Storkline Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

STORKLINE CORPORATION 899
Storkline Corporation and Local 3031 , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
15-CA-1884, 15-CA-197, 15-CA-1.941, 15-CA-1953, and 15-CA-
2067. March 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 21, 1962, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued
his Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent engaged
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices, and recommend that the complaint be dismissed with respect
to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and
briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,' conclusions, and recommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Storkline Corpora-
tion, Jackson, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
, The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to find a number of vio-
lations of Section 8(a) (1). Since , even if sustained , the violations found would be cumu-
lative, we do not pass upon these exceptions.
Member Leedom does not agree that Respondent violated the Act with respect to the
notice to applicants utilized by Respondent in May 1961 , and characterized by the Trial
Examiner as "The so - called `yellow dog' contract ." In Member Leedom's opinion, the
Trial Examiner and his colleagues have erred in concluding that Respondent was con-
ditioning present employment upon agreement to cross a picket line during a future
strike. He believes, rather, that Respondent was doing no more than advising applicants
that acceptance of an offer of employment , made while a strike was in progress, would
require crossing a picket line and probably involve replacement of a striker. Such advice,
in his opinion , does not violate the Act.
2 For the reasons stated in his dissent in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
Member Leedom would not award interest on backpay in this case.
141 NLRB No. 77.
708-006-64-vol. 141-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Coercively interrogating employees as to their union activities
and sympathies or the union activities and sympathies of other em-
ployees, threatening employees that the plant might close, or threaten-
ing employees with loss or diminution of benefits or loss or curtailment
of employment, as a consequence of activities on behalf of the Union
or as a consequence of the Union's succeeding in organization efforts;
engaging or threatening to engage in surveillance of union meetings;
requiring applicants for employment or new employees to agree to
refrain from exercising their rights to engage in concerted activities,
including strikes; and granting wage increases on the basis of em-
ployees rejecting union representation.
(b) Discouraging membership in Local 3031, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discharging or laying off employees
or in any other manner discriminating against them because of their
union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Robert Johnson, Dallas Mitchell, Harold King, Jessie
Washington, Dallas Fitzhugh, William C. Myers, and Bobby Brown
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them as pro-
vided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Jackson, Mississippi, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United 'States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
STORKLINE CORPORATION 901
duly signed by the authorized representative of Respondent, be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing,. within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 NOT coercively interrogate employees as to their union
activities and sympathies or the union activities and sympathies
of other employees, threaten employees that the plant might close,
or threaten employees with loss or diminution of benefits or loss
or curtailment of employment, as a consequence of activities on
behalf of the Union or as a consequence of the Union's succeeding
in organization efforts, engage or threaten to engage in surveil-
lance of union meetings, require applicants for employment or new
employees to agree to refrain from exercising their rights to en-
gage in concerted activities, including strikes, or grant wage
increases on the basis of employees rejecting union representation.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 3031, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging
or laying off employees or in any other manner discriminating
against them because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL offer to Robert Johnson, Dallas Mitchell, Harold King,
Jessie Washington, Dallas Fitzhugh, William C. Myers, and
Bobby Brown immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make, each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of our discrimination
against them.
STORKLINE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees 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.
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, T6024 Federal Building 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans 12,
Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The original charges in Case No. 15-CA- 1884 were filed under Section 10(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act on February 13, 1961, by Local 3031, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter some-
times referred to as the Union . Thereafter on April 14, 1961 , the initial complaint
herein was issued by the Acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations
Board for the Fifteenth Region . It alleged, in addition to jurisdictional matters and
supervisory status on the part of certain named individuals , the commission of unfair
labor practices in the nature of interference , restraint , and coercion under Section
8(a) (1) of the Act and the discriminatory discharge of nine employees and layoff
of two others as unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. Respondent's duly filed answer to the original complaint admits the jurisdic-
tional allegations thereof, denies supervisory status on the part of the named indi-
viduals, and denies the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Thereafter on May 19, 1961 , the General Counsel issued an amendment to the
original complaint alleging additional unfair labor practices within the scope of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act; Respondent 's duly filed answer to the amended complaint
denies the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged therein.
The hearing was held in three sittings at Jackson, Mississippi , between May 31,
1961, and June 13, 1962 , with an intervening sitting at New York on May 22,
1962, before Trial Examiner William J . Brown . All parties appeared and participated
in the hearing and were accorded full opportunity to present evidence and argument
on the issues. At the outset of the hearing the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss,
essentially on the grQunds of infirmity in the original charges or variance between
the complaint and the charges , which motion was denied by me.
The Respondent also filed several motions for bills of particulars respecting
certain allegations of the original complaint and subsequent complaints which mo-
tions were granted by me to the extent that they sought specific information as to the
place or places at which alleged instances of interrogation or threats were committed,
the form in which alleged threats were made (to the extent that they related to
written or printed forms of threats ), and the time and place of alleged surveillance;
Respondent's motions were denied to the extent that they sought information as to
the names of persons interrogated or threatened and the names of persons present
STORKLINE CORPORATION 903
when interrogation or threats allegedly occurred. The General Counsel complied with
my rulings by furnishing particulars as ordered.
On June 9, 1961 , the General Counsel requested a continuance of the hearing for
the purpose of securing judicial enforcement of certain subpenas duces tecum and
ad testificandum and I recessed the hearing to June 20, 1961. In the ensuing recess,
enforcement of the General Counsel's subpenas was granted by the United States
district court-with, however, a stay of effectiveness of the order to permit appeal
to the United States circuit court of appeals; accordingly the General Counsel,
without opposition from Respondent , moved for indefinite continuance of the hearing
and on June 19, 1961 , I granted this motion.
While the hearing was in recess , additional charges were filed by the Union in Cases
Nos. 15-CA-1927, 15-CA-1941, and 15-CA-1953. On these charges the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region issued orders consolidating cases with proceedings
in Case No. 15-CA-18841 and consolidated complaints . The new complaints
alleged additional acts of interference in the nature of surveillance of union activities,
the discriminatory discharge of two employees, and the discriminatory transfer of one
of the two prior to his termination. Respondent's duly filed answer denied the
commission of the new unfair labor practice allegations . Thereafter while the
matter was still in recess the charge was filed in Case No. 15-CA-2067 and on May 2,
1962, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region issued an order consolidating
proceedings in that matter with pending proceedings in the other cases together with
the complaint and the new charge alleging addition acts of interference in the nature
of threats and interrogation . Following the issuance of the latest complaint Respond-
ent moved for postponement of the proceedings and I denied Respondent 's motion.
Briefs were filed September 24, 1962, for the General Counsel and for Respondent;
they have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
It appears from the pleadings that Respondent is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Illinois with facilities in Illinois , Massachusetts , and Missis-
sippi. Its Jackson, Mississippi, plant is the only plant involved in the instant proceed-
ings. Respondent is engaged . at its Jackson facility in the manufacture and sale of
wood cabinets primarily for manufacturers of radio, television, and high fidelity sets
and sewing machines . It appears from the pleadings and evidence that Respondent and
its predecessor have in the past and Respondent will in the future make annual ship-
ments of products from the Jackson plant to points outside the State of Mississippi
valued in excess of $200,000 . Respondent is and at all material times has been en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act . It also
appears that assertion of the Board 's jurisdiction is warranted.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It appears from the pleadings and evidence herein that the Union is and at all
times has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and summary of events
Respondent took over the Jackson , Mississippi , operations of Mississippi Products
Company on October 14 or 15, 1960. Mississippi Products had been the scene of
earlier organizational efforts by the Union and other labor organizations , all of such
earlier attempts at organization being unsuccessful . About the time of Storkline's
coming to Jackson a new organizational campaign was undertaken by the Union lead-
ing to the filing of a representation petition in January 1961. An election was held
May 12, 1961, resulting in 531 votes for the Union, 33 votes for the intervenor I.U.E.,
542 votes against either labor organization , and 35 challenged ballots. On
February 20, 1962, this election was set aside by the Board and a new election ordered.
Storkline Corporation, 135 NLRB 1146. The second election was held March 22,
1962, resulting in another defeat for the Union. The issues herein concern Respond-
ent's conduct in the period covered by the organizational campaign.
1 After inviting Respondent's views, I did not upset the Regional Director's action in
consolidating cases.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There can be no doubt on the record herein of the Respondent's determination to
oppose the Union's organizational efforts. Numerous documents in evidence in
this proceeding 2 clearly establish a union animus on the part of the Company.
The material clearly establishes the Respondent's active opposition to the Union
and the manifestation of this opposition by argument and persuasion; it also clearly
establishes Respondent's resort to emotional and inflammatory propaganda. While
some of the Union's organizational appeals (see Respondent's Exhibit No. 30) also
represent an emotional appeal, it appears that Respondent's circulars went con-
siderably beyond a mere right of reply and reflected an obduracy in Respondent's
determination to stay unorganized. Whether the Respondent's animus led it to the
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged is, however, a question to be ap-
praised in the light of the particular facts surrounding each alleged unfair labor
practice.
B. Interference, restraint, and co&cion•
The several complaints herein allege, and Respondent denies, numerous in-
stances of interference, restraint, and coercion respecting employees rights in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in the period October 31, 1960, through March
.1962. These allegations embrace charges of interrogation of employees and appli-
cants for employment as to their union inclinations and the union inclinations of
other employees, threats to engage in surveillance of union activities and the actual
surveillance of a union meeting, threats of layoff, discharge, and loss of benefits in
reprisal for union activity or as a consequence of the Union's coming into the plant,
use of a so-called "yellow dog" employment agreement, the promise of benefits in
return for rejection of the Union's campaign, and the grant of a wage increase as
an inducement to refrain from supporting the Union.
1. Interrogation
a. 1960-61 interrogation
The complaint alleges numerous instances of interrogation in the period from
November 1960 through March 1961. The interrogation is alleged to have centered
on the union activities both of the employees interrogated and other employees.
For the General Counsel, Guy Berry an employee of Respondent's cabinet as-
sembly department where he works under the supervision of Golden Jones, the
latter admittedly a supervisor within the scope of Section 2(11) of the Act, testified
that sometime about the middle of February 1961 Jones came to him at his work
station and took Berry thence into his office. In the course of the ensuing conver-
sation Jones asked Berry if he had ever seen a union card. About the same time
Jones also took employee Victor Smith, according to the latter's testimony, to the
office and asked him how he felt. about the Union and whether or not he had
signed a union card. I credit the testimony of Berry and Smith 3 and, indeed, it
was not denied by Jones in the course of his testimony elicited by Respondent's
counsel.
. Calvin Boleware,. also an employee of the cabinet. room under the supervision of
William Lum, recounted a conversation with Lum about the middle of February 1961
at Boleware's workplace in the course of which Lum stated that it was possible
to tell which employees had signed cards and which had not and that he did not
believe that Boleware had signed one. This was clearly an inquiry as to whether
Boleware had in fact signed a card. On his examination, Lum remembered talking
to Boleware but disclaimed knowledge of exactly what he said. He denied saying
that he could tell who had signed a card and that he did not believe that Boleware
had signed one. However, when the question was put again to him at most Lum
could say that he did not think he said what Boleware attributed to him. Finally,
Lum conceded that he might have said that he did not think Boleware had signed
2 These include a full-page advertisement in the Jackson "Clarion-Ledger" of May 10,
1961, inviting employees, friends, and fellow citizens to "Join with Storkline folks next
Friday night in celebrating victory over the unions" (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3),
and a quantity of pamphlets, letters, and bulletins (General Counsel's Exhibit No.
2-A-2LL) distributed by Respondent•to employees•:(and.wives) in.the period October 1960
to May 12, 1961.
8 Victor Smith impressed me as credible even allowing for the fact that he had been dis-
charged for cursing his supervisor. I also discount the concession in the course of cross-
examination that he volunteered an antiunion feeling at the outset of Jones' Interrogation.
Berry also is found credible notwithstanding that be signed a card and had been repri-
manded by Jones for smoking.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 905
the card. Boleware impressed me as credible and claimed a clear recollection; in
the circumstances I credit Boleware's account of the conversation.
Further in this area the General Counsel presented the testimony of employee
Carl Boone as to a conversation that took place with Lum on the assembly line
and another one occurring in the hardware room. Concerning the conversation on
the line, Boone testified that Lum asked him what he thought about a union and
whether he knew there was a union trying to get into Storkline . The second con-
versation occurred in the hardware room and was substantially to the same effect
as the first. On his cross-examination Boone conceded that he had been a longtime
friend of Lum and that Lum never asked him if he had signed a card. Lum for his
part testified that in his conversation with Boone he probably mentioned that Boone
was undoubtedly aware that the Union was trying to get into Storkline . He cate-
gorically denied asking Boone what he thought about a union . I credit Lum's denial
in the face of the rather vague and unconvincing account given by Boone. The
evidence falls short of establishing interrogation violative of the Act in these two
conversations.
Employee Frank Sullivan testified that sometime toward the end of February 1961,
Harold Brumfield, his line supervisor , came up to him on the work line and asked
him how he felt about the Union, and when Sullivan expressed a preference not
to discuss the subject , Brumfield persisted in his questioning . Brumfield conceded
that there was a conversation with Sullivan in which the subject of the Union was
brought up, but asserted that he only got as far as stating to Sullivan that he would
like to talk to him about the Union and when Sullivan said that he did not wish to
discuss the subject, Brumfield walked away and did not seek any further conversa-
tion on the subject. I was more favorably impressed with Sullivan and his account
of the conversation and I find it occurred substantially as Sullivan recounted it.
Employee Joseph Barnes testified that about February 10, 1961, Merl Thompson,
who had become a line supervisor in October or November 1960, called him into
the office of Harry O'Byrnes, the supervisor of the department , and asked him how
he was going to vote in the forthcoming election. Thompson conceded having a
conversation with Barnes but denied asking him how he was going to vote .4 I was
favorably impressed with Barnes as a witness ; I credit his account and find that
Thompson did in fact interrogate him at his work as to how he was going to vote
in the election.
Employee Joseph McElroy, who presently works in Respondent 's finishing
department , but who in early 1961 worked. in the print department under the super-
vision of Wallace Lancaster, testified that Lancaster came to him at his work station
and asked him if he liked his job and whether he had signed a union card. Accord-
ing to McElroy, Lancaster about a week later came to his home and again asked him
if be had signed a union card . Lancaster conceded that he spoke to McElroy on the
occasions in question but asserted that in the plant all he did was read the guide ma-
terial in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59 and that at McElroy's home
he merely went over the same material . He denied at any time asking McElroy if
be had signed a card or whether anyone else had signed a card . There is a square
conflict in the testimony as to the contents of the conversation on the two occasions.
I was ,favorably impressed with the demeanor of both witnesses . I therefore could
not say that the General Counsel had sustained the burden of proof were it not for
the circumstantial guaranty of truth inhering in the status of McElroy as an em-
ployee and nonunion member on the one hand as against a supervisor of an anti-
union employer on the other . I therefore credit McElroy's account.
Joseph Johnson , a janitor in the finishing department under the supervision of
Jack Banks, testified to a conversation sometime in February or March 1961 in which
Banks asked Johnson whether the Union had been to his house and whether or not
he had signed a union card. Banks' account of these conversations is that he merely
explained the Company's position with respect to organization by the Carpenters on
the basis of the guidebook furnished him by top management for this purpose (Gen-
eral Counsel 's Exhibit No. 59). I credit Johnson's testimony that Banks asked him
whether the Union had been at his house and whether he had signed a card.
According to the testimony of employee Howard Campbell, a machine sander who
works under the supervision of Arthur Raymond, Raymond talked to Campbell in
his office sometime about the middle , of February and asked his opinion of the Union.
Raymond testified that he interviewed Campbell and adhered strictly to the guide
line, General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59. Raymond categorically denied asking Camp-
bell his general opinion of the Union or any questions as to his union activity or
'In this conversation Thompson read to Barnes from Respondent 's "Guide for Inter-
viewers in Union Campaign ," General Counsel's Exhibit No . 59. I find that he also put
the questions attributed to him by Barnes.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ideas as to the Union. Observing these witnesses, I thought that Campbell's recol-
lection was somewhat less convincing than that given by Raymond and I credit the
latter's account of the conversation.
Employee Vanderbilt Weems testified that sometime in March 1961 his super-
visor, Alvin Killen, called him into the office and after generally expressing the Com-
pany's opposition to the union campaign, asked Weems whether he had signed a card.
Killen testified that in the course of this conversation with Weems in the office he
merely reviewed some of the material contained in the guidebook in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59. I found Weems a fully credible witness on the
basis of his demeanor and the consistency of his account and I credit his version of
what happened.
Employee Henry Carney, who works in the model shop under the supervision of
Russel Scafidel, testified that sometime in March 1961, Scafidel came to his home
at night and after establishing that Carney was aware of the Union' s organization
campaign asked him whether he would mind making a statement as to how he felt
about the Union coming in. Carney, a personal friend of Scafidel, then expressed
his willingness to give a full expression of his personal opinion which was to the
effect that he had weighed the pros and cons and had determined that the Union had
nothing to offer. Scafidel conceded that he called on Carney at his home and intro-
duced the subject of the union campaign, but testified that Carney made such a
voluble exposition of his position that Scafidel never had an opportunity to present
the full statement he had intended to give in accordance with his guide lines as set
out in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59. Scafidel flatly denied asking Carney for a
statement as to how he felt about the Union coming into the plant.
Carney impressed me as thoroughly credible. Furthermore, as the record clearly
establishes his general opposition to the union campaign, there is a circumstantial
additional guarantee of truth. I therefore credit his account of the interrogation at-
tributed to Scafidel.
Employee James Duff, who works in Respondent's model shop under the super-
vision of Grover Windham, testified that sometime in February 1961, Windham came
to his workplace and asked him if he was for the Union. Duff, who had a long-
standing friendship with Windham, then launched upon a full exposition as to his
own independence of organizations and stated that he really could not answer Wind-
ham's question because he could not declare himself in favor of the Union, since he
was not actually a member of it. Windham categorically denied asking the question
as to whether Duff was for the Union, and in fact testified that once the conversation
was opened, Duff did most of the talking, furnishing details as to his position on the
Union. Duff's account of the conversation appears to be somewhat rambling and
not responsive to questions; Windham's account is clear and concise and in my
judgment his demeanor was such as to lend credit to his account. I therefore find
that the conversation between the two occurred substantially as Windham re-
counted it.
Ardell Baggett, an employee of Respondent's dimension mill, testified to a con-
versation occurring sometime in the middle of February 1961 with Ray Fuller, super-
visor of the dimension mill. According to Baggett , Fuller talked to him in the mill
and asked what he thought about the Union. Fuller denied asking Baggett what
he thought about the Union. He testified that Baggett had expressed on several
occasions his opposition to the Union and had stated that everyone in the mill was
opposed to the Union. I credit Baggett's account of the conversation and find that
Fuller interrogated him as to his opinion of the Union.
John Hayman works in Respondent's finishing department under the supervision
of Maurice Knight. He recounted four separate conversations with Knight com-
mencing in the middle of February 1961, and continuing until sometime in March.
Hayman testified that Knight opened the first conversation by reading from his guide-
book (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59) and apparently on the first occasion con-
fined himself to setting forth matters in that guidebook. A week later, according
to Hayman, Knight took him in the back of the plant and said that he was reinter-
viewing him. At that time according to Knight, Hayman asked him what he thought
about the Union and about its chances of getting into the plant. A week or so
later, according to Hayman, Knight came to his home and, after some social inter-
course, asked his help by way of opposition to the Union. Knight, although con-
ceding that he had the several conversations with Hayman, denied that he ever asked
him what be thought about the Union and about its chances of going in. I credit
Hayman's account of the second conversation and find that at that time Knight in
fact interrogated him as to his opinion of the Union and as to its chances of going in.
Noel Mullins, an employee of the machine sanding department where he works
under the supervision of Percy Whitty, testified that sometime in March or April,
STORKLINE CORPORATION 907
Whitty called him into the office and asked him what he thought about the Union.
Whitty conceded that he had two or three conversations with Mullins, but that they
were all initiated by Mullins himself. According to Whitty, Mullins was seeking
to find Whitty's opinion as to whether the Union would succeed or not. At that
time Whitty was working past his retirement age, but had signed up for an additional
year and was scheduled to retire in November 1962. I was very favorably impressed
with the demeanor of Whitty and I credit his account that any conversations with
Mullins were initiated by the latter. I do think that the inherent probabilities are
that in the course of the several conversations between these two, Whitty asked
Mullins what he thought about the Union. Plainly however, this was nothing more
than a casual inquiry in the course of a conversation initiated by Mullins. I find
that any interrogation by Whitty of Mullins was in the nature of a casual insertion
into conversations initiated by Mullins and that it would not amount to interference,
restraint , or coercion.
With respect to alleged interrogation of employees in the period November 1960
through March 1961 as to the union membership and activities of other employees,
the General Counsel points to a conversation between employee Robert T. Lee, a
cabinet assembly department fitter, and his supervisor, Golden Jones, which took
place sometime in February 1961. According to Lee, Jones took him into Supervisor
Harry O'Byrnes' office and informed him as to the difficulties that had been caused
by union organization in other plants and the probability of similar difficulty if the
Union came into Storkline. According to Lee, on the following day Jones came to
him on the work line and asked him if he knew anybody who was saying anything
about the Union. On his cross-examination, Lee said that he "guessed" that what
Jones was after was what was being said by union advocates as distinguished from
who was speaking on behalf of the Union. Jones' account of the two conversations
is to the effect that in the conversation in O'Byrnes' office with Lee, he confined his
discussion to matters contained in his information kit, General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 59. With respect to the conversation he had with Lee on the line, Jones testified
that he asked Lee what was the sales pitch being advanced by advocates of the Union,
and he categorically denied asking Lee who was in the Union or who was doing the
talking for the Union. He did ask Lee to find out what kind of talk was going on,
so that he could engage in a countersales campaign . I credit Jones' account of the
conversation with Lee on the workline. Even assuming the accuracy of Lee's
account, it quite plainly fails to establish that, as charged in the complaint, Respond-
ent by Jones was interrogating Lee as to the identity or activities of other employees
working on behalf of the Union.
Odell Mitchum, a repairman in the cabinet assembly department, worked under
the supervision of William Lum in February 1961. Mitchum testified that at that
time Lum asked him if he knew of anyone that was for the Union, explaining that
answering the question would not be pimping on them, but would be protecting
Mitchum's job and the Company. When Mitchum told Lum that he did not know
of anyone, Lum shook his hand and said that when Mitchum stopped Lum's job
started. Lum's account of this conversation was that if he remembered correctly,
and indeed Mitchum confirmed this fact, Mitchum introduced the subject of the
Union. Lum's recollection was indistinct as to what ensued thereafter but he denied
asking Mitchum whether he knew anyone that was for the Union. Odell Mitchum
impressed me as cerdible; I credit his account of the conversion and find that Lum
asked him if he knew who was for the Union under circumstances indicating that
he desired Mitchum to reveal the names to him.
Coties Clark, an employee of the cabinet assembly department, recounted a con-
versation with Lum about the middle of February 1961, in which Lum, according
to Clark, asked him what he knew about Bobby Brown and specifically whether he
worked for the Union or not. According to Clark, Lum at that time said that the
Company would find out one way or another. Lum denied having any conversation
with Clark about the union status of Bobby Brown and specifically denied asking
him whether Bobby Brown was for the Union. I credit Lum's denial and find that
the evidence does not indicate interference in the nature of interrogation in this
conversation between Lum and Clark.
L. T. Thompson, an employee of cabinet assembly where he works under the
supervision of Lum, testified that sometime in February 1961, Lum sent him into
Harry O'Byrnes' office. After telling him that he knew there were some union
leaders in the plant, O'Byrnes, according to Thompson, asked him to tell him who
they were. Later in that week, according to Thompson, O'Byrnes told him he was
counting on him to let him know what happened by way of union activity in his
department. Harry O'Byrnes admitted interviewing L. T. Thompson two or three
times using the guide materials contained in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59. He
denied telling Thompson that he wanted to know about the union leaders in the
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant but conceded that Thompson said that he did not know anything about the
leaders. O'Byrnes also denied stating to Thompson that he was counting on him to
let him know what happened in connection with the union campaign.
Harry O'Byrnes appears to be one of the key figures in Respondent's operations
and quite plainly had the respect and affection of his fellow supervisors and of rank-
and-file employees. He made an impressive witness on the stand, but by the nature
and turn of the questions directed to him, I am persuaded that he was not realistically
interrogated in a way to contradict the testimony of Thompson. In any event, I
found Thompson thoroughly credible and find that the conversations with O'Byrnes
occurred as Thompson reported them.
According to Coties Clark, O'Byrnes called him into his office about the middle
of February and, after saying that he knew how Clark felt' about the Union; asked
him what he knew about Jessie Brown and whether he saw him talking to other
employees. O'Byrnes also asked Clark, according to his testimony, about Charlie.
Scott and, particularly, whether he was working for the Union. O'Byrnes testified
that he asked Coties only where Jessie Brown was working so that he could talk to
him in connection with the informational program set forth in the guidelines in evi-
dence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59. O'Byrnes denied questioning Clark as
to Jessie Brown's feelings about the Union. He similarly denied asking Clark about
Charlie Scott's activities. I credit O'Byrnes denials.
Lee Kendrick was a line supervisor in trim and pack department in February 1961,
when, according to the testimony of employee James Robertson, he asked Robertson
at or near his work station what benefit he thought the Union would bring and
whether he knew anybody who was trying to get cards signed. Kendrick testified
that he used his guide material (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59) in talking to
Robertson and that he specifically stated that he was not trying to find out how
Robertson felt about the Union or how anyone else felt about the Union. He
specifically denied asking Robertson if he knew anybody who was trying to get cards
signed. I credit Robertson's account of the conversation and find that on the occa-
sion in question Kendrick did ask him whether he knew who was soliciting for the
Union.
Kendrick also had a conversation, toward the latter part of February 1961, with
employees George Thurman. According to Thurman, Kendrick, after referring to
the union rates at the New Orleans Furniture Company in Columbia, Mississippi,
asked Thurman whether he signed a card and when Thurman answered he did not,
Kendrick asked him to keep his eyes and ears open respecting employees Berry
and Smith in the same department. According to Thurman, Kendrick had previ-
ously asked him to see what he could find out about the Union on his trips down-
stairs to the restroom. Kendrick denied asking Thurman if he had signed a union
card and denied asking him to keep his eyes and ears open on Berry and Smith. He
also denied asking Thurman to find out what he could downstairs. I was impressed
with Thurman as a credible witness and find that the conversation occurred sub-
stantially as he testified. Quite plainly the instruction to keep an eye on Berry and
Smith in the context amounted to inquiry into their union activities.
Reference has been made above to the conversation between employee Joseph
McElroy and his supervisor, Wallace Lancaster. According to McElroy, in the
course of that conversation, Lancaster also asked him if he knew who had signed
cards. This was followed, according to McElroy, by Lancaster's inquiry as to whether
he was buying or renting his home, an inquiry which was conjoined with the observa-
tion that if McElroy lost the Company's good will he lost everything. Lancaster
denied asking McElroy whether he had signed or whether he knew who else might
have signed cards; he did not specifically deny asking McElroy whether he was
buying or renting his home .5 I credit McElroy's account of the conversation and
find that Lancaster did in fact interorgate him as to the identity of union supporters.
According to the testimony of model shop employee James Duff, sometime after
the conversation with Grover Windham in February 1961, referred to above, Gilbert
Twyman, a supervisor in the cost department and a good friend of Duff's asked Duff
what, if any, talk he had heard about the Union. Twyman admitted this. He denied,
and I credit him, asking Duff who was engaging in such talk. This inquiry would not
appear, particularly in the circumstances of mutual friendship, to be improper
interrogation.
Ardell Baggett. as above reported, testified that Ray Fuller talked to him in Feb-
ruary about the Union. Fuller included questions as to whether Baggett had heard
';Lancaster was not asked to explain the possibilities under which he might conceivably
have asked McElroy about buying or renting. The question has a somewhat ominous
sound when conjoined with reference to the Company's good will.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 909
any of the boys talking about it . It appears from his pretrial statement that Baggett
did not accuse Fuller of requesting him to report what he had heard or who he
heard soliciting . Fuller denied asking Baggett any questions about the Union even
though, according to Fuller, Baggett volunteered . that he was opposed to the Union.
Although I found Baggett credible, and I find that Fuller inquired as to whether
Baggett heard any boys talking about the Union , the circumstances preclude a finding
that Fuller was asking the identity of other union advocates.
In addition to the instances of interrogation occurring prior to the May 12, 1961,
election and discussed above, there were allegations in the original complaint herein
to the effect that during the period from November 1960 through March 1961,
Respondent , by its supervisors , Carroll , Oliver , and Arinder, requested information
from new , employees concerning the union activities of other employees in the depart-
ments to which they would be assigned . The testimony pertinent to this aspect of the
complaint appears to be that of ex-employee Victor W. Smith, who was hired Jan-
uary 3, 1961 , and was discharged for cursing his superivsor , Yelverton , after 3 months
employment . Smith testified that at the time he was interviewed in connection with
his hiring the man in Storkline 's personnel office, who interviewed and subsequently
hired him, asked him, in initial interview , whether he had ever worked any place
where there was a union and then told him that if anyone came around and tried
to get him to sign a union card , to come in and tell about it. Smith testified that he
could not recall the name of the man who put these questions to him; his account
of the circumstances surrounding the interview make it plain that the person with
whom he talked was : authorized to act responsibly for the Respondent in connection
with the hiring process, and I find that the statements made to Victor Smith at that
time were in fact chargeable to the Respondent . This was plainly a request for in-
formation as to union activities of other workers.
The instances recounted above where I have found Respondent by supervisors
Jones, Lum , Brumfield, Thompson , Lancaster , Banks, Raymond, Killen, Scafidel,
Fuller, Knight , O'Byrnes, Kendrick , and by the unidentified interviewer of Victor
Smith to have interrogated employees as to their union sympathies or activities or
the union sympathies or activities of other employees are plainly such as to constitute
unfair labor practices under Section 8(a) (1).
b. -1961-62 interrogation
The complaints issued subsequent to the original complaint herein contain allega-
tions of unlawful interrogation by Respondent 's supervisors subsequent to the May 12,
1961 , election . These allegations of interrogation subsequent to the 1961 election
embrace charges of interrogation by Carroll in the period December 1961 through
February 1962, Oliver 6 during December 1961 , Arinder during February 1962
(Arinder's alleged interrogation relating both to the union membership of the
interrogated employees and the union membership of other prospective employees),
Harold Smith during February and March 1962 , both with respect to the interrogated
employees' union sympathies and the union sympathies of other employees, and
interrogation during March 1962 of employees by Homer May and Goodman Gun-
ter's interrogation allegedly relating to the union sympathy of employees other than
those interrogated.
With respect to the alleged interrogation by Carroll in the period December 1961
through February 1962, General Counsel presented the testimony of Mack Lofton
and Curtis Brownlee. Lofton was hired December 13, 1961 , after an interview by
Carroll . According to Lofton in the course of the interview Carroll asked him if he
had ever belonged to a union and when Loften said that he had not Carroll , accord-
ing to Lofton , said that they did not have a union at Storkline and did not want or
intend to have one . Although it appears from his pretrial statement that Lofton
denied that any supervisor asked him if he was "for the Union ," I credit his account of
being interrogated as to whether he had ever been a member of a union . Carroll
denied ever asking employees or applicants for employment whether or not they had
worked on a union job or worked for a union company or had been members of the
Union or anything of that nature . He did not specifically recall the hiring of either
Lofton or Curtis Brownlee whose testimony is discussed below.
Curtis Brownlee testisfied that at the time of his hiring interview by Carroll about
February 15, 1962, the latter asked him if he had ever worked on a union job.
e At the hearing the General Counsel sought leave to amend the complaint by substitut-
tng Arinder in lieu of Oliver as having interrogated in December 1961 . The Trial
Examiner denied leave to amend . The General Counsel's brief re-urges his position.
I think that the ends of justice are best served by adhering to the existing ruling.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Further, according to Brownlee, Carroll said that they were in the midst of union
difficulties and he wanted Brownlee's assistance in the election.
Mack Lofton impressed me as thoroughly credible and I credit his and Brown-
lee's accounts of being interrogated as to their past union membership by Carroll
at the time of their hiring interviews.
John Lofton and Dale Bowen were interviewed for employment by Clifton Arinder
in the winter of 1961-62. Each testified that on the occasion of their hiring inter-
views they were asked whether they had ever belonged to a union. Arinder's
account of the hiring practice of all involves the concession by him that the Union
is mentioned. He places the first mention of unions or the Union at the second stage
of the hiring process, after the preliminary inquiry as to the employee's experience
and aptitude, a check on his references, and a physical examination. If the fore-
going turn out satisfactory the man is hired and he is told' that he is hired and it is
only after that, according to Arinder, that mention is made of the fact that there is no
union recognized at Storkline and occasionally employees are told that if they are
solicited at work and have any questions they may direct them to their supervisors.
They are also told that it will not be necessary to sign a union card to continue in
employment at Storkline. I find that Arinder made the inquiries attributed to him as
an integral part of the hiring process and they plainly constitute coercive interrogation.
With respect to alleged interrogation on the part of Homer May, a supervisor in
the assembly department, General Counsel presented the testimony of Leonard
Stewart, hired in January 1962. He reported a conversation with May which took
place a few days before the March 1962 election. According to Stewart, May asked
him about the union literature that was being distributed near the plant gate and
what he thought about the Union. May testified that the conversation in question
was initiated by Stewart's question as to whether there was going to be another elec-
tion or when it would be. According to May, Stewart also asked him if he had
ever worked under a union. May denied asking him at that time or on any other
occasion what Stewart thought about the Union and denied asking Stewart if he had
gotten any of the mail being handed out down at the gate. I credit Stewart's account
of the conversation.
Goodman Gunter is alleged to have interrogated employees concerning the union
sympathies of other employees in March 1962. In connection with this the General
Counsel presented the testimony of employee Ray McKinley who works in the
print finishing department, a section of the division supervised by Goodman Gunter.
McKinley said that the day before the March 1962 election Gunter came to him
at work and asked whether he knew the union or antiunion feelings of McKinley's
brother Pat. Gunter testified concerning this conversation that the reason h-, ap-
proached Ray on this question was because he regarded him as more or lets an
assistant supervisor and had heard him make remarks against the Union. He denied,
however, asking Ray whether or not he knew Pat was for the Union, conceding,
however, that he did ask Ray to talk to Pat and explain the Company's benefits as
against the Union's premises. Gunter said that he regarded Ray McKinley as more
or less an assistant supervisor on the occasion of this conversation or at any material
time. I find the conversation occurred as Ray McKinley recounted it and it con-
stituted coercive interrogation.
The complaint alleges interrogation in March 1962 on the part of General
Superintendent Harold Smith. In this area the General Counsel relies upon the testi-
mony of Curtis Brownlee to the effect that the day after the 1962 election Smith
called him into the office and asked him whether he was for or against the Union.
Smith conceded talking to Brownlee once in his office on the occasion when Brown-
lee requested permission of his supervisor, Merl Thompson, to see the Company's
president, Huth. It appears that Brownlee was subsequently prepared, for some
reason or other, to repudiate his testimony given earlier in the case. I am convinced
that Brownlee was truthful in his original testimony and I find as a fact that Smith
did interrogate him in his office as to whether Brownlee was for or against the
Union.
The instances set forth above where I have found interrogation by Respondent's
supervisors Carroll, Arinder, May, Gunter, and Smith are such as to constitute un-
fair labor practices defined in Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
2. Threats
The original complaint alleges that in the period November 1960 through March
1961 numerous named supervisors (a) threatened employees with loss of emplovment
for union activities and with closing of the plant if the Union came in; (b) during
November 1960 through March 1961, threatened employees with loss of hospitaliza-
tion, paid holidays, and like benefits if the Union came in; (c) threatened to keep
STORKLINE CORPORATION 911
union activities under surveillance and to report on such activities ; (d) threatened
employees with discharge unless they cooperated with the Company in its campaign
against the Union; and (e) threatened employees with discharge in the event they
signed union cards. The complaint in Case No. 15-CA-2067 alleges (a) threats
on the part of Carroll during December 1961 of loss of employment for union ac-
tivities; (b) threats by Carroll during March 1962 of loss of employment and closing
of the plant if the Union came in ; and (c ) threats on the part of Carroll , Hinkebein,
O'Byrnes, and Yelverton during March 1962 of loss of existing benefits if the Union
became recognized. Carroll and O'Byrnes are alleged during March 1962 to have
threatened new employees that they would be the first laid off if the Union came in
and a layoff eventuated.
a. 1960-61 threats
With respect to the allegations of supervisory threats of loss of employment for
engaging in union activities and threats to close the plant if the Union came in during
the period November 1960 through March 1961, the General Counsel presented
evidence tending to indicate such threats on the part of several of the supervisors
named in the complaint. Robert T. Lee, a former employee, testified that Golden
Jones, then his supervisor, called him into Harry O'Byrnes' office one day in Jan-
uary 1961, talked about union situations in other plants resulting in shortage of
work and said that the Storkline plant would close too, or at least stood a good chance
of closing, if the Union came in. On cross-examination Lee conceded the accuracy
of his pretrial statement which indicated that Jones read from some material about
plant closings and said if the Union came in and there was a strike the Company
might close the doors since it could not afford to operate. Jones testified that he
used the guidelines, General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59, in his conversation with
Robert Lee. The evidence as to this alleged threat on the part of Jones does not
indicate by a preponderance that he either threatened Lee with loss of employment
for union activities or threatened to close the plant if the Union came in.
William R. Coulter, an employee of the cabinet assembly department, recounted
a similar conversation with Golden Jones sometime in the middle of February 1961.
According to Coulter, Jones used the guide booklet in his conversation and appears
to have shown the material to Coulter for the latter 's inspection . There is an indica-
tion that Jones clearly threatened loss of employment in reprisal for union activities;
Coulter did, moreover, attribute to Jones the statement that there was a good chance
the plant would close if the Union came in. Coulter persisted in his account, under
vigorous cross-examination , that Jones , to Coulter 's clear recollection , said that
Storkline might close if the Union came in . Furthermore , Coulter placed this state-
ment as having occurred after Jones put aside the guideline booklet . I was impressed
with Coulter's demeanor and I credit his account as against Jones' denial. This
amounted to a coercive statement rather than a speculation as to economic
uncertainties.
Carl Boone , also an employee of the assembly department , testified that Lum
twice talked to him at work sometime in the middle of February 1961 , and after
asking him what he thought about a union , said that if the Union came in they had a
chance to lose their benefits and their hospitalization group. On cross-examination
Boone specifically denied that Lum put the loss of hospitalization as a possibility
that might eventuate from collective bargaining. Lum denied asking Boone pointedly
what he thought about a union , conceded that he did make the statement that there
was a chance that the benefits might be lost including hospitalization. According to
Lum, however , this was mentioned as a possible consequence of negotiations which
would be necessary if the Union became the bargaining representative . It clearly
appears that there has been a longstanding acquaintanceship and friendship between
Boone and Lum and I think the inherent probabilities are that Lum would not have
uttered a direct threat to Boone. I credit Lum 's account of the conversations and
find no coercion therein.
Joseph Johnson recounted a conversation with his supervisor Jack Banks sometime
in February or March 1961, in which Banks told him that if the Union came into
Storkline the plant would have to close down and that the Company could not operate
under the Union . However, Johnson 's testimony was given only in response to
leading questions after the witness' recollection was exhausted . On cross-examination,
Johnson conceded that the possibility of closing the plant was linked with Banks'
statement that organization would probably mean increased costs and difficulty with
respect to competition for business . According to Banks all he did in his conversa-
tion with Johnson was use the guidebook furnished by the personnel department
and subsequently ask Banks whether he had thought over the information given him
in connection with the guidebook interview . Even assuming the credibility of Joseph
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Johnson it would not appear, considering the testimony in its totality, that the
allegations of the complaint are sustained.
Employee C. B. Chennault testified that Supervisor Arthur Anz talked to him in
the plant early in March 1961 and, referring to the forthcoming election, said that
the Company was going to do everything legally possible to keep the Union out and
that the Company felt that if the employees voted the Union in they were voting
themselves out of a job since labor costs might increase to the point where the plant
could not operate. Although Chennault impressed me as a credible witness, it was
obvious from his examination that his recollection was indistinct and in fact he had
to be lead by the General Counsel. Chennault conceded that the conversation with
Anz took a very short time and Anz himself who impressed me as thoroughly
credible put the conversation as taking no longer than 5 minutes. Anz said he made
no comments other than that which was necessary in connection with handing over
the guide material for Chennault's inspection. I find Anz credible as noted above,
and find no unfair labor practice in this regard.
Louis Johnson testified that sometime in March 1961 Frank Cauthen a line checker
in the dimension mill where Johnson worked, sent for him to come into his office
and there told him not to sign a union card because they would lose their jobs.
Respondent's position that Cauthen was not a supervisor appears well taken. The
record indicates that Cauthen was lacking in authority to hire, fire, discipline, assign
work, or exercise the other indica of supervisory authority. He was hourly paid and
voted without challenge in both elections. Cauthen did concede however that he
had been asked by Killen, admittedly a supervisor, to read the guide material (General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 59) to several employees and conceded the possibility that
Louis Johnson was one of the men. I credit Louis Johnson's testimony that Cauthen
told him not to sign a union card because they would lose their jobs, and I find that
in view of the instructions and authorization Cauthen had received from Killen that
he in fact was the agent of the Respondent in making these implied threats to Louis
Johnson.
There are numerous allegations and considerable evidence relating to threats of
loss of hospitalization, holidays, and similar benefits uttered by supervisors in the
period November 1960 through March 1961.
Merl Thompson, a supervisor in the cabinet assembly department, talked separately
to employees R. E. Purvis and Joseph Barnes sometime about the middle of Feb-
ruary 1961. According to Purvis, Thompson after inquiring as to whether Purvis
heard any talk about the Union, informed Thompson that the employees might
lose company benefits if they joined and specifically referred to the vacation and
hospital plan as benefits that might be cut out if the Union came to the plant.
According to Barnes, Thompson talked to him in O'Byrnes' office and said that the
existing benefits might be cut if the Union succeeded in the election. Thompson
denied asking Barnes how he was going to vote or make any reference to the pos-
sibility of the cutoff of company benefits. He did not specifically deny the statement
attributed to him by Purvis. He could not clearly recall whether he said anything
in addition to the guide material in his conversation with Barnes although he denied
saying that the benefits might be cut if the Union came in. I credit the testimony
of Purvis and Barnes and find that Merl Thompson threatened the loss of benefits
if the Union came into Storkline.
Employee Coulter testified that sometime in the middle of February 1961, his
supervisor, Golden Jones, took him from his work station into O'Byrnes' office and,
using the guide booklet which they reviewed together, said that Storkline had mighty
good insurance and hospitalization plans and they would probably be taken away if
the Union came in and they had to make new rules. Jones testified that he said that
if the Union came in and started negotiations there was a possibility that the existing
benefits might be lost. Appraising all the testimony concerning this conversation
and impressed as I was with Coulter as a credible witness, I still cannot find that the
allegations of the complaint are sustained. In other words even accepting the
evidence furnished by Coulter it does not plainly appear that Jones uttered to him
a threat that the benefits would be taken away if the Union came in.
Employee L. T. Thompson attributed to William Lum, his supervisor, the state-
ment made in O'Byrnes' office sometime in February 1961, that if the Union got in
the employees would not have any insurance and the profit sharing would be done
away with. Carl Boone attributed a similar statement to Lum sometime in the
middle of February 1961, testifying that Lum said to him that if the Union came
in they had a chance to lose their benefits and probably the hospitalization group.
Lum testified that in his conversations with Thompson and Boone he relied primarily
on the guide material for the purpose of setting forth the good points of the Company,
reminding them of the existing benefits and of the possibility of changes if negotia-
STORKLINE CORPORATION 913
tions had to be undertaken. I found L. T. Thompson credible and find that Lum
informed him that the insurance would be done away with if the Union came in.
Howard Campbell, an employee of the machine sanding department where he
works under the supervision of Arthur Raymond, testified that Raymond called him
into his office sometime in the middle of February 1961, and said that they all had
to cooperate to keep the Union out because under the Union they would have only
three paid holidays and would lose their hospital, insurance, and like benefits. On
cross-examination, Campbell conceded that Raymond had in his hands at the time
the union contract covering the Columbia, Mississippi, operation of a competitor
and finally conceded that he was not exactly sure as to whether Raymond said def-
initely that the holidays would be removed or that that was all that the Union had
been able to gain at the competing operation. Raymond testified that he read the
material contained in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 59 and said nothing to Camp-
bell other than what was in the guide material. Specifically, he denied saying that
under the Union there would be only three paid holidays and hospital benefits and
insurance would be lost. I credit Raymond's account of the conversation.
The complaint alleges that Respondent by its Supervisor Merl Thompson threat-
ened to keep employees' Union activities under surveillance and to report upon such
activities. Bobby Brown, one of the alleged discriminatees, testified that in February
1961, Merl Thompson told him that he had been asked by higher-ups to turn in any-
one talking about the Union. Employee Purvis also testified that sometime in
February 1961, Thompson, who had then only recently been promoted to super-
visory status and was still riding to and from work with a group of rank-and-file
employees, told the group in the station wagon that if anyone talked in favor of the
Union and he knew about it he would have to turn them in.
Merl Thompson denied the conversation attributed to him by Bobby Brown and
concerning the conversation testified to by Purvis conceded that he said something
about talk but it was only to the effect that he would appreciate it if rank-and-file
employees did not talk about union activities in front of him since he had become a
supervisor. I found Brown and Purvis to be thoroughly credible, and I find that
Thompson did in fact warn the employees that he would be under a duty according
to his instructions to turn employees in if they "talked up" the Union. I find that
the evidence clearly establishes that Thompson did inform employees that he would
report to higher-ups in the Company any union activities on their part that came to
his attention. This was plainly a threat amounting to interference, restraint, and
coercion under Section 8(a)( I).
With respect to the allegations of the original complaint to the effect that Re-
spondent by Supervisors Carroll, Oliver, and Arinder threatened to discharge em-
ployees unless they cooperated in the Company's campaign against the Union and
to discharge them for signing union cards, General Counsel points to testimony at-
tributing to Arinder a threat of discharge for signing a union card. This was given
by employee John Allen who testified that Arinder said that if he signed a card he
was automatically fired. Arinder denied this. I credit Arinder's denial.
The various instances above reported in which I have found threats of varying
types to have been uttered by Respondent's agent, Cauthen, and Supervisors Jones,
Thompson, and Lum constitute unfair labor practices under Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
b. 1961-62 threats
As pointed out above the complaint in Case No. 15-CA-2067 also contained
numerous allegations of threats in the period December 1961 through March 1962.
These threats are alleged to have been uttered by Supervisors Carroll, Hinkebein,
O'Byrnes, and Yelverton. Carroll is alleged to have orally threatened employees dur-
ing December 1961 with loss of employment for engaging in union activities. With
respect to this allegation, the General Counsel points to the testimony of Mack
Lofton, Curtis Brownlee, and Charlie Stevenson. Lofton testified that at the time
of his hiring interview by Carroll he was asked whether he had ever belonged to a
union and told that Storkline did not have a union and did not intend to have one.
Brownlee also testified to being asked whether he had previously been employed on
union jobs. Neither of these, however, attributed to Carroll a threat of the type
alleged in the complaint.
Considerable difficulty was expressed in obtaining testimony from Stevenson. It
is plain that with respect to the contents of the conversation he had with Carroll in
December 1961 on the occasion of his hire, his testimony on the stand was com-
pletely at variance with his pretrial affidavit. The General Counsel appears to urge
that, in line with the language of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manu-
facturing Company & Loganville Pants Co., 369 U.S. 404, relating to the necessity
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of assuming from the unconvincing demeanor of a partial witness the opposite of
his testimony is true, that in fact Carroll did state to him on the occasion of his hire
that if they ever found he favored a union they would get rid of him. I quite agree
with the General Counsel that Stevenson was an unimpressive witness; I am un-
willing, however, to make the inference requested of me primarily because I am not
satisfied that the requisite preponderance of testimony would be established, par-
ticularly in view of the absence of any showing of a close link between Stevenson and
responsible officials of the Respondent Company.
I find that the record does not sustain this allegation of threats by Carroll in
December 1961.
The complaint alleges that in March 1962 Carroll threatened employees with loss
of employment and with the closing of the plant if the Union came in. The record
does not reveal sufficient probative evidence in this area and I shall recommend dis-
missal of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the complaint in Case No.
15-CA-2067.
The remaining allegations of the complaint in Case No. 15-CA-2067, concerning
threats in the month of March 1962, relate to threats of loss of existing benefits if
the Union became the bargaining agent and threats to new employees that they
would be first laid off if the Union came in and a layoff resulted. The threats of
loss of benefits were allegedly uttered by Carroll, Hinkebein, O'Byrnes, and Yelverton
while the threats of layoff to new employees were allegedly uttered by Carroll and
O'Byrnes.
The only credible testimony I found in the evidence relating to these allegations
of the complaint is the testimony of Mack Lofton, John Lofton, and Leonard Stewart,
all of whom I found credible. They testified to utterances made by various super-
visors in the plant conference room shortly before the March 22, 1962, election.
It is clearly established that these conferences were held and that they were directed
primarily to new employees who had been hired since the 1961 election. The Re-
spondent concedes that the conferences were held, and contends that the supervisors
who addressed the meetings confined their remarks to those set forth in printed mat-
ter furnished them by their front office and in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No.
16. General Counsel contends that remarks were made in addition to those set forth
in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16 and that, in any event, Respondent's Exhibit No. 16
is itself of a nature constituting illegal interference, constraint, and coercion.
Mack Lofton testified that he and about 10 or 12 other new employees were ad-
dressed by Carroll and another man unknown to him. According to Mack Lofton,
Carroll and/or the other man (presumably a supervisor) told the group, with refer-
ence to the Union's contract at another operation, that at Columbia, Mississippi,
there was a possibility that if the Union came into Storkline the employees would
not get a raise and might lose part of the benefits that they now had. It clearly ap-
pears from the cross-examination of Mack Lofton that the possibility of a wage
cut and of impairment of existing benefits was clearly related to the kind of a deal
that the Union might negotiate in view of the type it had negotiated at the other
operation.
John Lofton testified concerning a meeting held 2 or 3 days before the 1962
election for new employees and addressed by Hinkebein and Carroll. According
to him Hinkebein did most of the talking and compared the three paid holidays
under the union contract at Columbia, together with the existing six paid holidays
at Storkline. Leonard Stewart recounted the events surrounding a meeting held
in the conference room presided over by Tommy Yelverton about 2 days before
the 1962 election. According to Stewart, Yelverton said that if the Union came
in the men would be reduced in pay from $1.13 to $1.10 an hour, while female
employees would be further reduced to $1.07 an hour.
The General Counsel contends that the cumulative testimony of employees as
to what was said in the conference room speeches prior to the 1962 election compels
the conclusion that in fact threats were uttered above and beyond such as may be
implicit, according to the General Counsel, in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, or
alternatively, that the speech set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16 in itself con-
veyed to employees the impression that wages would be reduced if they voted for
the Union and paid holidays and other benefits eliminated or reduced.
I am not convinced that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that
statements were made in these conference room meetings other than those contained
in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. With respect to Respondent's Exhibit No. 16 it
appears to be a forceful argument for rejection of the Union, based primarily on
the superiority of certain existing benefits at Storkline over those obtained by the
Union in the plant at Columbia, Mississippi. It appears, however, to be argumenta-
tion rather than threats and I shall recommend dismissal of this part of the complaint.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 915
3. The so-called "yellow dog" contract
It appears quite clearly from the evidence herein that in the period May 5 to 19,
1961,7 applicants for employment 8 were given a document with their application
forms, entitled "Notice to Applicants for Employment." The notice is in evidence
as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9. It informs the new employee that there is
presently a threat of union trouble at Storkline and that "we may have a strike," con-
tinues by advising him that they want him to know, before a definite job offer is made,
that if he is offered employment during such a strike he would have to cross a
picket line and probably replace a striker. Carroll testified that when applicants
were selected he asked them to sign the document if they had not previously signed
it. It included a statement that the new employees had read the so-called notice
and understood its meaning . I agree with the Respondent 's apprisal of the record
that no employee or prospective employee is shown on the record herein to have
been discriminated against in employment for refusal to sign the notice. I must
reject Respondent's position that the use of the notice was justified as a matter of
fairness to the applicant to advise him of the possibility of a labor difficulty. The
effect of Carroll 's asking new employees to sign the document could only be to
reach agreement with the employee , which in the circumstances would be quite
plainly a condition of his employment , that he would cross a picket line in the event
of a strike. This plainly requires employees to surrender a right guaranteed under
the Act.
4. Promise of benefits for assisting in the campaign against the Union
The original complaint alleges that Respondent by its supervisor , George
Roberson , during February and March 1961 promised economic and other benefits
to employees for assisting Respondent in its campaign against the Union.
For the General Counsel , employee Floyd Lowery, a small tool mechanic , formerly
a supervisor for Storkline 's predecessor , recounted a conversation with George Rob-
erson which took place on March 14 , 1961 . Lowery said that at that time Roberson
asked him to tell his fellow employees the facts concerning the good side of the
Company's employee program. Lowery in this conversation asked him about the
possibility of Roberson helping him toward a raise in pay, it appearing that he had
the matter of his pay up for review by a rating board. Lowery's testimony was that
Roberson said he did not know about it but would have to take it up with Rutledge.
George Roberson recalled this talk with Lowery and admitted that he did ask
Lowery to help in passing on to other employees information as to the benefits
available at Storkline . Roberson conceded that at one time he had talked to Lowery
about the possibility of an increase in pay, was rather indefinite as to the time of
this conversation , saying only that it must have been quite sometime before this
particular talk.
The Trial Examiner received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8 the
pretrial affidavit of Floyd Lowery bearing the date of March 15, 1961, and detailing
the March 14 conversation with George Roberson. The pretrial affidavit contains
a statement that after enlisting his support in presenting the Company 's case to the
employees , Robertson said, "We'll see about getting your pay back up . I'll go see
Mr. C. B . Rutledge, personnel manager about getting you a raise." At the hearing
Lowery when asked to read his statement said, "I can read a little but not well enough
to read that over," and further, "I can't make all the words too good." It was
apparent that he was feigning inability to read his own handwriting . It seemed
to me that the witness Lowery was demonstrating a complete lack of responsibility
on the stand which led me to interrogate him as to the amount of education he had
had, this resulting in the development that he had the equivalent of a high school
education. It seemed to me that the only reliable testimony available at this par-
ticular stage of the proceeding concerning the issues as to which Lowery was
interrogated was that set forth in his sworn pretrial affidavit which was given 1 day
after the events referred to therein. Respondent objected vigorously to receipt of
the document in evidence . I am persuaded on the basis of authority cited in Re-
spondent's brief that my ruling admitting General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8 in evidence
as affirmative proof of a promise of benefits by Roberson was erroneous. G & H
Construction Company, 130 NLRB 923: Local 776 IATSE (Film Editors) (Cascade
7 This interval is a minimum duration as appears from General Counsel's Exhibit No. 55.
9 A company memorandum in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 55 indicates that
the notice was signed by more than 200 hires.
708-00e-64-vol. 141-59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pictures of California, Inc.), 124 NLRB 842. I do not rely on the affidavit in my
finding herein.
I note that Roberson conceded that he did talk with Lowery at one time about
the matter of an adjustment in his pay. The evidence established however that it
was natural and proper that such a conversation occur between the two of them in
view of the combination of factors that (1) at one time work of the type done by
Lowery came under Roberson's supervision and he was probably more familiar with
its worth than anyone else in the plant, and (2) Lowery was apparently continuously
grieving about an inequity in his rate.
I find on the basis of all the evidence (excluding the pretrial affidavit of Lowery)
that a preponderance fails to indicate that Roberson promised economic benefits in
the nature of an adjustment in Lowery's pay in return for his assistance to Respond-
ent in its campaign against the Union.
5. Surveillance
The complaint alleges that Respondent by its agents, Carroll, Oliver, and Rutledge,
engaged in the surveillance of union activities on the evening of June 17, 1961, in
the neighborhood of Carpenters' hall in Jackson, Mississippi. The evidence estab-
lishes and Respondent's brief concedes that Rutledge, Carroll, and Oliver did observe
the union meeting at the Carpenters' hall in Jackson on June 17, 1961. Respondent
contends that these three happened on the union meeting by chance and merely
attempted to satisfy their natural curiosity.
Harvey Wilkins, an International representative of the Union assigned to the
Storkline organizational campaign, testified that he arrived 40 or 45 minutes early
before the 7 o'clock meeting. He observed Carroll drive by going south on State
Street and proceeding "real slow." He then observed Carroll drive by Carpenters'
hall four more times in the period between 6:30 until 6:50. Wilkins observed
Carroll, Rutledge, and Oliver drive by going north on State Street at 7: 10. Wilkins
followed them in another car and attempted to take their pictures but was unsuc-
cessful. Thereafter about 8 o'clock Wilkins observed Carroll and Rutledge drive by
going south on State Street in a different car about 7:57 and again observed Carroll
and Rutledge drive by at 8:05 and again at 8:08 and 8: 11. Wilkins saw them again
at 8:14 and finally at 8:34. According to Wilkins each time they passed the hall
they went real slow and looked real hard directly at the meeting.
Oliver testified that he, Carroll, and Rutledge who had been working late at the
plant on that particular day decided to eat dinner at Dennery's Restaurant which
they would reach from the plant only by going past the Carpenters' hall. Driving
in separate cars with Carroll and Rutledge in the latter's car and Oliver in his own,
Oliver, according to his testimony, went by the hall the first time going real slowly
because it was rainy and late in the evening. When he joined Carroll and Rutledge
at Dennery's they decided to cross the Pearl River to Rankin County to obtain some
beverages, then when they returned to Dennery's someone of the trio mentioned
having seen a notice of the union meeting. So, according to Oliver, "Since the
election was over we were curious as to what kind of response . to (a) meeting,
discussed the possibility or the idea of driving back by there before we went on into
Dennery's to see if such a meeting was going on and if they had any kind of re-
sponse." 9 They then drove by the union hall and admittedly sought to see what type
of activity was going on. They went up the street a bit and turned so as to come
back on the other side of State Street and again, going slowly observed the union
hall. Apparently still in doubt as to the kind of a turnout they turned again short of
Dennery's so as to observe the union hall from the back. Oliver testified to several
other instances in which they passed the union hall and surveyed it as they passed.
Rutledge had nothing to add to the testimony of the other witnesses for the Re-
spondent with respect to this alleged surveillance.
Respondent in its brief contends that Rutledge, Carroll, and Oliver "happened on
a union meeting by chance and admittedly attempted to satisfy their natural curios-
ity." Respondent further asserts that the surveillance here was not premeditated
and even assuming that it were it would not be unlawful where the observer did not
set up the opportunity to observe, citing N.L.R.B. v. Davidson Rubber Co., 305 F.
2d 166 (C.A. 1). Respondent also asserts that the incident here stands in isolation
and should not be found a violation.
Respondent's contention that the incident here stands in isolation appears lacking
in merit; the incident here stands in a context of threats, iterrogation, and discrim-
inatory discharges. With respect to the Davidson Rubber case, the court rejected the
9 This candid explanation detracts somewhat from the assertion in Respondent ' s brief
that the surveillance was not premeditated.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 917
Board's finding of surveillance placing its reliance on the fact that the supervisory
surveillor did nothing more than look from his own living room either directly
through his window or under the blinds into a union meeting held in the house next
door only 10 feet away. The facts in the Davidson Rubber case were a far cry
from the evidence in the present case. Here, according to the credited testimony
of Wilkins, Respondent's officials were driving repeatedly by the union hall for the
admitted purpose of seeing what kind of a turnout the Union had at its meeting.
The number of trips could only be for the purpose of counting or identifying those
in attendance . The inherent capacity of such close surveillance to coerce is obvious.
See also Tru-Line Metal Products Company; Tru-Line Screw Products, Incorporated,
138 NLRB 964.
6. The May 1961 wage increase
On May 17, 1961 , factory employees were given written notice of a wage increase
to become effective May 22 , 1961 . The amount of the increase ranged from 5
cents to 11 cents per hour . At the time of the announcement of the increase the
election results were still pending although the tally of the ballots had been released.
The time for filing objections had not yet elapsed. The General Counsel contends
that the inference must be made that Respondent 's purpose in announcing and
effectuating a wage increase was to reward its supporters and to dissuade union
adherents from their position . The General Counsel contends that this inference
must be made in view of the timing of the announcement , the precedent assertions
by Respondent that an organizing campaign could only lead to difficulties because
of. Respondent 's competitive position and, finally, the lack of justifying explanation
by Respondent.
The evidence abundantly indicates that prior to the May 12 election Respondent
on numerous occasions presented to employees the view that Respondent was unable
or unwilling to incur additional costs of the type that could result from union
organization. Respondent has offered no evidence tending to indicate that the wage
increase of May 1961 was pursuant to an established program or indeed had been
determined upon in advance of the union campaign. In view of the number and
variety of the means employed by Respondent in its antiunion campaign and the
lack of any justifying explanation, I make the inference that the May 1961 wage
increase was placed in effect at the time it was for the purpose of rewarding com-
pany supporters and dissuading union adherents. Allure Shoe Corporation, 123
NLRB 717. Puerto Rico Cereal Extracts, Inc., 94 NLRB 1032, cited by Respondent
is not in point since the record there revealed that increases put in effect after the
election were done so pursuant to a preelection arrangement.
C. The discriminatory discharges, layoffs, and transfer
The-original complaint herein alleges the discriminatory discharge of nine employees
in the period November 3, 1960, to February 24, 1961 , and the discriminatory layoff
of two employees on December 9, 1960, and March 3, 1961 . A subsequent com-
plaint alleges an additional discriminatory discharge on May 11 , 1961 ; it also alleges
with respect to another employee that he was discriminatorily transferred on June 19
and discharged on or about July 10, 1961 , both because of his union activity and
because he had given testimony in the hearing in the instant case.
1. Robert R . Johnson: Robert Johnson had commenced work for Storkline in July
1958, and for sometime prior to his discharge on November 3, 1960 , was working in
the trim and pack department as a hardware trimmer. His immediate supervisor was
Charles Hopper and the department head was Hubert Hinkebein; Harold Smith was
superintendent of the department . Johnson's employment record appears to have
been at least satisfactory since he received routine increases and one transfer to a
higher rated job. I credit his testimony that he was qualified to perform all the
operations in the trim department. For sometime prior to his discharge, he had been
a member of an employee relations committee known as the "Good Relations Com-
mittee." He regularly made the bonus on his operation which was a group bonus
shared with others on his line. The only blemish on his record prior of his discharge
appears to have been a reprimand administered for loafing to his entire group.
This appears to have been some substantial time, perhaps as long as a year, prior
to his discharge.
At the time of his discharge Robert Johnson was engaged in changing the hinges
on a high quality sewing machine cabinet being produced for Sears Roebuck. The
Respondent 's standards of quality on this cabinet were strict and the Respondent's
salesman, Waller, regularly checked the quality of the cabinets on the production
line.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Together with Bobby Brown, whose layoff is discussed below, Johnson appears to
have been the initator of the Union's organization of Storkline in the fall of 1960.
There had been a previous campaign in 1959 and Johnson had some cards left over
which he distributed to fellow employees in the plant on October 27, 1960.
He met with Union Representative Smith on Monday, October 31, and in the 2 work-
days remaining thereafter Robert Johnson passed out approximately 200 union au-
thorization cards in the plant in blocks of 5 to 20 at a time.
In the period immediately prior to his discharge, Robert Johnson had been engaged
in changing hinges on the sewing machine cabinet for Sears. The top of the cabinet
has a double lid arrangement, the longer lid being supported by an arm underneath
while the shorter depends for support upon its beveled edge and the hinges. It is
necessary that the hinges be securely attached in order to produce the desired level of
the shorter end of the lid.
There is a conflict in the testimony as to the degree of deviation from the horizontal
that was either required or permitted; there is a similar conflict as to the type of
hinge that was either prescribed or appropriate to accomplish the desired level. The
general purport of the testimony offered on behalf of Respondent with respect
to the lid level was that standards call for the lid to be at least 1 ° above the level
but not more than 3 ° above. Also the Respondent offered testimony tending to show
that either of two types of hinges, National Lock or Amerock, was acceptable.
Samples of these hinges are in evidence in this proceeding and examination indicates
that the National Lock hinge is somewhat shorter than the Amerock. While Re-
spondent 's brief minimizes the difference in length between the two hinges as being
"less than 1/64 inch," the inference is a natural one both on the record herein and on
the basis of commonsense that any appreciable difference in length could be a sub-
stantial factor in the lid changing operation here involved.
The weight of the testimony plainly indicates to me that while the Amerock hinge
had been used to some extent on this lid-changing operation and in fact had been
used by Robert Johnson himself about 10 percent of the time, the National Lock was
plainly the perferred hinge. In fact it was so much preferred that when the plant
ran out of its supply of National Lock, although there was an ample quantity
of Amerock, Respondent's hardware controlman, Kendrick, made special efforts to
find National Lock hinges for the lid changing operation on Robert Johnson's line.
Furthermore, Hinkebein himself took time to sort out National Lock hinges from a
box containing a mixture of both types. Crucial in this area is the concession by
Jerry Hall, quality auditor, that after Johnson's discharge he found a box of National
Lock hinges which was of "This type hinge that we were needing" and when he
inquired as to what they were doing sitting open on the floor and was told that they
had been rejected for minor blemishes and were to be returned to the hinge supplier,
he noticed that the defects were minor and himself carried them back to the operator
that was hanging the lids.'0
The difficulty with low lids commenced on November 2 when Johnson had to resort
to Amerock hinges. Purvis, the inspector, criticized Johnson's performance but when
he mentioned the difficulty to Hall, Hall told him that the lids could be level and even
if they were a shade low that would be acceptable.
It also appears that late in the afternoon of November 2, Hall passed by Johnson's
work station and when Johnson reported to him that he needed the National Lock
hinge, Hall told him to do the best he could with the Amerock. On the afternoon
of November 2, Johnson's hinge-changing line continued in production according to
Purvis and a satisfactory amount of its output was passing inspection otherwise
the supervisor would have closed the line.
Early on the morning shift of November 3, Department Superintendent Harold
Smith talked to Purvis about the passing of defective cases and thereafter Smith
summoned Hopper to Johnson's line where he rehung some of the lids. Hopper had
to go through an extensive process of scraping out filler and lacquer from the hinge
slot and pegging some of the preexisting screw holes in order to make the proper fit
of the hinge. Thereafter Hinkebein reprimanded Johnson for low hinges and
Johnson felt so indignant at what he felt an unjust reprimand that he complained
to Harold Smith about Hinkebein's attitude. Hinkebein next reprimanded Johnson
when he found a screw slanting into a hinge, a reprimand to which Robert Johnson
said that he was lacking the proper material. Thereupon Hinkebein said he would
have to enter this into Johnson's personnel record and took Johnson to the personnel
office after replacing him on the line with employee Bill Gipson.
10I do not appraise the evidence as establishing a conspiracy to deprive Johnson of
National Lock hinges but rather as clearly establishing that National Lock hinges were
the preferred type for the particular job Johnson was performing.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 919
In the personnel office Hinkebein informed Carroll that he could not use an
employee who continued to turn out bad work. The exit interview record, a form
regularly employed in connection with quits, layoffs, discharges, or other terminations
of employment covering Robert Johnson's discharge is in evidence as Respondent's
Exhibit No. 37. It essentially summarizes the reason for discharge as improper
work in having a low lid and screws at an angle on the hinge changing operation on
the sewing machine cabinets. I find special significance however in the final statement
of Hinkebein's reason for discharging which is as follows: "In checking the operator's
record, I did not feel that a warning was adequate and decided to fire him." But
there is nothing in the record herein which supports an inference that Robert Johnson
had been an unsatisfactory worker in any way prior to the events of November 2
and 3, 1960. In fact even Hinkebein acknowledged that he was a fair worker and
Hopper called him an average worker. Compared to other operators he appears
to have been a satisfactory worker and a paragon insofar as demeanor is concerned.
Respondent 's account of its reasons for discharging Johnson does not ring true ii
The Respondent contends that there is no proof whatsover that Johnson's union
activity was even known to the Company and General Counsel concedes that there
is no direct evidence that Respondent had knowledge of his union activities. It is
clear however that on November 1, Respondent's president, George Huth, addressed
employees in the plant area and plainly indicated his knowledge of the union cards
being circulated. Furthermore, A. C. Palmer testified that he was given a card in
the plant by Robert Johnson and thereafter was interrogated by his supervisor, Emil
Dupps, as to who had given the union card. This interrogation plainly occurred
while Robert Johnson was still employed as appears from Palmer's credited testimony
that after the interrogation he saw Johnson at work in the plant. Although Palmer
did not reveal Johnson as the source of the card, the incident is one of many in-
dicative of Respondent 's efforts to learn the identity of the Union 's adherents and
advocates.
The Respondent in calling for dismissal of this count of the complaint asserts that
the case is not to be decided on equities with which there can be no disagreement.
As to Respondent's further assertion that no reasonable assumption of impropriety
in the discharge can be made, I disagree. I do not credit the testimony of Respond-
ent's officials that they had no knowledge of Johnson's union activity. Clearly from
their program of inquiry into union activities they could have discovered Johnson's
leadership. I infer that Respondent did discover it and discharge him for it. This
is a permissive inference from the fact of discharge of a satisfactory employee where
the assigned reason is clearly not the true reason as I find to be the case here.
2. Charles Johnson: Charles Johnson was initially employed by the mill cabinet
department in March 1959. Laid off in December 1959 due to lack. of work, he
was recalled in March 1960 into the salvage department , transferring 2 months later
to the finishing mill, thence to mill cabinet department where he worked until his
discharge on November 3, 1960. He attended the union meeting on the night of
October 31 and received a small number of authorization cards from Union Organizer
Smith and from his brother Robert. He gave most of these cards to a single employee,
McBeard, who passed them on to others. Although he helped Smith after his
discharge, his predischarge activities in the plant were slight.
His employment record with Respondent appears to have been somewhat less than
satisfactory. He had previous warnings for taking unauthorized breaks and he had
been caught smoking on one occasion and reprimanded for it. Additionally, he had
been written up for poor work and had deductions from his bonus rate for poor work.
His exit interview record is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 31. Recorded
by Respondent's assistant director of industrial relations, J. D. Oliver, it recounts the
reasons given by Johnson's supervisor, Cliff Arinder, for his discharge. Arinder
reported that Charles Johnson was caught loafing in the restroom and was sent back
to his work and upon being caught loafing in the restroom about 15 minutes later,
he was taken to personnel for discharge. The General Counsel's position is that
loafing and even smoking in the restroom between breaks, although officially prohib-
ited, was officially condoned, and that the discharge of Johnson for this asserted
reason was a mere pretext giving rise to the inference that he was discharged for
his union activities.
"At the hearing General Counsel's Exhibit Nos. GA and 613 relating to the Mississippi
Employment Security Commission ruling on the reasons for Johnson's discharge were ex-
cluded by me. I am persuaded that this ruling was erroneous. See Salerno-DSegowen
Biscuit Company, 138 NLRB 832 (IR), footnote 4. I do not, however, rely on these
exhibits and , in fact, have not examined them.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Johnson testified that on the morning of November 3, 1960, he went to
the restroom about 8:30, this being in advance of the regularly scheduled morning
break in his department which runs from 9:15 to 9:25 a.m., and there was seen by
Supervisor Cliff Arinder who, according to Johnson, said nothing to him at that
time. Johnson left the restroom and returned to his department; on the way he met
two employees, Phillips and Shows, and later observed Arinder talking to them.
Arinder testified that he had noticed Johnson away from his workplace and when
he found him in the restroom he asked him what he was doing and when Johnson
said he was doing nothing, Arinder told him to go back to work. It is established
that Johnson went back to the restroom a second time, according to him for the
purpose of seeing what Arinder had said to Phillips and Shows. Arinder testified
that when he went back to the restroom and found Johnson there again, he told him
he was going to take him to personnel which he then and there did. I find Arinder
credible in his account of these events, more credible than Charles Johnson.
Charles Johnson's union activities were minimal, his employment record appears
.to have been considerably spotty, and the record indicates that good cause existed
for his discharge.12 I find that the allegations of the complaint are not sustained so
far as the alleged discriminatory discharge of Charles Johnson is concerned.
3. Thomas Roby: Roby was hired July 19, 1960, as a router operator in the print
mill. His immediate supervisor was Buddy Nall who in turn worked under Alex
Haick, supervisor of the print department. Roby was discharged on Saturday, No-
vember 26, 1960, by Buddy Nall after Nall pointed out to him a load of defective
television cabinet sides. Although Roby told Nall that he had not run the material
in question, he apparently based his assertion on the contention that although he
knew he had some tear-outs in the material he did run, he did not recall that they
were as bad as those in the pile. There is no testimony as to anyone else running that
operation in that department, although Roby contends that it could have been run
by someone else on the night operation because the router machine was left set up
for the work at nighttime.
Respondent contends that Roby was essentially a trainee whose skill in operations
had not progressed satisfactorily. It was also an element, according to Respondent, in
his discharge that he apparently was accident prone. The record does indicate an
unusually large number of accidents for his short period of employment. One of
these accidents, incurred while he was operating a router, was a serious cut to his
thumb resulting in 10 days' absence; in addition he had been treated in the infirmary
for a cut on his chin, again for a cut on his left index finger; he also had treatment
for particles in his eye on four different occasions. His union activity appears to
have been fairly substantial since he passed out about 25 cards to other employees
.and talked the Union up both at the plant, at employees' homes, and at various other
places in the area.
I found Alex Haick credible and 1 credit his denial of knowledge of union activity
on the part of Roby and his testimony that he and Nall decided to terminate Roby
because of his poor workmanship and the number of accidents he suffered.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent could have learned of Roby's
union activities and indeed it could have, although there is an insufficient basis for
inferring that it did. General Counsel contends that there was a substantial delay
in discharging him for the tear-outs in the television cabinets. But the record does
not indicate that the delay was substantial or indeed that Respondent in fact knew
about the improper running of the television cabinets before the day it pointed them
out to Roby.
The evidence does not preponderate in favor of sustaining the allegations of the
complaint respecting Roby's discharge.
4. Dallas Mitchell: Mitchell was hired October 17, 1947, and worked continuously
in the face veneer department (except for a brief month and a half transfer some
years prior to the events hereinafter recounted) until he was laid off by his super-
visor, Albert Paul, December 9, 1960. Mitchell appears to have been a thoroughly
competent workman and the senior qualified splicer operator in the denartment.13
He had also assisted in the training of a number of new employees. During most of
Mitchell's employment, his supervisor had been Charlie Adams. Adams' responsi-
12Although there is credible testimony that some loafing, in the restroom occurred, the
circumstances surrounding Charles Johnson's discharge plainly indicate that It followed
upon his being discovered loafing twice within a short Interval, also there clearly appears
to have been work for Johnson to do and his restroom time appears to have been
substantial.
13 Mitchell's credited testimony reveals that the only two employees of his department
with greater seniority were not qualified to run the operations Mitchell performed.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 921
bility for purchases of material, however, took him away from the plant a consider-
able length of time and in his absence Albert Paul exercised responsibility for super-
vision of the department. The record indicates that Paul had difficulty in
maintaining discipline during the time when he was acting in Adams' absence and
Mitchell and others appeared to have been guilty of failing to return promptly to
their work stations from their break periods and lining up at the timeclock early at
the quitting period.
The face veneer dimension mill had at one time employed as many as 35 workmen
but with a switch in customers ' demands to less expensive cabinet materials, the de-
partment had been reduced to 8 or 9 operators by December 1960. On December 5
Paul was officially placed in charge of the department. I credit Paul's testimony that
be was under pressure from Vice President Bracken to curtail his work force to the
extent possible. On December 5 Paul reprimanded Mitchell for his uncooperative
attitude with respect to his refusal to work overtime when requested, his lining up at
the clock ahead of quitting time, and his taking of excessive breaks.
The evidence clearly establishes that on December 8, the day before his layoff,
Paul asked Mitchell to work overtime on a shortage order and Mitchell refused,
saying he had other plans. The evidence also indicates that Mitchell was not told
at the time of his refusal that it would result in his termination . It is not, however,
contended that he was terminated because of this refusal to work overtime on this
particular night, but rather that it, together with Mitchell's uncooperative attitude in
other respects, was the factor determinative in Paul's decision to terminate him pur-
suant to a reduction in force.
Mitchell had signed a union card early in the organizational campaign and had
secured signatures of other employees in the plant during working hours and at break
and lunch periods.
The record indicates that there was no large scale reduction in force in the face
veneer department. The list of employees laid off in the period October 31, 1960,
to May 16, 1961, shows only one other termination in his department at this time,
that of Ivy, a lower rated operator. Mitchell concedes that on the day Paul took
over supervision of the department, December 5, Paul talked individually with him
and referred to the looseness in the practice with regard to lining up at the clock
early and returning late from breaks; I credit Mitchell's testimony however, that
Paul told him that this message was being given to all employees of the department.
Mitchell was not then told by Paul that he was being reported to personnel. I do
not credit Paul's testimony that in this conversation he told Mitchell that he was
being given a final warning and that the reprimand would go on his record.
In any event, I credit Mitchell's testimony that at the time of his layoff he was
not told of his alleged delinquencies but was merely told that "somebody has to
be laid off" and "it is no fault of your own."
I conclude that Dallas Mitchell was laid off because of his union activities. I base
this on the clear indications of the evidence that Mitchell had qualifications and
seniority that would ordinarily require his retention even in a reduction in force.
He was not told of his alleged delinquency at the time of his layoff nor was he
warned in advance that his longstanding laxities would no longer be tolerated as
they had been for a considerable time. His union solicitations occurred not only
at lunch and break times but during working hours and I infer that Respondent
discovered them. Respondent's account of the reasons for his selection for layoff
are confused and unconvincing. I find the allegations of discriminatory layoff of
Mitchell sustained by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
5. Harold King: Harold King was hired in April 1959 and discharged January 6,
1961. He signed a union card early in November 1960 and distributed other cards
to employees in the plant. He also acted as a union liaison man in his department
giving employees information received from Union Representative Smith.
Sometime in 1959 King had been reprimanded by his supervisor, Wilson Roberson,
for loafing, at which time Roberson took him to the personnel department and en-
tered the reprimand on his record. This appears to be the only formal reprimand
in his record prior to the union campaign. Roberson commenced his vacation
on December 12, 1961, and his superior, Goodman Gunter, took over his duties.
According to Gunter, he immediately observed that King was not doing his share
of the work. At that time King was working as part of a four-man crew engaged
in cabinet repair work. Gunter, according to his testimony, also received complaints
from other members of the crew, Clark and Steen, that King was not doing his
share of the work and holding the line back. According to Gunter, he changed
King's assignments from repair to touchup and inspection but found that King
was also doing unsatisfactory work in inspection. Gunter then reprimanded King
and entered a note in his personnel record about the reprimand and the complaints
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the fellow repairmen . Thereafter , when Roberson returned from his vacation,
Gunter mentioned his difficulties with King and it was decided to let King continue
work until after Christmas time and then discharge him if he did not improve.
On the day before his discharge , January 5, 1961 , King was unable to work because
of illness and reported in sick in accordance with plant rules. That day the other
three members of the crew worked on the same model cabinet that the four had
worked on prior to King 's absence and produced the same number of cabinets.
When King, pursuant to the red card in his timecard slot, went to personnel , Arinder
at first assumed that he was reporting to personnel pursuant to the red card. When
Arinder found out that he had in fact called in, he told King that they had enough
already to fire him and that he was holding back the line and taking too many long
breaks. Gunter then spoke up and said that on the preceding day the three had
run the same number of cases as if King had been there. King told Gunter and
Arinder that he could do the same with any two other men of the crew . I attach
some significance to King's credited testimony that when he was called into the
office on the morning of his discharge , Cliff Arinder, personnel assistant in the
office, told him , "We already have enough to fire you on." Arinder does not appear
to have denied this statement . It indicates that Respondent was searching for a basis
for discharging King for one reason or another , any reason in fact that was available.
A few days after his discharge , Goodman Gunter said to employee Voyce Bailey
in connection with a talk to a group of the Union , that he did not fire King on
account of the Union but because he was not doing his job right. I infer from
this that Gunter had knowledge of King's union activities.
Also I find that the asserted reason for his discharge is shown to be not the true
reason . According to Respondent the proximate cause of the discharge was the
realization that the three -man crew without King could work as well as the four-man
crew. The evidence indicates , however, that the repair crew, as might be expected
from the fact that they could not be required to operate faster than the production
lines which preceded them in Respondent 's processes , was, as Respondent 's witness,
employee Hampton, put it , "more or less" limited to about 300 cases. It appears
that the 300 or so cases could be and were run with either 3 or 4 men.
I find that the asserted reason for discharge was a mere pretext and that the
true basis for King's discharge was his union activity , Respondent 's knowledge
thereof being clearly indicated by Gunter 's words to Bailey.
6. Jessie Washington : Jessie Washington was hired by Respondent in May 1950
and progressed from a hiring rate of 96 cents to a wage of $1 .40 an hour at the time
of his discharge on February 3, 1961 . He signed a card in December 1960 and
solicited other employees in his department for their signatures on authorization
cards. Albert Paul was the supervisor of Washington 's department and is shown
by the evidence to have instructed Johnny Primm, whose supervisory status is
disputed , to talk to the night-shift men about the Union.14 Soon thereafter Wash-
ington was called into Paul's office and interrogated concerning what he knew about
a work stoppage on the hot press . In the course of this conversation Paul said
that Washington was one of his best men and "I hate to get rid of you." He fol-
lowed this by asking Washington to tell him what he knew about the Union and
who was working for it in their department.
On Tuesday , January 31 , Washington received permission from his supervisor,
Bratton , to leave the plant during his lunch period to mail his income-tax return.
Washington left the plant and proceeded to drive to the post office when he dis-
covered that he still had his timecard with him , having forgotten to punch out. When
he made this discovery he immediately returned , restored his card to the rack, and
went to lunch. According to Paul's testimony , he noticed Washington come in the
plant on that occasion and thereafter asked Bratton if Washington had had per-
mission to go out . Paul, checking into this , found that Washington had not punched
out and he then ordered Bratton to discharge Jessie Washington.
General Counsel concedes that Washington failed to punch the timeclock. Re-
spondent concedes that at most 10 minutes ' pay was involved but contends that even a
10-minute cheating on timecards would be a major problem in industrial management
because of the necessity of maintaining strict accuracy as to timecards . The ques-
tion, however, is what was the genuine reason for his discharge . In this connection
I find most significant the credited testimony of Jessie Washington that on the way to
the personnel office, Bratton told him that he was being discharged both because
14 The extent of Primm ' s activity in this area was developed as an offer of proof in view
of my ruling that Primm was not shown to have supervisory authority . As appears from
the later presentation of Respondent 's evidence , Primm was authorized and directed by
Paul to talk to Washington about the Union. I do not in any event rely on evidence as
to Primm's activities.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 923
he was "disturbing the peace" and because of the timecard episode. The reference to
disturbing the peace quite plainly had reference to Washington's union activities.
Again in the personnel office, Carroll referred to both "disturbing the peace" and to
his failure to punch the timecard. I find that Respondent's officials were concerned
about Washington 's influence as a trusted and veteran employee as appears from their
questioning about the hot press work stoppage.
Washington appears to have been a thoroughly reliable employee who during
10 years of service had been reprimanded only once, that about a year before his
discharge for using the tools of the maintenance shop at night , and on Saturdays.
Appraising all the evidence it leads me to the conclusion that Respondent knew of
Washington's union activity and in fact discharged him at least in part because of
that activity.
7. Dallas Fitzhugh: Fitzhugh commenced work for Storkline in July 1959 and
worked continuously until his discharge on February 3, 1961. At the time of his
discharge he was an inspector at the second lacquer station where his assignment was
to inspect cabinets as they came from their final coat of finish. If they passed inspec-
tion they went from Fitzhugh 's station to an oven for drying , thence to the rub depart-
ment for hand rubbing . The rubbing operation is a relatively costly one, a factor
which accentuates the necessity for care at the second lacquer inspection . At that
station in addition to Fitzhugh, there was another inspector, James Loper. To
identify their work the inspector marked the cabinets with different colored chalk.
Fitzhugh's immediate supervisor was Coyt Hardy and the division superintendent was
Harold Smith. Quality control was in the hands of Terrell.
Fitzhugh signed a card for the Union in the latter part of December 1960 and
thereafter passed out cards to other employees in the plant and his car pool . He also
spoke to employees at work attempting to persuade them to sign cards.
The evidence indicates that on February 3 Hardy called Fitzhugh and Loper sep-
arately down to the rub department to see defective cases which had passed their
inspection. Fitzhugh concedes that there were some 10 to 14 defective cases in rub
and all but two of them bore his inspection mark.
According to testimony of Hardy and Terrell, Hardy had been criticized severely by
Terrell for the passing of these defective cabinets and Terrell had told him, Hardy,
that he would have to get rid of the man who had passed them. I do not credit
this testimony.
The second lacquer inspection processes from 1,700 to 2,100 cabinets a day and
the evidence indicates that some of those passed are returned from the rub department
as having been inproperly passed. Loper testified that there are times when defects
are missed and the inspector is called down to rub only "according to how many we
passed that are bad." Loper further indicated that sometimes the cases would run good
all week and other times they would run bad 3 or 4 days a week. He testified he was
called down an average of five or six times a month. Fitzhugh testified that he was
called down on the average of every day, and it appears from his testimony that some
days he would be called down from three to five times and other days not at all.
I credit Fitzhugh's testimony, that he had never been previously reprimanded for
excessive passing of defective cabinets nor given a warning . 15 It is also significant
that in the very act of taking Fitzhugh to personnel for discharge Hardy, according
to testimony of Fitzhugh which I credit, said Fitzhugh was a man he hated to see go
because he was a hard worker.
I find Respondent 's explanation to be a false one. I conclude that Fitzhugh was
discharged because of his union activity. Respondent's awareness of Fitzhugh's
activities for the Union could be gained, and I infer it was, from the fact that he
was active in the plant both in distributing union cards and in oral persuasion. The
evidence plainly indicates that Respondent discharged Fitzhugh without real cause
for complant as to his work as is indicated by Hardy's reference to him as a man
he hated to see go.
8. William C. Myers: Myers was hired in March 1959, and in February 1961 was
working in the panel mill running a router and a shaper. His immediate super-
visor was George Tyson who worked under Department Superintendent Earl Duval.
Up to 2 weeks before his discharge on February 14, 1961, Myers appears to have been
a thoroughly satisfactory operator. This is evidenced by his rapid progression in pay
and by his testimony, which I credit, that a few months before his discharge Tyson ex-
pressed confidence in his ability to the extent that he authorized him to run some op-
i6 Smith testified that he entered a notation on January 25, 1961 , in Fitzhugh 's folder
to the effect that on that date he talked to Fitzhugh about excessive passing of defects
and that he must take the job more seriously. The evidence does not indicate that Smith
informed Fitzhugh that he was making a written report of the oral reprimand. This could
well have been considered by Fitzhugh not to be a reprimand.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erations without an O.K. I also credit Myers' testimony that Supervisor Percy Estes,
a short time before his discharge, asked him to run a line without direct supervision at
night and referred to him as the most qualified employee available for that assign-
ment. Myer's testimony that prior to February 1961 he had received no reprimands is
confirmed by Tyson's testimony that the first reprimand issued to him was that about
8 or 9 days before his discharge.
Myers signed a card for the Union in November 1960, and passed out between
30 and 40 cards to other employees at the plant. He also talked to employees in
the plant about the Union frequently. He was discharged on February 14, 1961.
The reason assigned for his discharge by Department Supervisor Duval was care-
lessness, producing bad work after a previous warning.
The events leading up to his discharge commenced with a reprimand given him
on the morning of February 7 by Supervisor Tyson for work performed by Myers
on February 6. On that day Myers was making a television end panel cut with his
router and after running a number of pieces observed a variation in the size of the
cut. He found that a stop screw had loosened and he remedied it by driving nails
into the stop thus tightening the screw. Thereafter Tyson observed the variation
on the stock previously run by Myers and ordered him to return the entire load
which would be a quicker process than separating the good from the bad pieces.16
There is some testimony that the allowable tolerance on this particular cut was a
32d of an inch. This testimony is unconvincing however, and I credit the testimony
of Tyson and Duval that the permissible tolerance is one sixty-fourth of an inch.
On the morning of February 7, Tyson took Myers to personnel where Duval and
Carroll were present . At the outset of this conference Tyson had to return to the
mill and in his absence Duval asked Myers for an explanation; Myers told him that
the stock had been varying since the stop had been stripped and Myers pegged it
and thereafter Tyson observed it and said the stock had to be rerun. Duval said
that Tyson had given him a different explanation. When Tyson returned he told
Duval that he had found the stop stripped and "we got some nails and drove it in
and fixed it." According to Myers he challenged this statement whereupon Tyson
admitted that Myers' explanation had been correct. This interview terminated when
Duval told Tyson that they had a new quality control man and because this new
control man was rough he would have to put this on his record which he did.
A week later on Monday, February 13, Myers was using a shaper on an operation
on a television cabinet front rail. Since the front rail is an exterior piece visible to
the purchaser a smooth finish must be preserved. Myers was getting some small
tear-outs which could be repaired with plastic wood. In the afternoon of February 13
Tyson discovered a substantial number of end panels with bad tear-outs. However,
he did not speak to Myers about it on that day. In fact it was not until shortly before
quitting time on the following day, Tuesday, February 14, that Tyson took Myers
to personnel again. In the personnel office Duval again referred to the new emphasis
on quality control under Terrell and then Terrell asked for their verdict on Myers and
Duval said, "There is only one thing that is discharge." Duval and Tyson, accord-
ing to Myers, shook his hand, said he had done good work but they figured it would
be better for everybody if he could find some work which was more suitable to him.
The evidence clearly indicates that Myers had been a thoroughly competent op-
erator. With respect to the reprimand in the personnel office on February 7, I credit
Myers' account of the discrepancy in the accounts given by Tyson to Duval. As
General Counsel points out in his brief, it is somewhat unlikely that an employee
of admitted competence for a period of about 2 years would suddenly become un-
qualified. Although there appears to have been a new quality control man, I am
convinced that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that Myers was
discharged because of his activities on behalf of the Union.
I reach this conclusion of the basis of the clear indications of the evidence that
Myers was a competent operator and one who would be retained if, as Respondent
contends, there was an emphasis on quality . I also find considerable significance in
the established fact that although Tyson discovered the bad tear- outs on the after-
noon of February 13 he did not take Myers to personnel for discharge until late in
the following day. If his work was so bad as to warrant discharge , it is not reason-
able to believe that he would have been kept at work for almost a full day before
taking action. Myers was active in the plant for the Union and the assigned reason
for his termination does not appear to be the real reason . I infer knowledge of his
union activities and discharge for them.
19 Respondent ' s Exhibit No. 13a, "Bad Work Report," shows 348 pieces one thirty-
second to one sixteenth of an inch off specifications.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 925
9. Tommy Rycroft: Rycroft worked for Respondent from August 1960 until his
discharge on February 24, 1961. He worked in the print mill department as a band
shape operator under Gerald Bagwell on the night shift. The department supervisor,
Buddy Nall, occasionally remained during the first hours of the night shift. Rycroft
signed a union card in November 1960, and received a number of additional cards
which he distributed at the plant to other employees. He regularly spoke to em-
ployees in the plant about union matters.
Respondent conceded that Rycroft had been a satisfactory employee up to two
instances of alleged grossly careless work. The first work was performed on
February 15, but traced to Rycroft on Febrary 24; the second instance of careless
work was performed and discovered on February 17.
With respect to the work performed on the night of February 17 it appears
that Rycroft was cutting a groove in the top of jukebox end panels. After Rycroft
had left the plant Bagwell noticed that out of the four or five loads run by Rycroft
there were about 10 panels in each load on which the groove had been stopped short
and varied in depth. Bagwell left a note calling Nall's attention to this work which
would have to be rerun. The loads were run by employee Morrow. When Rycroft
reported to work on Monday he heard from some source that the end panels had
been unsatisfactory and he asked Bagwell who confirmed the report but said nothing
more. This first instance of bad work does not appear to have been regarded as of
substantial significance by Respondent for on the following Tuesday Rycroft con-
stilted Nall about the possibility of reemployment with Respondent if he should go
to school under a football scholarship. At that time Nall told Rycroft that he would
consider him qualified for rehire if jobs were open.
The second instance of bad work on the part of Rycroft related to work per-
formed on the night of February 15, although the work was not discovered until
February 23. This work on the night of February 15 involved a router operation on
television cabinet front rails. The load had been started during the day shift on
February 15 by employee Van Eckels who ran 570 pieces; Rycroft ran 400 pieces
of the same load on the night of the 15th; and Van Eckels finished the load on the
day shift on February 16 with 162 pieces. It appears that the load was moved to
the next operation, that of sanding to be done in a different department, about Feb-
ruary 23. At that time Sanding Department Supervisor Moore directed employee
Gunter to sand the load whereupon the defective pieces were discovered and reported
by Moore to Buddy Nall. They claimed to find the bad pieces in the middle of the
load indicating that Rycroft had run them rather than Van Eckels. Alex Haick,
who in February 1961 was superintendent of the division, recalled that this faulty
work was called to his attention by either Nall or Moore; Haick testified that he
directed Nall to find out who was responsible for the bad work and when Nall later
reported after a check that they had been run by Rycroft, Haick instructed Nall to
terminate Rycroft.
I find that on balance the evidence falls considerably short of the requisite pre-
ponderance to warrant a finding of discrimination in the discharge. In reaching this
conclusion I am persuaded principally by the fact that Respondent's explanation for
the discharge is not shown to be false. I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint
insofar as it alleges that the discharge of Tommy Rycroft was discriminatorily
motivated.
10. James W. Johnson: Johnson was employed in August 1958, and worked con-
tinuously until he was discharged February 22, 1961. His exit interview memo-
randum indicates that his supervisor, Wiliam Lum, assigned as the reason for his
termination, Johnson's refusal to follow instructions resulting in the ruin of four
No. 2315 cabinets. The No. 2315 cabinets appear to be of substantial value since
they were for RCA phonograph, radio, television combinations and the cabinet was
the largest produced in the plant.
Johnson appears to have been a generally satisfactory worker and I credit his
testimony that he had been praised by Yelverton, assistant superintendent of his de-
partment, and by Golden Jones, a line supervisor in the same department, who, ac-
cording to Johnson, frequently tried to get Johnson to work on his line. In this re-
gard I credit Johnson's testimony as against Jones'.
Cabinet No. 2315 had been run in three releases. During the course of the first
release some difficulty was noticed in the splitting off of masonite ends after assembly.
At the start of the second release, the practice was commenced of inserting a veneer
strip (or sometimes several such strips), dipped in glue, into the small space between
the bottom rail and the masonite end panel. This was done at Johnson's station and
was the first operation in his handling of the cabinets, his sanding operation, and
removal of glue stains being succeeding steps.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Johnson was assertedly discharged for failing to put veneer strips in some of the
cases. There is a conflict in the testimony as to what instructions with regard to the
insertion of these strips were given to Johnson by Lum. There appears to be little
doubt but that most of the cabinets required a peg. Benson, as a witness for the
General Counsel, testified that as a replacement for Johnson, he noticed that only
about 1 out of every 80 cabinets did not require the pegs. In any event I credit
Lum's testimony that he instructed Johnson to place a peg in every cabinet, and not
to let a single cabinet go by without a peg unless it were cleared with Lum. Any
cabinets that in Johnson's opinion did not require a strip should be taken off the line
until Lum checked them.
It appears from Johnson's testimony that he was running 60 to 80 cases a day
and some days would let 20 or 30 go by without putting pegs in . Johnson's testimony
that Lum never said anything more about pegs after the initial instruction until his
discharge is to me quite incredible, in view of management's concern with the problem
of the end panel cracking and the recent steps taken to correct it. Although Johnson
testified that he was not rebuked in connection with pegs until the day of his dis-
charge, I credit Lum's testimony that on January 30 he took Johnson to the inspection
station and showed him cases with broken ends and unremoved glue.. It also appears
from Lum's credited testimony that a few days later, Lum took Johnson to task for
having a number of cases without these strips where they should have been inserted.
At that time according to Lum, he told Johnson this was a final warning and would
be entered in his personnel folder.
Finally on February 22, Lum took Johnson to show him a case that was without
pegs. Lum discussed this difficulty with Yelverton and was instructed to discharge
Johnson since a final warning had already been given if this difficulty continued.
Later in the day, additional cases were found without strips and Lum took Johnson
to personnel where he was discharged.
The General Counsel contends that employer knowledge of Johnson' s established
activities for the Union (I credit Johnson's testimony that he signed a card in Novem-
ber 1960, passed out some 20 authorization cards in the plant and accompanied
Union Organizers Smith and Wilkins to employees' homes) is indicated by an ad-
monition from Merl Thompson, a line supervisor on another line than Johnson's,
not to talk to his boys about the Union. This appears to have been a casual matter
and there is no evidence that it was relayed to Johnson's supervisors or had any con-
nection with his discharge.
The evidence does not, in my view, preponderate in favor of a finding of a dis-
criminatory motivation for Johnson's discharge nor support a finding that the rea-
son given for his discharge was a pretext.
11. Bobby Brown: Bobby Brown's employment with Respondent commenced in
1950, and he worked in the cabinet assembly department until August 1953, when
he quit. He returned in March 1954 and toward the end of 1954 became a setup
mechanic at the invitation of Jack Turner, supervisor in charge of setup men.
When Brown became a setup man there were three other setup men in cabinet
assembly, one of whom was Willie Penn. Since sometime in 1960, there were only
two full-time setup men, Brown and Willie Penn. I find that the preponderance of
the evidence clearly indicates that Brown was considerably superior in qualifications
and performance to Willie Penn. It appears from the cross-examination of Turner,
that Bobby Brown had qualified for the top setup mechanic rate of $2.02 per hour,
either 11/z or 2 years prior to his layoff, whereas Penn had been making that rate
for only about 6 months at the time of Brown's layoff. Furthermore, it appears that
Brown was qualified on more operations than Penn, and the most Turner could say
for Penn's ability was that he could set up a line alone if it happened to be one with
which he was familiar.
Brown testified that when Turner was absent, he, Brown was placed in charge
of setups and usually complimented for the way he handled them when Turner
returned. Although Turner testified that Brown was not left in charge of his
department, I credit Brown's testimony in this regard. I also credit Brown' s testi-
mony that on one occasion when Turner was absent, Brown had difficulty with Penn
and took it up with O'Byrnes and John Hamel. Hamel, who did not testify, appears
from Brown's earlier testimony to have been either supervisory or managerial in
status since he was the one who arranged Brown's return to work in 1954 after
his period of quit. At that time Brown was told by Hamel that if Turner was
away, Brown was in charge and if Penn gave him trouble to take him to personnel.
Finally, with respect to the comparison between Brown and Penn, I place con-
siderable reliance on the candid concession of Harry O'Byrnes, that although
Willie Penn was "a pretty good worker" he "didn't move around so fast ... he
moved around slow ... but I think his worse fault is he was a sloppy worker .. .
STORKLINE CORPORATION 927
and we were always on him about that." On the record herein, there is no doubt
that Brown is clearly shown to have been a paragon of a setup man as contrasted
with Penn.
Turner, in his testimony, referred to Lowery as a part-time setup man. It appears
that Lowery was primarily engaged in small tool repair and for 5 or 6 years prior
to Brown's layoff had occasionally assisted in setup work. He was not however
considered a regular member of the setup crew. After Brown's layoff, Lowery was
called upon to do more setup work than previously. From a stipulation at the hear-
ing it appears that Lowery had the classification of small tool repairman and setup
mechanic only since October 26, 1960.
According to testimony adduced by Respondent, Respondent's vice president in
charge of manufacturing, Bracken, on March 2, 1960, addressed a meeting of
Respondent's production officers and informed the group that a reduction in indirect
labor costs was necessary. O'Byrnes then made the determination to reduce costs
in three departments, one of which was setup, and asked Turner who he would lay
off. According to Turner's testimony, he engaged in some thought on the subject
and finally said that he would pick Bobby Brown for the layoff. About 3 o'clock
on the following afternoon, Brown was called to O'Byrnes' office where O'Byrnes
said that he was going to have to lay him off because of the need to cut expenses.
In the case of Brown, Respondent concedes knowledge of his union activity. In
any event, it clearly appears that sometime about the middle of February, Brown
told Turner that he was a union man and subsequently wrote Turner a letter con-
firming this conversation (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7).
It appears from the credited testimony of Odell Mitchum, an employee apparently
without interest in the proceeding, that after the discharge of Bobby Brown, work
he formerly performed was done by Penn, Lowery, and Turner. Mitchum observed
that they took a longer time to set up the line after Bobby left.
Bobby Brown's union activities were considerable. He appears to have been
the spearhead of the organizational campaign, since October 1960 when a group
of employees looked to him as a leader in their self-organization drive and in fact
met at his home pursuant to their desire to organize. Brown then called the Central
Labor Council and thereafter Smith get in touch with him. About the same time,
Robert Johnson, apparently independently, got in touch with Smith. Brown also
appears to have been outspoken in talking in the plant to his supervisors about the
Union, including Turner and O'Byrnes.
I think the preponderance of the evidence clearly indicates that the selection for
layoff of Brown as the known outstanding advocate of the Union was discriminatorily
motivated. According to O'Byrnes, Bracken decided that a reduction in indirect
labor was necessary. Bracken did not testify and there is no clear indication in
or deducible from matters of evidence why indirect labor was selected.
The evidence to me indicates quite clearly that the best qualified setup man was
laid off at a time when there is no showing of economic justification for layoff of
anyone, least of all the most qualified employee of the department. His union
activities were considerable and were known to Respondent. As shown throughout
herein Respondent was hostile to organization of its employees by the Union. I
conclude and find, that Brown was laid off because of his Union activities and not
for economic reasons. With respect to Turner's statement of an alternative reason
for selecting Brown, namely, that he had indicated an interest in employment in
the Illinois Central Diesel Shops, I credit Brown's testimony that he had assured
Turner that ample notice would be given before any change in employment.17
12. Walter Brooks: Brooks was hired by Respondent in February 1948, and
worked continuously until his discharge May 11, 1961. The reason assigned by
Respondent for his discharge was that he was caught in a second offense of un-
authorized smoking after a prior warning. The General Counsel contends that
sometime early in 1961, the Respondent asked him to take a stand against the Union
and on his refusal thereafter assigned him to a miscellany of duties in lieu of his
regular flap-hanging job and ultimately discharged him because of his substantial
and known union activities. Respondent asserts that the smoking offense was the
true reason for his discharge and that there is no credible evidence that the Re-
spondent was aware of any union activity on his part.
17 On cross-examination Brown was asked whether he had ever been convicted of crime,
specifically of an assault, and answered that lie had not. After redirect examination the
General Counsel moved to expunge the line of inquiry. When Respondent stated that an
appropriate showing would be made before closing of the case, I reserved ruling on
General Counsel 's motion. On conclusion of the case, General Counsel pressed the motion
and I granted it. It suffices to say that on the evidence herein Brown has a spotless
record in this regard.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the contesting assertions on discriminatory withholding of his
regular type of work from Brooks in the period between the conversation between
Yelverton and Brooks referred to above and Brooks' discharge on May 11, the
preponderance of the evidence appears to support the Respondent 's position that
there was a reduction in the volume of sewing machine production with a consequent
diminution in the volume of flap -hanging work . I also agree with Respondent's
position that there is no convincing showing of a reason why Brooks should have
been entitled to preference over other flap hangers in retaining the flap-hanging job.
Respondent 's operation being essentially a woodworking one, control over smoking
in the plant is not only a matter of insuring employee's attention to productive effort
but also an important safety consideration. On the production floor smoking is ab-
solutely prohibited ; it is allowed in private offices and in the employees ' restrooms
on breaks . Each shift has two breaks , one in the morning and one in the afternoon,
but the timing varies between departments . As a consequence , at any given time
the restroom may be occupied by employees some of whom would be lawfully smoking
on their break time and others , while lawfully occupying the restroom , would not be
allowed to smoke. Only an employee's workmates or his own supervisor would be
in a position to know with certainty, in many instances , whether a smoking employee
was properly or improperly smoking on any particular occasion.
The General Counsel contends that smoking in the restrooms between breaks
was condoned by Respondent 's supervisors . There is no doubt of the existence of
the rule prohibiting smoking in the restrooms other than during assigned breaks and
Respondent 's Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8 , photographs of the restrooms ' signs prominently
designating the smoking area, expressly state that smoking is permitted during
lunch and assigned rest periods only.
General Counsel's contention that the finding of condonation should be made from
Brooks' testimony must be rejected in view of Brooks' concession that when he was
found smoking in the restroom on the day of his discharge by Supervisors Jones
and Anderson, he admitted to them that he knew it was against the rules. Further-
more, in the interview preceding his discharge in the personnel office, Carroll, after
letting the other employee apprehended for smoking return for his job on the basis
that it was his first offense, said to Brooks that he would be discharged because it was
his second offense, Brooks significantly , said, that he "thought it was three." Brooks'
testimony that he saw other employees smoking between breaks is not convincing
absent a basis of knowledge that they were between breaks or were from his depart-
ment. Finally Brooks conceded that although he did not know of any other employees
discharged for smoking , he had heard that some got fired for smoking.
The testimony of Frank Sullivan , even crediting it in toto , does not support this
position since it plainly relates an appeal by Brumfield to Sullivan as a good friend
of his to stay out of the restroom between breaks because otherwise he would have
to carry him in to personnel and put it on his record . It appears that Sullivan had
been caught smoking once before and it had been put on his record at that time.
With respect to the testimony of Pierre Victor Bounds, who impressed me as credible,
I must discount his value as support for the General Counsel's case in view of his
admission on cross-examination that prior to the events leading to his discharge, he
had been caught smoking only once. While it may appear that Yelverton condoned
a second defense on the part of Bounds he clearly did so on the basis that Bounds
was rated as a good worker who had never given them trouble and who had worked
when others did not want to. The most that can be made out of the Bounds' incident
is that Respondent might have condoned a second offense in his case . It does not
establish a general rule however.
I find that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of a finding that Brooks
was discharged because of his union activity.
13. Richard Adamns: Adams was hired by Respondent in 1954 and worked initially
in the sawmill , transferring to the dimension mill on the shutdown of the sawmill in
1960 . He testified in the instant proceeding on June 8, 1961 , under subpena as a
witness for the General Counsel and related instances of interrogation on the part
of two of his supervisors . On cross-examination at that time he revealed that he had
signed a union card sometime in December 1960. The General Counsel contends that
Adams was discriminated against in ways hereinafter set forth both because of his
union activities and because he appeared as a witness for the General Counsel against
Respondent.
Unlike other alleged discriminatees it cannot even be contended that on the record
herein , Adams was active in the union campaign . There is no. evidence that he
solicited other employees , visited their homes, . or talked for the Union in the plant.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 929
Quite the contrary the record gives every indication that Respondent, at least up until
the day of his testimony, believed that his sympathies lay with management. This
plainly appears from evidence offered by the General Counsel tending to indicate
that Supervisor McFall time and again attempted to enlist Adams in Respondent's
campaign against the Union.18
There is no denying however that he did testify and, in effect, testified against the
Respondent. On the day before his testimony Adams telephoned Fuller, mill super-
visor, and told him of the subpena. According to Adams, Fuller said, "Tear the
cottonpicking thing up." Finally Fuller told Adams that he could obey the subpena
and report for work on the night shift following his testimony. Adams reported for
work after testifying however and arranged with Fuller to have the rest of the day off.
The General Counsel contends that commencing with the start of the day shift
on Friday, June 9, and continuing through Friday of the following week, Adams
was discriminated against by being sent home earlier than other employees and
thereby deprived of earnings . The Respondent has however submitted the testimony
of Fuller, supported by timecard exhibits, establishing that a large number of other
employees of the department were sent home early during the same week. It may
be that Adams was working somewhat less than he had on earlier occasions but it
appears that a number of other employees of the department were suffering more
grievously than Adams during this week. In short the record plainly indicates that
Adams was not discriminated against in the week immediately following his testimony
on June 8, 1961.
On Friday, June 16, Foreman George Snyder informed Adams that effective
Monday he was transferred to the night shift. Adams told Snyder that he could not
work at night and went to see Fuller about this assignment. Fuller told Adams that
there was not enough work for him in the daytime and he had to go nights.19 Adams
then returned to Snyder's station and said he would wanting his vacation pretty soon
and Snyder said he wanted a week's notice. Adams did work the night shift as
helper on the ripsaw.
The following Monday Adams appears to have commenced work without incident
on the night shift. On Monday, June 26, he told Snyder that he wanted his vacation
to start the following week and received Snyder's assent. On Wednesday he re-
minded Snyder of the vacation and of the desirability of having his vacation check
ready. At that time he asked Snyder for permission to leave Friday night after 2
hours of work since he would have completed 40 hours' work with the close of the
Thursday night shift. At that time, according to Adams, Snyder told him that it
would not be necessary for him to work 2 hours Friday and that since he was going
to start his vacation he might as well get some sleep. Snyder however testified that
he told Adams he would have to work 8 hours on Friday and would be relieved of
the last 2 hours and of the scheduled Saturday work. Nothing more was said about
vacation until the end of the Thursday shift about 4 a.m. Friday morning, at which
time according to Adams Snyder shook hands and wished him good luck on his trip.
Adams returned to the plant about 3:30 p.m. on Friday to pick up his workcheck
and his vacation check, receiving the latter in the personnel office, at which time he
saw Snyder but they had no conversation.
Adams did not return to the plant until Tuesday, July 18, an extra day being
added to his vacation time because of the intervening July 4th holiday. When he
went to punch in at 3:30 p.m. there was a red card indicating that he was to go to
personnel office. There Carroll inquired as to the reasons for his absence on the day
before his vacation, and Adams told him that Snyder authorized it, adding, "I put
in my 40 hours." Carroll denied that Snyder had authorized this, called Snyder into
the personnel office, where Snyder denied Adams' account of permission to take off
Friday. There ensued some disagreement as to the obligation of an employee to
work more than 40 hours if the Company directs him to, and Adams was discharged.
"The evidence indicates that sometime in April 1961, Adams refused a request by
Superintendent McFall to arrange for the use of the church in which Adams was a deacon
as a meeting place for the Company to "talk to the boys about the Union." Soon there-
after Adams was assigned to the job of tailing (i.e., helping) the facer. This was rela-
tively hard work and may not have previously been performed by Adams. The record
however shows considerable flexibility in assignments in the mill and does not indicate by
a preponderance that this was a discriminatorily motivated assignment.
11 The evidence as to men on the day shift being sent home early in this period sub-
stantiates Fuller's explanation of the reason for Adams' transfer to the night shift.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I found Snyder a credible witness and I credit his testimony that he did not
authorize Adams' absence on the Friday in question . The record indicates that
Adams was quite plainly under some compulsive delusion as to his authority to
refuse to work more than 40 hours. I conclude that the record fails to preponderate
in favor of a finding that he was discriminated against with respect to work assign-
ments, shift assignments , or employment either on the basis of union activity or his
testimony given in the instant case.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings , detailed above, that Respondent has engaged in (1) an
extensive course of interrogation of employees as to their union sympathies and
activities and the union sympathies and activities of other employees , ( 2) utterance
of threats of reprisal for union activities , ( 3) promises of benefits in reward for
opposition to union activities , and (4 ) surveillance of a union meeting and other
types of interference , restraint , and coercion detailed above , I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from activities of the type detailed above.
Since the extent and variety of the acts of interference found herein are substantial
and since, as indicated above, Respondent is found to have engaged in acts of dis-
criminatory treatment of employees in reprisal for union activities , I shall recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from activities of the type
found to have been engaged in and any other type of interference , restraint, and
coercion with employees ' rights under the Act.
In view of my findings that Respondent discriminated in tenure against a number
of employees thereby engaging in unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make each of them
whole for any loss of earnings suffered because of the discrimination against them
with backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and with interest added thereto at the rate and compounded in the
manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
I shall recommend the posting of appropriate notices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
. 3. By interrogating employees as to their own and other employees ' union sym-
pathies and activities , by threatening employees with loss or diminution of employ-
ment or employment benefits as a consequence of union activity or organization, by
effecting a wage increase in return for employees' rejection of the Union , by engag-
ing in surveillance of a union meeting and by requiring new employees to sign in
connection with their employment an agreement to refrain from engaging in pro-
tected concerted activities Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against employees in tenure for union activity, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Except as found herein Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]