commerce'
as defined in section 2(6) of the Act." The Respon-
dent, by counsel, filed timely answer to the com-
plaint. Certain amendments to the complaint
were allowed by appropriate order dated No-
vember 17.
Pursuant to notice, the case came on to be heard
before me at Springfield, Ohio, on October 2, at
which time counsel for the General Counsel, the
representative of the Charging Party, and counsel
for Respondent represented to me that all parties
had agreed to a settlement of the case and at the
request of counsel for the General Counsel the case
was postponed indefinitely, pending the approval of
the proposed settlement by appropriate authority
Subsequently, I having been advised that the
authority of counsel for the Company to settle the
case had been withdrawn and that no settlement
was possible, the hearing was resumed before me
upon appropriate order on December 19. The hear-
ing was closed on December 21. At the hearing all
parties were represented by counsel and2 were af-
forded full opportunity to call, examine, and cross-
examine witnesses, to present evidence relevant to
the issues of the case, to present oral argument, and
to file briefs. Briefs have been filed on behalf of the
General Counsel and the Respondent and have
been carefully considered
Upon the whole record of the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged
in metal plating and finishing services at its plant at
Springfield, Ohio. During the 12 months im-
mediately preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, a representative period, the Respondent in
the course and conduct of its business operation
had an indirect inflow in interstate commerce of
materials, goods, and products valued at in excess
of $50,000 which it purchased and caused to be
shipped to it in Ohio from firms within the State of
Ohio which firms, in turn, purchased said goods
directly from points outside the State of Ohio. Dur-
ing the same period Respondent also had an in-
direct outflow of interstate commerce of materials,
goods, and products valued at in excess of $50,000
which were sold and shipped to firms within the
State of Ohio, each of which, in turn, made sales to
customers outside the State of Ohio valued at in ex-
cess of $50,000 during the same period. Then, and
at all material times, the Respondent is and has
been an "employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of
the Act and is engaged in "commerce" and in
operations " affecting commerce " as defined in Sec-
tion 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all times material herein the Union has been a
labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues
The issues of the case, upon the complaint as
amended at the hearing, the answer, and the
evidence, are these:
1. Whether the Company unlawfully inter-
rogated its employees about the Union and
threatened to discharge them for such activity in
violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
2. Whether four employees were discharged by
the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act because of their union sympathies or activities.
3. Whether two employees were discharged by
the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act and, if discharged, whether such discharges
were because of their union sympathies and activi-
ties.
Employees' Organizing Effort
Carl Childers, first employed by the Company on
June 6, 1966, held various jobs including that of a
plater, a buffing machine operator, and a
truckdriver, and performed other assignments. He
received several increases in his hourly rate of pay
during the term of his employment.
Childers testified to a "vague conversation"
sometime in the summer of 1966 among several
employees of the Company, including Andy Skaggs,
at which time one of the persons present said that
they should have a union; and that George Scott,
the general foreman, said that if Mr. Compton
(owner of the Company) ever got word of it, he
would shut the shop down and fire everybody there.
Subsequently, according to Childers, he went to
"the National Federation of Labor" and inquired
about forming a union and was referred to Clell
Boggs, a business representative of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists. Childers testified
to a conversation he had with Boggs at that time, in
which he told Boggs about conditions in the shop,
the way employees were treated, and asked Boggs if
"he thought a union would help." Boggs testified
that Childers came to his office on Friday, April 28,
told him employees were interested in organizing a
union, and Boggs
' Counsel appearing for the Respondent on October 2 having withdrawn
from the case, other counsel represented the Company at the resumption
of hearing on December 19
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1623
... gave him some authorization cards to take
in and have them signed by the employees and
I explained to him, I explained to him the pit-
falls of organizing. . . . I told him he could
either go about it two ways. One would be to
keep it quiet and attempt to get the cards
signed in that manner, or I could write a letter
to the Company informing the Company that
he was serving as an organizing committee for
the Union, and they would be protected under
the law that way.
He said that Childers replied that he would rather
go about it quietly, whereupon Boggs gave him
some 35 blank union authorization cards, at the
same time instructing him not to attempt to obtain
signatures of employees on company time, but to
do this either before work or after work or during
lunchtime, but in no event to do it on company
time. He said he gave Childers about 35 cards;
Childers thought he was given approximately 30
cards.3
Boggs testified that on the following Thursday,
May 4, Childers, together with employees James
Carpenter and George Price, called on him and
returned 13 signed authorization cards to him. The
13 cards referred to included that of Childers and
other employees and the total of 13 was obtained
between May 4 and 7. He recalled receiving the
authorization cards signed by Childers, Geraldine
Holmes, Linda Shirk, and Norma Jean Frost on
May 4. Carpenter and Price told him that they had
been discharged and he was informed that Norma
Jean Frost and Geraldine Holmes had been
discharged during the times he received their
authorization cards and others between May 4 and
7. At the time these employees talked to him, they
told him they had been discharged; that they had
asked the foreman why they were fired to which he
replied "it's on the [bulletin] board"; and that they
knew of no reason for being fired except for union
activity.
After receiving the blank authorization cards
from Boggs, Childers testified, he gave some of
them to Carpenter to obtain the signatures of
colored employees who, he said, Carpenter knew
better than he did. As for himself, he said that he
first passed out cards to employees at Heankley's
Bar on Main Street, about four blocks from the
plant, where most of the employees he worked with
went to cash their checks on Friday. He said that he
approached some of the people there about signing
cards, that some signed and some did not. Em-
ployees Frost, Hensley, Holmes, and Shirk did sign.
He obtained the signatures of Price on a parking lot
outside of the shop. Linda Shirk testified that she
signed an authorization card at Heankley's in the
presence of Childers, Frost, and employees Good-
man and Ray Hensley. Geraldine Holmes was em-
ployed by the Company on February 17, 1966; she
testified that she signed the card in the parking lot
during a noon hour in the presence of Frost and
Childers and that she gave her signed card to Chil-
ders. Norma Jean Frost, employed by the Company
on April 21, 1966, testified that she signed a union
authorization card on April 28, at the request of
Childers at Heankley's in the presence of Shirk and
Hensley, returning the card to Childers. James Car-
penter was employed in the spring of 1965; he had
an authorization card executed for him by his wife
and after that he, Childers, and Price called at the
union hall and left their cards with Boggs. Price was
discharged on May 2 and Carpenter, Childers,
Holmes, Frost, and Shirk were discharged on May
3. Childers and Carpenter were the most active in
soliciting signatures to authorization cards.
Under date of May 6, Boggs directed a letter to
Compton as president of Rawac Plating Company
in which Boggs advised that a majority of the
production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent "have authorized and designated
Lodge No. 148" of the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative; suggested that if Comp-
ton had any good-faith doubt as to the Union's
majority the Union would immediately submit
proof of its majority to some mutually agreed-upon
impartial third party; and requested that the Com-
pany recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union at a mutually agreeable time. Gianakopou-
los, as general manager, replied to Boggs' letter
under date of May 10 in which he pointed out that
Federal law provides procedures by which an elec-
tion may be held to determine the desires of em-
ployees in regard to union representation, and as-
suring Boggs that "if you should file a petition
requesting such an election, we shall cooperate to
the end that an election may be scheduled as soon
as may be reasonably possible." Thereafter, as
noted, the Union filed its charge on May 19.
Plant Management; Production-Quality Reports
At all times mentioned in the complaint, and dur-
ing the time of the hearing, the managing personnel
of the Respondent's plant consisted of J. Foster
Compton, Jr., the sole owner of the Company and
its president; Aristides Gianakopoulos, general
manager ; and George A. Scott, general foreman.
Each of these three men was an agent and is an
agent acting and authorized to act on the Respon-
dent's behalf. George Faust was employed by the
Respondent in early September 1966 as a super-
visor and technical man. He stated that he had
charge of the "plant part" of the establishment,
that his duties encompassed an overall supervision
and the correction of any operation which was not
being properly performed at any given time. He
said that he was brought in as a technical man at
the time he was because after that time President
' The number of blank authorization cards given to Childers apparently
approximated the number of production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Company at that time . The usual complement of employees
ran from 20 to 30, there being a rather quick turnover in this plant
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Compton would be required to be absent from the
plant at considerable intervals and that Faust would
fill in as technical advisor
Gianakopoulos, as general manager , has the duty
of coordinating the Company's activities with
customers' requests and to ensure that production
employees under the direction of Scott and Faust
fulfill customers' requirements by providing suffi-
cient help and supplies He testified that he and the
two foremen "are jointly responsible for the opera-
tion of Rawac Plating and the day to day produc-
tion."
George Scott testified that he has been employed
by the Respondent for approximately 8 years, the
last 5 in the capacity of general foreman or plant
superintendent, and his main functions are the han-
dling of production and personnel. His testimony
was to the effect that J. Foster Compton, Jr., as
owner, has operated Rawac Plating Company for
approximately 25 years and that Compton, sub-
sequent to early January 1967, while "in contact
with the shop all the time " was not present at the
plant at all times . Scott said that he, Faust, and Gi-
anakopoulos had the authority to run operations or
make shipments or make some decisions as long as
two of the three could agree on any specific
problem or matter concerning production, ship-
ments , or other matters requiring decision. Accord-
ing to him, the complement of production workers
usually numbered about 25 or 30 with a turnover of
at least 100 employees during the course of a year.4
It appears from his testimony, corroborated by that
of other employees, that President Compton had a
policy of employing persons who previously had
run afoul of the law in some respect, and that such
persons might be hired if, for example, the police
would call and inform Compton that they (the po-
lice) were holding someone in jail or that a person
was on parole and if that person had a job he could
"get out of jail." He said that the Company
received letters from a prison farm concerning in-
dividuals stating that if a job was available to such a
man when he came in front of the parole board-
"or had a sponsor"-that man would be put on
parole. He also mentioned an individual connected
with a Lutheran mission who was accustomed to
calling the Company on behalf of someone who had
been or was in trouble. No person would necessari-
ly be disqualified for work at the Respondent's
plant if he had committed a serious crime. At the
hearing, only one witness, an employee, was
questioned concerning whether or not he had ever
been convicted of a crime. I believe it fair to state
that the witnesses called who were or had been em-
ployees of the company at the time of the hearing,
were not, with the exception of Andrew Skaggs, im-
pugned as to credibility because of his or her past
history.
According to the testimony of Gianakopoulos,
which substantiates the testimony of Scott, the
Company had hiring practices resulting in the hir-
ing of anybody "sight unseen" or upon recommen-
dation and that no qualifications necessarily are
needed; that they are found or may come from
anywhere-from friends of the employees, from
friends of the owner, or from the Lutheran Com-
munity Services-or that parole officers might
bring persons in to be interviewed for jobs after
such persons have been released from prison. He
testified further that the fact a person might have a
criminal record would not disqualify him from em-
ployment and that the Company through its pre-
sident had received an American Legion Award for
his hiring practices-"for his contribution to hiring
handicapped people and convicts and veterans."
Mrs. Betty L. Compton, before her marriage to
Compton in December 1964, had been employed
since January 1962 as general office secretary. She
testified that Compton was in Springfield and
visited the plant during the greater part of April;
that is, the first 6 days of the month and from April
17 until he suffered a heart attack on May 3. She
said he visited the plant at least every other day or
about four times a week during a 7-day week and
was accustomed to arriving at work about 6:30 a.m.
She said he was at the plant on May 3. On May 1
Mrs. Compton was treasurer and secretary of the
Respondent. Since October 1966 she has not
devoted full-time work at the plant itself, but does
have an office at her home where she does work for
the Respondent corporation in an official capacity.
The absence of President Compton from the
Springfield plant at critical times during the union
organizing effort and at the times of the discharge
of the employees involved herein is explained by
the fact that he had undertaken another business
enterprise in Michigan which required his absence
from Springfield.
For a number of years, it has been the custom of
the Company to keep and maintain a daily produc-
tion-quality report, which shows the day of the
week and the date of the month and the year for
each workday with separate column headings for
shift, plater (by name), plater (individual percent-
age production), quantity, part (number), and
quality-remarks. This daily production sheet is
intended to show the name of each employee at
work, the percentage of standard performed by him
or her, a quantity percentage or point standard,
the numbered designation of the part item or article
worked on, and pertinent remarks on the line op-
posite each employee's name.
The daily production-quality report for each day
was made up by Gianakopoulos on the basis of in-
formation furnished to him by the foreman and a
copy of the report was customarily posted im-
mediately after it was prepared by Gianakopoulos
on the morning after a workday, after the produc-
tion and work done as reflected on the report had
been accomplished and completed on that previous
' The turnover for the previous year was approximately 180
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1625
day. The sheet reflecting work and performance
and so on for, say May 1, would have been posted
on May 2 and might show notations as to whether
there were excused absences or excused tardiness,
a record of each employee's work performance,
whether good or bad, and perhaps his attitude or
any other miscellaneous notations which appeared
pertinent to the general manager when he prepared
the report.
The comment reflected on each of the material
daily reports introduced in evidence are relied upon
both by the General Counsel and the Respondent;
the Respondent argues that these reports reveal the
basis for the discharges in question in all but one in-
stance, and the General Counsel contends that the
testimony which should be credited herein shows
that certain comments were made on some of the
sheets in evidence which did not appear on the
sheet as posted on the Company's bulletin board.5
8(a)(1) Violations'
Counsel for the General Counsel readily con-
cedes that the six employees involved here each
could have been discharged for violating the
Respondent's rules and standards many times dur-
ing the employees' tenure of employment at the
Respondent's plant prior to May 1. Nevertheless,
he contends that these employees were discharged
all within a week of the commencement of the
Union's organizational campaign and within just a
few hours after the Respondent learned of their or-
ganizing activity ; he suggests that even though each
one of these employees had given cause for prior
discharge, nevertheless the fundamental weakness
in trying to defend such discharges lies in the tim-
ing; that is, because the discharges occurred at the
very beginning of the Union's organizational efforts
the employees were not discharged for an accumu-
lation of offenses, but were discharged solely
because of their union sympathies. On the other
hand, counsel for the Respondent argues in effect
that the fact that the discharges occurred at the
time the Union began trying to organize the em-
ployees or at the time when the employees became
interested in the Union was purely fortuitous and
that each employee, with the exception of one, was
discharged for cause and that the other employee
was not discharged but quit. It is the knowledge of
the Company of union activities and its motivation
and animus against union activity which resulted in
the 8(a)(1) violations complained of.' Employee
James Carpenter, whose name has been mentioned
above in connection with the obtaining or soliciting
of signatures to authorization cards, testified that
on May 1, at a time when he was talking with Scott
concerning some problems on his line, Scott asked
him if he had signed a union card; inquired "what
kind of a card"; Scott said "a card"; he again asked
"no, what kind of a card"; and Scott then told him
that he had heard that some "of the guys" were try-
ing to get a union in and inquired whether any one
of them had come to Carpenter to try to sign him
up to which he replied "No."
Carpenter said that he had heard that his uncle,
George Price, was going to be fired and to prove it
took the daily production sheet or report for May 1
from the desk of Ann Smith, the timeclerk, and
gave it to Price who, the evidence shows, later gave
it to Boggs. Carpenter, although pretending to be
ignorant concerning the kind of card Scott was ask-
ing about, did so intentionally and I have no doubt
that he was, as he said on cross-examination, care-
ful not to let any supervisor or representative of
management of the Company know that he was sol-
iciting card signatures. Carpenter did testify that on
the Monday prior to the week he was discharged he
solicited the signature of Andy Skaggs while on the
street and that Skaggs told him, "I'll give it to you
tomorrow."
Andrew Skaggs testified that he had been em-
ployed by the Company at three different times and
that his last employment was as a part-time em-
ployee who worked irregular hours from 4 p.m.
until 10, perhaps 12 midnight, or perhaps I a.m.
"from 4 on or until I got tired." He testified that he
was acquainted with Supervisor Scott and at times
had visited Scott at his house and Scott had
returned calls to his home "and we went out and
had drinks together, just something like that." He
testified to the fact that in April he was asked by
Carpenter, while walking down the street on his
way from home, to sign a union authorization card;
that "the light changed" and Carpenter said
something to the effect that he would see him on
the following night. Skaggs testified that he had had
at times certain conversations with Gianakopoulos,
Faust, and Scott. With respect to Scott he said that
after he had started work on a certain afternoon he
initiated a conversation with Scott and asked Scott
s As remarked above , the employee witnesses called by the General
Counsel were not examined as to their various contraventions of law at the
hearing with the exception of one, however , counsel in his brief does attack
the testimony of certain witnesses and invokes their background as a test of
their credibility . A copy of the daily production -quality report for Friday,
April 10 , which , according to the testimony , would have been posted on
April 11 , a Saturday , or the following full workday , whichever occurred
first , is attached hereto as Exhibit A
" Sec. 8 . ( a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(I) to interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7
The complaint as amended asserts that Respondent violated Section 7
of the Act
On May 1, 1967, in interrogating an employee of Respondent about
said employee 's union activity , and in threatening said employee with
discharge if he signed a union authorization card
The General Counsel in his brief notes that the record reflects no evidence
as to this allegation and therefore moves that it be dismissed On motion of
the General Counsel the allegation of paragraph 5(c) of the complaint was
amended , as follows
The conduct of said Scott during the winter of 1966-67, the exact date
being unknown, in threatening a group of Respondent's employees
that Respondent's plant would be shut down if the employees selected
a union as their bargaining representative
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 31
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if he had heard anything about the Union; that
Scott replied that he had not and asked Skaggs
about what he knew to which Skaggs replied that
"some of the people down here at Rawac were try-
ing to get a union in, and we talked about something
else or something else or something about the job,
maybe, I don't particularly know at the time. And
then I went back to my work." He said that he
talked to Scott again on the same night after Scott
had asked him to report to the main office where
he found Faust and Gianakopoulos with Scott. He
said "they started asking me what I knew about the
Union," that Scott did most of the talking, asked
him who he thought was behind the Union, who the
main leaders were, and that he had replied
something to the effect that Carl Childers and Car-
penter were the main leaders and that when he was
asked "how far along they was" he replied that as
far as he knew they "have the cards " Upon being
asked by Scott if he thought everybody would sign
in the shop, he replied, yes, he did; when asked by
Scott if he would sign a card he replied that he
would. In answer to a question as to whether he re-
called anything else that was said at that particular
time in the office when Scott and the other two su-
pervisors were present he testified:
Yes, I do. They wasn't talking to me or
anything but they were kind of talking among
themselves and they said they definitely are
going to have to get rid of James Carpenter
and Carl Childers the next morning. . . . They
said something about, something that there was
always plenty of excuses they had, they could
fire them for such things as scrap or being late
or being anything.
During the course of his cross-examination,
Skaggs said that there had been discussions around
the shop for a number of years after 1962 when he
first worked there; that "a lot of the guys would
gather around and would talk about [how] the shop
would be a lot better and we would probably get a
lot better benefits and higher pay if we had a union
in"; and that he had told Scott that Carpenter had
asked him to sign a card because he was a good
friend of Scott's and "I didn't actually think
anything like this would happen." While under
cross-examination , he expressed the belief that Car-
penter and Childers were fired because of the infor-
mation he had given to Scott and the other super-
visors. Still not satisfied, the cross-examiner asked
Skaggs impliedly whether Skaggs expected some
personal gain for "this favor you were doing for
them" and received a negative answer. In substance
Skaggs ' testimony amounts to having been
questioned by Scott first concerning whether or not
he knew anything about authorization cards or
whether he had signed one, and second, that Scott
in the presence of Faust and Gianakopoulos had in-
terrogated Skaggs about the employees' union ac-
tivities and discussed the dismissal of Carpenter and
Childers. Scott denied knowledge of any conversa-
tion with Skaggs; Gianakopoulos said that he had
engaged in one conversation about union activities
initiated by Skaggs on May I when Skaggs had told
him, "I hear that they are trying to start a union
around here," whereupon Gianakopoulos asked
who was starting it, a question which Skaggs
refused to answer.
Ben Engle, an employee of the Company, was
called as a rebuttal witness by the General Counsel
after the Respondent had concluded its case. Engle
testified to a conversation on May 3, the date of the
discharge of Carpenter, saying that during the after-
noon he asked Faust where Carpenter was and
Faust replied that Scott had fired him; that Engle
asked Faust "What for"; and that Faust replied that
"they just didn't see eye to eye." Engle testified
further that Scott called him into the office at some
unstated time and asked him if he had heard
anything about a union, and he replied by saying
that he had On motion of the Respondent, I
granted a motion to strike the testimony of Engle as
not being proper rebuttal but subsequently allowed
cross-examination of this witness with the un-
derstanding that, if prejudice attached in any way
to the Respondent by the failure of counsel for the
General Counsel to call Engle as a witness during
his case-in-chief, the Respondent would be given
ample opportunity to present evidence regarding
the alleged conversations between Engle and Scott
and Faust
The General Counsel argues that taking into con-
sideration the small size of the plant and the com-
paratively small number of employees engaged
there and the conditions under which all employees
worked, it may reasonably be inferred that Respon-
dent Supervisor Scott had heard rumors of union
activity and that further it reasonably may be con-
cluded that Scott, knowing that Carpenter was par-
ticularly upset by Scott's treatment of him, would
approach Carpenter about the Union, since he
would be a logical union sympathizer in an organiz-
ing campaign promoted by others. While I consider
neither Carpenter nor Skaggs to be a particularly
articulate witness, nevertheless I cannot go so far in
drawing the inference, independently, that the
General Counsel would have me draw 8
Gianakopoulos, as a witness for Respondent,
testified that over the period of time he had been
connected with the Company, he had heard some
rumors about union organization, "but I never
heard of anybody working but everyone would talk
about it " He said that on the Monday after he had
spoken with Skaggs he telephoned President Comp-
ton, told him what Skaggs had said, to which
Compton commented to the effect that he should
e In support of his argument or suggestion in this connection , counsel for
the General Counsel cites Angwel! Curtain Company, Inc v N L R B, 192
F 2d 899, 903 (C A 7, 1951)
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1627
not worry "about what Skaggs says," or had said.
He testified that Skaggs did not have a good reputa-
tion for telling the truth.
The somewhat more than minuscule interroga-
tion of Scott, as summarized above, does not, in my
opinion, rise to the level of being coercive so that,
standing alone, I would not consider that the
General Counsel has carried the burden of proof
showing independent Section 8(a)(1) violations
However, the testimony of the witnesses do have
some relevant bearing on the question of whether
the discharges, about to be discussed, were ac-
celerated by the information gained from Skaggs by
Scott, Faust, and Gianakopoulos, and transmitted
to Compton.
Violations of Section 8(a)(3)9
Before touching upon the circumstances sur-
rounding the discharge of the six individual em-
ployees, and to avoid prolixity of language it,
seems advisable first to discuss the position of the
Respondent in regard to company operations prior
to the discharges.
The position of the Company, as described by
witnesses called on behalf of the Respondent at the
hearing, is to the effect that prior to the turning
over of company management by President Comp-
ton to Gianakopoulos, Scott, and Faust, Rawac had
been a profitable enterprise. During the first 3
months of management under the three men the
Company lost money and as a consequence Comp-
ton decided that certain steps should be taken to
improve the Company's financial position. Counsel
for the Respondent asserts that there is no doubt
that most of the Company's problems centered
around the employees who were discharged; and,
although it is true that some delinquencies had
been suffered in the past, Compton decided that he
could not stand by as the owner of a money-losing
business and view the conduct of Carl Childers on
May 1 and 2 without forthwith removing him from
his job. On these days, Childers was accused of
deliberate sabotage in that when normal scrap
would have been 859 items, the actual scrap was
greatly in excess thereof. Counsel says that:
He [Childers] sat in the hearing room
throughout the trial of this case but at no time
did he directly deny that he had falsified his
count. And more significant, he left the ac-
cusation of May 2, concerning the incredible
scrap count without taking any exception
thereto. The facts strongly suggests that it was
Childers' desire to be discharged. After all he
was the spearhead of the union organizing.
It is further argued on behalf of the Respondent
that because of the apparent deplorable conduct of
Childers, it was only natural that Compton would
order the discharge of the two girls who assisted
him. He says that whether the girls did or did not
count, the proof shows that this was their duty and
further indicates that to the knowledge of Compton
his was their duty and they either failed to carry it
out or collaborated in the miscount.
Concerning the discharge of employee Car-
penter, the Respondent does not claim that he did
anything other than his usual caliber of work on
May I and 2. In arriving at the decision to
discharge Carpenter, Compton relied greatly on his
work record as reflected by the daily reports from
January down through the date of his last day at
work. These records reflect some 13 derogatory
notes against Carpenter's work and warnings for
January; some 21 incidents during February; 21 ad-
verse reports during March, and 10 adverse reports
during April. The day comment for May 2 charged
Carpenter with being late, holding down produc-
tion, and the claim that he could run more pieces
alone than with a girl-"not so! Won't listen"; and
the entry for May 3 shows the notation "late-
discharge, always late 50 percent, argues with
Scott. Scrap."
In regard to the work of Childers, the daily sheets
reveal on their face a long record of poor at-
tendance, tardiness, and poor production; and that
on May 1 he was guilty of reporting his total produc-
tion as 12,160 pieces when in fact he had produced
only 8,000 pieces on that day. From January 3
through the time until the date of his discharge on
May 3, adverse comment was marked against him 7
times in January, 13 times in February (with a nota-
tion for the week of February 27, "perfect week"),
17 comments adverse to him in March, and 14 in
April. The May 1 sheet contained a notation "gave
impossible count on H.L.N. 12,160 pcs. real count
8,000 pcs."; a comment on May 2 sheet read "86
percent and 7.5 too many rework 850 pieces," and
the entry on May 3 read "discharged, absent, tardy,
dishonest. "10
In the case of employee George Price, the daily
report showed that he was absent on January 16
and was warned on January 23, a notation on the
daily sheet showing "too many problems with this
man-bad work, poor rack coating." The records
reflect that he was absent from work on March 27,
28, and 29; he was warned for peddling in the shop
on April 5; was "unable to complete the day" on
April 15; on April 17 a notation was made "week
of vacation"; he was absent on May 1 and did not
present himself for work at any time during the
e Sec 8 . ( a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
( 3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization
10 According to the testimony of his supervisor , the procedures of the
plating process required that when Childers worked on May 1, the date on
which he submitted an alleged false count of 12,160 pieces, his two helpers,
Geraldine Holmes and Norma Frost, substantiated the false count, this
"dishonesty" was discovered on May 2, the problem reviewed with the
company president on May 3, and both girls were discharged on that
date
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
week of May I nor make any effort to report his
absences to management; and on May 5 "had his
check picked up." Scott and Gianakopoulos
testified that Price was not fired; Gianakopoulos
testified that he did not see Price at any time during
the week of May 1, and Price said that he was fired
by Gianakopoulos when he reported for work on
May 2. Gianakopoulos produced a record from
May 2, made by him on May 3, which included the
name of Price so that, it is argued, although Price
says he was fired at the start of Tuesday's workday,
it is inconceivable that Gianakopoulos would have
made a note to replace him on Monday's report
compiled in the middle of the morning on Tuesday,
assuming that Price already had been fired early
Tuesday morning.
The Respondent agrees that Norma Jean Frost
and Geraldine Holmes were discharged, as alleged
by the General Counsel, but says that Linda Shirk
was not summoned to Scott's office at 4 p.m. on
May 3; Scott testified that he called only Frost and
Holmes into his office although Shirk was there and
that he, Scott, directed his remarks only to Frost
and Holmes. Respondent asserts that Shirk either
erroneously assumed that she had been discharged
or she quit in sympathy for the other two girls
As noted above, President Compton was absent
from the Company's plant in Springfield a great
deal of the time during May. It appears that late on
a day in April, or in the evening, after reviewing the
daily reports covering a considerable period of
time, particularly from January through April, and
having considered the financial losses being ab-
sorbed by his Company, he composed a letter in
longhand at his home, which was typed by Mrs.
Compton and delivered to Gianakopoulos at the
plant. This letter was composed and delivered after
Compton's discussion with his three management
officials at the plant and is dated May 1, 1967. The
letter is as follows:
and rehired only when we felt a second chance
would be successful. Your plant diary would
indicate time for action with a few people who
are obviously testing your firmness.
You may or may not understand the subtle dif-
ference in [our (?)] rehiring men after they
had stolen $36,000.00 worth of nickel and
copper, compared to discharging a man who
fails to call in when he is unable to work.
There is a difference.
In the one, the men who became thieves [sic],
were dupes of an unscrupulous junk dealer, but
their work was within our rules, and we gave
them a second chance. The fact that it did not
work out is incidental.
With others that deliberately will not observe
rules that allow us to meet our customers
requirements, we warn, then discharge.
The plating business, per se, is hardly a career
for the average worker, and you know we
discourage any skilled worker seeking a job.
Our W-2 forms in a year was 150, with 25 em-
ployees. Our safety record over the years, and
our overtime schedule would appear to even
an uninformed, the type of people we will hire.
This is our contribution to the city. At least
they are given a chance, and I will admit there
are times when it has seemed burdensome.
This policy is to be continued as long as I have
the authority to demand it. Incidentally, my
policy of hiring blind from a phone call from
police, judge, pastor or parole officer, still
holds, although it too at times made us wonder
if some of the sponsors were working for our
competitors. It still goes, and we do give the
chance.
Mr. A. Gianakopoulos
Rawac Plating Co.
125 N. Bell Ave.
Springfield, Ohio
Dear Art:
You, George and George, have been given an
opportunity to operate Rawac Plating within a
rather flexable [sic] framework, limited only
by our general policy of treatment of
customers, suppliers and employees. You were
individually and collectively to be evaluated on
the progress of the plant when operated within
the confines of my personal policy.
We have always hired people, in general, re-
gardless of past records or personal history,
and allowed them to work within the rules of
our plant. We warned, and subsequently
discharged those unable to follow the rules,
Now, with my not being there, by your own ad-
mission , and the plant diary, you have 5 men
that are deliberately testing your authority.
You are not doing these 5 a favor by allowing
this to continue, and absolutely must be fully
responsible for the detrimental effect on our
company. I would suggest you warn each and
then take some action. Each of these men will
benefit with your firmness, and our plant and
customers will not suffer irreversable losses.
There is another matter of concern with regard
to women employees. We do not intend to
judge or even recognize individual morals as
opposed to our opinions as long as the dif-
terences are not effecting [ sic] the plant. Ac-
tions of our employees away from the shop are
naturally of concern, but never to the point of
discharge . However , when actions and work in
the plant becomes obvious, then we would be
damned fools not to discharge the offending
people.
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1629
To be specific, I have received phone calls, and
letters indicating the recent activities of 3 girls
in the shop are, to say the least, opposite to the
mores of our city, and directly effecting [sic]
the operation of our plant. Your diary is
evidence enough to warrant the discharge of
these people in so far as work performance.
I'm sure you and George are aware of the in-
plant love affair, or attempts at love affairs.
This is absolutely not to be tolerated in our
shop. I have personally received a complaint
from one of our best lady employees, and in
addition, have seen two of our buildings used
after hours as a rendezvous point.
There is little doubt that some of our neighbors
have witnessed cars driving into the North
Street building, and the Bell building late at
night . This must be stopped and I urge you to
resolve this problem without the necessity of
allowing the above information to be made
known to any but the individual person. While
we can easily see the work performance
slipping, the fact that we believe social
behavior is the culprit , is none of our affair,
unless the behavior is within the shop.
I suggest you meet with both Georges and take
immediate action on this sudden change in a
few employees performance, and take into
consideration the [unreadable] damage that
could occur if allowed to continue. We are in
competition every day of our operation, and
ground lost in one day may take years to
recover.
Best regards,
/s/ Foster
J. F. Compton, Jr.
This case involves the resolution of many
questions of credibility, so that in the resolution of
the questions which have arisen I have followed the
precept so often enunciated by the courts that the
trier of the facts is not necessarily required to be-
lieve all of the testimony of a witness while at the
same time discarding other of his statements. I do
not need to underline the fact that the company
management or in fact the decision of Compton for
the discharges of the employees involved here are
said to be almost entirely supported by the notes
reflected from the daily reports studied by Comp-
ton and discussed by him with his three chief subor-
dinates. It seems to me that the reasons given for
these discharges , in the circumstances , are flimsy
reasons and the timing of the discharges in the
midst of a union campaign, together with the Com-
pany's undoubted knowledge of union activity,
reasonably may support a conclusion that the em-
ployees were not discharged for the reasons given
but to destroy the Union's support among all of the
employees at the Rawac plant . I think that the
Respondent here has presented a synthetic pattern
of defense , which has become familiar to Trial Ex-
aminers of the Board, who are continually con-
fronted with different defense pleas of justification
and excuse . Inferences from the facts going to show
that the discharges were motivated by the union ac-
tivities of the employees gain support from the fact
that the reasons advanced therefore by the Com-
pany do not hold up under complete examination
of the facts of the case . See N . L.R.B. v . West Side
Carpet Cleaning Co., 329 F.2d 758 , 761 (C.A. 6);
Wonder State Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B.,
331 F.2d 737, 737-738 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. The
Bendix Corp . ( Research Laboratories Division), 299
F.2d 308 , 309-310 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 371 U.S.
827; N.L.R.B. v. Southern Desk Company , 246 F.2d
53-54 (C.A. 4); N .L.R.B. v . Solo Cup Company,
237 F.2d 521, 524-525 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v.
Griggs Equipment , Inc., 307 F .2d 275, 278 (C.A.
5); Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation ( Iron King
Branch ) v. N.L.R.B., 362 F .2d 466 (C.A. 9).
Although the testimony of most of the witnesses,
with the exception of Clell Boggs and Mrs. Betty
Compton , is suspect in many respects , nevertheless
enough of a coordinated pattern of fact is presented
to permit fairly precise findings of fact. The
General Counsel here necessarily must rely on in-
direct or circumstantial evidence. In Appalachian
Electric Power Co. v. N.L.R .B., 93 F.2d 985, 989
(C.A. 4), substantial evidence was there defined as
"evidence furnishing a substantial basis of fact from
which the fact in issue can reasonably be inferred;
and the test is not satisfied by evidence which
merely creates a suspicion or which amounts to
more than a scintilla or which gives equal support
to any inconsistent inferences ." Credibility
generally may be resolved by impeachment, sub-
stantial contradiction , or uncontroverted facts, and
in many instances by objective observation of the
witness ' aim to result in findings based on "con-
sistent and inherent probabilities of testimony."
Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S.
474, 496. There " is no reason for refusing to accept
everything a witness says, because you do not be-
lieve all of it ; nothing is more common in all kinds
of judicial proceedings than to believe some and
not all ." N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation,
179 F.2d 749, 754 (C. A. 2), reversed on other
grounds 340 U.S. 474. Accord: N.L.R.B . v. West
Point Mfg. Co. (Lanett Mill), 245 F .2d 783, 785
(C.A. 5); N .L.R.B. v. United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , Local 517, AFL [Gil
Wyner Construction Co.] 230 F.2d 256, 259
(C. A. 1).
In the case of Linda Shirk , she testified that she
was hired on April 21 , 1966, and was discharged on
May 3 , the following year ; that generally she was
engaged as an inspector but at times racked up and
unracked parts; that during the term of her employ-
ment she received about three raises in pay; that
she was friendly with Mrs. Frost and Mrs. Holmes;
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that she very seldom saw President Compton in the
plant, that she had a vacation period during the last
week of April, returning to work May 1; that she
signed a union authorization card on October 28 in
the presence of Childers, Norma Frost, one Good-
man, and Ray Hensley, and that she was "pretty
sure " that she was engaged in inspecting either han-
dlebars or bicycle rims on May I and 2 and was en-
gaged in cleaning rejected rims on May 3. Accord-
ing to her testimony, she was discharged on May 3
by George Scott at approximately 4 p.m.; that Scott
had given Frost instructions to relay word to Geral-
dine Holmes and her that they were to meet at the
inspection office that evening ; that when she called
at the inspection office as instructed, Scott closed
the window or locked it, closed the doors, and said,
"I have got to let you girls go"; that Mrs. Frost
inquired, "Just why do you have to let us go,
George?" He replied that they were mixed up over
the headlock nuts ; that Mrs. Frost reminded him
that they were not the ones who had inspected the
headlock nuts to which he replied, "Well, that's
right. What's out there on the paper," indicating
the daily report sheet or sheets. Frost denied that
she did at any time during that week inspect
headlock nuts. Scott testified that he had warned
Shirk, as he had Holmes and Frost, many times that
they were doing too much talking and spending too
much time on personal affairs in the plant, includ-
ing the bringing of pop bottles to the benches
where they worked, and that these incidents were
taken into consideration when the decision was
made to discharge Frost and Holmes , as well as the
fact that they had participated in a false count."
George Price, who was discharged on Tuesday,
May 2 testified that he did not work the preceding
Monday; that he had reported by telephone and
spoke to Gianakopoulos, explaining the reason for
his absence; that on the following day, upon his ar-
rival at the plant, Gianakopoulos told him that he
had "been scratched." The daily report sheets to
me indicate that Price worked from April 24
through 29, and it seems to be uncontroverted that
he was on vacation for the prior week beginning
April 17 and ending April 22 Theretofore, the
work record of Price had not been too good, and he
was told to improve his work and his attendance
after he returned from his vacation. He did, accord-
ing to the Company's record, work a full 45 hours
the week prior to his discharge. The Respondent on
its part contends that Price did not work from May
1 through 5 because he had quit his job, although
his name does not appear on the daily report after
May 2. As noted by the General Counsel, in a
pretrial statement given to a representative of the
Board 's Regional Office during the investigation of
the charge concerning the unlawful termination of
the employment of Price, Scott said that Price was
discharged because of a poor attendance record,
this statement does not indicate that Price had quit
his job. The daily report for May I shows that it
was the apparent intention of the Company to
replace Price. At the hearing , the Company took
the position that Price and Linda Shirk were not
discharged but that each had quit. It seems to me
that there is sufficient direct evidence in the record
to indicate that company management knew or
suspected that Price was interested in the Union.
Scott was certain that no one had discharged Price,
that he did not come in on May 1, that he thought
someone had called in for him, and that Price did
not come in on the following day nor, to Scott's
knowledge, had he ever been in the plant at a later
time. As to Carl Childers, whose discharge was ef-
fected on Wednesaay, May 3, at the time he re-
ported for work, the main complaint against him
advanced by the Company was that his attitude
toward his work was poor. At the time of his
discharge he had received several wage increases
and was receiving the highest wage rate paid in the
plant. The fact that he had called at the union hall
and was interested in union organization was
known, if the testimony of Skaggs bears any weight
whatsoever. The daily report sheets sustain the con-
tention of the Company that his work record was
inconsistent, at times was bad, but that in general
his standard of performance was no worse than and
perhaps better than that generally expected from
the employees in the production unit. In fact, the
Company had utilized the services of Childers,
however he performed them, for about a year be-
fore he became interested in the Union.
As to Carpenter, who was discharged on Wed-
nesday, May 3, at the time he reported for work,
the Respondent does not deny that he was
discharged, but contends that the facts show that
Carpenter was discharged for good cause. It is
reasonably established that the fact of Carpenter's
interest in the Union was known to company offi-
cials through his conversation with Scott on May 1
and the conversation with Skaggs with the three
company supervisors on May I or 2. It is apparent
that over the full term of his employment, Car-
penter had been a poor worker and had a work
record which can only be described as consistently
poor.
The testimony of George Scott deserves special
attention since he was the person most closely as-
sociated with the work of the production employees
and the one who, at the hearing, carried the burden
of presenting the main line of the Company's case.
In my opinion, he did try hard to carry out the or-
ders of President Compton and to keep control of
the work activities of the production employees
who, to say the least, must have given him a
number of unusual individual problems. I have at-
"There is some implication in the record that one of these three girls
was observed in the plant during off-work hours at night and considered to
be engaged in improper personal activities
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY
tached the weight to his testimony which I consider
proper, although there are certain inconsistencies
which detract from his testimony as a whole. I think
Scott was in error when he testified that Price did
not report after his vacation and that Carpenter's
refusal to follow warnings to improve his produc-
tion provided a basis for his discharge, and I have
doubt that he did not know at least some of the em-
ployees had joined the Union or signed union cards
or knew their names or even that there was any
union activity among the employees until the Union
submitted its demand for recognition. Too, we have
the testimony of Engle, still employed by the Com-
pany at the time of the hearing, who testified that
Scott had questioned him about the Union on May
3, a critical date in respect of the discharges. The
conversation between the two shows in itself that
Scott had knowledge of union activity and it is not
unreasonable to infer that his knowledge was con-
veyed to Compton or that Scott discussed the
Union with Gianakopoulos and Compton.12
Some controversy has arisen between counsel for
the parties regarding the posting of the daily reports
for May 1. The General Counsel contends that the
daily report for May 1, posted May 2, was not the
same report as a copy of the one for the same day
which appeared among the other daily reports sub-
penaed and produced by the Respondent. The
General Counsel contends that notations appearing
on the first report (G.C. Exh. 15) were in fact
placed on the original daily report for May 1, after
its posting on May 2, pointing out that Carpenter's
name in the "Quality-Remarks" section of that ex-
hibit the words "is terrible" appears, but that com-
ment is not on the alleged posted copy. Again, as to
the daily report for this date, the words "false
count, real count 8,000" after the name of Childers
and the words "with Bill must do better" is dif-
ferent than the copy posted, showing only the
words "with Bill." These variations, it is contended,
show that the posted copy did not serve as notice or
warning to employees because it did not contain
any meaningful personal comment about the work
of these employees, but rather it would appear that
the personal comment appearing on the copy which
remained in the office was added either after the
original report was prepared or that separate re-
ports were prepared with only the one copy (not
the original) being posted not before, but after, the
discharges or the filing of the charge on May 19.
In agreement with counsel for General Counsel, I
find that Compton's letter to Gianakopoulos dated
May I cannot be taken as an indication of the prior
official position of Compton in regard to the work
of the employees prior to that date. This letter, ap-
parently, is the only communication ever made by
Compton to one of his chief supervisors, although
the testimony of witnesses for the Respondent in-
"I am not impressed by the testimony of the three female dischargees
that other girls were hired either before or after the time they were
discharged
1631
dicates that Compton had , for some time, been
concerned about the production performance of
the plant employees and the fact that the Com-
pany's operations were unprofitable . The letter it-
self, therefore , can only be regarded as a self-serv-
ing statement to meet the convenient date of the
Union 's demand , even though it is apparent on the
record without contradiction that Compton, during
April , spent at least part of the time of 4 days a
week at the plant.
Upon consideration of the whole record in this
case and the believable facts adduced , I find and
conclude that the Respondent 's reasons for the
discharge of the six employees was unlawful in na-
ture in that the Respondent 's motive and intention
was to conceal its desire to interfere with the union
organizing campaign ; therefore , the reasons as-
serted for the discharges were pretextual and not
real. In the absence of direct evidence , logical and
reasonable inference on the various aspects of the
case may properly be drawn to reach the result and
conclusion just stated In Shattuck Denn Mining
Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A.
9), the court wrote-
Actual motive , a state of mind , being the
question, it is seldom that direct evidence will
be available that is not also self-serving. In
such cases, the self-serving declaration is not
conclusive , the trier of fact may infer motive
from the total circumstances proved . Other-
wise, no person accused of unlawful motive
who took the stand and testified to a lawful
motive could be brought to book.
Repetition usually bears no useful purpose. Here,
however , I am constrained to iterate that this case
exemplifies one involving the doctrine that an em-
ployer may discharge an employee for a good
reason, a poor reason , or no reason at all, so long as
the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act
are not violated . In the instant case, discharges
were accomplished , not for an accumulation of of-
fenses, but because of the desire of the Respondent
to discourage union activities among its em-
ployees 13
The Inability of President Compton To Testify
As noted above, original counsel for the Respon-
dent withdrew after the settlement agreement
previously agreed upon had been refused by Pre-
sident Compton, and the case was tried for the
Respondent by other competent counsel. Upon the
resumption of hearing on December 19, Respon-
dent's counsel vigorously and quite properly
renewed a motion, previously denied, for an in-
definite postponement of the hearing pending the
recovery of Compton from a coronary attack suf-
fered by him in early December. At this time, I ad-
19 Cf Edward G Budd Manufacturing Company v N.L R B , 138 F 2d 86
(C A 3), as amended on denial of rehearing 142 F 2d 922
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hered to my original order denying the motion for
an indefinite adjournment with the assurance to
Respondent's counsel that if at the conclusion of
the facts which then could be presented to me it
appeared that the testimony of Compton was es-
sential to the complete defense of the Respondent,
I would take the matter under consideration. After
all of the testimony was in, Respondent's counsel
renewed his motion and his narrative offer of fact
as to what Compton would testify to were he able
to do so was spread upon the record. At the conclu-
sion of the hearing, and just before the record was
closed, it was my opinion, to which I now adhere,
that on the basis of the offer of proof no material
and relevant point could be covered by Compton,
at a time when he might be able to testify, which
had not been presented or considered during the
whole course of the hearing. It seems to me that the
facts in regard to the consideration of the charge by
Compton and his subordinate officials, his decision
in regard to the discharge of employees, his advice
to the first counsel and the substance of informa-
tion furnished to him, and the explanations and
facts set forth through the testimony of Messrs. Gi-
anakopoulos, Scott, and Faust and Mrs. Compton,
fully covered the testimony which could have been
anticipated had Compton himself testified. As a
part of his offer of proof, counsel for the Respon-
dent said:
Mr. Compton would also have testified that it
was his belief, prior to these, or this occasion,
that a union would benefit the shop because of
the particular makeup of the personnel, their
unruliness, and their failure to observe
discipline, that he had the feeling, based purely
on deductive reasoning, that if there was a
union in the shop, the Union would have
disciplined these unruly employees.
Assuming that this evidence would now be con-
tained within the record, nevertheless I would con-
sider it an inadequate explanation of position in the
face of the refusal of the Respondent to consider
the offer of Union Representative Boggs to prove
his claim of union majority by submitting the
authorization cards held by him to an impartial
third party. As to other portions of the offer of
proof, should Compton have testified to them, they
would not meet the almost overwhelming presump-
tion that the letter of May 1, composed by Comp-
ton and transmitted to Gianakopoulos, was nothing
more than a self-serving declaration and intended
to lay what would have been a belated statement of
decision on the record. The timing of the
discharges are significant. The reasons given
therefor, together with the inconsistencies reflected
by the daily reports upon which the Respondent so
strongly relies, are not sufficient to justify the
discharges at the beginning of the Union 's organiza-
tional efforts, or enough to prove that the
discharges were for an accumulation of offenses or
the other reasons given.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
I find and conclude that the Company through its
agents unlawfully interrogated its employees about
the Union; that four employees were discharged by
the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act because of their union sympathies or
activities; and that two employees were discharged
by the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act because of their union sympathies and ac-
tivities.
The motion made on the Respondent's behalf to
dismiss the complaint as amended should be, and is
now, denied. The preponderance of the evidence in
this case shows, and I find, that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act through
interrogation of certain of its employees and the
discriminatory discharge of six employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, my Recommended
Order will direct the Respondent to cease and de-
sist therefrom and to take affirmative action which
will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. District Lodge 82, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
2. Rawac Plating Company is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. The Respondent, by interrogation of certain
of its employees and by discriminatorily discharging
six employees because of their interest in and ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) and Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in the case, I hereby
issue the following:
RAWAC PLATING COMPANY 1633
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Rawac Plating Company, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from interrogating em-
ployees concerning their union interest or activities
on behalf of the Union, threatening to discharge or
discharging any employee by reason of his or her
interest in or activities on behalf of the Union, or in
any like or related manner interfering with the
rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it
is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to George E. Price, James A. Car-
penter, Carl W. Childers, Geraldine Holmes,
Norma Jean Frost, and Linda Shirk full and
complete reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions held by each of them at
the time of his or her discharge, without prejudice
against their former rights or the like, with backpay
to be computed from the time of their discharge
until their application for reemployment. Backpay
shall be computed in accordance with the principle
established in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum to be added to the backpay, as computed in
the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
(b) Post at its plant in Springfield, Ohio, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 1114 Co-
pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by the Company's representative, shall be
posted by the Company immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith. 15
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
EXHIBIT A
RAWAC PLATING CO.
DAILY PRODUCTION - QUALITY REPORT
Plater Plater Quantity Part Quality - Remarks
H. Hamer 106 70 8.0 512
__
8408B - 0 Bad
D. Miller 106 70 8.0 556 12884 - 0 Bad
U. Youngblood - 0 Bad
Roseman i i --
. Sparrow 100 % 8.0 IT IT
G. Rollins 100 70 8.0 1156 10008 - 6 Bad - Sipes
D. Sipes 100 70 8.0 240 10008-0-Bad-And wit Sipes
P. Davis 90 70 8.0 110 1 - Bad
J. Goodman 80 70 8.0 70 Cascade Heads - Cad
Omco s - Cu
U
Omgo Nut - B.O.
Sterling
Parker 7.8 8 2092B - 77 Bad - 73 R---
Penly 60 70 8.0 20.N. Parker
R. Porter 60 70 if 11
K. Hens ey 50 70 8.0 1750 3266B
awtnrr Bolt
Ohio Tool
F. purgeon Cascade - Pot & Plate -
Ch i lders 8 .7 "How" man
A. Williams 11.0
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B ai l ey 10 . 2 ---_- 4
G. Price 8.0 ---
_. Harris - --- -
J. Bridges
arpenter
8.6
8.0 __-
Late again
-----------------------------;A. Smith 8.0
Holmes 8.0
F. Woltord 8.0
-L. Shirk
. Frost 8.0E
E. Gambill 8.0
R. Mollette 2.5
H. Sheppear Cascade - How Many? 1
B. Engle 8.5 - _^
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities and
sympathies or the union activities of other em-
ployees or threaten them with reprisals for
selecting the Union as their bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-or-
ganization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist District Lodge 82, International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Wor-
kers , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion , to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining , or other mutual aid or
protection , and to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL offer George E . Price , James A
Carpenter , Carl W. Childers, Geraldine
Holmes , Norma Jean Frost, and Linda Shirk
full and complete reinstatement to their former
positions , or positions as nearly similar as may
be, without prejudice to their rights or
privileges as to seniority or other conditions of
employment, and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination practiced against them
WE WILL notify any of the above-named em-
ployees if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Univer-
sal Military Training and Service Act of 1948,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
RAW AC PLATING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550
Main Street , Cincinnati , Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3663.