Screen Print Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its dispatchers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.lo
10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within
10 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with General Drivers, Salesmen
and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed
contract. The bargaining unit is:
All truckdrivers employed at our terminal located at Leland, Missis-
sippi, excluding all other employees, mechanics and mechanic helpers,
watchmen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the aforesaid union to negotiate
for, or represent , the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
DIXIE GAS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Fed-
eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone No.
534-3161, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Screen Print Corporation and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO . Case No. 1-CA-4539. March 30, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 9, 1964, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in
the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. the Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
151 NLRB No. 119.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1267
practices and recommended dismissal thereof. The Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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 briefs,' and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2
conclusions , and recommendations .3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Screen Print Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein.
I The Charging Party filed a motion to dismiss the Respondent 's exceptions on the
asserted ground that they do not comply with Section 102 46(b) of the Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended The Respondent filed opposition thereto. The Re-
spondent 's exceptions set forth specifically the questions of fact and law to which ex-
ceptions are taken ; identify those parts of the Trial Examiner's Decision to which
objection is made ; and the supporting brief designates by precise citation of page the
portions of the record relied upon , and states the grounds for the exceptions and cites
authorities . Accordingly , we find that Respondent 's exceptions , as amplified by its sup-
porting brief , are in substantial compliance with the Board Rules We therefore deny
the Charging Party' s motion to dismiss the exceptions . Cf Patrick F. Izza, d/b/a Pat
Izzi Trucking Company, 149 NLRB 1097. where the Respondent filed a first set of
so-called exceptions which stated only that the Trial Examiner's Decision was against the
evidence , the law, and the weight thereof, then filed a second set of so-called exceptions
also in summary form to each major subdivision of the Decision , and did not file any
supporting brief in amplification or explanation.
In adopting the Trial Examiner 's Decision, we find it unnecessary to decide that the
following statements independently constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1)
Robert Besson 's referring to Williams on his way to the election as "one of the sons-
of-bitches" , the elder Besson ' s denouncing Jones as a "liar" for the testimony he
gave , and Donald' s saying to Jones immediately after the discharge that manage-
ment "didn 't want any liars."
3 The following clause is deleted from paragraph 1(c) of the Order and from the
appropriate paragraph of the Appendix:
directing abusive and insulting language against employees in demonstration of
animus against them because of their support of the Union;
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner A.
Norman Somers on July 15 to 17, 1964 , in Providence , Rhode Island, on complaint
alleging, and answer denying, violations by Respondent of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (5) of the Act.' The parties waived oral argument and the General Counsel
and Respondent have filed briefs. On the entire record (as corrected on notice to
the parties), on my observation of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs,
I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, Screen Print Corporation, at its plant in Providence, Rhode Island,
makes and sells textile materials and finished cloth. In regular course, it receives
materials from, and ships its products to, points outside the State, in excess of $50,000
a year in each category. Respondent concedes, and I find, it is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act
The Charging Party, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The General Counsel claims that Respondent: (a) in violation of Section 8(a) (5),
dishonored its obligation to bargain with the Union as the certified representative
of its employees; (b) in violation of Section 8(a)(3), discharged five employees
because they supported the Union (c) in further violation of Section 8(a)(1), com-
mitted additional "independent" acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. Respond-
ent disputes that the "independent" conduct violated Section 8(a)(1); defends four
of the terminations as being discharges for cause, and a fifth as a voluntary quit-
ting; and it claims it bargained with the Union in good faith and had a good reason
for suspending further bargaining, and anyway, it is not sure the certification (issued
by the Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board after a consent election) was a
good one.
B. Introductory summary of events
The events in issue range from October 1963, when the Union's organizational
campaign among Respondent's employees began, to April 1, 1964, when it filed the
charge.
The Union had tried to organize Respondent's employees in earlier years. The
last time was in September 1962 After that venture failed, a shop committee was
formed at Respondent's plant at the suggestion of Alfred Besson, Jr., treasurer of
Respondent 2 As described by Besson, Junior, it was composed of six members,
three from management and three from employee ranks, and on September 30, 1962,
Respondent signed a contract with it for a year. When that year expired, Besson,
Junior, testified, the employees indicated they did not want to continue under that
arrangement. In the ensuing month of October 1963, employee John Hayes and
another employee went to the Union's office and asked for information about becom-
ing organized. John Hayes received about 50 application cards from the Union,
and since he was on the night shift, he gave about half to his brother David to dis-
tribute on the day shift. David did so with the help of Gerard Jones, also of the
day shift.3 Sometime during the first half of November, John brought back about
26 signed applications to the Union, and on November 14 4 the Union (as it had
done in past organizational efforts) filed a representation petition with the Rhode
Island State Labor Relations Board. On November 20 Respondent and the Union
signed an agreement for a consent election to be held by the State Board for a unit
of "all production employees, including maintenance employees."
1 Charge filed April 1, 1964. Complaint issued May 15, 1964.
2 The principals of Respondent are Alfred Besson, Jr. and Alfred Besson, Sr., appar-
ently the president There are still two younger Bessons, Donald and Robert, who are
supervisors in Respondent's plant, with power to hire and fire The remaining member
of the top echelon is William Millmather, a "working" vice president.
3 The Hayes brothers and Jones are three of the five employees alleged to have been
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
*Where the year is not stated, it is 1963 for the late months and 1964 for the early ones.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1269
The election was held on December 4. Of the votes that were not challenged, 21
were for the Union and 18 against. Three were challenged. After a hearing held
on December 18 and 21, the State Board, on January 17, issued its "Decision and
Orders," upholding two challenges and overruling one.5 This made the final count
21 to 19 in favor of the Union The State Board incorporated this result in its
revised tally of ballots issued on January 22. On that day also, it certified the Union
as the bargaining representative of Respondent's production and maintenance
employees.
There were two bargaining meetings after this, one on February 11 and the other
on February 20. Respondent's attorney, Charles Anderson, could not attend the
first, so he gave the go-ahead signal to the Bessons to hold it without him.6 It was
hardly an orderly session, and the Union and the General Counsel impugn the good
faith of Respondent in respect to it. This is largely because of claimed indignities
toward the Union's representative by the younger Bessons, Donald and Robert, and
by Vice President Millmather. The second meeting, which was led by the respective
attorneys, was free of the turbulence of the earlier one, and there was an orderly
discussion of the subjects the Union tried to raise in the first one. These were pro-
posals for a contract and also for reinstating the five employees alleged in the com-
plaint to have been unlawfully discharged. (The terminations occurred on separate
dates from November 25 to February 3.) At that meeting, company counsel
instructed his client to supply the Union with the data needed to prepare a proposed
contract. He also informed William Sheehan, the Union's attorney, that if he
received the proposed contract before leaving on his planned vacation (which he
would do at the end of a trial that was starting the next day), he would take it with
him on his trip.
There never was another meeting. On February 25 Sheehan sent Anderson the
draft of the contract, with a letter asking to be informed of the "earliest possible
date" for the next meeting Receiving no reply, he wrote Anderson on March 9
again requesting a meeting date. Receiving no reply to that either, the Union filed
the charges on April 1. Attorney Anderson testified that "after we were served with
the charges, the die had been cast." He testified that before this he had decided to
postpone further meetings with the Union because of the following: on February 21,
the day after the second bargaining meeting, Eugene Harrison, an employee of
Respondent, appeared at the Union's office with three other employees and handed
Ferdinand Sylvia, the Union's representative, a petition repudiating the Union as
the employees' bargaining agent. Sylvia's reception of the delegation was hardly
cordial • the group, on reporting back to the plant, then went to the police precinct,
and Harrison and one of the others brought "simple assault" charges against Sylvia.
Sylvia was acquitted after trial on March 12. Attorney Anderson testified that
when he returned from his vacation on March 10 or 11 (on which he left February 26,
after receiving the proposed contract), he saw Union Attorney Sheehan's letter
of March 9 complaining of the failure to reply to the letter of February 25 and
again asking for a resumed meeting date, whereupon he contacted Respondent, who
"advised [him] of this incident involving Mr. Sylvia and the charges." 7 Anderson
testified he then advised Respondent that the "atmosphere" was not suitable for
another meeting while the assault charges were pending. As stated, Sylvia was
acquitted on March 12. Anderson testified he nevertheless thought a further cooling
off period was called for, but that after the Union filed the charges on April 1, "the
5 The ballots to which the challenges were sustained and therefore were not counted
were one where the choice was marked with a check (V), instead of an "X," as required
by the State Board' s rules ; the other was cast by Delbert Leighty, whom the State Board
found to be a supervisor. The ballot to which the challenge was overruled and there-
fore was counted was cast by Kenneth Mowry, who the State Board, contrary to the
Union's contention, decided was not a supervisor.
B The "Bessons" is how we designate Alfred Besson, Sr., and Alfred Besson, Jr. ( some-
times referred to that way without their first names). The younger sons (supra, foot-
note 2) will be identified by their first names
7 Anderson had already been informed of them before he left on vacation ; Attorney
Sheehan mentioned it in his letter of February 25, which had the draft of the contract
Anderson received before going on vacation.
1 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
die had been cast, and I made no further attempt to negotiate." 8 He testified also
that that was the "major reason" for his decision not to meet further, and besides,
he was not sure the certification was a valid one.
C. The refusal to bargain
1. The attack on the State Board's certification
(a)
As previously indicated, after the State Board issued the certification on January 22,
Respondent held two bargaining meetings. This raises a grave question of
whether Respondent has the standing to challenge the certification now. Equity and
a due regard for the interests of stability militate against it. The bargaining sessions
were premised on the assumption that Respondent accepted the State Board's deci-
sion. To permit Respondent to go back on this now would be to vest one of the
bargainers with a power of gravest mischief: an employer could lead the certified
union through months of negotiation and nullify its fruits by attacking from the
start the ostensible premise of the protracted labors. Aside from its unconscionable
character, such a course entails grave peril to the interests of stability sought to be
served by the orderly resolution of questions of representation. Negotiations could
not be carried on with any sense of security. Contracts could not even be signed
free of the specter of a later challenge to the certified union's standing to have
entered into it. Nothing else appearing, an employer who embarks upon bargaining
negotiations with a certified union has thereby implicitly abandoned such objections
as he may have raised during the representation proceeding before the certification
issued
(b)
Under the commitment it made when it signed the "Agieement for Consent Elec-
tion" on November 20, it is not open to Respondent to challenge the certification in
any event It there agreed "that in the event of such certification of the Rhode Island
State Labor Relations Board, it will recognize and bargain collectively with the
selected union " Respondent claims that the State Board's disposition of the chal-
lenges did not conform to the standards of the National Labor Relations Board.
As later indicated, the count, under the National Board's standards, would still have
left the Union with a clear majority. What controls here, however, is the policy of
comity toward certifications of other tribunals. Where the parties have voluntarily
submitted the issue, the Board will respect the tribunal's decision even if rendered
under standards in variance from the Board's, subject only to fundamental consid-
erations of due process. Pursuant to that policy, the Board, in The West Indian
Co., Ltd., 129 NLRB 1203, gave effect to a certification issued by an agency of the
Virgin Islands under "challenge procedures [varying from] the Board's," where, as
the Board noted, "the parties voluntarily participated in [the] election, and [it] was
conducted without substantial deviation from due process requirements."
(c)
We have earlier stated that the Union would have had a majority even if the
challenges had been resolved tinder Federal standards. We may assume that the
ballot that the State Board voided because the voter did not mark his choice with
the prescribed x (supra, footnote 5) would, in an NLRB election, have been counted,
because the policy of the Federal Board is to give effect to the choice appearing on
the ballot, however marked, as long as it does not compromise the anonymity of
the voter. N L R.B. v. Whitinsville Spinning Ring Company, 199 F. 2d 585, 588
s Anderson testified that "after the trial [he] contacted Mr Sheehan" and told him
of his belief in the need for a further cooling off period In view of the effect Respond-
ent gave to the filing of the charges, it is hardly crucial whether Anderson did "contact
Mr. Sheehan" after Sylvia's acquittal to tell him he thought meetings should be postponed.
However, his testimony on cross-examination shows him to be mistaken in his assertion
that he did so. He testified.
Q Did you ever attempt to contact Mr Sheehan after you received the last
letter from him?
A. No, I didn't.
The "last letter" was that of March 9, which counsel saw on his return from his vacation
and before the trial. It is found that Respondent made no reply to the bargaining
requests
of February 25 and March 9, whether through Anderson or anyone else.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1271
(C.A 1). Assuming that this, before the NLRB, would have brought the count
against the Union up to 20, it would still have been a minority against the Union's
21, for Leighty, who cast the other ballot that was excluded, in his instance because
he was a supervisor (supra, footnote 5), was clearly such under Federal standaids
too.9
Until November 12 or 14, the supervisor of the printers on the night shift, then
14 in number, had been Ernest LeBeau. Though he was a good printer, LeBeau
proved to be a poor supervisor because employees under him made mistakes in their
own printing which it was his responsibility to see they should not make. He was
then removed as supervisor and was replaced by Leighty, who until then had been
a rank-and-file employee under Paul Teklmsky, supervisor of the printers on the
day shift. The Bessons introduced Leighty to the employees as the man now "in
charge" of the night shift. The elder Besson told the force that "whatever [Leighty]
said to them was the same as though he said it to them," and that he had the power
to "hire or fire." Leighty's hourly rate was raised to above that of the rank-and-file
under him, and, as was the case with LeBeau, he assigns the work and passes on
requests to leave early. Like LeBeau also, he was given the responsibility for the
quality and quantity of the night shift's production. Besson, Junior, testified that he
relies on Leighty 's reports as "supervisor " of the night shift in determining an
employee's tenure, citing on that point the discharges of John Hayes and Richard
Veyera. Like the Bessons and Teklinsky (and Mowry too, supra, footnote 9),
Leighty has a key to the plant . He leaves not at the end of the shift , as do the
rank-and-file, but some time later, after checking the timecards for punctuality and
accuracy of punching-out time. And just as Teklinsky, at the end of his shift,
informs Leighty of the work of the day shift, finished or still to be done, so does
Leighty each day, similarly brief Teklinsky concerning his shift. The parity of
Leighty's status with that of Teklinsky is reflected in the eligibility list as originally
prepared by Respondent in the election proceeding . The typed list that Respondent
gave the Union omitted Teklinsky, whom Respondent at no time claimed to be eli-
gible, and it also omitted Leighty.19 However, on the morning of the election held
December 4, the State Board official had the identical list, except that Leighty's
name appeared on it in pencil at the bottom and out of its alphabetical order. The
State Board's decision on the challenges indicates Respondent did not then dispute
that Leighty performed as a supervisor. It claimed merely that he was a "temporary
boss." The portion of the decision dealing with Leighty was as follows:
The Board wishes to make clear that it was not impressed by the testimony
of Leighty and his employers concerning his status as a "temporary boss." Nor
was the Board impressed by the attempt to introduce into the record an alleged
private conversation between Leighty and his employers with reference to his
dual status.
° In the overruling of the challenge of the ballot cast by Mowry (supra, footnote 5),
Respondent probably fared better than it would have with the National Board We are
not concerned with this in the present context, but for its relevance on later issues, it is
noted that he had a special role which, on balance, cast him on the side of management.
He is "head" or "senior" man in the shipping and finishing department Donald Besson
is its official supervisor, but he divides his time between it and running the clerical force
in the office, where he is occupied with pricing. The evidence indicates he places sub-
stantial reliance on Mowry He testified Mowry "acts" for him when he is "away "
This is particularly so on Saturdays It is an "overtime" day, on which Respondent is
nevertheless in operation because of the volume of orders As later appears, employees
do not automatically work on that day, but are notified individually in advance (depend-
ing on how much time they have put in during the week). Donald testified that if he
is due to be away on Saturday, Mowry is sure to be in, in order to run that department
in his place, and it is Mowry of whom the rank-and-file in the department inquire whether
they are to work on Saturday. Besson , Junior, testified Mowry assigns the work to
the five other employees in the department An incident involving misrouting of mer-
chandise (treated more fully in the later discussion of the discharge of Gordon Camp-
bell) rather indicates that Donald holds Mowry to some account for the performance of
others, for though Mowry performs no step in the routing, Donald took it up with hint
as a matter he would expect Mowry to guard against As is the case only with the
Bessons and the supervisors, Mowry has a key to the plant, and his hourly wage is $2,
in contrast with the $1 40 to $1 50 of the rank-and-file
10LeBeau, on the other hand, who after November 9 (the payroll eligibility date under
the consent election agreement ) had stepped down from supervisor to rank-and-file, was
included in the eligibility list and he voted without challenge.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that as a matter of fact that his apparent subordinates could not be
held to the terms of such a "private conversation," if any did exist. And the
duties of the Board might be rendered interminable should we recognize argu-
ments based on "private conversations."
While the decision does not spell out the details of the claim that Leighty was a
"temporary boss," its character appears from the evidence before us: although, so
far as appears, the Bessons did not qualify their announcement to the employees
concerning his status, Leighty testified (as he said he testified also before the State
Board) that the Bessons had told him he would be the "temporary boss," and that
if he accomplished his mission to "bring up production and cut out some of the
errors that had been going on," he "would be made the permanent boss,"-which in
fact he is now. We are not concerned here with the State agency's apparent reser-
vations concerning the truth of the asserted "temporary boss" arrangement; we are
concerned only with its being "not impressed" with its significance even if true. In
thus discounting it, the State Board applied a standard in harmony with Federal
doctrine that one performing supervisory functions is a supervisor under Section
2(11) of the Federal Act, whether he is doing so on probation or permanently.
WTOP, Inc., 114 NLRB 1236; 115 NLRB 758; cf. Sperry Gyroscope Company,
Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 136 NLRB 294, 296. Besson's Junior's state-
ment on direct examination would seem sufficient in itself to show Leighty had the
kind of responsibility for the performance of others that brings him in the super-
visory category under Federal standards. He testified:
During the night Dell's [Leighty's] job is partly supervisory to see that things
are going right. He also does pin stop setting, and in fact, three weeks ago, I
had to give him the devil because he was doing too much work and not enough
supervising. [Emphasis supplied.]
(d)
All of the factors above recited, whether singly or in combination, lead to the
conclusion, here arrived at, that the certification was validly issued; that by virtue of
the designation of a majority of the Respondent's production and maintenance
employees, the Union on and after January 22 has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of said employees, and that Respondent was under an
obligation to bargain collectively with the Union as such under Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act.
2. The validity of the refusal to bargain
(a)
That item presents no real question: Attorney Anderson's testimony that when
the Union filed the charges, "the die was cast" against any further bargaining brings
Respondent within established doctrine that "the filing or pendency of unfair labor
practice charges does not relieve an employer of his duty to bargain collectively." 11
Respondent's brief would seem to reflect second thoughts on its earlier assump-
tion that it was relieved of the obligation to bargain while the charges were pending.
Attorney Anderson, who took the stand, testified that the filing of the charge on
April 1 was the "major reason" for refusing to meet any further, and Besson, Junior,
on the stand, suggested that the charges were the sole reason for not resuming bar-
gaining. In contrast with the importance with which Respondent vested the charge
at the hearing, its brief now does not even mention it. Instead, its defense is that it
at "no time, refused to bargain," but that the "atmosphere" created by the Sylvia-
Harrison incident gave it a reasonable ground for postponing bargaining. This seems
to say that the Union's charge that it refused to bargain was premature, but, for the
reasons stated, it is hardly a defense to the allegation in the General Counsel's
complaint that Respondent refused to bargain: for the obligation to bargain, despite
a pending charge, is not contingent on the merit of the charge. That item aside,
Respondent is on no firmer ground in contending that it had not run afoul of its
bargaining obligation before the charge was filed.
In considering whether Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (5) even before the
charge was filed, I find no need to treat in this context the imputations of the General
Counsel against the Respondent's good faith in the conduct of the first bargaining
meeting of February 11, and in the activities of employee Harrison culminating in
n N L.R.B. v. Morris Harris, et at., d/b/a Union Manufacturing Company, 200 F. 2d
656, 659 (C.A. 5), citing: N L R B. v. H. Gx. Hill Stores, Inc, 140 F. 2d 924, 926 (C.A. 5) ;
Hartsell Mills Company v. N L.R B., 111 F. 2d 291, 292 (C A. 4) ; N.L.R B. v. Ellis-
Klatscher & Co., 142 F. 2d 356 (C A. 9).
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1273
the presentation of the repudiating petition the day after the second meeting of
February 20. These will be discussed in a later context. We here treat Respond-
ent's argument that the "atmosphere" in the wake of the Sylvia-Harrison incident
made it reasonable to postpone further bargaining. The flaw in this contention is
that Respondent never replied to the Union's letters of February 25 and again on
March 9 requesting the resumption of meetings (supra, footnote 8). Nor did it
tell the Union what it thought was standing in the way of holding any. So far as
appears, the decision to postpone, if such was the true reason for ignoring the
requests, was unilaterally made and acted upon, without consultation or efforts to
explore with the Union modes of overcoming the "atmosphere": an exchange of
views was still in order on how long a time to allow for a change of "atmosphere,"
most particularly after Sylvia was exonerated of the charges to which the atmos-
phere was attributed. Respondent's actions are to be appraised by what they rea-
sonably conveyed, rather than by post litem assertions concerning their subjective
intent, which it did not in any event communicate. The Union could reasonably
construe the failure to answer a bargaining request for a period of over 5 weeks
and the total ignoring of a second request for 3 weeks after counsel's return from
his vacation as a refusal to meet at all; and even if the intent was only to postpone a
meeting date, the employer could not, consistently with its bargaining obligation and
the duty to recognize the Union as an equal in the bargaining relationship, unilater-
ally suspend the negotiations without consulting the Union's views concerning a date
which would fit the given circumstances. The conclusion, therefore, is that by fail-
ing to answer the Union's bargaining requests, Respondent had already refused to
bargain with it, in violation of Section 8(a)(5), before April 1, and that it com-
pounded the violation by refusing to bargain at all thereafter because the charge was
filed.
The conclusion above stated follows even if we assume that Respondent' s decision
to suspend meeting was prompted by a genuine belief that the atmosphere prevailing
after the Sylvia-Harrison occurrence was a true deterrent to further bargaining
meetings. Respondent's assertion that it acted out of that belief is outweighed by
the probabilities: the very omissions which sap it of exonerating significance, even
if entertained, serve also to undermine the creditworthiness of Respondent' s asser-
tion that it acted out of such a belief. Had that been the case, it would have com-
municated to the Union its views from the outset, as the Union did in Attorney
Sheehan's letter of February 25 to Attorney Anderson (supra, footnote 7). Sheehan
then informed Anderson of the incident, and though the Union saw it as tending
"to make [its] task more difficult," it hardly saw it as a deterrent to a meeting. To
the contrary, it asked to be advised of "the earliest possible date" for one. The
failure to do what common sense would at once have indicated, betrays a desire to
avoid having to cope with the rational answer that it is reasonable to assume Respond-
anticipated the Union would give it: that they exchange views concerning when,
under all existing circumstances, a meeting would be feasible. Attorney Anderson
assumed full responsibility for Respondent's decision, but the objective facts show
he was doing himself a disservice. I hardly think he would have conducted himself
in that manner in a situation where only he was involved or where he felt the decision
was truly his to make. In that kind of situation, one would reasonably have expected
him to reply to the letter of his brother attorney, to have explored with him ways of
overcoming the "atmosphere" to which he attributes his decision, to have exchanged
views with him on a suitable meeting date under all of the present circumstances,
and to at least have indicated what portions of the contract, they, as attorneys, could
discuss between themselves, as a groundwork for a later meeting between the parties.
While the total disregard of the requests to bargain were in violation of the obliga-
tion to do so, even if the subjective reason given to us were entertained in good faith,
the utter inconsistency of the action with elementary tenets of good sense under-
mines the assertion that it was in good faith, and it is found it was not. The General
Counsel claims that Respondent, by other conduct, manifested a hostility to the
Union that would predispose it to seize upon this pretext for relieving itself of the
obligation to bargain. This brings us to our next subject.
D. Conduct in alleged violation of 8(a)(1)
1. Introductory
The General Counsel, as stated, claims Respondent's rupture of the bargaining
relationship climaxed and carried out a hostility demonstrated from the outset. In
addition to "independent" acts, he relies on the discharges between November 25
and February 3 of five leading union sponsors. This last must await our separate
consideration of their individual cases. The "independent" acts consist of state-
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments by management representatives and its alleged sponsorship of the repudiating
petition, which the General Counsel attributes to Respondent as a matter of infer-
ence Respondent disputes the significance the General Counsel claims for the state-
ments, but not having made them. On the other hand, it very much disputes that it
had a hand in Harrison's activities culminating in the petition or its presentation to
the Union, or in the prosecution of Representative Sylvia that came in its wake.
We discuss each in turn
2. The statements
(a) Theii chronology
Leighty to Veyera• Richard Veyera testified that in November, which would be
shortly after Leighty became night shift supervisor, Leighty (in the presence of
another employee whom Veyera named but who did not testify) told him "if the
union got in we'd be back to forty hours," that "the company had been all through
it before and knew who was for and who was against it": and he added, "Look
around, half the guys who voted for it the first time aren't here now."
Besson, Senior, and Donald Besson to Jones. Gerald Jones, a dischargee, testified
that toward the end of November (about a week before the election of December 4),
the elder Besson and Donald spoke to him in his working area about the Union.
Besson, Senior, said, with Donald repeating it (the elder Besson is "hard to under-
stand") that "things were going to be a lot different" and "it wasn't going to be so
pleasant working here."
Donald Besson to Campbell- Gordon Campbell, a complainant, testified that
about that same time (a week before the election) near his work area, Donald Bes-
son (in the presence of another employee who did not testify) told him, "Unions are
no good, and we should get rid of all of them," to which he, Campbell, did not reply
Besson, Senior, and Besson, Junior, as to the working force the day before the
election, Respondent assembled the employees on both shifts. (There is a half-hour
overlap between the beginning of the night shift, 4 p m., and the end of the day shift,
4.30 p.m ) There the employees were addressed, first by the elder Besson and then
by Besson, Junior. The testimony concerning what was said was given by Campbell
and Jones, who are dischargees, and by Robert Williams, who is still employed but
who was patently sympathetic to the complainants and to the Union. Also testifying
concerning it were Eugene Harrison and James Sharon, whose sympathies were
patently the other way. Their accounts of what they remembered did not conflict
with that of the other three. They simply "remembered" less. The Bessons did not
deny the statements attributed to them The elder Besson, it was explained, was
in Switzerland.12 However, Besson, Junior, did not dispute the versions given.
Nor, after making allowance for their bias, did I find the testimony of the implicat-
ing witnesses otherwise impunged: they were mutually consistent and seemed to be
telling the truth as they remembered it. In their talks on December 3, the two
Bessons largely covered the same ground, the son having to repeat anyway because
the father (who speaks through a device installed after a tracheotmy) is hard to
understand. Where, however, either made a statement that the other did not, it will
be attributed to that person alone
Both expressed "surprise" at the interest shown in the Union. Each in his own
way, however. The elder Besson said "he had seen the list of people that signed the
cards on [Representative] Sylvia's desk" and that "some of the names he wasn't sur-
prised at, but others he was very much surprised." The elder Besson said the employ-
ees should have taken up their grievances with management directly instead of the
Union, and the son expressed his disappointment that they should not have gone to
the shop committee (the six-member management-employee group that he had
formed a year earlier and which the employees abandoned shortly before the Hayes
brothers began their activity on behalf of the Union).
The two Bessons also stated that if the Union got in they would make the same
contract with it as did another company (Triangle), which would increase the shifts
from two to three and that this would not only do away with overtime (the employ-
ees regularly put in more than 40 hours a week, receiving overtime pay for the
excess) but indeed reduce the workweek to 32 hours. That is how Williams and
Jones remembered it, and while Campbell concurred, he made a significant addition:
he testified the elder Besson said "he will go on three shifts and rather than have a
12 Though the complaint was issued some months before the hearing, there was no
indication of when he left for Switzerland, nor was any request made to leave the hearing
open for his testimony, whether by deposition or otherwise.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1275
layoff, he will go down to thirty two hours." [Emphasis supplied.] Williams, too,
on cross-examination, testified that he understood the elder Besson to say that if the
Union got in, he would follow the practice of other shops of not laying off but only
cut the hours of all the employees to 32 and perhaps 24. Eugene Harrison, giving
the remark the most favorable coloring to Respondent, testified that the elder Bes-
son was comparing the working policies of a shop under union contract unfavorably
with the policy of Respondent Under any of those versions, therefore, it would
appear that the change that was indicated would be made was one that the employees,
at least, deemed unfavorable to them.
Robei t Besson on Robert Williams. Williams testified that on the morning of
December 4 he was walking from his work area to the voting booth. He came to a
distance of about 10 feet from Robert Besson, who said to another employee, "There
goes one of the sons-of-bitches."
Mowry Jones: Jones testified that on the morning of December 5, the day after
the election, Mowry (who assists Donald Besson in running the shipping and finish-
ing department) told him the coffee break had been reduced from 15 to 10 minutes
Mowry was not asked whether lie had made that statement, but he did testify that
he had no "personal knowledge" of any orders concerning reducing the coffee break
He testified the coffee break did not change but that management had told him that
the employees were "stretching things out too long." I find Jones' testimony incon-
clusive. Had there been such a reduction in the coffee break, Mowry would have
told this also to Campbell and Williams, who likewise worked in the shipping depart-
ment They gave no such testimony, and I attach no weight to the conversation
dealing with that subject.
Alfred Besson, Senior, to David Hayes. David Hayes was discharged on the morn-
ing of December 17. Whether this was because of his union activity, as the General
Counsel claims, or because of a rather extended leave that he had taken without prior
permission is an issue considered in a later context. On that morning, Alfred Bes-
son, Jr , told Hayes that he was terminated. Hayes asked for the reason and the
elder Besson stated, "Some people aren't satisfied with the way things are around
here and now if they're not satisfied, they want a union and so I'm not satisfied with
you, so get the hell out."
Besson, Senior, to Jones at the State Board hearing: During the hearing held on
December 18 before the State Board on the challenges to the election, Jones gave
testimony favorable to the Union. In the midst of his testimony, the elder Besson
called out, "You're a liar "
Donald Besson to Jones after he testified at the heming• (1) A day or two after
the hearing, Donald Besson told Jones that "if [he] was seen talking to Gilbert
Belair [another union supporter, but who is still employed by Respondent] I [Jones]
would be fired." There is no rule prohibiting employees from talking with each
other. George Rinkin, a witness called by Respondent, who testified favorably to it
on other matters, testified that it is common practice for employees to talk with
each other, particularly when they come in natural contact with each other. Rinkin
testified that the work is dull and talking helps the time pass faster. Jones and
Belair, being in the same department, had occasion to be near each other. ("We
are working on tables back to back.")
(2) Sometime during Christmas week, Besson told Jones that "if [he] didn't have
these loads made up by the following morning, [he] would be fired-[he] could go
crying to the union." There is no prior background of Jones' having been laggard
in his production, and Donald, during his own testimony, made no such claim
(3) That same day, Jones asked Donald for help in lifting a roll of cloth. Don-
ald picked the roll up himself, and said, "I wouldn't want to see another one of you
union men hurt your back because there would be one less of you here." (Gordon
Campbell had injured his back on December 13 and he was discharged for the rea-
sons, variously stated by Donald, that he had not worked on the following morning,
Saturday, or had not given a satisfactory answer on Friday to whether he would
work on Saturday. Campbell's case went before the workmen's compensation bureau
and he received an award for a job-sustained injury.)
(4) Jones was discharged the morning of February 3. There, too, the question
of whether he was discharged because of his support of the Union awaits later con-
sideration. After the elder Besson told Jones that he was discharged and while
Jones was waiting for his check to be made up, Donald Besson entered the office
and said , "Well, we don't want liars working here now." Jones asked what he meant
and Donald replied , "Well, you think about it long enough and I 'm sure it will come
to you."
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Conclusion concerning the statements
The General Counsel claims that all of the foregoing statements were unwar-
ranted invasions upon the employees' free exercise of their guaranteed rights in
violation of Section 8(a)(1). I would agree that Leighty's statement to Veyera that
the advent of the Union would mean the elimination of all overtime, and his state-
ment that half of the Union's supporters during earlier campaigns were not here any
more, were threats of adverse management action, in the event the Union got in, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1). The elder Besson's statement that if the Union got in,
overtime would be eliminated and that he would follow the practice of other plants
of having three shifts that would cut the workweek down to 32 or 25 hours are con-
sidered in connection with his statement and that of Donald Besson to Jones shortly
before this that with the Union things would be "different" and not as "pleasant" as
they had been. As the employees understood it, his statement was a forecast of
the kind of agreement he would make with the Union in order to demonstrate how
much worse off they would be with it than without it. Further, we have no expla-
nation from him or Alfred Besson, Jr., which would offset the employees' explana-
tion of what they reasonably understood from the statement. I therefore find that
this was a threat of "untoward consequences", if the Union should come in, within
the doctrine of such cases as International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO (NECO Electrical Products Corp.) v. N.L.R.B , 289 F. 2d 757,
762 (C.A.D.C.); N.L.R.B. v. New England Upholstery Co., Inc., 268 F. 2d 590,
592 (C.A. 1); N.L.R.B. v. Super-markets, 327 F. 2d 109, 110 (C.A. 7), cert. denied
377 U.S. 944; N.L.R.B. v. Morris Fishman and Sons, Inc., 278 F. 2d 792, 796 (C.A.
3). I would also find that the following statements, too, when taken "cumulatively
and compositely" (The Canyon Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 128 F. 2d 953, 955 (C.A.
8)) had a reasonably coercive tendency: the elder Besson's statement that he had
seen the list of employees on Representative Sylvia's desk and was "surprised" at
some of the names, with its implication that it did something less than enhance their
status in management's eyes, and Supervisor Leighty's statement to Veyera that
"the Company ... knew who was for and who was against [the Union]"; Robert
Besson 's referring to Williams on his way to the election as "one of the sons-of-
bitches"; the elder Besson's denouncing Jones as a "liar" for the testimony he gave,
and Donald's saying to Jones immediately after the discharge that management
"didn't want any liars"; Besson, Junior's telling the assembled staff the day before the
election that they should have taken up their grievances through the company-
sponsored shop committee. In the same category also is the elder Besson' s telling
David Hayes the morning of his discharge-whatever the justification for the dis-
charge itself-that because Hayes was "not satisfied" and "want[ed] a union," he was
not satisfied with him and that he should get out. I would also deem Donald Bes-
son's threats to Jones during the week of Christmas-gratuitously made, so far as
the record shows-that he would fire him if he did not have his load made up by the
next day and he could "go crying to the union," and his sarcastic statement when
asked to help him lift a roll that he would not want to see one of the union men hurt,
to denote a personal animus against a subordinate because he was a supporter of
the Union. Also violative of Section 7 was the warning to Jones that he would dis-
charge him if he found him talking to Belair, another union supporter, in the face
of the undisputed freedom that the employees otherwise enjoyed to talk with their
fellow employees during work 13
3. The activities of employee Harrison culminating in the repudiating petition
The General Counsel imputes to Respondent the activity of Harrison culminating
in the presentation to the Union, the day after the second bargaining meeting, of a
petition repudiating it as bargaining representative.
Before the meeting of February 11, Harrison had canvassed the employees
throughout the plant and asked whether they would agree to sign a petition repudiat-
ing the Union as the bargaining representative. During the meeting of February 11,
he used the master box of the intercom system, which was in the color shop, to
interrupt the meeting with the shout, "Throw the bums out." 14 He claimed this
13 On the other hand, Donald Besson's statement to Campbell a week before the election,
that "Unions are no good and we should get rid of all of them," while reflecting an
attitude which a subordinate would find less than reassuring and relevant to the issue
of motivation for other conduct, falls short of being a threat, and so I find that it was
not a violation of Section 8(a) (1).
1s Assuming all the channels were open at the time, this would be heard throughout
the plant.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1277
was accidental and that shortly afterwards Robert Besson came down to the color
room and upbraided him for it, saying, "What the hell are you trying to do, get us
in trouble. Leave the box alone." Besson, Junior, was "furious" when that hap-
pened and sent Robert down on that mission. The four persons regularly working
in the color shop were Harrison and James Sharon, employees, and Robert Besson
and Vice President Millmather I am satisfied that Harrison acted out of his own
exuberance, but I am also satisfied that he was giving vent to the mood of manage-
ment that he heard over the intercom. He testified he had tried to "eavesdrop" but
heard nothing, so he assumed the intercom was closed. Harrison, in manner and
content, was something less than a pillar of reliability. The bargaining session, as
stated, was featured by conduct on the part of Millmather and the younger Bessons
with which Harrison's remark over the intercom was in keeping. There was much
testimony over Millmather's brandishing what the union representatives described
as a "knife" in front of one of their number (Corello) nearest Millmather at the
time, which evoked from him frantic statements concerning Millmather's intentions
toward him. The "knife" was produced at the hearing: it was a dull-edged spatula
of less than awesome dimensions used by Millmather for color matching, and which
he had brought from the workplace to the meeting. Millmather, who there spoke
with some emphasis had, apparently, underscored his point by twirling that instru-
ment, a penchant which he unconsciously exhibited with it on the witness stand too.
I am sure Millmather did not intend to threaten or intimidate the union repre-
sentative. But behavior of the management people other than Besson, Junior, and
Besson, Senior (whom the union representatives described as "very cordial") was
one of rudeness and contempt. Donald Besson would interrupt the proceedings
from time to time with the statement that the Union was "a lot of crap, and the
workers want no part of you." Robert Besson, when the union representative
objected to Millmather's brandishing the "knife," retorted with a reference to a
"big stick." The union representatives construed it as a suggestion to hit the protest-
ing representative with one, and Millmather and Donald Besson testified it was but a
suggestion that Millmather beat that man with a pencil, which, if done, he would be
sure to call a "big stick." The details are less important than the general tone which
was one of unbridled derision that would imbue an employee like Harrison, who
worked so closely with Millmather and Robert Besson, with the belief that the
Union was fair game for any indignity.
It is rather doubtful that Harrison would have felt free to engage in his act of
high jinks on the intercom had he not reasonably thought he was venting the mood
of management,-and had he not also deemed himself specially privileged because
of the free rein with which he was carrying on his union-repudiating activity in the
plant. We have mentioned the canvass he conducted the week before this meeting
as the groundwork for the petition. We now discuss his activity after this meeting
in gathering the signatures.
Harrison testified that he began to circulate the petition on February 17. It read:
2-17-64
To the Textile Workers Union of America
Gentlemen: We the undersigned employees of Screen Print Corp., 50 Aleppo
Street, Providence, do not wish to be represented by the Textile Workers Union
of America and request that all bargaining for a contract with our employer be
suspended.'
He made the rounds of the employees of the day shift in which he worked, and of
the night shift. By the afternoon of February 20, which was the very day the
Union and Respondent had the second bargaining meeting, he had 46 signatures (4
in excess of total vote cast in the election, challenged or otherwise); and the next
day, about 1 p.m., accompanied by James Sharon, the other employee in the color
shop, and two employees who work at printing, he brought the petition to the union
office.
Besson, Junior, Donald Besson, and Millmather testified they knew nothing of
this activity. Their testimony is overborne by probabilities: Harrison could hardly
have absented himself from the color shop as long as he did without being missed
by Robert Besson and Millmather (who, as stated before, are two of the four persons
comprising the color shop), and their making some inquiry that would inform them
of what Harrison was about. Secondly, Harrison's activity was directly observed
"There is no evidence that Respondent assisted in drafting the petition or that any
of its facilities were used for that purpose. William Healey, who went along with
Harrison when he brought it to the Union, testified his mother typed it and duplicated
it-using the facilities of the place where she is employed.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the persons in the lower management echelon: he solicited and procured the
signatures of Teklinsky, supervisor of the printers on the day shift, and of Leighty,
the night shift supervisor. They would hardly be likely to keep an item of that con-
cern to higher management from it. Harrison also procured the signature of Mowry.
Whatever his technical status, his duties and close relationship to Donald in operat-
ing his department (supra, footnote 9) were such that he would hardly keep that
information from management , most particularly in the light of his preference as
recorded on his challenged ballot (supra, footnote 5). Harrison's use of company
:'me on the project was especially flagrant on the night shift. As stated earlier, there
is a half hour's interlock in the two shifts,-from 4 p.m., when the night shift begins,
to 4:30 , when the day shift ends . Harrison solicited the night shift personnel dur-
ing this period, when they punched in. He testified that he had fit all of this activity
into his regular work, part of which entails his going around the plant to match
colors. He also testified that he fit his activity with the night shift personnel into his
work the same way. Supervisor Leighty exposed this: he testified that during this
half hour period, Harrison was at the timeclock, out of his work clothes and in street
attire.
The rampancy with which Harrison conducted this activity makes it most unlikely
that it was conducted without higher management getting to know what the lesser
supervisors directly observed 16 Harrison and the employees would have reason to
believe that the project, which on its face carried out the very pieference openly
expressed by the Bessons to the employees the day befoie the election, had manage-
ment's blessing. Confirming it would be the manner in which Harrison and the
three who accompanied him to the Union's office on February 21 to present the peti-
tion, took time off for that purpose. They testified that they had decided that morn-
mg to present the petition during lunch. This is between 12 and 12.30. They knew
beforehand that they could not finish their lunch and complete their mission in that
short a time- they did not in fact reach the union office until about 1 p.m. Accord-
ing to Respondent, employees are supposed to indicate in advance their intention to
take time off, a factor on which it relies in explaining several of the discharges later
discussed Yet, as these employees acknowledged, they took no steps to obtain
advance clearance for a plainly anticipated tardiness. They would hardly have been
likely to do so unless they had reason to believe that in this specific instance no prior
clearance was needed: it was, after all, the natural consummation of the project to
which management had until then, implicitly at least, given its sanction. On the
basis of the facts as a whole, it is found that Respondent assisted this activity of
Harrison in violation of Section 8(a)(1); and since it had a purpose or foreseeable
effect of obstructing the bargaining process, it was an added violation of Section
8(a)(5) aswell.17
26 As earlier stated, the elder Besson did not testify. Neither did Robert Besson, who,
as one of the four in the color shop, would have notice Harrison's absence. Donald
Besson, in telling the Union at the February 11 meeting, "the workeis want no part of
you" (after his "full of crap" pronouncement) touched on the very subject involved in
Harrison's activity. As against the possibility that it was a coincidence and but a
reflection of wishful thinking , is the fact that it was stated, with apparent confidence,
in the existing context of Harrison's activity directed toward that very subject: Harrison,
within the week before this, had conducted the canvass that was the groundwork for
his signature -gathering after that meeting. Supervisor Leighty testified that Harrison
had approached him on that one too
i71 do not sustain the General Counsel ' s imputation of two other matters to Respond-
ent-namely:
(1) That Harrison , in soliciting the signature of Robert Williams, told him it would
help him to be put back to his earlier position, which apparently Williams thought more
desirable. While I credit Williams' testimony to that effect against Harrison's denial,
I do not believe that Harrison was authorized or that Williams was given reason to be-
lieve that Harrison was authorized , to give that assurance.
(2) That Respondent instigated the criminal proceedings brought by Harrison against
Representative Sylvia. The General Counsel relies on the confusing and mutually con-
tradictory versions of Harrison and his three companions of their reception by manage-
ment on returning to the plant, followed by permission granted them to go to the police
station , which then consumed another 2 hours. By then , however, they had a score of
their own to settle Also, the incident was one which would naturally impel an employer
to side with the employee, whatever he may have thought of the project out of which it
arose I would therefore attach no weight to it even if Respondent had suggested
nr'nging the charges
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1279
E. The five discharges
1. Focus of the inquiry
The termination of the five complainants took place on separate dates before the
first bargaining meeting, and as earlier stated, was one of the subjects discussed at
both. Three, John and David Hayes and Gerard Jones, have previously been iden-
tified as specially prominent on behalf of the Union. The other two, Richard Veyera
and Gordon Campbell (who signed cards at the respective solicitations of John Hayes
on the night shift and David Hayes on the day shift), talked "several times a day"
about the Union with the employees on their respective shifts, and as appears pre-
viously (section D, 2, above) had been spoken to by their management about it-
Veyera by Supervisor Leighty, and Campbell by Donald Besson. Each side lays
typical stress on the portions favorable to its position-the General Counsel on the
demonstrated antiunion animus of Respondent and the role of the complainants in it
that would expose them to that animus, and Respondent on elements apart from the
Union, which it claims impelled it to sever these persons in the interest of operational
efficiency. Besson, Junior, frankly conceded that all five were "decent" and "desir-
able" employees up to November, but he testified that after this "their attitude took
a drastic turn for the worse," aggravated by specific delinquencies that precipitated
their separate discharges. The cases of Campbell and Jones, of the shipping depart-
ment, whose discharges were initiated by Donald Besson, involve a dispute over
whether a colorable precipitating cause in fact existed, and this is deferred to their
separate cases. On the other hand, the discharges of the Hayes brothers and Veyera
were preceded, as the mute records bear witness, by absences that would hardly
cause the innocent eye to widen over an employer's statement that he was impelled
to sever them because of it. The General Counsel, however, draws the familiar
distinction between a "good" reason and the "real" one, and claims that a prior tol-
erance on Respondent's part towards such absences exposes them as but as pretext to
mask what he intends to be the "real" reason And so the General Counsel attrib-
utes the transition from the permissive to the punitive, toward these three complain-
ants at least, to other than an operationally-motivated attitude by Respondent; he
brands the discipline as a turnabout induced by an added ingredient-the complain-
ants' support of the Union and Respondent's displeasure over it. But even the
patient can reach the end of their tether, and the question is which object of desire
was sought to be advanced by the discipline-a unionless plant or an efficiently oper-
ated one, or, possibly, the two in combination?
2. The discharges separately considered
(a) John Hayes
John Hayes was first employed by Respondent in 1962, and left of his own accord.
He was reemployed in July 1963, and worked continuously for Respondent until he
was discharged on November 25, 1963 His role in initiating the Union's campaign
after expiration of the 1-year contract with the shop committee has already been
mentioned. So too do we know that in November, he brought back to the Union
the 26 signed cards, on the strength of which it filed its election petition on Novem-
ber 1418 On November 22, John punched out at 10:18 p.m. This was about 21/2
hours before the end of that shift. On Tuesday, November 26, on reporting to work,
he was greeted by Besson, Senior, and Besson, Junior, and informed he was dis-
charged 19 Besson, Junior, testified that the above was the culmination of a rather
steady sequence of absences, total or partial, and particularly on Fridays, that
started in October (John's attendance having been quite regular until then). He
testified that after John absented himself on the last Friday of October, he warned
him against doing so again. John admitted that Besson, Junior, then told him that
he would not tolerate this in the future. Besson, Junior, testified that he warned him
again about it on November 12, and that he then told him that if it happened again,
there would be no further warnings: he would be discharged. John at first denied
11 John solicited the night shift personnel, including also LeBeau, who was then the
supervisor
19 Besson, Junior, testified John reported on Monday, November 25, and he told him
then he was discharged. Though John attributed his absence on Monday to the fact
that that was the day of the President's funeral, it does not enter into the case, since
Besson, Junior's testimony indicates John iias already discharged as a result of his early
departuie on Friday, and he would not have been permitted to work on Monday even
if he had reported on that day
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had any warnings after the one given him in October. He later admitted,
however, that it was "possible" that he was so warned again. He claimed, however,
that the warning was against leaving without permission and that on each occasion
he had received permission from the night-shift supervisor. He testified that on
November 22 he specifically asked for and received from Night-Shift Supervisor
Leighty permission to leave early. Leighty testified that John had asked for per-
mission to leave early on previous Fridays, but not the one of November 22. I am
inclined to credit Leighty largely because November 22, 1963, was a day on which
employees would reasonably assume that their employer would not hold it against
them if they left earlier: at least five other employees had left earlier on that day-
which was nearly half the night shift.
The General Counsel points to the attendance records of other employees, show-
ing at least comparable and in several instances worse attendance records than that
of John, without discipline or warning, so far as appears. The General Counsel,
therefore, claims that this was a disparateness accounted for by the single factor that
differentiated him from the others-his leadership in the organizational campaign.
Besson, Junior, though admitting that he learned of the union organizational cam-
paign at the time that a union representative informed him that it had signed up
the employees (which would be shortly before November 14), denied that he knew
of John's leading role in it before he was discharged. I would discount that for
several reasons: first, the kind of interest Respondent had regarding its employees'
organizational preferences would naturally dispose it to learn how this union move-
ment, in rejection of its own shop committee, got started, and who were its sponsors.
The elder Besson indicated as much in his talk to the employees on December 3,
the day before the election, when he told them that he was surprised at some of the
names on the list of those who signed up with the Union that he saw on Union Rep-
resentative Sylvia's desk. Besson, Senior, never testified and so we have no clarifica-
tion of that undenied statement. The statement, however, does indicate that there
had been some contact between Respondent and Representative Sylvia before this.
The fair inference is that this was at the latest on November 20, when "The Agree-
ment for Consent Election" was signed by Alfred W. Besson for Respondent and
Sylvia for the Union. Further, Hayes testified without denial that when the Bessons
told him he was discharged, Besson, Junior, said "they had contacted the Union and
the Union said it was o.k. to fire me " I rather doubt that the Bessons would seek
clearance from the Union on such a matter, but Besson, Junior, did not deny that
he so told John, thereby showing he assumed that the Union had a special interest
in him. All of this rather confirms what Supervisor Leighty told employee Veyera
in November: that Respondent "knew who was for and who was against" the Union.
As earlier noted (supra, footnote 19), though Hayes on his own acknowledged
that he did not come in to work on Monday and had been discharged on Tuesday,
Besson, Junior's testimony was that Hayes reported on Monday and that he was
nevertheless told at that time that he was discharged. This indicates that the pre-
cipitating cause of his discharge was John's leaving earlier on Friday, November 22
The Nation then underwent the kind of trauma in which very few people throughout
the land felt they could go on with their ordinary duties. John testified he did not
feel well that night. Also, as stated, nearly half the night shift left work earlier that
night. It is hardly conceivable that an employer would have regarded an early depar-
ture by an employee on that tragic day as a violation of a prior warning against leav-
ing early, unless predisposed to do so for another motive.
Besson, Junior, himself rather persuasively indicated that it was not these absences
as such that truly bothered him. He testified that beginning November-and this is
just about the time that the Union gave Respondent notification of its claim to
recognition-he had noticed a "sudden change" in attitude of all the employees con-
cerning their work and he had this too say about Hayes:
John Hayes particularly tried to make me look like a fool in front of other
people.
Respondent cited no particulars. Besson, Junior, is a slight and very sensitive-
appearing man, with less than an authoritative air about him. The impression one
derived was that the news that the employees had organized injured his feelings, and
that the "attitude" he attributed to Hayes and the other union supporters was some-
thing he read into them as a result of his subjective reaction to the event. In con-
trast with David, who, Besson, Junior, testified had always "carried a chip on his
shoulder" that became more pronounced after John's discharge, there was no indi-
cation from Besson, Junior, that up to the time that he learned of the union campaign,
John gave him any concern over his "attitude." It may be that Besson, Junior, saw
in John's absences the "attitude" of which he had been complaining. But an early
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1281
departure from work on the day of the President's assassination was a rather odd
occasion into which to read a renewed manifestation of it. When this is taken in
connection with the fact that nearly half the staff likewise absented themselves early
on that day with impunity, the inference in the light of Respondent's demonstrated
antipathy to the Union, would be that the disparateness of treatment stemmed from
John's role as the initiator and spearhead of the reappearance of the thrice-rejected
Union on the scene. It is found that the last was at least a contributing factor in his
discharge.
(b) David Hayes
David had been employed three times since 1958. In each instance he left of his
own accord. After a period in the armed services, he returned in October 1962. He
was employed continuously since then until his discharge on December 17. His
prominence in spearheading the union drive with his brother, John, has already been
recited, and Respondent makes no claim that it was unaware of it.
The immediate occasion for his discharge was that at noon on Tuesday, Decem-
ber 10, which was about 4 hours before the end of his shift, he received permission
from Besson, Junior, to be back a bit late from lunch because his wife was ill and he
needed to take a prescription to her. He did not show up again for work until a
week later, when he was met by the Bessons and told he was discharged. The Gen-
eral Counsel relies on the fact that Respondent had tolerated previous absences of
more than a day on the part of David, in deference to the fact that during his period
in the armed services he had become subject to epileptic seizures, and that the prac-
tical was simply to let him come back to work with no questions asked. The record,
however, shows no prior absence of that length. In fact, he had had an attendance
record which Besson, Junior, described as no worse than anyone else's. Besson,
Junior, testified that the decision to discharge him stemmed from that absence and
from the fact that:
During the last four weeks directly prior to this, he was very insolent, disagree-
able and arrogant to myself and to other supervisors. He just didn't give a darn
what he said, especially after the time his brother was fired.
Besson, Junior, acknowledged that from the time his last continuous employment
began, David, as previously stated, "always had a chip on his shoulder." His habit
of being "disagreeable and arrogant" became especially marked after his brother
was discharged, and that this long absence, with no notification of any kind from
David concerning the reason, "sort of broke the straw." An absence of that length
on the heels of a clearance for merely a few minutes of lateness was something that
David never did explain satisfactorily. As to whether that alone was the reason for
the discharge, it is not denied that when Besson, Junior, told him he was discharged,
with no reason stated, David asked why, and the elder Besson replied:
Well, we don't need you no more ... Well, you have been out for the past two
and one half days, and you did not call in, and there were times before you were
out and didn't call in, ... Some people aren't satisfied with the way things are
around here now and if they're not satisfied, they want a union and so I'm not
satisfied with you, so get the hell out.
The above suggests, on its fact, that David's leadership in the Union was a con-
tributing cause for the termination, along with his absence. I would have been
most receptive to an explanation of that statement from the elder Besson, but it
never came. As previously stated (supra, footnote 12), Respondent had no expla-
nation for the elder Besson absenting himself from the hearing other than that he
was in Switzerland. The complaint and notice of hearing in this case issued on
May 15, 2 months before the hearing. The hearing had originally been set for June 22.
On June 17 the parties were notified that the hearing was postponed to July 15.
In this aeronautical age it would have required no more than a day or two's inter-
ruption of the sojourn abroad for the elder Besson to have testified in this case.
Respondent did not ask to postpone the hearing or to continue it to have his testi-
mony taken. Respondent was thus content to let the record rest on the inference
reasonably to be drawn from the record as it stands. The undenied response of the
elder Besson was "direct evidence" that in addition to David's absence, his union
affiliation was at least a contributing cause of his discharge Unexplained and con-
sidered in the context of the elder Besson's demonstrated animus to the Union, his
statement is taken as indicative of his motive. It is therefore concluded that David's
leadership in the Union was a contributing cause of his discharge. A discharge thus
motivated is in violation of Section 8(a)(3), even if other motives too contributed
783-133-66-vol. 151-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the discharge . N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Woiks, 204 F. 2d 883, 886 (C.A 1) ;
N L.R.B. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp, 211 F. 2d 725, 726 (C A 2); N L.R.B. v.
Dixie Shirt Company , 176 F. 2d 969 , 974 (C.A. 4).
(c) Richard Veyera
That employee began work with Respondent in September 1963 and was termi-
nated on December 17, 1963. In October 1963 he signed a union application card
handed him by John Hayes in the presence of another employee and Ernest LeBeau,
who was then the night-shift supervisor. It has been mentioned previously that
Leighty, who replaced LeBeau as supervisor, told him of the dire consequences suf-
fered by "half the guys who voted for [the Union]." Besson, Junior, testified he had
been informed by Night-Shift Supervisor Leighty and also by George Rinkin, another
employee, that Veyera told them that he had another job, so he assumed Veyera had
quit. He accordingly instructed the night-shift supervisor to pay him off Leighty,
on the other hand, testified the first time Veyera mentioned another job to him was
when he told him he was discharged: that Veyera told him that he was sorry to see
it end that way but that anyway he had another job. Rinkin at first testified that
"he figured he [Veyera] had a better job from the fact that he was absent." From
then on the "figuring" expanded into an asserted statement from Veyera that he was
"going to get another job" and after this, that Veyera said, "I have got a better job "
So although Besson, Junior, left much to be desired about the source of his belief
that Veyera quit, that employee nevertheless, during the last few weeks on the job
had a spotty attendance record and during the week before he was paid off, had
been away virtually all week. He testified he telephoned the office to explain that
he had "domestic problems at home" and was not sure how long he would be away.
He could not identify whom he spoke to and the answer he attributed to that person
was hardly reassuring that management was satisfied with the explanation or with
the prospect of his indefinite absence. Management could well conclude after this
that the employee did not plan to come back. I conclude that General Counsel has
not met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Veyera
was terminated because of his support of the Union.
(d) Gordon Campbell
Campbell, who started with Respondent in July 1963, worked in the shipping and
finishing department on the day shift. In October, he signed a union card at the
solicitation of David Hayes, and between then and December 13, when he was dis-
charged, he discussed the Union 3 or 4 times daily with the 30 to 35 employees on
his day shift. We have previously mentioned that about a week before the election,
he had been approached by Donald Besson and told that "unions are no good and
we should get rid of all of them." On Friday, December 13, Campbell, when he
went to punch out at the end of his shift, could not find his card in the rack. He
inquired at the office, and Besson, Junior, paid him off, saying, "We're going to
make a few changes around here and we won't need you any more " Besson, Junior,
testified that the action was precipitated by an unsatisfactory answer that Campbell
gave that day, first to Donald and then to the elder Besson, concerning whether he
would work on Saturday. Donald testified he asked Campbell, and that Campbell
replied he would come in on Saturday "if I feel like it."
Campbell, supported by Robert Williams who is still employed by Respondent,
gave a different version. Campbell testified that he asked Mowry, the "head man"
in the shipping department and who acts for Donald Besson there on Saturday if
Donald is not there (supra, footnote 9), whether he was to work on Saturday, that
Mowry replied that he did not know but would inquire and that he returned soon
after and told him that he was not to work on Saturday. Campbell denied that
either Donald or the elder Besson had spoken to him about working Saturday, and
he was emphatic about the fact that the only one who ever tells employees about it
is Mowry. Campbell had sustained an injury to his back that morning not long after
he spoke to Mowry, for which he later received a compensation award. He testified
that at the suggestion of Robert Williams, he reported this to Donald Besson, who
said he could take the rest of the day off if his back bothered him. Donald denied
that Campbell had told him of his injury on that day and testified that Respondent
first knew of it when Campbell's mother called in the following Tuesday. Donald
and Besson, Junior, testified that the reaction to Campbell's alleged answer to whether
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1283
he would work on Saturday was a result of an attitude that he had demonstrated
beginning the last 2 weeks of his employment,-Donald testifying that he specifically
blamed Campbell for a misrouting of merchandise that occurred at that time.
We treat first the Saturday incident. Respondent gave its first version of the
discharge at the hearing before the compensation bureau. At that hearing, Donald,
as he admitted, testified that Campbell had been discharged for refusing to work on
Saturday. His testimony before us was that Campbell's answer, "if I feel like it"
was deemed to be insolent. That testimony disintegrated under a series of admis-
sions by Donald. Although, as stated earlier (supra, footnote 9), the plant is regu-
larly open on Saturday, there is no general requirement that the employees work
that day. Instead, any employee who is wanted is specifically told to come in. The
employees expected to work on Saturday are those who, during the week, were not
"punctual" and did not put in full time. Campbell's timecards show him to be in
the group who are given the choice of whether to work or not on Saturday. The
timecards show that from October 5 to the week preceding the one in which he was
fired,20 he put in in excess of 40 hours on each of those weeks. Beginning October 12
he worked overtime on virtually every working day of the week. He worked on 5
of the 10 Saturdays, in several instances even during weeks when he had already put
in overtime before then. It is also admitted that at no previous time had Campbell
refused to work on Saturday. Donald testified that nevertheless everyone else in the
shipping department worked that Saturday. On that too the records refuted him:
several of the shipping personnel did not work that day, including Donald. Being
thus discredited concerning the relevant aspects of his avowal, he is discredited on
the avowal itself-whether it be, as he told the State compensation board, that
Campbell refused to work on Saturday or, as he told us, that Campbell gave an
unsatisfactory answer to whether he would do so. Assuming Donald asked him, the
answer attributed to Campbell was consistent with the very option that Donald
finally admitted was given to employees who were "punctual" during the week con-
cerning whether or not to work on Saturday.
Regarding the misrouting of merchandise: Donald testified this was a background
item to his resentment over Campbell's answer on Friday, December 13. Donald
testified that some 5 to 10 cases of merchandise had been directed to the wrong
customer and that he held Campbell responsible because Campbell, who sealed the
cases, was the last one to handle them. On cross-examination, Donald admitted that
the "caser" stamps the name given him by the one who puts the tag on the mer-
chandise. Donald claimed that he had specifically asked Williams, who tags the
goods, about the shipments, and that Williams told him he had given Campbell the
name of the right customer but that Campbell stamped the wrong one. Williams,
in rebuttal, categorically denied that Donald had ever asked him about the matter.
Even apart from this, Donald, in manner and content, backwatered from his previ-
ous testimony that he thought Campbell was at fault Ultimately, he admitted that
after speaking first to Mowry about it (supra, footnote 9), he had merely mentioned
the matter to the employees concerned with routing as a thing to be avoided in the
future. And finally:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, let me ask you this-were you at that time calling
any particular person down on the carpet, or were you telling the group to be
more careful because it's very embarrassing to the company if goods are mis-
delivered?
The WITNESS • I was telling the group.
TRIAL EXAMINER: To be more careful?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Donald acknowledged that when he spoke about it, Campbell graciously said he
would guard against something like that happening. Though the two concrete
instances were discredited in their factual content, Donald nevertheless attributed to
Campbell a "carefree attitude" and added the following:
He was always talking to other employees, especially to Gerard Jones, more or
less a clique between Gerard Jones, Gilbert Belair and Gordon Campbell.
We have earlier alluded to the fact that Respondent had no rule against talking and
to the testimony of Rinkin, when asked about it in a context in which he apparently
did not know whether it would favor or be adverse to Respondent, that all employees
20 The card for the week ending December 13 Is not in the record.
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
talked while working and that, in fact, "it makes the time go faster" because "it's a
monotonous job." The discredited reasons for Campbell's discharge betray a pur-
pose to hide the true reason , and taken in connection with Respondent' s "interest
and purpose" 21 in opposition to the Union, is additional evidence of a discriminatory
motive. The conclusion is that Campbell was discharged because of his sponsorship
of the Union.
(e) Gerard tones
Jones began to work for Respondent in March 1963. He started as a printer and
then was transferred to the finishing department at the specific request of Besson,
Junior, who, in his own testimony, attributed it to his liking the way Jones worked.
As previously stated, Jones had helped David Hayes in signing up the day-shift
employees for the Union. We have earlier mentioned the sequence of encounters
between Jones and management in connection with his support of the Union. This
began on December 18, when, during his testimony on the challenged ballots given
before the State Board, the elder Besson called out to him, "You're a liar."
Jones, after putting in a 45-hour week ending January 31, reported for work the
morning of February 3. Not finding his card in the rack, he inquired at the office.
Besson , Junior, told him, "We have decided to let you go. You don't seem to be
happy working here. We don't know if you can get along with the employees in
the Plant, and they can't get along with you." No particulars were given him but
while Jones was waiting for his check, Donald Besson came in and told him, as
mentioned earlier, "We don't want liars working here." Jones asked what he meant,
and Donald replied, "You think about it long enough and I'm sure it will come to
you.,,
Respondent gave no particulars which could have triggered off its action. It is
clear, however, that Jones was the target of Donald Besson's special animus after
his testimony at the State Board. We have recited previously that a day or two after
the hearing, Donald told Jones that he would discharge him if he saw him talking to
Gilbert Belair, another union proponent, and that sometime during Christmas week,
with no prior background of Jones' being laggard in his production, Donald told him
that if he "didn't have his loads made up by the following morning" he "would be
fired" and he "could go crying to the Union." Also that same day, when Jones
asked him to help lift a roll of cloth, Donald lifted it himself, and said that he
"wouldn't want to see another one of you Union men hurt your back because there
would be one less of you here" (referring to Campbell's case).
Respondent cited but one background incident dealing with Jones' performance.
It concerned an occurrence some 2 or 3 weeks before the discharge. Jones had gone
to lunch and had left the cloth machine running. In due time the box which received
the cloth was more than filled and the excess ran onto the floor. There was a sharp
conflict between Jones on the one hand, and Mowry and Donald Besson on the other,
concerning who discovered this and how it was handled. Jones testified that he
went to lunch on the assumption that Mowry, as was his custom, would be there to
watch the "cure box" and keep it from overrunning, but that while at lunch, he
observed the cloth running over and he at once telephoned Donald about it and
stopped the machine; that Donald came over and while they were straightening the
cloth, Donald said, "Don't pull the cloth that way. Don't do it like that. Leave it
alone"; whereupon Jones began to walk away in order to finish his lunch, and Donald
said, "Well, you don't have to go away now, you bastard." Jones, as he testified,
took umbrage at the remark, but then helped straighten out the cloth until that task
was finished. Donald, on the other hand, testified that the first to tell him the cloth
was running over was Mowry; that Jones came back at 12:30 while he and Mowry
were straightening the cloth, that he asked Jones why he had left the machine run-
ning, and Jones replied that his lunch period begins at noon and "if nobody is here
that's just too bad," and that Donald then said "underneath [his] breath, you bastard";
that Jones objected, and Donald replied that "approximately $460 of bad material
[was] spoiled." Mowry testified he was in another part of the building when lunch
began and he got back sometime later and saw about 200 yards of cloth " run all
over the floor" and that he notified Donald, after which he and Donald picked up
the cloth (He was not asked, nor did he testify, about the "bastard" part of the
conversation.) It would seem the truth lies somewhere between both versions:
there was undoubtedly a crossing-up of signals between Jones and Mowry. Mowry
and Donald were not quite in accord as to when Mowry informed Donald of the
running over of the cloth: Donald testified it was about 12:20. Mowry testified it
2' Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship
Clerks, etc., 281 U S. 548, 584.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1285
was 12:30, which is the end of his regular lunch period What must have hap-
pened, then, is that Mowry and Jones converged at that point. Donald's reliability
must be weighed against the manner in which his testimony concerning the inci-
dents involving Campbell was discredited. Had Jones given Donald the callous
response about his going to lunch regardless of what, one of Donald's temperament,
who would respond in the manner he ascribed to himself to Campbell's "if I feel
like it" answer, would have taken measures to have Jones discharged on the spot.
An indication of what Respondent truly thought of that incident appears in the
testimony of Besson, Junior. He testified at the outset of the hearing under Rule
43(b) concerning the reason for all five discharges. In stating the reason for Jones'
discharge, he did not mention the "cure box" incident. He testified that what
Respondent had against Jones was that he would come to the elder Besson stating
he disagreed with Donald's views on the temperature and speed at which to run the
fabric. This would indicate an interest on Jones' part in the operation itself. That
attitude is consistent with Besson, Junior's, own statement to Jones at the time that
he transferred him from shipping to finishing, as follows:
You're a pretty good worker. You're reliable. We need someone we can depend
on to do a good job in the Department because the work has to go out.
Besson, Junior, and Donald also stressed that Jones did a lot of talking with Belair.
Belair, too, was a strong supporter of the Union. There was no indication that
during the interval between the cure box incident and the discharge anything was
mentioned to Jones about talking. Besson, Junior, testified that after the discharge
of Jones, the change of attitude that he had noticed among the employees came to
an end. Since there was no precipitating occurrence of any character to trigger off
the sudden action taken on Monday, February 3, Respondent's action must be
appraised in the light of its "manifest interest and purpose" 22 in opposition to the
Union. This was the week before the first bargaining meeting of February 11. The
discharge of a prominent union supporter like Jones would have the natural effect
of dampening the employees' interest in the Union and eliminating the bulk of the
support needed for the Union to make its demands effective. It was, indeed, about
that time that Harrison began his activities culminating in the repudiating petition.
Nor can one overlook Donald's repeating to Jones at the time of his discharge, the
"liar" accusation that his father made against him during his testimony, or the
vague and contradictory reasons assigned for the discharge itself.
The conclusion is that Jones was discharged because of resentment over his hav-
ing given testimony before the State Board favorable to the Union and for the pur-
pose of being rid of a prominent figure in it.
III. THE REMEDY
Respondent having been found to have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist from them-under a broad provision since
the nature of conduct goes "to the very heart of the Act." N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle
Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). It will also be recommended that Respond-
ent take the requisite remedial action of bargaining collectively with the Union,
offering immediate and full reinstatement to the four discriminatorily discharged
employees to their former or substantially equivalent positions (The Chase National
Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827),
without loss of seniority and other rights or privileges, to make them whole, with
interest, for the pay they lost because of their discharge (F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716); and post appropriate
notices.
On the findings above and the whole record, I hereby state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging John Hayes, David Hayes, Gordon Campbell, and Gerard Jones
because of their support of the Union, Respondent discriminated in respect to their
hire and tenure, discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. By refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly certified representative of
its production and maintenance employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
22 Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company v . Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship
Clerks, etc., supra, footnote 21.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By assisting activity directed toward the repudiation by the employees of the
Union as their bargaining representative, with the purpose or foreseeable effect of
obstructing the bargaining process, Respondent has refused to bargain in good faith
with the Union, thereby further engaging in an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
4 By the above and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees
in the exercise of their guaranteed rights in the further respects here found, Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6 Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice by discharging Richard
Veyera.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, on the entire record, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Screen Print
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its production and
maintenance employees.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employees because of
membership, support or activity on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(c) Threatening to eliminate overtime or reduce the number of hours of work if
the employees should select or adhere to the Union; create an impression of surveil-
lance by claiming to know the identity of the supporters of the Union; subjecting or
threatening to subject employees to more stringent conditions because of their spon-
sorship or support of the Union; directing abusive and insulting language against
employees in demonstration of animus against them because of their support of the
Union; or assisting in activity looking toward repudiation of the Union as bargaining
representative or in obstruction of the bargaining process.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, for a unit of its production and maintenance employees, in respect to
grievances, wages, hours, conditions of work and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an accord is reached, sign a written contract embodying the same.
(b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to John Hayes, David Hayes, Gordon
Campbell, and Gerard Jones to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole, with
interest, for the losses in pay sustained by reason of their discharge, in accordance
with the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy".
(c) 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
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant to compliance
with the backpay and reinstatement provisions above.
(e) Post at its plant in Providence, Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 23 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
21 If this Order is adopted by the Board, the words "the Decision and Order" shall
be substituted for "the Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a United States Court
of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an
Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION 1287
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.24
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
Respondent discharged Richard Veyera unlawfully or engaged in unlawful conduct
other than as herein found.
24 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the provision
shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith"
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent of our production and
maintenance employees in respect to grievances, wages, hours and working con-
ditions, and if agreement is reached, will reduce it to writing and sign it.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employees for
membership in or support of the above Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions to the following employees, who were found to have
been discharged because of their support of the above Union; and WE WILL
make good to them with interest all pay that they lost because of such discharge:
John Hayes, David Hayes, Gordon Campbell, and Gerard Jones.
WE WILL NOT subject or threaten to subject employees to more stringent con-
ditions because of their support of the above Union or any other labor organiza-
tion; or create the impression that we are watching employees' union activities
by claiming to know who its supporters are; or use abusive or insulting language
to employees to indicate we are hostile to them because of their support or non-
support of the above Union or any other labor organization; or threaten to reduce
overtime or working hours because of support of the above Union or any other
labor organization; or assist in activity looking toward bringing about a repudi-
ation of the Union by the employees as an obstruction of the bargaining process
with it.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in their right, guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, to join
or assist the above Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through it, or engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual
aid or protection; or not to engage in these activities, as they choose.
All employees are free to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, or not to do so, without fear of reprisal or effect upon their tenure by reason of
their choice either way.
SCREEN PRINT CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above employees who may be presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of the right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.