The Halsey W. Taylor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 12, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

THE HALSEY W. TAYLOR COMPANY Included 425 APPENDIX-Continued Excluded I Allowed to vote subject to challenge Department 543 Typists. Production planners. Secretary, department Secretary-stenographers. Assistant production head. Senior engineering clerks. planners. Program schedulers. Keypunch operators. Production schedulers. Supervisor, shop Production control clerks. Supervisor, lift-truck schedules. Production coordinators. operators. Contract print machine Supervisor, production operators. stores. Machine load coordinators. Supervisor, production schedulers. Supervisor, production control. Supervisor, production planners. General supervisor, pro- duction planning and control. Storekeeper, production stores. Foreman, shop expediters. Foreman, warehouse and receiving. The Halsey W. Taylor Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-3118. December 12, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On September 9, 1963, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision 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 af- firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Brown]. 145 NLRB No. 43. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.2 1 The Trial Examiner found, and we agree , that the Respondent knew that Weekley was engaged in a concerted activity when he made the protest for which he was discharged. We therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner 's comments to the effect that such knowledge is immaterial in finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1) in this case. Y The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph therein, the following paragraph: 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, The Halsey W. Taylor Company, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: The Recommended Order is further amended by deleting the words "his" in paragraph numbered 1(a). The notice appended to the Trial Examiner 's Decision is hereby amended by deleting the paragraph stating that "All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on April 5, 1963 ,1 by United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO, herein called the Steelworkers , against The Halsey W. Taylor Company, herein called the Respondent , the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging an employee named Keith R. Weekley on March 28, 1963. The answer of Respondent admitted the discharge but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner John F . Funke at Warren, Ohio , on August 15, 1963. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given until September 5 to file briefs. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and Respondent on Sep- tember 3. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio and having its principal place of business at Warren, Ohio . It is engaged in the manu- facture , sale, and distribution of water coolers, drinking fountains , and cooler parts. In the course of its business Respondent sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 annually to places outside the State of Ohio. I find Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Steelworkers is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1 Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1963. THE HALSEY W. TAYLOR COMPANY III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 427 A. The facts Keith Weekley was employed by the Respondent in its packing department from September 1962 until March 28, 1963. On that date he was discharged by Howard 0. Bartlett, vice president of Respondent, for insubordination. According to Weekley on the day before his discharge he had been working when another employee, James Bartlett, remarked to him their foreman, Paul Currington, was working. Currington heard the remark and came over to Weekley and asked what harm it did for him to work and also asked how he (Weekley) would like to stand around for 8 hours doing nothing. Weekley's reply was that he had not made the remark but that he would probably enjoy doing nothing. About 5 minutes later Weekley passed Currington on his way to the restroom and told him that he had mentioned to the classifier 2 that he (Currington) was stealing work from the other employees in the department. Currington reported this conversation with Weekley and directly as a result of it Weekley was discharged the next day by Bartlett. According to Weekley, and I credit his testimony, Bartlett told him, when he asserted that his work record was good, "The work record had no basis to it. I was insubordinate. The only reason I was arguing with the foreman that I was trying to secure more overtime for the men and myself." Weekley had been a member of the Steelworkers' organizing committee during its campaign to become bargaining representative of the plant during October and November 1962. During this period and thereafter Weekley had conversations with other employees 3 regarding working foremen since it reduced the work volume for the employees and necessarily reduced their overtime. Weekley agreed that he would speck to his foreman, Currington, when he observed him working. B. Conclusions The issue presented is a neat and narrow one requiring little explication. I find that Weekley, in making his protest to Currington, engaged in protected concerted activity.4 I further find that his discharge was the result of this protest and that, although it is not material to the finding of a violation,5 Bartlett knew that the protest was voiced on behalf of others as well as Weekley himself. The discharge was, therefore, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act regardless of the fact that it was made during working time .6 IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated against Keith Weekley by discharg- ing him on March 28, 1963, in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that it make him an immediate offer of reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority status or other rights and privileges. I shall further recommend that Respondent make Weekley whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against him by the payment of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned 2 Sometime during March Weekley had spoken with a representative of a management consultant firm employed to set up job descriptions and classification Weekley told the representative his foreman worked and was told that a recommendation would be made that foremen not work. s Weekley's testimony Is supported by that of James Abrams and Don Wargo, both of whom I credit. *Fant Milling Company, Inc., d/b/a Gladiola Biscuit Company, 134 NLRB 591. As to the rights of unorganized employees see N.L R B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, Inc., 370 U S. 9. 5Unlike Section 8(a) (3), motivation Is not a factor In establishing a violation of Sec- tion 8(a) (1). N.L R.B. v. J. E. McCatron, et al., d/b/a Price Valley Lumber Co., et al., 216 F. 2d 212 (C.A. 9) ; Cu8ano d/b/a American Shuffleboard Co. v. N.L R.B., 190 F. 2d 898 (C.A. 3). Cf. N.L R.B. v. The Office Towel Supply Company, Incorporated, 201 F. 2d 838 (CA. 2). 6 N.L R B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 182 F. 2d 817 (C.A. 7). 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the date of discharge, less any net earnings during the period, said sum to be computed in accordance with the Woolworth formula.? Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on said sum shall also be paid Weekley in accordance with the Board's decision in Isis Plumbing.8 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. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging Keith Weekley for engaging in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com- mence within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, The. Halsey W. Taylor Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from discharging or otherwie discriminating against any employee for engaging in concerted acitvities for his mutual aid and protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Keith Weekley immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered in the manner herein set forth in the section 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 data convenient for a com- putation of backpay due. (c) Post at its plant at Warren, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply therewith.10 7 P. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 8Isis Plumbing rk Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 9 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order " 18 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby, notify you that: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee be- cause he engaged in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. TOP NOTCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 429 WE WILL offer Keith Weekley immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or re- maining members of any labor organization. THE HALSEY W. TAYLOR COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NoTE.-We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the. United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion 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, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland , Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Top Notch Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Guillermo Aguirre. Case No. 28-CA-924.' December 13, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On August 16, 1963, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner 2 i Reference to Case No. 28-CB-253 against United Garment Workers of America, Local 284, and United Garment Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as it appears in the Intermediate Report, is deleted from the case caption, inasmuch as the Trial Examiner granted, without objection , the General Counsel's motion to sever that case and to adjourn the hearing herein pending the effectuation of a settlement agreement. 2 We hereby -modify the backpay remedy recommended by the Trial Examiner to include payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent, as act forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 145 NLRB No. 44.