Susquehanna Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to District 50, United Mine Workers
of America , or to any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT recognize or contract with District 50 , United Mine Workers
of America , as the bargaining representative of our employees , unless and until
said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board -conducted election among our employees.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to our July 12, 1961, agreement with
said District 50, United Mine Workers of America , or to any renewal , extension,
modification , or supplement thereof.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from District 50, United Mine
Workers of America , as the collective^bargaining representative of our em-
ployees, unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its
exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board -conducted elec-
tion among our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor -Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959.
TRI-W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone Number , Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Susquehanna Broadcasting Co., The Pfaltzgraff Pottery and
International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO
Susquehanna Broadcasting Co., The Pfaltzgraff Pottery and
International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 4-CA-2486-1 and I-CA-2486-2. November 96. 1962'
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 1, 1962, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
139 NLRB No. 109.
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1295
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.'
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 rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
Except as noted below, the rulings are hereby affirmed 2 The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and, except as noted below, adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent's change
in the work schedule on September 5, 1961, and its interrogation of
certain employees also violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
A new 6-day work schedule had been placed in effect by Respondent
in July 1961. On September 5, while the Union was actively engaged
in organizing Respondent's employees, Bauer, in the course of a pre-
election speech expressing opposition to the Union, announced the
abandonment of this unpopular work schedule and the return to the
former schedule of 5 days' work, with Saturday and Sunday off.
Upon the entire record, we conclude Respondent took this action of
September 5 in order to influence the employees in their choice of a
bargaining representative and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act'
Regarding the interrogation, we find that Foreman Leveille inter-
rogated employees Holtzapple, Resh, Brown, and Miller about their
union adherence, at the same time reminding Miller that Respondent
had been good to her, and Forelady Garland asked employee Diffen-
dorfer if he was voting for the Union, at the same time telling him
that the plant would probably close if the Union won the forthcoming
election. Other threats were made by Respondent before the election
which the Trial Examiner and we have found were unlawful. Under
all the circumstances, we conclude that the aforementioned interroga-
tion by Garland and Leveille also violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.t
1 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including the
exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 We do not affirm the Trial Examiner 's refusal to permit the General Counsel to
examine, as an adverse witness under Section 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, Plant Manager Bauer, the manager of Respondent 's plant involved herein. How-
ever , it does not appear that any party was prejudiced by this ruling of the Trial Examiner.
8 See Indiana Metal Products Corporation , 100 NLRB 1040 ; American Freightways
Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146.
4 Orkin Exterminating Company of South Florida, Inc., 136 NLRB 399.
Although we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(1) on account of the motel restaurant incident, we rely solely on the fact that the
record does not establish any unlawful threat on that occasion . We do not adopt the
Trial Examiner's statement that an unfair labor practice finding would not be warranted
here even "assuming a threat."
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Susquehanna
Broadcasting Co., The Pfaltzgraff Pottery, York, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Threatening to close its plant and to discharge employees if
they join or support the Union.
(b) Changing the terms and conditions of employment of its em-
ployees in order to influence their choice of a bargaining representative.
(c) Interrogating employees as to their union activities or sym-
pathies in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in York, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by said Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed to the extent that it alleges violations of the Act not found
herein.
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1297
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant or to discharge em-
ployees if they join or support International Brotherhood of
Operative Potters, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT change the terms and conditions of employment
of our employees in order to influence them in their choice of a
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union ac-
tivities or sympathies in a manner violative of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization , to form, join , or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO.,
THE PFALTZGRAFF POTTERY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building , Walnut and Juniper Streets,
Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Telephone Number , Pennypacker 5-2612,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel at York, Penn-
sylvania, from May 8 through 18, 1962, upon charges filed by International Brother-
hood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. The consolidated
complaint alleges, in substance, that Susquehanna Broadcasting Co., herein called
Susquehanna, and Pfaltzgraff Pottery, herein called Pfaltzgraff, together called
Respondent, committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec.
151, et seq.), herein called the Act, by (1) interrogating and warning employees
concerning their activities in support of the Union, and keeping meetings of the
Union and the union activities of employees under surveillance, as well as by creat-
ing an impression of surveillance, by promulgating and discriminatorily enforcing
a no-solicitation rule, and by attempting to deprive employees of the use of a meet-
ing place; (2) on or about November 15, 1961, and thereafter, changing work
schedules and granting an increase in the Christmas bonus and New Year's holiday
pay, as an inducement to refrain from assisting the Union; and (3) in November
and December 1961, and in January 1962, demoting, transferring, and laying off
certain employees and discharging others, because of their activities in behalf of the
Union. Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties were represented at the hearing, participated therein, and have filed
briefs.' At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, I dismissed on motion
the Section 8(a) (1) averments of the complaint that Respondent engaged in
surveillance, and that it discriminatorily promulgated and applied a rule against
union activity and discussions during working time. At the same time I struck
testimony as to certain statements alleged to have been made by management said
to constitute interference, restraint, and coercion.
Upon consideration of the entire record in the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Susquehanna Broadcasting Co. is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal
office and place of business in York, Pennsylvania. Pfaltzgraff Pottery is an un-
incorporated division of Susquehanna, which operates an office and plant in York,
Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
pottery and related products. During the year prior to the hearing, Respondent
caused to be purchased and delivered to its plant goods and materials valued at
more than $50,000, of which goods and materials exceeding $50,000, were trans-
ported to its plant in interstate commerce from States of the United States other
than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period Respondent sold
and distributed at its plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products
valued at more than $50,000 were shipped from its plant in interstate commerce
directly to States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania. The complaint alleges and Respondent's answer admits that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting employees of Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Meetings of the employees
The Union began organization of Respondent's employees during August 1961,
and on September 7 filed a petition for an election. A consent election was held on
October 25, which the Union lost. No objections to the election were filed.
On October 24, the day before the election, Respondent convened a meeting of
employees in the plant which was addressed by John Sullivan, a labor relations
consultant employed by Respondent. During the course of an otherwise uncoercive
prepared speech, Sullivan made statements which the General Counsel contends
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion. Thus, Ruth Senft testified that
he said that most of the plants which had voted the Union in had closed down
because there was no work, and Dale Siegman testified to this effect and that
Sullivan also said Respondent's employees could expect a layoff or even a shutdown
because of excessive union demands. Sullivan's testimony is that he named 12
potteries which he said had closed down because they could not operate under the
union contracts which they had, and that excessive demands by a union could lead
to strikes. I credit his version of these remarks. I do not find them violative of
the Act.
Employee William Manning testified that during Sullivan's speech, he said that he
knew what had been discussed at union meetings, a statement which the General
Counsel relies on to support the allegation of the complaint that Respondent created
an impression of surveillance, but which Sullivan denied making. Manning was
the only one of several witnesses, who were at the meeting, who testified to this
remark. I credit Sullivan's denial.
'Prior to the issuance of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, counsel
for Respondent filed a motion to correct the record in various respects and counsel for
the General Counsel filed a motion to correct It In other respects, at the same time object-
ing to Respondent' s motion In three Instances. Both motions to correct the record are
granted.
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1299
B. Alleged discrimination as to hire and tenure of employment
1. Dale Siegman
a. Background
Siegman came to work for Respondent on July 9, 1958. He was assigned to a
kiln, later put to work as a helper (or board boy) at the pot machine, and finally,
on July 31, 1961, as one of seven operators on a pot machine, in the bowl shop.
The helper, or board boy, carries semifinished pieces of pottery on a board to the
operator, who places them on the machine. As operator, Siegman worked with
Kenneth Mummert, a helper. Siegman recieved $1.62 an hour and Mummert $1.43.
Siegman and Mummert were the most active in the Union among Respondent's
employees. They were among the first to join, attended most of its meetings, passed
out union application cards at the plant, and on October 3 attended a meeting of
representatives of the Union and Respondent at which an agreement for a consent
election was consummated. Siegman testified that upon his return from this meet-
ing he was told by either J. Louis Bauer, plant manager, or Innerst, shop foreman
in the bowl and kiln departments, or both (the record is not clear), that his and
Mummert's attendance at the meeting would be "held against" them, and that
Siegman was "fingered as the number one man." Bauer and Innerst denied making
this latter statement, and I credit their denial. As to the former statement, it is
clear that Siegman himself understood that what was meant was that he and
Mummert would not be paid for the time spent at the meeting.
At the meeting of employees on October 24, previously adverted to, Siegman,
Mummert, and Ada Miller, an employee in the bowl shop who is not named in the
complaint and is still employed, rose and questioned statements made by Sullivan,
and Siegman and Mummert asked him how much he was paid for representing
Respondent. The union activities of these three employees, among others, were
well known to Respondent.
b. Siegman's demotion
Respondent's business is in part seasonal, reaching a peak in the late fall in
preparation for the Christmas trade and falling off thereafter. There had been a
layoff at this time in 1960. On November 15, 1961, Respondent shut down the
circle kiln which fired only potware, and took off the pot machine night shift. Thus,
according to Respondent, it had two operators more than it needed for its five pot
machines and it decided to lay off two of them. It selected Siegman and Sam
Mobley, among its seven operators. Siegman was demoted to helper and Mobley
was laid off entirely.
During the period from November 15 to December 15, Respondent laid off a
total of 18 employees, assertedly for economic reasons. Seven of these are named
in the complaint as being discriminatorily discharged, laid off, and demoted. The
General Counsel, while denying that these 18 layoffs were economically justified,
adduced no persuasive evidence to the contrary. The thrust of his contentions is
directed to a discriminatory selection of employees.
Siegman's demotion, the first of the alleged discriminatory acts affecting him,
occurred on November 16, 1961, when Innerst told him that his ware was not satis-
factory and put him back to work as a helper, which bore a rate of $1.43 an hour,
and reclassified Mummert as an operator at Siegman's former rate of $1.65. In
othei words, Siegman and Mummert changed places. Mummert's regular job was
that of jigger machine operator, which he seems to have continued to perform to
some extent though the record is not entirely clear. Siegman's testimony is that at
the time of his demotion he told Sterner, his immediate supervisor, about it and
Sterner expressed surprise, saying that his work as operator had always been good.
Sterner denied saying this, stating that he was not at the plant that day, and I credit
his denial.
Respondent insists that, granted the economic necessity of laying off two pot ma-
chine operators, which I find existed, its choice of Siegman, as one of them, was
indicated because of the seven operators, Siegman, Mobley, and one Reisinger, had
been working as such the shortest time .2 Mobley became operator on January 1,
Siegman on July 31, and Reisinger on July 24, 1961. The other four operators
had been working from 5 to 11 years as operators, were higher paid, and more able.
Mobley and Reisinger received $1.67, and Siegman $1.62 an hour, as have been
2 There is, however , no system of seniority in the plant. Seniority is considered only
when abilities are equal
672010-63vol 139-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated. Moreover, Siegman had worked only on Nos. 1 and 2 machines, and Mobley
on these machines for the most part, although he had on occasion operated the No. 3
machine. Machines Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are more difficult to operate than the others,
and were worked by the other four operators at a wage of $1.72 an hour. Reisinger
was able to operate all the pot machines. Moreover, Reisinger could and did operate
the ram press. Neither Siegman nor Mobley could do so.
Conclusion
I find that Respondent's decision to lay off two pot machine operators was moti-
vated by economic considerations only. I further find that its selection of Siegman,
as one of them, was not prompted by union activity. He was the youngest in point
of service among the seven operators, and the lowest paid. Alone among the op-
erators, he spent as much as a third of his time as a helper. The credited testimony
of Sterner, his foreman, is that he was not a good operator. Moreover, Mummert,
along with Siegman the most active employee on behalf of the Union, was retained
in Respondent's employ as a jigger operator, and given Siegman's job at the pot
machine, although, like Siegman, he had engaged in openly critical remarks directed
to Sullivan during the meeting of employees on October 24.
c. Siegman's transfer to the kiln and termination
On December 6, Siegman was called to the office and, according to his own
testimony, was asked by Innerst if he would work as a helper on the night shift
in the kiln where he had previously worked, to take the place of one Baughman
who had been injured that day. Siegman said that he would, but that he could not
for a long period because he had no transportation. Innerst told him his work on
the night shift would be temporary and Siegman started that night, with hours 11
p.m. to 7:30 a.m., at a wage of $1.59 an hour, as compared with his then present
wage as a helper on the pot machine of $1.43 and his previous wage as a pot
machine operator of $1.62 an hour. I credit Siegman's testimony that he was told
that the work would be temporary, and that he told Innerst that he had no trans-
portation at night. Moreover, Respondent admits that it was expected that the work
would be temporary. Baughman's doctor, however, subsequently informed Re-
spondent that Baughman was suffering from a rash which was aggravated by heat
from the kiln. Baughman accordingly, upon his return, was permanently assigned
to the day shift in the pug mill. Clyde Harlocker, kiln foreman, when Siegman
asked him if his assignment to the kiln was temporary or permanent, said that so
far as he knew it was permanent. According to Siegman, he told Harlocker that he
could not accept a permanent assignment because he had no transportation and had
to walk 8 miles to the plant. Harlocker denies that Siegman said this and I credit
his denial. He admitted, however, that on several occasions Siegman told him he
was hitchhiking.
Siegman was absent from work on December 13, 14, and 30, 1961, and January
5, 6, and 30, and February 1, 23, 24, and 27, 1962. He clocked out early on Decem-
ber 17 and February 25. He gave no notice of his absence on December 13 and 14,
called after 11 p.m. on January 5 and February 3, and gave only 15 minutes advance
notice on February 23 and 24. He was late arriving on January 27. When a kiln
helper is absent his position must be covered either by a man called in specially,
or by an employee on the previous shift staying over, at overtime rates.
On December 12, 1961, the Union filed an amended charge so as to include
Siegman's demotion from operator to helper. The complaint, when issued, alleged
this transfer and his subsequent transfer to the kiln as unfair labor practices. His
final separation hereinafter discussed, was alleged as an additional unfair labor
practice by oral amendment of the complaint at the hearing.
On January 8, Respondent wrote Siegman stating that he had been absent 5 of
his last 19 turns on his shift, and warning him that further absences would result
in disciplinary action, including possible discharge.
On February 2, it wrote Siegman again, calling attention to the fact that he was
late for his shift on January 27, and absent on January 30 and February 2, resulting
in payment of overtime to another employee, and suspending him for 3 days. The
letter concluded by saying that no further absences of the "same nature" would be
tolerated.
Following Respondent's letter of February 2, Siegman was absent from his shift
on February 23, left work early on February 25, and reported by telephone on
February 27 that he was ill and unable to work. He had not shown up for work
when, on March 5, Respondent wrote him for a third time calling attention to his
continuing absences. The letter stated that Siegman would have to furnish a doctor's
statement, covering his absence since February 27, before he would be permitted to
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1301
return to work, and that if he failed to establish that his absence was due to illness
he would be discharged for excessive absenteeism. The letter concluded by adding
that his next absence for any reason would result in his discharge. Siegman did
not reply to this letter, nor did he thereafter report to work. The complaint as
amended at the hearing alleges March 6, the day of the receipt of Respondent's
letter of March 5, as the date of Siegman's discharge, contended to be discriminatory.
On April 13, Respondent wrote Siegman for the last time stating that it had not
heard from him since his telephone call of February 27 claiming illness and, with
reference to its letter of March 5, asked him to advise Respondent of his physical
condition and whether he intended to return to work at all, saying that if Respondent
did not hear from him by April 20 it would assume he was not interested in work-
ing for Respondent and would terminate his employment.
Conclusion
The General Counsel does not take issue with the accuracy of Respondent's
account of Siegman's work record as recounted in its letters to him on January 8,
February 2, and March 5. He seeks to justify Siegman's absences and lateness
on the ground that he lacked transportation and that he was ill. He urges that his
transfer to the kiln on December was because of his union activity, and that his
subsequent termination was a constructive discharge, or forced quit.
With respect to Siegman's transfer to the kiln, Siegman was asked if he would
take this shift, not ordered to do so, and he accepted the transfer. This was work
which he had previously done and it paid 16 cents an hour more than he received
as a helper on the pot machine and 3 cents an hour less than he had received as an
operator, when the night-shift differential is taken into account. While he was
told that the assignment was expected to be temporary, and although Siegman said
that he could not take it permanently because of a lack of transportation, I do not
find that he was trapped into taking it. While it is doubtless true that Respondent
might have found someone else to fill Baughman's place on a permanent basis, I
see no reason for it to have done so. This is particularly true in view of the fact
that there is no evidence in the record that Siegman, after he came to know that
his assignment to the kiln was more than temporary, ever asked to be transferred
back to pot machine helper, or to any other work, although, as has been found, he
stated to his foreman that he had no transportation and sometimes hitchhiked. This
was after his transfer.
I find that Siegman's transfer to the kiln on December 6 was not motivated by
his union activity, but by legitimate business reasons.
The General Counsel couples Siegman 's transfer to the kiln with the circumstances
attending his failure to report to work after February 27, to support his contention
of a constructive discharge or forced quit. A forced quit, generally speaking, exists
when, instead of actually discharging an employee, an employer intentionally places
him in work which it knows or believes he cannot perform, with the expectation of
inducing his resignation. Here the General Counsel says that Siegman could not
perform his work as helper on the kiln night shift because he did not have transporta-
tion to and from work, and because of his health.
While working at the pot machine on the day shift Siegman was driven to and
from work in Mummert's car as a rule , and this was the case at the time of his
transfer to the kiln. His own car was in the garage as the result of an accident the
previous October, and was waiting payment of the repair bill. I credit his testi-
mony that in October he told Sterner that his car was not in running order .3 I have
previously credited his testimony that when he was transferred to the kiln on De-
cember 6, he told Innerst that he had "no transportation," thought he did not
elaborate.
The record is replete with testimony as to just what transportation Siegman did
have. He admitted using for 2 weeks, prior to purchase, a Chrysler later bought
by one Parrish, with whom he lived. Parrish testified that the car was purchased
jointly with Siegman about February 18 or 28. This car lasted a few days and
ended up in Siegman's front yard, alongside a Henry J which was unusable. At
the same time his other car remained in the repair shop . Siegman testified that
he also had the use of a truck which he drove to work twice, and another truck,
or perhaps the same one, which he ran into a ditch and damaged. There is other
evidence to the effect that he drove some truck to work over a period of about 2
8 Siegman testified , in effect, that his car would run . Specifically , the motor had been
repaired but repairs to the bumper and a fender were awaiting payment of the motor work.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
weeks. On some evenings he walked to work when one of the several cars was
not in running order or a truck available. Sometimes he was picked up.
I see no point in further resolving the conflicting evidence as to how often after
October Siegman went to work in his own car, how often in the car purchased by
him and Parrish jointly, how often in a borrowed truck, and how often he walked
or hitchhiked, since there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of the difficulties
attending his transportation, or the state of repair or disrepair of his three cars, save
his statement to Sterner 2 months before his transfer to the kiln that his current
car was out of order, and his statement to Innerst, when on December 6 his transfer
was made permanent, that he had no transportation, and of Harlocker' s admission
that Siegman told him on one or two evenings that he had hitchhiked.
Siegman's absences from work due to illness, as distinguished from lack of trans-
portation, he accounted for by his own illness, or that of a member of his own
family, or one of Parrish's. His several failures to call the plant when ill, or
when his transportation failed, or when he was stuck in a snowdrift or run into a
ditch, and his occasional lateness in calling, he testified were due to his telephone's
being out of order. I do not find it necessary to assay the credibility of his testimony
in this respect, since Respondent is not shown to have been acquainted with these
vicissitudes.
I do not find that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proof that Re-
spondent's assignment of Siegman to the kiln or his termination of employment was
discriminatorily motivated. Respondent cannot be chargeable with knowledge of
Siegman's difficulties in getting .to and from work after going on the kiln night shift,
much less with knowledge prior to assigning him to that shift. Even were such
knowledge assumed, there is no showing that he was kept on the kiln in the hope
or expectation of inducing his quitting. The same observation holds with respect
to his illness on any particular occasion. On January 8, Respondent warned Siegman
that further absences would result in disciplinary action, possibly discharge. After
two more absences and one lateness , Respondent on February 2 suspended him for
3 days. On March 5, after several more absences, and after his continued absence
beginning on February 27, Respondent demanded a doctor's certificate covering this
latter period, and informed him that any future absence for any reason would result
in his discharge. Siegman did not show up for work thereafter, or reply to this
letter, or furnish a doctor's certificate. Finally, on April 13, Respondent, apparently
still keeping its door open, inquired whether he expected to return to work and
gave him until April 20 to reply. Siegman neither replied nor returned to work.
He had quit. The record falls short of presenting a picture of constructive discharge,
or forced quit.
2. Sam Mobley
Mobley came to work for Respondent on December 20, 1954, as a laborer doing
odd jobs around the plant. He was thereafter assigned to the kiln. Later, he
worked as a pot machine helper in the bowl department and in January 1961 was
assigned as operator on machines Nos. 1 and 2, and, occasionally, No. 3. As has
been found in discussing Siegman, Respondent's choice in the layoff of two operators,
which I found to be economically motivated, lay between Mobley and Siegman,
both active in the Union, and Reisinger, if length of service was alone considered.
Mobley and Reisinger received the same rate of $1.67 an hour, which was less
than the four older operators received. Like Siegman, but unlike Reisinger, Mobley
did not operate the ram press. Sterner, foreman, testified that he rejected nearly
half of the plates which Mobley processed on No. 3 machine, in consequence of
which, on October 5, 1961, he removed him from No. 3 machine and put him
on No 2. Sterner's credited testimony is that Mobley's rate of rejections on No. 2
was lower than on No. 3, but not good, and so reported to Innerst.
When, on November 16, 1961, Siegman was demoted to pot machine helper,
Mobley was laid off. In addition to the unsatisfactory nature of Mobley's work
as a pot machine operator, Respondent advances as a further reason for his layoff
his hostile attitude toward other employees and to Sterner himself, and that, ad-
mittedly, on one occasion he struck another employee and laid him up in the hospi-
tal Mobley admitted while testifying that, in effect, he was not on speaking terms
with his brother, another operator, and that in December 1960, when the circle
kiln on which he worked was shut down, he was called to Bauer's office where Bauer
and Innerst reproached him for trouble he was causing in the plant. He was told
that the Respondent was having difficulty finding a place for him, that he was
being given a "last chance," and was assigned to Sterner. This was several months
before the advent of the Union. In June 1961, also well before the Union started
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1303
organizing, Mobley refused to take an X-ray examination required of all employees,
and did so only after Respondent threatened to pull his card.
Mobley testified that after Innerst laid him off on July 16 he asked Sterner if his
activity in the Union was a reason, and Sterner replied that it could have been.
Sterner denied having such a conversation with Mobley. I credit the denial.
I find that Respondent laid Mobley off on November 15 for legitimate business
reasons and not because of his union membership. On December 11, 1961, Re-
spondent offered him a job as night watchman, work he had done before. He ac-
cepted it, worked that night, the next day admittedly told Newman, Respondent's
personnel manager, that it did not pay enough wages, and quit. The complaint
alleges his quitting to be a discharge, and the General Counsel reasons in his brief
that this is so because the night watchman's job "did not satisfy Respondent's duty"
in the premises, if it be assumed that Mobley's original layoff was discriminatory.
Assuming this, though I have found to the contrary, the night watchman's job
might not constitute full reinstatement. But the contention that the offer and Mobley's
acceptance of it coupled with his quitting, amounted to a constructive discharge is
devoid of substance.
3. Ruth Senft
Senft came to work for Respondent in August 1959, first in the finishing depart-
ment and for a short period in the packing department, before being assigned to the
bowl shop where she sponged and trimmed ware. On November 17, 1961, Innerst
told Senft to report for temporary work in the packing department the following
Monday, November 20, because they needed girls there. The packing job paid the
same rate she was receiving in the bowl shop. Senft protested, stating to Innerst
that she could not get along with Garland, foreman in the packing department, and
asked him why he did not lay her off instead. Innerst told her to try it On the
following Monday Senft did not show up for work and called to say she was ill and
under a doctor's care. On November 21, Respondent wrote her questioning her
illness because she had expressed dissatisfaction with the transfer when it was made,
and asked for a written report from her doctor by November 27. The letter con-
cluded by saying that if such a report was not received her name would be stricken
from the payroll. On November 25, Senft sent Respondent a doctor's statement by
certified mail, enclosed in the doctor's envelope bearing his return address. This
was not delivered to the plant , but Newman, personnel manager, did receive a notice
that certified mail was being held at the post office. Newman's testimony is that
he came across this on December 12 while cleaning out his desk. He then attempted
to get it from the post office, but it had been returned. That same day Senft called
on Newman at the plant, advised him that she had mailed the envelope, that it
contained the requested certificate, and asked him why he had not accepted it.
Newman explained the circumstances and asked Senft to obtain another statement,
promising that he would treat it as if he had received it on November 27. No further
statement was sent.
On December 28, Newman again wrote Senft advising her that he had not received
a report from her doctor, and asked her to submit one by January 3, 1962. Senft's
testimony is that her physician, irritated at having his first statement returned to
him, refused to issue another. In any event, Respondent did not receive a state-
ment. On January 18, Respondent wrote Senft that her employment was terminated.
Conclusion
The General Counsel argues that Respondent's transfer of Senft on November 17,
1962, was intended and calculated to force her to quit her employment and that,
accordingly, her failure to report for work after that date is immaterial. He further
urges that, assuming a duty to report, her termination must still be found dis-
cruninatory because she complied with Respondent's request for a doctor's certificate
and Respondent failed to pick it up at the post office. This, says the General
Counsel's brief was intended to cause her to quit.
I disagree. There was no return address on the envelope to indicate that it was
mailed by Senft. Moreover, it is admitted that when she brought this to Newman's
attention Newman asked her to obtain another doctor's statement and promised to
treat it as having been received by November 27, the date originally set. No
further statement was forthcoming.
So far as Senft's transfer to packing is concerned, her only expressed objection to
it was that she had not got along with Garland, supervisor in packing, during the
3-day period she had worked there several months previously. Moreover, her state-
ment to Innerst to this effect was made only after she was told she was transferred.
There is nothing in this record to indicate that conditions in the packing room were
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
onerous,4 or that Senft's relationship with Garland was of such a nature as to cause
Respondent to believe that her assignment there, whether temporary or permanent,
would force her quitting.
4. Charles Taylor
Taylor was hired in May 1961, in the casting department as a laborer and was the
last employee hired in that department. His work consisted of sweeping floors,
pushing wheelbarrows, dumping day trucks, and hauling molds. He was one of
the first to join the Union and wore a union button while working. His interest
in the Union was known to Respondent. When the circle kiln shut down on
November 15, 1961, Heiner, his foreman told him that he was laid off because of
lack of work. His place as cleanup man was taken by Koontz, an experienced
caster, who had been laid off from his work on the straight kiln and who, with two
others, was laid off when this kiln was shut down. One of the others quit, and
the third was given a job as night watchman. Bauer's credited testimony is that
Koontz, a caster, was a more valuable employee than Taylor, who was a laborer.
On April 12, 1962, Taylor was called back and assigned work carrying molds in
the jigger department where he was still employed at the time of the hearing.
Conclusion
I find Respondent's temporary layoff of Taylor, the last employee hired in the
casting department, and his replacement by Koontz, a more valuable employee, to
have been a reasonable exercise of management discretion, not motivated by his
activity in the Union.
5. Other layoffs in the bowl shop
Gladys Kauffman, Frances Flinchbaugh, and Ferne Holtzapple were all finishers
in the bowl shop. Kauffman was laid off on November 15, 1961, together with
Beaverson, another finisher, not named in the complaint. Flinchbaugh and Holtzapple
were laid off on December 8.
a. Gladys Kauffman
Kauffman was employed in September 1960, and worked as a sponger and sprayer
until November 15, 1961, when Respondent began its seasonal layoff of employees 5
She joined the Union in August, wore a union button in the plant for 2 or 3 days
along with various other employees, including Beaverson, with whom Kauffman
closely worked. Kauffman's credited testimony is that sometime before the election
on October 25, Innerst cautioned her against discussing the Union on company time.
Kauffman and Beaverson, by their own arrangement, sometimes exchanged tasks,
Kauffman doing Beaverson's work trimming ware, and Beaverson doing Kauffman's
work spraying. According to Kauffman, Innerst told her that this was permissible
so long as she did not overdo it. On November 15 Innerst told Kauffman and
Beaverson that they were being laid off because there were too many employees in
the department. Respondent, as I have previously stated, has no seniority policy
in laying off except that when abilities are equal length of service prevails.
Kauffman had more seniority than the other eight girls in the department, having
been employed on September 7, 1960. The two employees with the least seniority
were Ferne Holtzapple, hired on July 24, next above her Beaverson, hired July 19,
and above her Frances Flinchbaugh, hired July 12, 1961.
Innerst testified that Kauffman was not an efficient employee, that her work had
fallen off during the previous 2 months, and that he had moved her from one job
to another to keep her awake. Kauffman testified that, although Innerst had
cautioned her against trading jobs too much with Beaverson, she sometimes did so
for hours at a time or until Innerst told her to go back to her own job.
Although Innerst's reasons for selecting Kauffman for layoff seem somewhat
vague, I am not convinced that it was occasioned by her union activity. Beaverson,
also a union proponent, was laid off with Kauffman, but it is not alleged that her
layoff was discriminatory. Flinchbaugh and Holtzapple, who along with Beaver-
son had the shortest periods of service, and who were also members of the Union,
were not laid off at this time, though they were 3 weeks later.
* Senft's health had not been good for sometime. She referred to her condition as hyper-
tension and was affected by dust occasioned by trimming ware in the bowl shop. There is
some indication that Innerst had this in mind when he transferred her. There was no
dust attending work in the packing department.
8 Of 18 employees laid off between November 15 and December 15, 7 are named in the
complaint.
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1305
b. Ferne Holtzapple and Frances Flinchbaugh
Holtzapple and Flinchbaugh, both finishers, were laid off on December 8, 1961,
allegedly in a continuation of the pattern of reducing the production of pot machine
ware, and have not been recalled. Their respective dates of hire and their relative
periods of service have been stated above. Both had been with Respondent less than
5 months.
Innerst testified that Holtzapple's work was good . During a period of less than
3 months, however, she had been absent 23 days, 17 of which occurred after Novem-
ber 1. She signed a union authorization card on August 24, 1961. Shortly there-
after, while having lunch in the plant with three other employees and Bernard Leveille,
a supervisor of finishing or trimming , who were her usual lunch companions, the five
of them discussed the pros and cons of unions and Holtzapple spoke favorably of
what they had done in some plants. Aside from this conversation there is no evidence
that Respondent knew of her union affiliation.
Flinchbaugh was a helper, putting ware on and taking it off the foot spray ma-
chine. Innerst testified that she was satisfactory at this but slow at other work
assigned her, such as sponging and trimming ware, and that it was for this reason he
selected her for layoff . Flinchbaugh signed a union authorization card on August
31, 1961. The record does not reveal any activity in the Union, and there is no
evidence that her interest in it came to the attention of any supervisory employee.
c. Catherine Brown and William Manning
Up to December 15, 1961 , Respondent's layoffs were related to the closing down
of the circle kiln and the reduction in pot machine ware . On this date , the second
shift on the ram presses was abandoned when the Christmas orders had been met,
and seven additional employees were laid off throughout the plant. Three of these
were from the finishing department and Brown was one of them.
Brown was hired April 18, 1961. Her work was that of trimming the rough edges
from the ware , and sponging it smooth . Leveille , who laid her off, testified that
she and the other two employees were laid off because they were poor workers.
Brown joined the Union on August 31 and attended three union meetings with other
employees , those who later came to affiliate with the Union and those who did not.
Otherwise she was not active in the Union . As in the case of Holtzapple , there is
nothing in the record to show Respondent 's knowledge of her interest in the Union,
aside from her testimony that Leveille , on one occasion , asked her and another
employee if they had signed union cards, which they denied doing.
Manning first came to work for Respondent in August 1959, quit the following
May, and was rehired in June 1961, as a board boy and a clay ball feeder in the
bowl shop under the foremanship of Sterner. He signed a union authorization card
in August and attended several meetings , but was not otherwise active in the Union's
affairs. There is no evidence that Respondent had knowledge of his interest in the
Union. At the time of the December 15 layoffs of seven employees, Sterner was
directed by Innerst to select four of these from his department on the day shift and
to replace them by four older and more experienced employees on the night shift
whom Respondent wanted to keep. Sterner selected Manning, along with three
others not named in the complaint. Two other employees, Casteel and Ware,
who were hired after Manning was last hired in June 1961, were retained. King
had recently been made a ram press operator, work which Manning could not do,
and Casteel was a truck boy whom Innerst rated on Respondent's rating form (al-
though only on December 12), as excellent in every respect. Sterner testified
credibly that Manning was a poor worker and that, in addition, he was nervous and
shaking around the machines, which made him fear he might have an accident.
Concluding Findings
I find that neither Dale Siegman, Sam Mobley, Ruth Senft, Charles Taylor, Gladys
Kauffman, Ferne Holtzapple, Frances Flinchbaugh, Catherine Brown, nor William
Manning, was transferred, demoted, laid off, or discharged by Respondent because of
their union activities, but for legitimate business reasons.
C. Other alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The motel restaurant incident
Kenneth Stouffer had been a purchasing agent for Respondent when, in the spring
of 1961, he left and opened a motel and restaurant. The Union held two meetings
there, and on the day before the election, a luncheon. It has not since used the
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motel or restaurant. In October 1961, after the election, Louis Newman, Respond-
ent's personnel manager, and Richard Guerin, its comptroller, called on Stouffer and
after a few preliminaries expressed disappointment that he should permit the Union
to meet in the motel. Stouffer was a reluctant witness who testified that he did not
construe the remarks of Newman and Guerin to be a threat since, he said, they
were smiling at the time. Nor do I, although I discount the smiles. The line be-
tween a simple wish for good public relations on the one hand, and an implied
threat of a loss of business on the other, is a thin one. Respondent itself at no time
used the motel in connection with its business. In any event, assuming a threat,
I am not disposed in these instances to make a finding of unfair labor practices,
since there is little likelihood of a similar incident occurring in the future. I do not
find persuasive the Board decisions, based on different sets of facts, which the General
Counsel calls my attention to in his brief.
2. Sullivan's speech; alleged impression of surveillance
I have found, in connection with Siegman's demotion and transfer, that Sullivan,
Respondent's labor relations consultant, at a speech the day before the election,
did not say, as claimed, that he knew what was going on at meetings of the Union
or who had joined it. Hence, I find no impression of surveillance conveyed. Neither
do I find elsewhere in the record substantial evidence on which to base such finding.
3. Holiday pay and work schedules
About July 1961, before the advent of the Union, Respondent published an an-
nouncement of Personnel policy, effective July 1, stating among other things that it
recognized six holidays, but would pay holiday pay for only four of them. Memorial
Day and New Year's were not included. On December 21, 1961, 2 months after
the Union lost the representation election, and at a time when the record shows
there was little if any union activity, Respondent announced that thereafter New
Year's Day would also be a paid holiday. I have noted the Board decisions cited in
the very able brief of counsel for the Union, particularly American Freightways Co.,
Inc., 124 NLRB 146, holding that an employer violated the Act when, during the
course of an organizing campaign, it announced granting of pay for a holiday well
in advance of the time it usually made such an announcement, the Board holding
that motive, or the fact of an actual coercive effect, were irrelevant. In the case at
bar, however, no active organizing was taking place and there was no departure
from past policy. The credited testimony of Newman, Respondent's personnel
manager, was that the purpose of naming in July, New Year's Day and Memorial
Day as recognized holidays, but without pay, at the same time granting pay for
other holidays, was that by holding them in reserve Respondent would gain more
credit with its employees than by announcing them piecemeal. Under the circum-
stances existing here I do not find Respondent's announcement of holiday pay for
New Year's violative of the Act.
4. The Christmas bonus
In December 1961, about the time when Respondent announced that New Year's
Day was to be a paid holiday, it also announced, as it had in past years, a Christmas
bonus. On the following day it further announced that it would absorb income-tax
deductions thereon, instead of deducting them as it had previously done. One
hundred and sixty-eight employees received a bonus, and the saving to 128 of them
averaged 15 cents. The maximum amount by which any employee profited was
around $5. The testimony of Guerin, Respondent's comptroller, is that upon going
over his figures following the first announcement he found so many employees who
would have deductions of odd cents that he recommended that Respondent absorb
the whole expense. The cost to Respondent was $213.19.
For reasons set forth above in connection with holiday pay, I do not find this
violative of the Act.
5. Change in work schedule
A new 6-day work schedule was put into effect on July 17, 1961, and announced
on July 10. It was to remain through December. This schedule necessitated work
for some employees each Saturday on a rotating assignment. This proved unpopular
with the employees, including supervisors. Bauer, plant manager, testified that it
also proved wasteful because employees working on Saturdays found themselves
SUSQUEHANNA BROADCASTING CO., ETC. 1 307
working alongside others with whose work they were not familiar , and resulted in
substantial breakage of ware. I credit Bauer 's testimony . On September 5, 1961,
about 1 month after the beginning of union activity , on a day when Bauer expressed
Respondent's opposition to the Union in a speech which otherwise was innocuous, he
announced the abandoning of this work schedule and a return to the former schedule
of 5 days ' work, with Saturday and Sunday off . While this change must have been
welcomed by most employees , and although it was made while active organizing
was being conducted , I do not find under the circumstances , though the question is
perhaps a close one, that it amounted to interference , restraint , or coercion.
6. Incidents of interrogation
I have found above that Foreman Leveille while lunching, as was his custom,
with Holtzapple and other employees in his department and while they discussed the
Union pro and con , asked Holtzapple if she was for the Union . I do not find
Leveille's question, in this setting, to be violative of the Act. Catherine Brown
testified that Leveille, on one occasion, asked her and another employee if they had
signed for the Union , and they said they had not . Leveille, called as a witness,
denied asking this.
Ada Miller testified that on one occasion Leveille asked if she was for the Union,
and reminded her that Respondent had been good to her. A conversation followed
in which Miller said emphatically and at length that she was for the Union, and
criticized conditions in the plant department as well as Foreman Innerst, and Leveille
agreed that things might be better. Leveille did not deny this testimony. More-
over, Miller impressed me as a forthright and unbiased witness. Originally en-
thusiastic about the Union, she had subsequently lost interest. I credit her testi-
mony and find that Leveille made the inquiry Miller attributed to him. I do not
find, however, that it constituted a violation of the Act. (See Blue Flash Express,
Inc., 109 NLRB 591.)
Employee Beaverson testified that Garland, forelady in packing, about a week be-
fore the election remarked to her and one or two other employees that Louis Appel,
Respondent 's president , had stated that if the Union came in he would close the
door to the plant. James Diffendorfer also testified that Garland , 2 or 3 days before
the election, asked him if he was voting for the Union and told him that if the
Union won the plant would probably close up. Garland denied making the remarks
and inquiries attributed to her. I found Beaverson and Diffendorfer to be credible
witnesses . I do not credit Garland 's denial.
Miller and Ruth Senft testified that Innerst told them the latter part of August
while the two girls were working on a glaze machine: "After this union business is
over, I know for a fact that your two names are on top of the list-Ruth, you'll
go first and, Ada, you'll follow right behind her." Innerst denied saying this. I do
not credit his denial . In fact, Senft resigned under circumstances which I have
found not to have been discriminatory. Miller retained her job.
Conclusion
I find that the statements made by Garland and Innerst , related above , are at-
tributable to Respondent and are unfair labor practices.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to close its plant and to discharge employees if they joined
or supported the Union, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
'employment of the employees named in the complaint, engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The remaining allegations of the complaint setting forth facts and conduct
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act have not been established by a pre-
ponderance of the credible evidence.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
California Metal Trades Association and its Member Companies
and Tool and Die Craftsmen National Independent Union
Council , Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-4491. November 26, 1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 23, 1961, after an election conducted pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Election,' the Acting Regional Director for
the Twentieth Region issued a certification of representatives in which
he certified Tool and Die Craftsmen National Independent Union
Council, herein called the Independent Union, as the collective-
bargaining representative for the following unit of employees found
appropriate by the Board :
All tool and die makers, tool and die apprentices, tool and die
machinists, their leadmen and working foremen employed by
firms located in the State of California which have executed
powers of attorney to the California Metal Trades Association,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, watchmen,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
On April 17, 1962, California Metal Trades Association and Ampex
Corporation, a member of the Association, filed a motion to clarify
certification of representatives. In the motion it is contended, in sub-
stance, that a dispute has arisen over the unit placement of tool and
die machinists employed by Ampex.' The International Association
of Machinists, AFL-CIO,' which represents the production and
maintenance employees on an associationwide basis, apparently con-
tends that the employees in question are performing production work
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2 Only employees of Ampex are involved herein.
8 Herein called Machinists.
139 NLRB No. 112.