Rose Tool & Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rose Tool & Plastics, Inc. and District No. 10,
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-2817
June 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On March 12, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Melvin J. Welles issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding.. Thereafter, Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Rose Tool &
Plastics, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for the Administra-
tive Law Judge's notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees' grievances
or suggest that they will receive better working
conditions if they reject union representation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist District No. 10, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
218 NLRB No. 95
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such
activities.
WE WILL offer Bernice Reinhardt immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and wE WILL pay her for
losses she suffered as a result of our having
discharged her in August 1974.
ROSE TOOL & PLASTICS,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN J. WELLES, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on December 11
through 12, 1974, based on charges filed August 14, 1974,
and amended October 17, 1974,- and a complaint issued
November 22, 1974, amended at the hearing, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, including . my
observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent , a Wisconsin corporation , is engaged in the
processing and manufacturing of custom plastic moldings
at its facility in Milwaukee , Wisconsin. During the past
calendar year, Respondent sold and shipped goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the State of Wisconsin. I find, as Respondent admits, that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Charging Party,
District No . 10, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The complaint , as amended at the hearing, alleges that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by alleged
Supervisor Trudell's interrogating employees, threatening
them with loss of benefits , and soliciting their grievances,
and by Plant Manager Koterman 's and Plant Superinten-
dent Balcer's soliciting employees' grievances . Respondent
denies that Trudell was a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, or that his conduct constituted a
violation of the Act even if he is found to be supervisory.
ROSE TOOL & PLASTICS 507
Respondent denies any unlawful solicitation of grievances
by Koterman and Balcer, who are admitted supervisors,
based primarily on its contention that what they said at
various plant meetings with the employees was lawful'
The complaint also alleges that Respondent, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, discriminatorily
discharged employee Bernice Reinhardt. Germane to this
issue are whether the General Counsel has proved
Respondent's knowledge of Reinhardt's union activities,2
whether, even assuming "knowledge," the knowledge was
of a sort that could demonstrate an unlawful motivation,
and, finally, whether in any event Respondent has
demonstrated that Reinhardt was discharged for cause.
Resolution of these sub-issues, as well as of the 8(a)(3)
allegation, also involves conflicting testimony, necessitat-
ing credibility resolutions.
B. The Alleged Violation of f Section 8(a)(3)
Bernice Reinhardt, who began working for Respondent
August 20, 1973,3 had for some time prior to her August 9,
1974, discharge been talking union in the plant. On August
7, 1974, she spoke with Union Business Representative
Joseph Spehert, who told Reinhardt that she should check
out other employees' feelings about unionization and meet
with him the next day. Reinhardt asked a number of
employees the next day, August 8, how they felt about the
Union. After work on August 8, Reinhardt met with
Spehert at his office, and received union cards, buttons,
and literature. The following morning, Reinhardt, wearing
a union button, began distributing union literature for the
first shift employees when she arrived at the plant about
6:45 a.m. until the shift started at 7 a.m. She handed out a
union authorization card and some literature to another
employee during her 9 a.m. morning break. Shortly after
the break, Leadman Dan Trudell approached her and said
"What's with the IAM Button?" When Reinhardt did not
respond, Trudell asked "[You're] a member of what?" At
about 11:20 that morning, Trudell again approached
Reinhardt. He asked her about the Union and the button,
said that the Company was too small to get a union in,
asked her whether she thought the people would stand
behind her, and again questioned her about the button she
was wearing.4
At about 9:30 a.m. that morning, Leadlady Sebranek
told Reinhardt that she was to report to Koterman's office
at 11:45 a.m. Reinhardt did so, and, according to
Koterman, he told her she was discharged because of
"several things, her attendance, her attitude, her work
performance as in the last several weeks prior to her
dismissal and her cooperation or lack of." According to
Reinhardt, Koterman told her that "two foremen don't
want you in their department. You've been giving
Marvelene [Sebranek] trouble and I've been ordered to
terminate you." She asked "as of when?" and Koterman
I There are minor credibility questions in this respect , as well as with
respect to Trudell's conduct , and in the testimony from which it must be
det ermined whether he was a supervisor.
I Trudell's status as employee or supervisor bears on the knowledge
question.
s Her work history will be discussed below, in connection with
Respondent's asserted reasons for her discharge.
4 Trudell testified that he had only one conversation with Reinhardt on
repeated that two foremen did not want her, and that
"Marvelene said your attitude is bad for the company."
She again asked "as of when?" and Koterman said, "right
now." Koterman pulled out her check, gave it to her, and
she left. She went back to her department to tell Sebranek
she was leaving. Sebranek asked her why, and she told him
what Koterman had said. Sebranek said "I'm sorry. You
know I never reported you to the office." 5
Without, for the time being, determining which version
of Reinhardt's exit interview should be accepted (they are
not too far apart in any critical sense), and also without, for
the time being, determining the crucial question of whether
and how much Respondent knew of Reinhardt's union
activities, I believe it appropriate to examine Koterman's
asserted reasons for the discharge, both in terms of his
testimony as to why it occurred and of his testimony as to
what he told Reinhardt at the time.
Respondent's statement of Koterman's reasons for the
discharge as stated in its brief provides a good point of
departure. The brief states (page references omitted):
Koterman testified that Reinhardt was not discharged
for a specific reason but rather for an accumulation of
various reasons during her history of employment with
Respondent such as her attitude, her attendance, her
performance in the last several weeks prior to discharge
and her lack of cooperation which subsequently
resulted in her discharge on August 9, 1974. Koterman
received reports from Sebranek, leadmen, setupmen
and operators relative to Reinhardt's poor work
attitude and lack of cooperation; that Reinhardt
wandered around the plant during work hours and did
as she pleased, that she had conflicts with other
operators; that she caused die breakage which was due
to operator neglect and inattention; that she wandered
through the Front Office area and into the private
conference room when she had been told to stay out
...; that Reinhardt was disruptive to other employees
and would not stay at her job. Koterman investigated
the reports and found them to be correct. The day
before her discharge Koterman talked with Sebranek
relative to the poor performance by Reinhardt as
shown on the work sheets and Sebranek reported that
when Reinhardt was -working on the post-molding
tables she was disruptive because she carried on
conversation with other employees. It was commonly
known and confirmed by Koterman's investigation that
Reinhardt was a "goof off" and wandered around the
production area during working hours doing as she
pleased. It was reported to Koterman that Reinhardt
was consistently late the day after her bowling night.
Koterman testified that when Reinhardt worked
alone in archery (Reinhardt was the only operator in
archery except on rare occasions) and stuck to her work
August 9, that he asked her what IAM stood for, because he did not know,
and that Reinhardt said if he wanted to know, he could see her after work or
on her break. I credit Reinhardt's more detailed testimony and find that two
conversations took place , in accordance with her version of them.
5 Sebranek testified to the same effect . She said that Reinhardt
mentioned that ' Koterman had said ' there were complaints about her,
including some complaints from Sebranek, and that she told Reinhardt that
she had not gone to the front office to complain about her.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that her manual dexterity was good and her work was
satisfactory. However, responses to Koterman's inquir-
ies relative to her performance in the plastics depart-
ment before, and after the sale of the archery depart-
ment showed Reinhardt as an unsatisfactory worker in
plastics. Koterman in essence was presented with a
situation where the only job on which Reinhardt had
performed satisfactorily was phased out. Reinhardt's
misconduct and poor attitude has been cause for a
discussion between Lueck and Koterman ,in May or
June 1974, and at that time it was decided to keep
Reinhardt on until the archery department was
completely phased out in order to avoid having to train
a new employee for archery duties for a short period of
time.
From Koterman's own assertion of the reasons for the
discharge, it is evident that there was no precipitating
factor involved. That is, Reinhardt had not, in the
preceding few days, engaged in any specific act which
Respondent even contends caused it to call her in the
middle of the work shift and summarily discharge her. As
Respondent's bri ef concedes, "the timing of the discharge
creates suspicion," in that it occurred the very day
Reinhardt began distributing union literature and handing
out union authorization cards in the plant. This suspicion
is enhanced by the fact that there was no intimation given
to Reinhardt, no warning whatsoever, that her conduct,
work performance,, absentee record, or "lack of coopera-
tion" was endangering her job, and further enhanced by
the discharge occurring in the middle of a shift, although
nothing occurred (except Reinhardt's union activities) to
make that, time and that date" seem a natural point for
discharging Reinhardt for "an accumulation of various
reasons."
Respondent argues that Koterman, as he testified, had
been preparing to leave on a 2-week vacation and wanted
to effect the discharge prior to leaving. But the
"accumulation of various reasons," which, as will be gone
into below, began a year earlier, would not appear to be
the kind of cause for discharge that could not await
Koterman's return 2 weeks hence; that would necessitate
the abrupt discharge on August 9. Koterman did testify
that the day before Leadlady Sebranek had complained to
him about, Reinhardt's work performance as shown on the
work sheets, and that Reinhardt was "disruptive" to other
workers because of her conversation with them. Sebranek,
on the, other hand, testified that she never went to
Koterman to complain about Reinhardt's work perfor-
mance,, although she did say that she mentioned to
Koterman that Reinhardt conversed with other employees
too much, so that she could only do a good job "where she
was either alone or somewhere to keep her busy." It was
clear that Sebranek, as a witness, was on Respondent's
side, not Reinhardt's, and her failure fully to corroborate
Koterman in this respect impels me to conclude that there
was no such complaint by Sebranek on August 8.
Koterman also testified that he actually made the
determination to discharge Reinhardt the day before, on
August 8, and that he informed Lester Lueck, Respon-
dent's president, of his determination, telling Lueck, either
on August 8 or 9, "I want to get rid of this operator," with
Lueck saying it was "left up to" Koterman "to take care of
the situation." Lueck's testimony would indicate that
Koterman came to him on August 9, "fairly early."
Therefore, asserts Respondent, even if Respondent knew
by the time of the discharge of Reinhardt's union activities
on August 9, "It is uncontroverted that the actual decision
to discharge Reinhardt was made prior to August 9. . - ."
Testimony of this type, i.e., that a "decision" was made,
can never, of course, be "controverted" by direct evidence.
The General Counsel would be hard put to present
witnesses to testify that Koterman did not make such a
mental determination on August 8. This kind of self-
serving testimony, in short, is thus, like "motive" testimo-
ny, not "hard evidence" in any case, and must be assessed
against the factual evidence. For reasons already set forth,
as well as further reasons set forth below, I do not believe
that Koterman made any such decision on August 8, any
more than I believe his asserted reasons for Reinhardt's
discharge.
Careful examination of Respondent's asserted reasons
for the discharge strongly suggests, without more, that they
were not the real reasons. One of the "accumulation of
various reasons" was Reinhardt's attendance. Examination
of her "Employee Attendance Record," which is in
evidence, affords no basis whatsoever for concluding that
Reinhardt had a poor attendance record, the more so when
viewed against the records of many other employees, which
were also put in evidence .6 Furthermore, Respondent had
posted a notice on its bulletin boards on April 4, 1974,
stating that employees who the Company felt were absent
too much would receive a letter of warning, and that if the
absences persisted thereafter they would be terminated.
Reinhardt never received a letter of warning, or even a
verbal warning, about her attendance.
With respect to her "work performance," the testimony
does not bear out Koterman's assertion that it was
deficient in the last several weeks prior to the discharge.
Indeed, Reinhardt, who had worked in the post-molding
department when she began her employment a year earlier,
and had shortly thereafter transferred to the archery
department, performed much better when transferred back
to post-molding following the sale of the archery depart-
ment in July than she had in her first stint in post-molding.
Koterman himself testified that under Respondent's
piecework rate plan, "a good performer in post-molding
would accumulate, oh, fifteen, twenty dollars a week."
Reinhardt made $14.82, $14.20, and $17.77 in her 3 weeks
in post-molding after the sale of the archery department,
despite not having performed, other than sporadically, on
that job since early in her employment .7
Koterman also testified that Leadman Ellis Baylis did
not want Reinhardt in his department because she talked
too much and was inattentive to her work. Koterman
ultimately stated, however, that Baylis said this to him in
August 1973, the only time Reinhardt had worked for
Baylis, other than "possibly relief work" while in archery.
Baylis was not called to testify.
6 Koterman did testify that this was a very minor reason. 7 In 1973, her piecework earnings were $11.55 and $11.13.
ROSE TOOL & PLASTICS 509
The complaint about Reinhardt's "attitude" presumably
stemmed in part from a complaint from employee Gloria
Holub about a "verbal fight" between Holub and Rein-
hardt. Koterman admitted never asking Reinhardt for her
"version" of this incident, or in any way speaking to her
about it .8
The other aspect to her "attitude" referred to by
Koterman was her wandering about the plant during work
hours, doing as she pleased. This complaint was apparently
one of long duration, there being no evidence that the last
few weeks of Reinhardt's employment entailed any such
derelictions. As noted, her incentive piecework earnings
during those last few weeks would alone tend to refute any
lack of attention to her work by Reinhardt. Finally, the
record amply demonstrates that employees generally were
permitted to talk and smoke while working.
Koterman also testified that Reinhardt's having broken a
die was "one of many things" that motivated' him to
discharge her. The die breaking incident, however, oc-
curred at the outset of Reinhardt's tenure with the
Company, and her leadman at the time, Dan Trudell, did
not even give her a written warning because if it. Koterman
testified, in regard to die breaking, that "anyone is entitled
to a mistake."
Aside from one occasion, when Koterman testified, he
saw Reinhardt "Wandering through the office," and "told
her she didn't belong in there," Reinhardt received no
warnings, written or verbal, from Koterman or from any
leadman that her work, attitude, cooperation, or attend-
ance was in any way not up to company standards. Nor,
other than to testify that he had personally observed
Reinhardt wandering about the plant, did Koterman
investigate any of the complaints he presumably received
about her. Part of his reason for not investigating was his
having to leave on vacation at noon on August 9.
All the foregoing factors, i.e., the precipitate nature of
the discharge, its following hard on the heels of Respon-
dent's union activity, and the fact that the "accumulation
of reasons," with some of these "reasons" manifestly not
withstanding scrutiny, were not of a nature seemingly to
necessitate such prompt action, there being no precipitat-
ing cause, themselves furnish ample basis for concluding
that Respondent knew of Reinhardt's union activities, even
in the absence of any direct evidence of company
knowledge. I also agree with the General Counsel that the
"small plant theory," 9 is applicable to this case, and
furnishes an independent basis for concluding that Re-
spondent knew of Reinhardt's activities the morning of
August 9. Finally, we have the direct evidence of
Supervisor Trudell (see below for my reasons for finding
that he is a' supervisor) having interrogated Reinhardt that
morning about her wearing a union button.
For all the foregoing reasons, I am convinced, and find,
that Respondent discharged Reinhardt because of her
union activities, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
C Although Holub testified that she never made any complaints to
Koterman about Reinhardt, I do not credit her denial, for reasons set forth
later.
9 Wiese Plow Welding Co. Inc., 123 NLRB 616 (1959). As noted,
Respondent on August 9, had a total of about 57 employees, working in
three shifts. Respondent's witnesses have, as the General Counsel correctly
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) attributable to
Leadman Dan Trudell necessitate a determination at the
outset whether he was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. On August 9, Respondent had about 30 employees
on its first shift. Yet, according to Koterman, Respondent
had no supervisors, despite the fact that he himself was
only on the production floor "a nominal amount. I'm not
there to supervise per se." According to Koterman,
Respondent's operations in the production area are
relatively simple and standardized by standard operating
procedures and directives from the front office, with the
leadmen and setupmen handling the mechanical and
technical aspects of the machines. Therefore, the argument
runs, any actions by the leadmen and setupmen are
pursuant to the front office's directions, and to standard
operating procedures, and do not require the exercise of
independent judgment.
It is difficult to believe that a shift of 30 employees could
operate without true supervision, more, that is, than
Koterman's being on the floor a "nominal amount" could
possibly furnish. Furthermore, the evidence, including
Trudell's own testimony, shows that he has recommended
at least one employee for discharge, with the discharge
effected; that he has interviewed applicants for employ-
ment, with at least one hired; that he has recommended
operators receive written warnings; that he receives $3
more per hour than Leadlady Sebranek, and still more
than the operators (the precise amount in the latter
instance does not appear, and, because the operators are
paid piecework, is not quite so significant); and that he
received almost twice as much as a Christmas bonus than
the highest operator received. In addition, as set forth
below, he was able to call meetings of two different shifts,
only one, his own, at which he solicited their gripes and
grievances. Taken together, the foregoing largely uncontro-
verted facts establish that Trudell at all pertinent times was
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2.(11) of the Act.
Apart from the fact that-Koterman's "nominal amount" on
the floor (with a conceded "I'm not there to supervise")
would otherwise leave the full shift of some 30 employees
without any responsible supervision, the factors enumerat-
ed show that Trudell actually possessed significant indicia
of supervisory status within the statutory definition.
The alleged violations of Section 8(axl) attributable to
Trudell include interrogating Reinhardt, Holub, and
Poetzel, threatening Holub with' loss of benefits, and
soliciting employees grievances at two meetings called by
him. Although in general I credit the General Counsel's
witnesses, including Reinhardt, as against Trudell,10 I am
inclined to find that Holub was not a credible witness, and
to make no findings of violations of the Act based on her
testimony of what Trudell said, in the face of Trudell's
denials. Apart from demeanor, which is a factor, I am
impelled to this conclusion because Holub testified that
points out, "emphasized the small nature of its operation ." Furthermore,
President Lueck testified that he walks through the various departments of
the plant each morning.
10 Actually, there were no major differences between Trudell's testimony
and that of the General Counsel's witness , with the one exception about to
be noted.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trudell said to her on the morning of August 9 that Lueck
had received a letter (obviously referring to a letter from
the Union), whereas the clear and convincing evidence is
that the letter in question was not received by the
Company until the evening of August 9.
I ford that 'Trudell's interrogations of Reinhardt, already
set forth, were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also
find that Respondent violated the Act by Trudell's
questioning the first shift employees, at meetings called by
him, "about the union . . . you know, who was for it and
why you were for it and stuff like that" (Trudell's own
testimony), and his asking the second shift employees, also
at a meeting called by him, about their "gripes and
grievances," and "why they wanted a union." (Also
Trudell's own testimony). At the meeting with the second
shift employees, Trudell also, as credibly testified to by
employee Jenny Poetzel, said that if a union got in "we
would probably be on strike," and asked the employees "to
get a grievance down on paper and that he'd get them into
the office and see what could be done, and . . . he was sure
that the Company would bend and it couldn't be done
overnight but he was sure if the Union would get off their
backs." Apart from the fact that I have found Trudell to be
a supervisor, he testified that he told President Lueck that
he was going to ask the employees about their gripes, and
that Lueck nodded his head. Lueck did not deny this.1'
Trudell's conduct in this respect was therefore attributable
to' Respondent based on Lueck's tacit approval of his
plans, even if Trudell were not found to be a supervisor.
The complaint also alleges that Trudell interrogated
Jenny Poetzel on August 29, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Although I fully credit Poetzel's version of the incident, it,
is plain, without going into any detail, that Trudell knew all
about Poetzel's union sympathies by that time, and, in
making a comment "don't fall asleep IAM" to her, was not
seeking to elicit any information from her about her union
sympathies . Particularly because nothing would be added
to the remedy herein by fording this additional 8(a)(1)
violation, I do not find any violation therein.
The final 8(a)(1) allegation concerns meetings held by
Koterman and Balcer (the plant superintendent) with each
of the three shifts on August 30. The three meetings, each
of which lasted several hours, were substantially similar in
nature . After Balcer gave a brief history of the Company,
he "asked if anyone had any complaints or anything to
make communication better." After a question about
piecework , Balser responded that the Company could not
make any promises because the Union was trying to get in.
He also said that the Company was too small to have a
union, that it would cost the Company too much money to
negotiate with the Union, and that employees would lose
their individuality if there were a contract. At one of the
meetings, Balcer, said that "he would like to tell us that he'd
make things better and promise a whole lot of things but he
couldn't because it was against Federal Law, however, he
said that he was sure that something could be done." 12
Helen Breska testified credibly that on the third shift
11 Trudell at first did deny telling Lueck anything about his plans in this
respect, but finally admitted that he had done so when confronted with his
affidavit.
12 Based on the testimony of Jenny Poetzel; Balcer did not testify.
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Balcer and Koterman "were talking to us workers about
the union and Leonard Balcer gave a run down on how the
company got started that how it progressed and that they
were too small of a company for a union to come into. And
then we talked about better wages, better piecework, . and
better ventilation." Breska added, "There wasn't too much
said about better wages, because he always said it was not
a promise. He didn't say how much better wages were
going to be." Koterman and Balcer also said "That they
would try to better [communications [," and that "There
were merit raises which we didn't know anything about."
Although it is true, as Respondent contends, that no
specific promises were made to the employees at these
meetings, it is clear to me that at least one of the purposes
of the meetings to ascertain employee' grievances "was to
impliedly represent to the employees that their grievances
would be remedied if the Union was defeated. " N.L.RB. v.
Tom Wood Pontiac, Inc., 447 F.2d 383, 385 (C.A. 7, 1971).
The evidence shows that the Company had never before
held meetings of this kind. The tone of the meetings was
antiunion, in the sense that the Company was asserting
that a union would not be good for the employees, for the
Company was too small for a union, and it would cost it
too much money to negotiate. The timing of the meeting,
in the midst of the Union's organizing campaign, coupled
with what was said, is sufficient, in my opinion, to make
the speeches, insofar as they did impliedly promise benefits
to the employees, violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices, that it offer reinstatement to
Bernice Reinhardt with backpay, computed as provided in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:13
ORDER
The Respondent, Rose Tool & Plastics, Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against employees because they have engaged in concerted
activities.
(b) Interrogating or threatening employees concerning
their union activities.
(c) Soliciting employees' grievances and impliedly
promising them benefits if they reject union representation.
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
Its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
ROSE TOOL & PLASTICS
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Bernice Reinhardt immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exist, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority ' or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered, in the
manner set forth in the section hereof 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, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
14 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
511
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in-Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
at all locations where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."