The Singer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 1089 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

THE SINGER COMPANY
The Singer Company and Cabinet Makers Local
Union 2705, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases
26-CA-2984-2 and' 26-RC-3078
June 25, 1969
DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On February 19, 1969, Trial Examiner William J.
Brown issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceedings , finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision . He further found the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
as to them . In addition, the Trial Examiner found
that the Respondent had engaged in objectionable
conduct prior to the election held in Case
26-RC-3078, and recommended that the said
election be set aside and a new election ordered.
Thereafter the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting
briefs and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to
the General Counsel ' s exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the
findings ,' conclusions , and recommendations2 of the
Trial Examiner , as modified herein.
'The Trial Examiner found no evidence to support allegations in the
complaint relating to the interrogation of employee James Hancock by
Supervisor Tom Rose . He thereby overlooked testimony by Hancock who
stated that he met with Rose twice as part of an employee interview
program On each occasion , Rose, referring to the forthcoming election.
asked Hancock to support Respondent , and each time , Hancock refused.
We affirm the Trial Examiner' s dismissal of this allegation of the
complaint , but on the ground that Rose 's remarks were not coercive.
The Trial Examiner 's inadvertent references to L. B. Jones as Odis
Jones (third paragraph , sec. III, A , 1) and to Pollard as Holley (fourth
paragraph , sec. Ill, A , 1) are hereby corrected.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent discharged Corrine Sullivan
not for her involvement in a fight with another employee , Edwards, but in
reprisal for her support of the Union . In so finding , he discredited an
eyewitness , Dickerson , because of the following contradiction between her
testimony and that of Edwards . Dickerson reported to Respondent that
Sullivan had initiated the fight by shoving Edwards with her hands whereas
Edwards ' account was that Sullivan had started the fight by striking her
with a wooden rail. We also find additional evidence in the record which
1089
1. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that
allegations in the complaint relating to the
interrogation of employee L. B. Jones by Supervisor
Young should be dismissed.
Jones, a union adherent, testified that
approximately two weeks prior to the election,
Foreman Billy Young stepped onto Jones' forklift
and referring to authorization cards protruding from
Jones' pocket, asked, "You still believe in that
stuff?" and "What do you think you will accomplish
if you had a union?" Young also added that the
Company would not have to give the Union a
contract.
Young was called as a witness for the General
Counsel, but from the outset Respondent objected to
the receipt of any testimony from him on the
ground that a Board attorney had taken his affidavit
improperly. The record discloses that Young was
asked by Jones to meet with a man staying at a
local motel on April 18, 1968,in order to provide a
work reference for Jones. In fact this man was an
NLRB attorney . After learning the Board agent's
identity, Young nevertheless submitted to an
interview and signed an affidavit . He returned
voluntarily approximately 1 month later for another
interview with a Board attorney, and signed another
affidavit in which he acknowledged having discussed
the Union with Jones but stated that he did not
recall making certain allegedly coercive remarks. It
was this second affidavit which the General Counsel
attempted to submit into evidence.
Respondent urges that the affidavit was taken in
violation of established Board procedures. In
support of its position , Respondent cites sec.
10056.5 of the NLRB Field Manual, presumably
referring to the first paragraph which reads, "Where
Respondent is represented by counsel or other
representative and cooperation is being extended to
the Region in connection with its investigation of
unfair labor practice charges, the charged party's
counsel or representative is to be contacted and
afforded an opportunity to be present during the
interview of any supervisor or agent whose
buttresses the Trial Examiner 's conclusion . For example , Dickerson
testified that both Edwards and Sullivan had been arguing all morning
prior to the onset of the altercation (although Dickerson could not hear
what was'said due to noise in the plant) Yet, Edwards asserted that she
had uttered not a word in response to Sullivan 's initial namecalling.
Dickerson also stated that Sullivan attempted to start brawling again after
the women had been separated . However , a supervisor , Rouse, testified
that he led Sullivan away from the immediate scene and that at no time
thereafter did she make any effort to start fighting . It should also be noted
that Dickerson , like Edwards , was a member of the Loyal Employees
Committee. Both Dickerson 's and Rouse's versions of the altercation were
known to Respondent prior to the date it terminated Sullivan . On the basis
of the above considerations , we are convinced that Sullivan was discharged
in violation of Sec . 8(aX3).
'In adopting the Trial Examiner's recommendation sustaining Objection
2, we do not rely on his finding that Harold Smithson engaged in unlawful
conduct for the reasons set forth in our Decision infra. Also, in accord
with our findings, we dismiss Objections 8 and 11. We conclude, however,
that the other threats encompassed in Objection 2,together with the
discriminatory discharge of Odis Jones occurring within the critical period,
warrant setting aside the election.
176 NLRB No. 149 4
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statements or actions would bind a Respondent." 3
Respondent interprets this section to mean that
Board attorneys are not permitted to interview
supervisors or agents during the investigatory stage
of a case without notice to or outside the presence
of counsel for the charged party . Since the interview
with Young was conducted after the investigatory
period when Respondent had already filed its
Answer to the Complaint and had acknowledged
Young as a supervisor , Respondent argues, a
fortiori, that the affidavit and any oral testimony
offered by Young would be tainted and inadmissible
evidence.
The Trial Examiner agreed with Respondent
"that the fundamentals of fair -play and the policy
underlying General Counsel's administrative
instructions require dismissal of these allega-
tions ...."
General Counsel contends that there has been no
failure to comply with the Board ' s administrative
procedures . Relying on the balance of Sec . 10056.5,
General Counsel points out that the above-quoted
Board policy applies where "(a) the charged party
or his counsel or representative are cooperating in
the Region ' s investigation ; (b) where counsel or
representative makes the individual to be
interviewed available with reasonable promptness so
as not to delay the investigation . ." However,
"This policy does not preclude the Board agent
from receiving information from a supervisor or
agent of the charged party where the individual
comes forward voluntarily ...."
It is clear in the present case that since
Respondent did not allow interviews with any of its
supervisors , it was not "cooperating in the Region's
investigation " within the meaning of Sec. 10056.5.
Further, Young was present voluntarily at the
interview in which he gave the affidavit in question.
Given these circumstances , we are convinced there
was no impropriety in taking Young ' s affidavit and,
therefore , that no grounds exist for the Trial
Examiner's refusal to admit it into evidence.
Moreover, looking to the merits of the charges,
we are persuaded that the record contains sufficient
documentation to support the allegation of the
'Sec 10056 5 , NLRB Field Manual , reads in toto as follows- Where
Respondent is represented by counsel or other representative and
cooperation is being extended to the Region in connection with its
investigation of unfair labor practice charges, the charged party ' s counsel
or representative is to be contacted and afforded an opportunity to be
present during the interview of any supervisor or agent whose statements
or actions would bind a Respondent . This policy will normally apply in
circumstances where- (a) the charged party or his counsel or representative
are cooperating in the Region 's investigation, (b) counsel or representative
makes the individual to be interviewed available with reasonable
promptness so as not to delay the investigation ; and, (c) where during the
interview counsel or representative does not interfere with, hamper, or
impede the Board agent's investigation
This policy does not preclude the Board agent from receiving
information from a supervisor or agent of the charged party where the
individual comes forward voluntarily , or where the individual specifically
indicates that he does not wish to have the charged party 's counsel or
representative present . Similarly, in cases involving individuals whose
supervisory status is unknown , this policy would not be applicable.
complaint that Young unlawfully interrogated
Jones.'
As noted above, Jones testified as to his foregoing
conversation with Young. This testimony is
uncontradicted on the record. Considering the
overall atmosphere of Respondent' s union animus
demonstrated by the unfair labor practices found
herein, we conclude that Young's interrogation of
Jones was coercive and in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
2. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding
that Respondent unlawfully aided the Loyal
Emloyees Committee.
On February 1, 1968, the morning of the election,
prior to the 7 a.m. shift, members of the Loyal
Employees Committee, a group of employees
opposed to the Union, stationed inside the plant
gate , and union adherents outside the same gate,
were handbilling employees as they arrived for
work. Employee Odis Jones testified that although
the union supporters reported to their work stations
5 minutes before 7 as was generally required, Loyal
Employee Committeemen continued to handbill
until 7 o'clock. Doyle Householder, a supervisor,
was present and,according to Jones, distributed two
or three handbills to employees entering the plant at
the last minute.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent, by
Householder's active and passive cooperation with
the Loyal Employee Committee while denying equal
privileges to the Union, had engaged in unfair labor
practices. We disagree.
The record establishes that Householder, as
foreman for plant protection, was required to be at
the gate that morning and to close it promptly at 7.
Once employees are inside the gate and on plant
property, however, he has no authority to permit
them to report late to their work stations. As
Respondent points out, there was no evidence
adduced either that employees did in fact arrive late
or that Householder or any other agent of
Respondent allowed Loyal Employee Committee
workers to report to work late. Nor was there any
showing as to whether or not these employees had
secured permission to distribute campaign literature
or had incurred disciplinary action therefor.
Moreover, Jones admitted that union adherents too
had handbilled on company property without
reprisal on several prior occasions.
In light of the foregoing, we view Householder's
distribution of a few handbills as trivial and the
remaining evidence insufficient to warrant a finding
that Respondent assisted the Loyal Employees
Committee while discriminating against the Union.
3. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not find
that Supervisor Smithson's statement to employee
'We affirm the Trial Examiner 's dismissal of the allegations in the
complaint relating to threats allegedly made by Young Our decision,
however , unlike the Trail Examiner ' s, is based on a finding that no threat
is contained in Young's remarks , not on any dereliction in obtaining his
affidavit
THE SINGER COMPANY
Robert Thompson constituted ' a threat in violation
of Sec . 8(a)(1).
Thompson testified that prior to the election,
Smithson told him that if the Union came - in, the
plant would close down , the Respondent would not
negotiate with the Union unless there was a strike,
and bargaining would start at zero and go up.
Smithson conceded having said that bargaining
would start at zero and go up , but expressly denied
having made any of the other above remarks.
Although crediting Smithson generally , the Trial
Examiner incorrectly included in Smithson's
admission about bargaining from zero the statement
that employees would lose present benefits. He
thereby attributed to Smithson more than he
actually said.
Thus, there remains only Smithson's
acknowledged remark that bargaining would start at
zero and go up. It should be noted that the Trial
Examiner found the same statement in a speech
delivered to employees by Respondent ' s general
manager fell short of constituting a threat of
reprisal . Similarly , in the context of Smithson's
conversation with Thompson, we are persuaded that
no uTawful threat should attach to the words in
issue.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, The Singer Company, Trumann,
Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall take the action set forth it the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1 (c) and rt;letter the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
2. Delete the third indented paragraph in the
notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election
conducted herein on February 1, 1968, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election6 omitted from
publication.]
' e Wagner Industrial Products Company, Inc, 170 NLRB No. 157.
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759, decided April 23, 1969. Accordingly , it is hereby directed
that an election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 26 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the
Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director . The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
AND
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
1091
WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This consolidated
proceeding under Sections 9 and 10 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the
"Act," came on to be heard before the undersigned Trial
Examiner on May 21-24, and June 4-6, 1968 at
Jonesboro, Arkansas, and on October 21, 1968 at
Memphis, Tennessee. The petition in the Representation
Case had been filed on January 4, 1968, and pursuant to a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an
election was conducted on February 1, 1968 resulting in
employee rejection of union representation.' In the interim
the Union filed the original charge of unfair labor
practices herein on January 22, 1968, and on February 8,
1968 filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the
results of the election. By order dated April 15, 1968, the
Board ordered a hearing on certain of the Union
objections, authorizing the consolidation of such hearing
with that on the complaint herein which was issued on
March 25, 1968, by the Regional Director for the Board's
Region 26.2 The complaint alleges, and the Respondent's
answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and the
discriminatory discharge of employees Odis Jones on
January 19, 1968, and Corine Sullivan and Robert Lee
Thompson on February 16, 1968. Respondent's duly filed
answer has denied the commission of the unfair labor
practices alleged.
At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as
noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and
argument on the issues. Subsequent to the close of the
hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel and
the Respondent-Employer and have been fully considered.
On the entire record herein and on the basis of my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT -EMPLOYER
The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that the
Company is a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey. It
maintains an office and plant at Trumann, Arkansas,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of sewing machine
cabinets and other wood products. During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the complaint herein the
Company sold and shipped from its Trumann plant
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 and shipped
directly to points outside the State of Arkansas while
purchasing and receiving at its Trumann plant directly
from points outside the State of Arkansas materials
valued in excess of $50,000. I find, as the Company
concedes, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
'International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
intervened in the representation proceedings and participated in the
election securing 17 votes out of the 1,506 ballots cast . The Chargm&
Party , hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Union ," received 554
ballots and 909 ballots were cast against representation by either labor
organization.
'The Regional Director consolidated the proceedings by order of April
17, 1968.
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE
OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF
THE ELECTION
This case concerns events occurring during the course
of the Union ' s fifth attempt to organize the approximately
1,600 nonsupervisory production and maintenance
employees of the Company ' s woodworking plant at
Trumann , Arkansas .' This most recent organizational
effort commenced about August 1, 1967 and was
described by Union International Representative Edd
Guilliams , who was in immediate charge of the Union
drive, as having been relatively free from Company
interference , as contrasted to prior campaigns , at least up
until sometime about January, 1968.
A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Interrogation of employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires
Tom Rose, the Company' s manager of Employee
Relations and Communications and an admitted
supervisor , is alleged in the complaint to have interrogated
employees concerning their Union membership , activities
and desires on September 15 and November 15, 1967, and
on January 30, 1968 . The General Counsel 's brief refers to
no evidence in support of these allegations and I find none
and shall recommend dismissal of these allegations.
Junior Chaffin was at material times the foreman in
charge of Department 55 with supervisory authority over
employees . He is alleged to have coercively interrogated
employees concerning their Union membership , desires
and activities on or about January 23 , 1968. The evidence
indicates, and the Company ' s brief concedes , that, after
noting employee Lettie Braxton ' s name on a Union
handbill , he called her into the office and asked her what
had caused her to turn against the Company and for the
Union . In the course of the conversation , according to
Braxton whom I find a credible witness, Chaffin stated
that the Company would not bargain with the Union and
that she would be walking a picket line. The Company
concedes that this constituted unlawful interrogation. I
find that the questioning of Braxton by Chaffin on or
about January 23 , 1968 constituted an unfair labor
practice in the nature of coercive interrogation within the
purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
'Prior campaigns were conducted in 1963 , 1964, 1965 and 1966 The
Company has previously been found to have engaged in unfair labor
practices directed against the Union' s organizational effort in cases
reported at 153 NLRB 922, 158 NLRB 677, and 159 NLRB 220; the
Board's finding in the last of these cases was set aside by the Court. The
Singer Co. v. N L R B, 371 F.2d 623, C.A. 8.
'The complaint alleges that A. L. Williamson was a supervisor in
Department 40 and on or about January 25, 1968, interrogated employees
concerning their Union activities . The answer denies his supervisory status
Although there is considerable evidence concerning the employees and
supervisors of Department 40 in connection with the issue relating to the
discharge of Corine Sullivan and Robert Lee Thompson , there is a lack of
evidence to establish his supervisory status . General Counsel 's brief does
not refer to the issue . I shall recommend dismissal of allegations relating
to him . With respect to the other individuals alleged in the complaint to
have been supervisors , their status as such is conceded by the Company's
answer.
Dennis Hendricks is shown by the pleadings to have
been a supervisor at all material times . It is clear from the
testimony that some 2 weeks prior to the election
Hendricks, who then had no direct authority over Odis
Jones , approached Jones at work , referred to Jones'
longstanding support of the Union in prior and the current
campaigns and then asked him why he and so many other
employees were dissatisfied with the Company . There are
no circumstantial guarantees of innocence of purpose in
this inquiry and it plainly constituted an intrusion by
Company management into the protected concerted
activities of employees . I find that this questioning of
Jones by Hendricks constituted an unfair labor practice
defined in Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Earl "Bud" Holley is foreman of a spray department
and admittedly a supervisor under the Act. Lloyd Pollard,
a spray hand under Holley ' s supervision and a friend of
Holley , testified that some time in October or November,
1967, Holley referred to rumors about the Union
campaign and wondered if Holley would help the
Company out to which Pollard gave a somewhat
noncommittal answer . About a week later Pollard had
some Union authorization cards apparently sticking out of
his hip pocket while at work and Holley removed them
and asked what they were . When Pollard explained that
they were Union cards , Holley asked what he was going
to do with them, to which Pollard replied that he was
going to get them signed . Holley then stated that he did
not think Pollard was that bad off. Although Holley
denied talking to Pollard about the Union and claimed
that he thought the hip-pocket cards were religious
literature , I found Pollard to be a truthful witness and
credit his testimony . The evidence thus preponderates in
favor of the conclusion that on these occasions Holley
engaged in coercive interrogation and committed an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
John Meeks, a supervisor in the spreader operator
group , is alleged to have coercively interrogated employees
on December 15, 1967 and January 17, 1968 . Watson
Barker, Jr. returned to employment at the Company
about December 11, 1967, after a discharge for
absenteeism, and became a strong Union supporter. He
testified that shortly prior to his rehiring and again after
his return his supervisor , Meeks , asked him if he was still
with the Company . Meeks testified that in these
conversations nothing was said about the Union . I found
Meeks a credible witness and cannot see any basis for a
finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of the
conclusion that the Company engaged in coercive
interrogation through Meeks as alleged in the complaint.
Bill McMaster , foreman of the cabinet department and
an admitted supervisor is alleged to have interrogated
employee Jesse Crume on or about August 15, 1967, as to
his Union membership and activities. Crume, a stockboy,
testified that some time in September 1967 McMaster
asked him if he had signed a Union card ; his testimony is
that he replied that he had not but intended to, as he
subsequently did. McMasters was in military service and
unavailable as a witness at the time of the hearing. I
credit Crume 's testimony and find that the questioning by
McMasters constituted an unfair labor practice within the
scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Max Morrison, a supervisor in department 41, is
alleged to have interrogated employee Fortson concerning
Union activities on or about October 26, 1967. Edward
Fortson , an employee of the assembly department,
testified that Morrison came to him in late October 1967
THE SINGER COMPANY 1093
and after some preliminaries asked him if he knew why
employees wanted the Union and if he did not think they
would be better off without the Union. Morrison conceded
having a casual conversation with Fortson about the
presence of the Mine Workers at the gate but denied
asking Fortson if he knew why employees wanted the
Union and denied saying that the Company would be
better off without the Union. I credit Morrison's account
of the episode and recommend dismissal of these
allegations of the complaint.
Harold Smithson , foreman of department 40 and an
admitted supervisor , is alleged to have interrogated
employees as to their Union membership and activity on
or about January 25 and 28, 1968. Robert Lee Thompson,
an alleged discriminatee who worked in department 40
before his discharge on February 16, 1968, testified that
on the Thursday before the election Smithson approached
him at work and asked how he was going to vote in the
forthcoming election . Thompson replied that he did not
know to which Smithson replied , according to Thompson,
that it would be best to vote for the Company and, when
Thompson said that he thought the Union would help,
Smithson said it would not and that if it won the plant
would close down and refuse to negotiate until a strike
was called . Thompson also testified that 2 or 3 days
before the election he had another conversation with
Smithson who said to him that he did not see why
Thompson had his name on the union committee list and
asked him if he would have signed up for the company
committee list if he had known about it, to which
Thompson said that he would have joined the company
list if he had known about it.
Smithson admitted having a conversation with
Thompson but denied having more than one conversation
and stated that, in the one conversation he had , he did not
question Thompson as to how he was going to vote in
view of his instructions from Plant Manager Massey and
Attorney Bowling. I credit Smithson ' s testimony and
recommend dismissal of these allegations relating to
interrogation on the part of Smithson.
Arthur Lee "Hoot" Wells, also a department 40
foreman and a supervisor , is alleged to have interrogated
Thompson about January 25, 1968 as to his union
sympathies . Wells was at this time Thompson ' s immediate
supervisor . Thompson testified that on the occasion of his
talk with Smithson referred to above , Wells also asked
him how he was going to vote in the pending election.
Wells testified that the conversation in question was
opened by Thompson ' s question as to what he thought
about the Union to which Wells replied that he did not
think it would do any good. Wells denied asking
Thompson how he intended to vote . I was impressed with
the testimony of Wells and credit his account of the
conversation . I recommend dismissal of the allegations of
the complaint relating to interrogation by Wells.
Billy Young , who was an inspector trainee after
February 1968 but lumber-stacker foreman and an
admitted supervisor prior to that time , is alleged to have
interrogated employee L . B. Jones on or about January
15, 1968 . L. B. Jones, who worked under Young's
supervision at that time testified that some 2 weeks prior
to the election Young stepped up on Jones' forklift, and
referring to Union cards and pencils prominently
displayed by Jones, asked if he still believed in the Union
and added that the Company would not have to give the
Union a contract . Respondent ' s Exhibit 4 is an affidavit
of Young taken by the General Counsel on May 15, 1968,
subsequent to issuance of the complaint herein, and
without notice to Company counsel . It relates to the
matters involved in the alleged interrogation of Jones. I
agree with the Respondent that the fundamentals of
fair-play and the policy underlying General Counsel's
administrative instructions require dismissal of these
allegations of the complaint.'
2. Threats
John Meeks, whose supervisory position is set forth
above, is alleged to have, on or about January 17, 1968,
threatened employees with loss of their jobs if they voted
for the Union in the pending election. Watson Barker, Jr.,
a strong union supporter as noted above , testified that his
supervisor, Meeks, instructed him to attend a Union
meeting at Marked Tree, a center of employee support for
the Union , and report back to him on the names of
employees in their department who signed up for the
Union. Barker appears to have signed up himself for the
Union and to have failed or refused to report to Meeks on
the names of those who signed up. On the day after the
meeting Meeks, according to Barker , said , in effect, that
he knew Barker had signed up for the Union and that
Barker and all others who signed up for the Union would
soon be out of the Company. Meeks testified that
although Barker often volunteered information on his
attendance at Union meetings he never instructed Barker
to report back on attendance at such meetings. Meeks
specifically denied threatening Barker with loss of his job
if employees voted for the Union. I credit Meeks' denial
of the charges in this regard and recommend dismissal of
the allegation of threats through the agency of Meeks.
Ray Wuckerpfeing, a foreman in the Assembly
Department and an admitted supervisor , is alleged to have
told employees that they would be sorry for ever having
heard of the Union. Edward Fortson, an employee under
Wuckerpfeing ' s supervision , testified that a few days
before the election and while he and Wuckerpfeing were
discussing the possibility of District 50 withdrawing from
the election, Wuckerpfeing said that he feared that there
would be a lot of people sorry that they had ever heard of
either of the unions involved. Wuckerpfeing denied
making such statement . I credit Fortson ' s testimony in
this regard but I can only interpret his somewhat
ambivalent utterance as falling short of a threat of
reprisals for employee protected activity. It is equably
inferable that he could have reference to sorrow on the
part of the Company, its supervisors, or District 50. The
evidence does not have the cogency needed to form the
basis of a finding that it preponderates in favor of the
conclusion that this statement constituted interference with
employee protected activity and I recommend dismissal of
the complaint 's allegations in this regard.
Guster Davis, head of company departments 13 and 14
and an admitted supervisor , is alleged to have threatened
employees (1) in mid-September 1967 by stating that if
the Union were selected as bargaining representative the
Company would get rid of it by screening new employees
so as to eventually eliminate the Union , and (2) about
December 19, 1967 that employees would be reprimanded
for talking to known Union adherents . James R.
Hancock, a machine operator under Davis ' supervision for
some 3 1/2 years until he quit the day after the election,
testified that shortly before the election Davis urged him
to vote the Company's way and added that he did not
think the Union would do any good because the Company
'The same considerations require dismissal of the allegations of
paragraph 20 of the complaint relating to alleged threats on the part of
Young. It should be noted that General Counsel's brief does not press the
issue of interference through Young.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would screen new employees and ease the old ones out so
that they would not have the Union anymore. Davis, in
effect, denied this account. Although Davis was an
impressive witness I was more , impressed with the
apparent complete sincerity of Hancock and credit his
account. I find therefore that the Company, through
Davis, engaged in an unfair labor practice through this
threat to Hancock.
Billy Moore , a 6 1/2 year employee of the Company
until he quit apparently soon after the election, testified
that on December 19, 1967 after he had been talking in
the plant during work hours with fellow-licensed minister
Odis Jones, Guster Davis rebuked him for talking to
Jones or anyone else unless it was about work. According
to Moore, Davis said that if such talk recurred he would
give him a reprimand. Davis admitted that he
reprimanded Moore on the occasion in question . I cannot
see how it could reasonably be held that the evidence
preponderates in favor of the finding of an unfair labor
practice in this incident and shall recommend dismissal of
the allegations relating to threats through the agency of
Davis in this respect.
Bill Bishop, a foreman in department 14 in which
employee Ray McClure worked, and an admitted
supervisor, is alleged to have threatened McClure about
January 29, 1968 by informing him that employees would
be fired if they went on strike. McClure testified that after
attending a preelection illustrated discussion by Rose on
or about January 29, 1968, he questioned Bishop as to
whether or not employees would be discharged for striking
in protest against Company unfair labor practices and
later was told by Bishop that the answer was that they
would be. Bishop testified that McClure asked whether an
unfair labor practice striker could be replaced or
discharged and that he told McClure that he did not know
the answer. I credit Bishop's account of this exchange and
recommend dismissal of these allegations of the
complaint.
Harold Pankey, a supervisor in Department 56, is
alleged to have threatened an employee on or about
January 22, 1968 by telling him that known Union
supporters would be terminated. Lehman Throgmartin, an
employee under Pankey's supervision, testified that shortly
after the discharge of Odis Jones he and Pankey were
discussing the discharge and Pankey said that union or no
union if he got orders from higher up he would have to
fire Throgmartin and guys like Throgmartin and Jones
would have to go. Throgmartin also testified that the day
after the election Pankey again stated that, union or no
union, if he got orders from higher up he would have to
discharge him. Pankey's account of the conversations is
that Throgmartin commenced the only conversation they
had concerning the Union by saying that Jones would not
have been fired if they had a union at the plant and that
he told Throgmartin that if he violated a rule he would be
discharged and the presence of a union would make no
difference. In view of Throgmartin's concession that he
frequently discussed the Union with Pankey and argued
the pros and cons thereof it might be contended that the
conversations in question were nothing more than a free
exchange of give and take. I am convinced, however, that
Throgmartin's account is true and that the linking of
Throgmartin and Jones, both apparently well known as
Union advocates, as prime targets for discharge
constituted a threat of reprisal for participation in Union
activity and constituted an unfair labor practice within the
scope of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Junior Chaffin, whose supervisory status is conceded, is
alleged to have threatened an employee about a week
before the election by stating that the selection of the
Union would cause many people to suffer , and that it
would be futile to select the Union because the Company
would not bargain with it . Lettie Braxton testified that in
the course of her first conversation with him, about
January 23 , 1968, Chaffin said that if the Union came in
it would make a lot of people suffer . This conversation
followed one initiated by Chaffin on the preceding day in
which , after interrogating her as set forth above . Chaffin
told her , according to Braxton , that the Company would
not bargain with the Union because the Union would be
asking for more money than the Company would bargain
for. Chaffin conceded that he initiated these conversations
after seeing Braxton ' s name on the Union committee list
but denied stating that the Company would not bargain or
that the selection of the Union would cause people to
suffer . I found Lettie Braxton a thoroughly convincing
witness and credit her accounts of these talks.
Accordingly , I find that the Company , through Chaffin,
threatened Braxton as alleged in the complaint and
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices defined in
Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
Harold Smithson is alleged to have threatened
employees about a week before the election by stating (1)
that the plant would close if the employees selected the
Union, (2) that it would be futile to vote for the Union
because the Company would not bargain with it and (3)
that employees would lose benefits if they selected the
Union . Robert Lee Thompson testified that on the
Thursday prior to the election Smithson told him that if
the Union came in the plant would close down , and that
the Company would not negotiate with the Union unless
there were a strike ; Thompson also testified that a few
days later Smithson told him that if the Union won
employees would lose their present benefits and have to
start from zero and go up . Smithson conceded that in
reply to a question from Thompson he said that he did
not think there was anything in it for Thompson . He also
conceded saying to Thompson that with respect to benefits
they would start negotiating from zero , but he denied
stating that the Company would not negotiate with the
Union . I credit Smithson ' s denials of threatening closing
of the plant and refusal to bargain but I conclude that the
admitted statement that they would lose present benefits
and start at zero and go up constituted a threat and an
unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). See
Surprenant Mfg. Co., 144 NLRB 507, enfd . 341 F.2d 756,
C.A. 6.
3. Creating the impression of surveillance
The Company is alleged to have engaged in unlawful
interference by the action of Rose on or about November
15, 1967, and Millard Ivan "Buck" Whitmier on or about
January 16, 1968, in their creation of the impression of
Company surveillance of employees' Union activities. On
or about those dates Rose is charged with having told an
employee that he had heard that the employee had been to
a Union meeting; Whitmier is charged with having told an
employee that he had heard that the employee was talking
for the Union.
With respect to Rose, the General Counsel's brief does
not point to any portion of the record relied on and the
Company's brief asserts that there is no evidence of record
as to this item of the complaint. I find no evidence to
support this allegation and recommend that it be
dismissed. With respect to Whitmier the General
THE SINGER COMPANY 1095
Counsel's brief cites testimony relating to conversations
between employee J. R. Hancock who worked under
Foreman Whitmier; nowhere is the cited testimony nor
elsewhere in the record can I find even a scintilla of
evidence to support these allegations of creating of the
impression of surveillance. I recommend their dismissal.
4. Warning against talk with Union supporters
The complaint alleges the commission of an unfair
labor practice in the action of Night Shift Foreman Benny
Crews on or about January 8, 1968, in warning an
employee not to talk to known Union adherents. Here
again General Counsel's brief points to no evidence of
record on this matter, and the Company's brief asserts
that there is none ; I find none and recommend dismissal
of these allegations of the complaint.
5. Promises of benefits
The Complaint alleges that on or about November 15,
1967, Rose promised an employee a better position if he
would reject the Union. General Counsel's brief appears
to contain the suggestion that evidence in support of these
allegations is to be found in a conversation between Rose
and employee James Hancock in which Rose asked
Hancock to help the Company in the election but assured
him that if Hancock refused there would be no falling out
over it. I find no evidence to substantiate these allegations
of the complaint and recommend their dismissal.6
6. Assistance to the Loyal Employees' Committee
During the course of the Union's organizational
campaign there arose in the Company's plant a Loyal
Employees' Committee of several hundred employees who
were vigorously opposed to the Union and campaigned
against it by the use of handbills and posters praising the
Company and disparaging the Union and its
representatives. Rose and Plant Security Foreman Doyle
Householder, an admitted supervisor, are alleged to have
coerced and intimidated employees on or about January
16, 1968 by assisting in the distribution of Loyal
Employee Committee propaganda through their action in
permitting employee distributors thereof to leave the plant
early while requiring other employees to remain at their
work stations. Householder is also alleged to have
repeated this conduct on or about February 1, 1968, and
Rose is alleged to have coerced an employee on or about
January 30 by asking him to secure signatures on the
Loyal Employees' Committee list.
With respect to the allegation that Rose asked an
employee to secure signatures on the Loyal Employees'
Committee list, the General Counsel's brief omits any
reference to evidence in support of this allegation, and the
Company's brief asserts that there is no such evidence; I
find none and recommend dismissal of this allegation of
the complaint.
As to the allegation that Rose and Householder
permitted early release or late report of Loyal Employee
Committee distributors on January 26, 1968 (the Friday
before the election), and that Householder repeated the
offense on February 1, the day of the election, the
evidence is considerably nebulous. Odis Jones, a licensed
'While I cr it Hancock ' s testimony that Whitmier praised his work and
said that he could go places if he would quit messing with the Union this
was not litigated as an unfair labor practice.
minister with some 18 years service with the Company
(interrupted by a quit of a years duration and a discharge
lasting some 3 months) and an alleged discriminatee, said
that on the Friday afternoon after his discharge, viz,
January 26, 1968, he was at the Main Street plant gate
with Union Representative Parker having arrived there
about 10 minutes before the 4 o'clock whistle. Soon
thereafter and prior to the whistle, according to Jones, he
observed employees inside the gate passing out copies of
an anti-Union flyer (G.C. Exh. 6) in the presence of
Guard Meredith and Plant Protection Supervisor
Householder. According to Jones, Rose obtained some
handbills from Loyal Employee Committee Chairman
Woodrow Hall and passed them out. The handbilling
continued until about 5 o'clock according to Jones. Jones
conceded that he had no knowledge as to whether
employees who passed out literature had checked out,
were on leave of absence or incurred any disciplinary
action.
Parker's testimony concerning the events of late
afternoon of January 26 is to the effect that almost at the
moment the 4 o'clock whistle blew he observed a number
of employees come out of the plant gate with leaflets in
their hands which they handed out to employees as they
emerged from the plant. I appraise the evidence as
sufficient to establish that the leaflets referred to by
Parker were in fact copies of General Counsel's Exhibit 6.
I must also appraise the evidence as confusing and
considerably discursive and I cannot conclude that it
preponderates in favor of the conclusion that on the
occasion in question the Company permitted employees
supporting the Loyal Employee Group to leave early to
distribute anti-Union literature while denying similar
opportunity to Union supporters.
As to the allegations relating to similar activity on
February 1, Odis Jones testified that he arrived at the
plant gate at about 6:30 a.m. and observed Willie Jones,
Co-Chairman of the Loyal Employees Committee, with
several committeemen station themselves immediately
inside the plant gate and handbill entering employees with
copies of General Counsel's Exhibit 7, an antiunion
procompany poster. According to Jones, Householder,
who denied this charge, was present at the gate and
himself handed out a few of the handbills. Here again
Jones was unable to say whether or not employees were
disciplined. I credit Jones' testimony and find that the
Company by Householder's active and passive cooperation
with the Loyal Emloyee Committee Group, while denying
equal privileges to the Union, engaged in unfair labor
practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Massey's pre-election speech
Plant Manager Massey delivered a speech to some 17
groups of Company employees on January 30, 1968, each
employee group numbering about one hundred. The
speech was given in the plant breakroom and is in
evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. It appears to be
a vigorous presentation of reasons why employees should
reject the Union in the forthcoming election. General
Counsel's complaint alleges that it amounted to a warning
that the selection of the Union would be futile, would
result in possible loss of benefits and plant closure and in
strikes. I credit Massey's testimony that he read the
speech as written without deviation from his prepared
text. The evidence also indicates that Massey emphasized
the word "zero" both by voice emphasis and by gesture in
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stating that bargaining would not necessarily mean
increases in benefits since good negotiators often start at
"zero" and go on from there . Immediately after the
reference to "zero" Massey pointed out that the Company
in bargaining could propose lower levels of pay and
benefits comparable to those in Union agreements at
other companies in the area . The speech appears to be a
hard-hitting plea for employee rejection of the Union and
support of the Company in the election ; in my view it falls
short of containing a threat of reprisal for employee
selection of the Union and I regard it as protected under
Section 8(c) of the Act and the First Amendment to the
Constitution.
B. Discrimination
1. Odis Jones
Odis Jones was a veteran employee of the Company's
maintenance department where he worked for many years,
as noted above , as a pipefitter ; there is no question as-to
his qualifications and performance in his work. He had
been active in prior union campaigns , served as the Union
observer in the 1966 election and was scheduled to fulfill
the same role in the election scheduled for February 1,
1968; his role in the 1967-1968 campaign appears to have
been significant in view of his testimony that he secured
some 75 signatures to union authorization cards, and
served as chairman of the Union organizing committee.
Jones also distributed outside the plant gate copies of a
union handbill listing members of the Union committee
(as apparently also did some 16 or so other union
supporters); Jones does not appear to have distributed
other Union propaganda material until after his discharge.
The Company had knowledge of Jones' relatively
substantial role in the Union campaign as appears from
Rose' s testimony that he was reluctant to get involved in
the termination of Jones because of such knowledge. Plant
Manager Massey also conceded knowledge of Jones'
position as chairman of the Union committee. Jones'
demeanor throughout the hearing and the evidence
concerning his conduct and conversations gives the picture
of a considerably uninhibited extrovert and warrants the
conclusion that the Company had reason to believe that
his active role for the Union undoubtedly carried effective
weight with fellow employees.
The Company has had in effect at all material times a
set of plant rules, in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1, which
include, among those offenses which are listed as serious
violations and can result in immediate discharge , Rule 6:
Unauthorized posting of notices or marking on the walls
or other company property . Although Jones appears at
some points in his testimony to deny knowledge of the
rules, he conceded having seen a copy of Joint Exhibit l
on a plant bulletin board sometime in 1967 . I find that he
was aware of the rule in question at all material times. In
this regard I credit the testimony of Billy W. Jones,
manager of the Company ' s personnel section, that copies
of the rules were mailed to all employees in December
1966.
At all material times the Company has maintained 25
permanent plant bulletin boards placed in various
departments of the plant ; these are plexi-glass fronted for
the most part, are kept under lock and key and are used
for the dissemination by the Company of items of interest
to employees , including inter alia, the company rules. In
addition to the foregoing regular bulletin boards, the
Company erected and installed about January 17, 1968,
some seven 4' x 3' bulletin boards built in the maintenance
department and placed in the proximity of certain of the
permanent boards either on stands or by affixing to the
wall. These latter boards were labeled "Election News,"
were without glass fronts and were designed and
apparently used by the Company for the dissemination of
company news relating to the pending election. The
surface of these Election News boards is such that
material may be placed thereon by use of a thumbtack.
There is no indication on the boards that their use is
restricted to company propaganda.
On the morning of Friday, January 19, 1968, Odis
Jones entered the plant at Gate 6 with employee Billy
Moore about 15 minutes before 7 o'clock. They came
upon one of the "Election News" boards and Jones
inserted a prounion handbill, General Counsel's Exhibit 4,
behind literature already in place on the board. Jones then
passed through the machinery breakroom where he put
one of his flyers on an Election News bulletin board with
a thumbtack. He then reported to his work station and
worked through the lunch period and up until about 1
p.m. at which time Plant Engineer Roberts told him he
was wanted in the personnel department.
In the interim, according to the testimony of Rose, two
foremen, Langston and Connors, reported Jones' activity
to him sometime after 8 o'clock and apparently handed
Rose a copy of General Counsel's Exhibit 4. Langston
and Connors did not testify and there is no indication as
to whether they observed Jones in the act of slipping a
copy under other material on the one bulletin board or
thumbtacking it on the other. Rose reported this
information to Massey who, instructed him that if Jones
admitted the offense he would have to be terminated and
if he denied it he would have to be suspended pending
investigation.
Jones reported to the personnel office at l o'clock on
orders from Plant Engineer Roberts and was, according to
his account, immediately told by Rose that he was fired.
He asked why and Rose showed him the flyer in question
and asked him if he had hung it on a bulletin board. Jones
denied this but admitted putting it on the Election News
Board. Rose brought out the set of company rules and
told Jones "No. 6 got you," and discharged him. Jones
departed peacefully, returning to vote on election day.
Although Massey testified, and the case of Mrs. Gibson
would support his claim, that there has never been a case
of violation of the major rules that has not been followed
by discharge, that does not furnish the final answer in the
instant case. The issue is not whether Jones engaged in
dischargeable conduct but rather whether antiunion
animus entered into the discharge as a causative factor. I
conclude that it did and that this is revealed not only by
the precipitate nature of the inquiry into the facts, but
also by the relatively trivial nature of the violation which
involved no injury to the regular Company bulletin boards
and apparently none of the Election News Boards. The
material placed on the latter was quite innocuous,
relatively small in size and mild in its appeal . In reaching
my conclusion on this issue I am considerably influenced
by the nature of the remarks of Rose during the discharge
interview. In the first place I credit Jones' testimony that
Rose informed him that he was fired even before Jones
admitted putting material on the boards ; in this respect
Rose exceeded the instructions he had from Massey by
discharging before investigating or securing an admission.
On all the testimony I conclude that it preponderates in
favor of the conclusion that Jones was discharged in
reprisal for his substantial and longstanding activities of
leadership in the Union's organizational campaigns. In
reaching this conclusion I also rely on the testimony of
THE SINGER COMPANY 1097
James Hancock , whom I believe to be a thoroughly
credible witness, even taking account of his active and
longstanding support of the Union ; Hancock testified, and
I credit his account , that he also placed copies of General
Counsel 's Exhibit 4 on Election News Board the same day
that Jones did and in the presence of several foremen and
to the knowledge of the personnel department. Yet
Hancock was not disciplined . I find the evidence to
preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the disparity
between the Company ' s treatment of Jones and Hancock
was based on the relatively active role of Jones in support
of the Union as against Hancock ' s relatively minor role.
2. Corine Sullivan
Corine Sullivan had been employed by the Company
for about a year and a half until her discharge on
February 19, 1968 . She signed a Union authorization
card , attended Union meetings , solicited signatures on
authorization cards and served on a committee of
prounion employees . The Company concedes knowledge
of her Union activity ; it asserts that she was suspended on
February 16 pending investigation into her violation of
company rule 14 and, after investigation was discharged
on February 26 for violation of the rule. Plant Rule 14
lists as an offense which can result in immediate discharge
- "Striking anyone on company premises with open
hand , fist or object unless proven to be necessary as a
matter of self-defense after being struck , or to avoid
physical harm after being threatened with attack by an
object or weapon."
On February 16, 1968, Corine Sullivan was involved in
a physical altercation with Edna Edwards, who worked
close by Sullivan , in the department . Mrs. Sullivan wound
up with 15 stiches in her head and a discharge. Edna
Edwards, several inches taller and some 60 pounds heavier
and an outspoken advocate of the Company' s side in the
Union campaign , was, after investigation, reinstated.'
According to Mrs . Sullivan , she was at work gluing door
parts in Department 40 on the morning of February 16,
1968, when Edna Edwards, whose work station was only 2
or 3 feet removed from Mrs . Sullivan ' s, twice smeared
glue across the seat of her pants and then suddenly took a
2 1/2' x 2' table top inlay .and hit her across the forehead
above her right eye and then advanced on her; they closed.
and went to the floor, according to Mrs . Sullivan, and
then Edna Edwards hit her again on the back of the head.
Foreman J . R. Lee, a supervisor who was unavailable as a
witness due to military service , grabbed Sullivan and told
her to break it up. She told Lee that Edwards had no
business hitting her because Sullivan had not hit her. Lee
replied that he was aware of that but that she should
break it up . At that point, according to Sullivan, Edna
Edwards grabbed a long rail and hit her again across her
left arm . Sullivan was then taken to the nurse , thence to a
physician ' s office where 15 stiches were taken in her
forehead . From the doctor ' s office she was taken back to
'Edna Edwards testified that although Corine Sullivan asked her to sign
a Union card she never signed one . Shown General Counsel's Exhibit 11, a
Union authorization card purporting to bear her signature under date of
October 17 , 1967 she denied having affixed the signature . Respondent's
Exhibit 14(a) and (b) are her Federal and State income tax withholding
forms and undoubtedly bear her genuine signature . I conclude that the
signatures (as distinguished from mere name indications) are identical on
all three and find that her denial of having signed a union card was false. I
credit Corine Sullivan 's testimony that Edna Edwards told her shortly
before the election that she had changed her mind about the Union and
the plant where Rose returned her glasses and expressed
surprise that they were unbroken ; she reported to Rose
that Edna Edwards had hit her without provocation; Rose
instructed her to come back on Monday (February 19).
On Monday she reported to Rose and repeated her
account to Rose and another company official who told
her to report on Wednesday which she did only to be told
that there was more investigating to be done and that she
should return the following Monday, February 26. On
that date she reported and was informed by Rose that she
had knocked Edna Edwards down and started the fight.
She asked Rose if Edwards had told him that and Rose
answered in the negative but refused to tell her who had
so informed him. She was then discharged by Rose.
Corine Sullivan' s son , Robert Lee Thompson,
apparently was not in a position to observe the outset of
the altercation but was told that his mother had been hurt
and then observed her with her face covered with blood.
He testified that he went to his mother and that Edna
Edards threw a rail, a rubber hammer and then a metal
hammer at him until he grabbed her and held her until J.
R. Lee restrained him. Thompson attended the
preliminary inquiry in Rose's office that day and testified
that Edna Edwards accused his mother of calling her all
kinds of bad names.
Edna Edwards testified that the trouble started when
Corine Sullivan brushed against her glue pot and then
accused Edwards of putting glue on her . Edwards,
according to her account continued in silence to ply her
trade until Sullivan cursed her with certain foul epithets'
and hit her from behind with a piece of wood stock. Only
then, according to Edwards, did she hit Sullivan with a
stick just before Lee parted them. Edwards attended a
preliminary inquiry in the office with Foreman Crews and
Dude but all she told them at that time was the fight
started when Sullivan called her the foul names ; she did
not claim to have told them at that time that Sullivan
.struck the first blow.
Imogene Dickerson corroborated Edna Edwards'
testimony that the agressor in the fight was Sullivan and
also testified that after Foreman Lee had separated the
combatants, Sullivan tried again to attack Edwards. She
also testified that at 11 o'clock on the day of the fight she
was called to the office and informed Rose Smithson and
Lee in accordance with her testimony above.'
Rose testified that he and Department Manager
Smallwood investigated the case at Massey 's instruction
and that he reported to Massey their finding that Sullivan
was the aggressor . Massey made the decision to terminate
her. To my view there is an admission by Rose which
furnishes the short and simple solution to the maze of
conflicting accounts of the fracas and that is in the
testimony of Rose that Dickerson, who is contended by
the Company to be the only person who viewed the entire
incident from start to finish, made no mention of
Sullivan's using a stick to attack Edwards and that the
only stick or object used in the fight according to
Dickerson was that used by Edwards to inflict the injury
to Sullivan ' s forehead . I conclude that Sullivan, who
impressed me not only as a truthful witness but as quite a
ladylike person, unlike Edwards who impressed me as an
that it was no good.
'In view of testimony that certain of the epithets attributed to Mrs.
Sullivan import racial connotations it should be understood that Mrs.
Sullivan , Mrs. Edwards, and Robert Lee Thompson are all black people
'I find it completely incredible that company officials could have
accepted Dickerson's account in view of their knowledge of the serious
wound inflicted on Sullivan early in the fracas.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unreliable witness as well as a somewhat belligerent
personality, furnished the only true account of the episode
both in the hearing and in the Company's investigation. I
conclude that Rose could not reasonably and did not in
fact believe Dickerson and Edwards and that the
Company could not reasonably have believed Sullivan to
have been the aggressor . Since she was a known union
advocate and since the Company's claim that it discharged
her for an act of aggression which it could not reasonably
have believed her guilty of I conclude that the real reason
for her discharge lies in the Company's decision to strike
a blow on reprisal for her support of the Union. I find the
evidence to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that
her discharge constituted an unfair labor practice under
Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
3. Robert Lee Thompson
Robert Lee Thompson, the 20 year old son of Mrs.
Corine Sullivan, was employed in department 40
apparently close to his mother ' s workbench . He signed a
union authorization card and procured about 15 other
employee signatures on cards; the Company concedes
knowledge of his union sympathy.
On February 16, while at his work station, he was told
that his mother was hurt and , after some delay due to his
suspicion that the report was some sort of joke, he went
and saw his mother on the floor and with blood all over
her face. She told him that Edna Edwards had hit her
with a table part. Thompson ran to Edwards and grabbed
her and was himself soon grabbed by J. R. Lee and
eventually taken to the office. Rose conducted an
investigation into the event and on the same day as the
fight made the determination that Thompson had renewed
the fight after it had subsided and that he should be
discharged. The evidence establishes that Thompson ran
into Edwards and that his grabbing of her rekindled a
violent disturbance; I believe that this was not only the
fact but also that it was known by the Company through
reports obtained by Rose in his investigation. With respect
to Thompson, the evidence fails to preponderate in favor
of the conclusion that his discharge was in reprisal for his
Union activity; rather it appears to have been a proper
exercise of the application of the plant rules on the basis
of believable reports . I recommend dismissal of the
allegations relating to his discharge.
C. The Objections
On February 8, 1968, 1 week after the election, the
Union filed 22 objections to Employer conduct affecting
the results of the election. After investigation the Regional
Director dismissed eight of the objections; the remaining
14 are next herein discussed without , regrettably, the
benefit of witnesses called to testify to them as such. In
formulating recommendations with respect to the
objections only evidence of events occurring in the period
from January 4, 1968, the date of the election on
February 1, 1968, is to be considered.
1. The Union objected that "The Employer granted and
effected wage increases and made promises and guarantees
of wage increases and other benefits to employees for the
purpose of discouraging organization."
I can find no evidence in support of this objection and
recommend that it be overruled.
2. The Union objected that "The Employer coerced,
intimidated and threatened its employees through letters,
talks, movies, slides, diagrams about strikes and the dire
consequence of strikes, futility of organizing and the very
sure probability of losing benefits employees have at
present by voting for union representation."
As noted above, Guster Davis, Harold Pankey, Junior
Chaffin, and Harold Smithson engaged in various threats
which fall within the compass of this objection. -I find that
the objection should be sustained.
3. The Union objected that "The Employer made
(certain ) false and misleading statements ... calculated to
discourage interest in organization ..."
The only alleged statement that could be considered as
a false and misleading statement (the others being more in
the nature of prediction) of fact is the alleged statement
that the Union paid District 50 $70,000 to pull out of the
election. I am cited to no evidence to support this
objection and find none in the record; I recommend
dismissal of this objection.
5. The Union objected that "The Employer transferred
pro-Union employees to less desirable jobs and reduced
their wages in effort to discourage organization." The
only evidence bearing even remotely on this objection is to
be found in the testimony of Hancock that he complained
to Rose about a switch from production rates to day work
which Rose corrected after Hancock's complaint. The
only evidence as to when the change complained of
occurred appears to place it about September 1967,
outside of the critical period and I recommend dismissal
of this objection.
6. The Union objected that the Employer raised certain
piece rates and lowered others for the purpose of
discouraging unionization. There is no evidence in the case
to support the conclusion that this objection has merit and
I recommend that it be overruled.
8. The Union objected that the Employer formed,
financed, aided and promoted the Loyal Employees
Committee to interfere with pro-Union employees' rights.
Evidence to support these allegations appears to be in the
testimony concerning Supervisor Householder's action in
assisting in distribution of Loyal Employee Committee
material and I recommend the objection be sustained.
9. The Union objected that the Loyal Employee
Committee was paid extra money by the Employer, paid
for hours not worked and given other benefits to carry on
an antiunion campaign. While there is some evidence that
material may have been circulated by Committee
supporters there is no indication that members were in
any way rewarded by the Company for their support of
the Committee and I recommend that this objection be
overruled.
11. The Union objected that the Company restricted
Union supporters while permitting and promoting
unrestricted campaigning by the Loyal Employees
Committee during worktime on company property. Odis
Jones testified that about January 22 he saw Loyal
Committee co-Chairman Willie Jones handbilling with
procompany and antiunion literature during the normal
working hours. He also testified that on the morning of
the election he saw Willie Jones and other employees
handbilling with antiunion material inside the gate within
sight of Householder, a supervisor in charge of plant
security. Householder had, in effect, denied the account. I
credit Jones' testimony and find that the objection has
merit.
12. This objection asserts that the Company enforced a
no-solicitation rule against union supporters while
permitting loyal committee and antiunion employees to
violate the rule. I am pointed to no evidence in support of
THE SINGER COMPANY 1099
this objection and can find none . I recommend that it be
overruled.
14. This objection alleges that the Company discharged
Odis Jones for legitimate union activity outside working
hours while permitting antiuniod employees to carry on
antiunion activity both during and outside of working
hours . While, as found above , the Company
discriminatorily discharged Odis Jones , I cannot see in the
evidence a basis for concluding that the Company
permitted antiunion employees unrestricted freedom to
campaign against the Union.
15. This objection alleges that the Company threatened
employees by telling them that if the Union failed to get
in the Company would make them sorry they ever heard
of the Union. I find no evidence to support this objection
and recommend that it be overruled.
16. This objection alleges that employees were told that
if they selected a union they would have to strike since the
Company would not deal with a union and that they
would be fired for participating in any kind of strike.
There is no doubt but that Massey in his preelection
speech promised a hard course in the bargaining but the
evidence does not indicate that he threatened to refuse to
bargain and thereby precipitate a strike . With respect to
the charge that , in reply to direct questions from
employees, the Company said that they would be fired for
participating in any type of strike , the evidence indicates
that following Massey ' s preelection speech a number of
employees questioned their 'supervisors on this matter.
Employee Ray McClure testified that following Massey's
speech he asked his supervisor , Bishop , whether employees
could be replaced in an economic strike and later in the
day Bishop advised him that employees could be fired for
participation either in an unfair labor practice or an
economic strike . Bishop testified that he advised McClure
only that economic strikers could be replaced and that he
did not know answers to other parts of McClure's
question , I credit Bishop' s account and recommend
dismissal of this objection.
17. This objection alleges that the Employer called
employees into offices to interrogate them about the
Union and to get them to sign up for the Loyal
Committee and to oppose the Union. While there is
evidence that employees Braxton and Hancock were taken
aside by supervisors , Chaffin and Rose, there is no
indication that the Company sought to have them assist
the Loyal Employees Committee but only to speak up for
the Company' s side of the campaign . I conclude that these
objections are not sustained by the evidence.
18. This alleges that the Employer created an
atmosphere among employees such that they were unable
to vote freely in the election. The Regional Director
appraised all literature distributed by the Company in the
campaign and concluded that they constituted legitimate
campaign propaganda . There is no evidence before me of
any utterances or movies , slides etc. essentially different in
nature from the material attached to the Director 's report
and I recommend dismissal of this objection.
In view of my findings that Objections 2, 8, and 11
have merit I recommend that, the election be set aside
and, if the Union desires, a new election be conducted at a
time to be determined by the Regional Director.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above , and there found to constitute unfair labor
practices , occurring in connection with the operations of
the Company as set forth 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 such commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings set forth above to the effect that
the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , I shall recommend that it be required
to cease and desist therefrom and take such affirmative
action as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate
the policies and purposes of the Act, including the offer of
immediate and unconditional reinstatement , with backpay
computed in accordance with the remedial relief policies
set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and Isis Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 715,
to Odis Jones and Corine Sullivan, and the posting of an
appropriate notice . I recommend that the results of the
election herein be set aside and the representation case be
severed and remanded to the Regional Director for further
proceedings.
On 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 Company is an employer engaged in 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 concerning their union
sympathies and activities, by threatening reprisals on
account of union activity and by assistance to an
antiunion employee group the Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
4. By discharging employees Odis Jones and Corine
Sullivan in reprisal for their activities on behalf of the
Union the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
defined in Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the purview of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Except as specifically found otherwise herein, the
Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
7. The Company has engaged in conduct affecting the
results of the election herein and the election should be set
aside.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On 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 Company, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
sympathies and activities with respect to the Union or any
other labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals as a
consequence of their activity on behalf of the Union.
(c) Assisting antiunion employee groups by permitting
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them access to Company premises for the purpose of
campaigning against the Union during the course of an
organizational campaign.
(d) Discouraging membership in the Union or any
(e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form, join or assist labor
organizations , or to bargain collectively through
Iepresentatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer Odis Jones and Corine Sullivan immediate
and unconditional reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make
them whole for loss of earnings resulting from the
Company' s discrimination against them in the manner set
forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy.""
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroli records , social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other
records necessary to analyze and give effect to the
backpay requirements of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Trumann , Arkansas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Company, be posted by it
immediately on 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
Company to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing , within 20 days = from receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply with the terms
hereof.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein
be dismissed as to allegations of unfair labor practices
therein not herein specifically found to have been engaged
in.
IT IS FINALLY RECOMMENDED that the election
conducted herein be set aside and that proceedings in Case
"In view oT the age and sex of the discriminatees it appears unnecessary
to provide for the eventuality of their service in the Armed Forces.
"If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decison and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . If the Board's Order
is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice
will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decision and
Order."
"If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
other labor organization by discharging or otherwise
discriminating against employees with respect to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
26-RC-3078 be severed and remanded to the Regional
Director for further disposition consistent with the
findings herein.
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees
concerning their feelings about and activity for Cabinet
Makers Local Union 2705, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals on
account of their activity for the above-named or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT give support or assistance to any
Loyal Employees Committee or other antiunion group
by allowing them to campaign against the Union while
denying equal rights to the Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
Carpenters Union or any other labor organization by
discriminating against employees as to hire, tenure or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under
the law to join or assist labor organizations and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER Odis Jones and Corine Sullivan
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent jobs and make them whole for
lost pay.
All employees have the right under the law to form,
join, or assist labor unions, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choice and to engage in
concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
THE SINGER COMPANY
(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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 746,
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street,
Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.