The Smead Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1632 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its offices and at its stores in Norfolk , Virginia , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix ." 5 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive 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 said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Respondent further shall notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of the service of this Trial Examiner's
Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.6
6 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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."
6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days Cram
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, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Clerks Local 233, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization
by interrogating , laying off, reducing the benefits of, or in any other manner
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership,
activities , and sympathies , in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act;
or threaten them with loss of employment if they join the Union; or promise
wage or other benefits to discourage union membership.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organizaitori, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
BONNIE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By----------------------------------------•---
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 707
North Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension
2100 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
The Smead Manufacturing Company and Local 6-717, Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, affili-
ated with Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-1557. February 10, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
145 NLRB No. 150.
THE SMEAD 11ANUFACT(7RLNG COMPANY 1633
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 Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent did not
commit other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [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 Intermedi-
ate Report and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent did
not discriminatorily discharge employee Mabel Nelson on August 28,
1962. The Trial Examiner further found that Nelson became a striker
on that date and recommended that she be offered reinstatement upon
unconditional application for employment with backpay to begin 5
days after she makes such application. However, the Respondent and
the Union, on December 14, 1962, entered into a working agreement
under which the Respondent agreed to use its best efforts to have all
strikers return to work by December 18. Although pursuant to such
agreement the Respondent notified all of the other strikers that jobs
were available for them, it gave no such notification to Mabel Nelson 2
Under the circumstances, we believe that this working agreement was
tantamount to an unconditional application by the Union on behalf of
all strikers including Mabel Nelson for reinstatement, and that no fur-
ther application for reinstatement was necessary. Accordingly, we
shall modify the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and order
that the Respondent offer Mabel Nelson immediate and full reinstate-
ment and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suf-
fered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against her from
December 18,1962, until the date of the offer of reinstatement.
'The findings of the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent by its no-solicitation rule vio-
lated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, are adopted pro forma, in the absence of exceptions.
2 Although Mabel Nelson had obtained other employment in St. Paul, there is no Indica-
tion that such employment was permanent or that she had abandoned her Interest in her
job with the Respondent.
734-070-64-vol. 145-104
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER3
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, with the following modifications :
(1) Section 2(a) of the Order shall be deleted and the remaining
-paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly.
(2) Renumbered section 2 (a) of the Order shall be modified to read
as follows :
Offer to Ethel Peterson, Mary Van, Ruby Skovbroten, and
Mabel Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and
Arlonne Larrabee whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them,
together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled "The Remedy" as modified by this Decision and Order.
(3) The second paragraph of the notice appended to the Intermedi-
ate Report shall be modified to read as follows :
WE WILL offer Ethel Peterson, Mary Van, Ruby Skovbroten,
and Mabel Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and
Arlonne Larra'ee whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
(4) The third full paragraph of the notice (WE WILL, upon her ap-
plication . . . ) shall be deleted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not found in this Decision and Order, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
a The Recommended Order in the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report 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, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard before Trial
Examiner Eugene E. Dixon at River Falls, Wisconsin, between May 21 and 24,
1963, pursuant to due notice with all parties being represented. The complaint,
issued by a representative of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board) on April 3, 1963, and
based upon charges filed and served on January 21 and March 18, 1963, by Local
6-717, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, affil-
iated with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Union or the OCAW), alleged that Respondent had engaged in
certain specified conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1635
In its duly filed answer Respondent, while admitting certain of the allegations
of the complaint, denied committing any unfair labor practices.
Because of a delay in the receipt of the record herein, the time for filing briefs
was extended to July 15, 1963.
Upon the briefs duly filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel and upon
the basis of the entire record in the case including my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
Respondent is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of
the State of Minnesota. It has its principal office at Hastings, Minnesota, and is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper, office files, and related
products at its plants in several States of the United States, including its plants at
River Falls, Wisconsin, and Hastings, Minnesota. During the year preceding
January 21, 1963, Respondent in the course and conduct of its operations at River
Falls and Hastings caused to be manufactured products valued in excess of $500,000
which it sold and shipped to customers outside the States of Wisconsin and Minne-
sota. During the same period of time the Respondent made purchases of goods
and materials used in its operations at River Falls and Hastings valued in excess
of $500,000, which were purchased and shipped to it directly from sources outside
the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Respondent admits and I find that it is and
at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) of the Act.
Il. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 6-717, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
affiliated with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background and Setting
This case has its setting in the acrimony which developed between opposing
factions of Respondent's employees when the OCAW successfully completed a cam-
paign to displace the Independent Union as the bargaining agent of the employees.
Respondent operates plants in Hastings, Minnesota, and River Falls, Wisconsin
(some 25 miles apart), for the purpose of manufacturing office filing supplies and
related products. The work is primarily one of paper conversion from raw stock
to file folders, envelopes, and packets of one type or another. OCAW was duly
certified as the collective-bargaining agent for the production employees of both
the Hastings and River Falls plants in the spring of 1962, as the result of an election
conducted by the Board. Prior to this certification the same employees had been
represented by the Independent Union. As is often the case when two unions are
competing for the support of employees, ill will develops between the opposing
factions. Such happened in this case and apparently was accentuated during a strike
that began on August 27, 1963.
After prolonged negotiations I which continued during the strike, a working agree-
ment was negotiated on December 14, 1962, in which the Union and the Respondent
agreed to exercise their best efforts to inform all employees to return to work on
December 18, 1962. As indicated in Respondent's brief, "the strike had been com-
pletely effective at Hastings," but only a few people went on strike at the River Falls
plant.
Under the working agreement with the Independent Union prior to the certifi-
cation of the OCAW (and continued under the latter's contract) the female pro-
duction employees are divided into three classes, known as classes one, two, and
three. Class one is the most skilled and highest paid group. Class two is the next
most skilled and involves those tasks designated as class two work. Class three em-
ployees include all new employees who begin a progression schedule to attain the
highest scale available within class three. Similar progression schedules are ap-
plicable to classes one and two. All female employees are interchangeable for
the purposes of job assignment within their respective classifications depending upon
the production needs of the employer. The employees have the opportunity to
advance to the next higher classification, when there is an opportunity, by bidding
for a position within the next higher classification.
'Negotiations took place practically weekly from the spring until the end of 1962
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A critical aspect of the case has to do with the assignment (upon reinstatement
after the strike) of various employees to two production lines. One was a so-
called "one piece" line which had never been operated in the River Falls plant prior
to the strike. It was a class three operation. The other was known as the "five
piece" line. It was a class two operation and had been operated in River Falls
prior to the strike. The question arises as to whether the assignments to these lines
or to certain positions on them was in accordance with the requirements of the
Act. Since so much of the case revolves around this point, it may be well to see
in some detail what the operations of these lines involve.
The Operation of the Lines
The one-piece line and the five-piece line, as I understand them, operate in essen-
tially the same way. There are usually from six to eight women on the line,
evenly divided on both sides of the line. They are supplied with the materials
they assemble by the machine operator at the head of the line. These materials
may vary in size and complexity, but have one thing in common-they are all
treated in the machine with the appropriate application of glue so that when the
girl gets them, she takes the necessary operations with the presses and blocks to
form the envelope, jacket, or whatever it is that is being made. If the glue is not
at the right stage of tackiness, the glued pieces may not hold together when taken
out of the press or off the block. In this case the girl has to tear apart the pieces
and go through the complete operation of reforming the article or reject it. In
any event, if she is not dexterous enough to dispose of her problem before the ma-
chine operator is about to send her another item, she should inform the operator
to skip her on that round. As can be imagined, the closer one is to the machine
operator, the more likely it will be that the glue will not be sufficiently set to acquire
its optimum adhesive quality. Accordingly, there is normally more difficulty in
achieving the desired results at the front end of the line on the No. 1 press than
at the end of the line on the No. 8 press, given the same amount of skill and energy.
For this reason, inexperienced people are placed at the head of the line where the
machine operator can see their progress or lack of it and govern the amount of
work assigned to them. They of course are not expected to attain an acceptable
volume of production until they have become sufficiently experienced. People are
moved from the front positions to the back positions on the line largely on the
basis of seniority.
The credible evidence shows that new employees are generally selected for work
on the one-piece line and that they are generally in their late teens or early twenties.
Thus, Helen Hermann, the machine operator on the one-piece line at the Hastings
plant, so testified. Another employee, Armantha Aaron, called by the General
Counsel, testified that in October 1961 she answered an advertisement by Respondent
seeking women from 18 to 35 for linework. When the personnel manager learned
that she was 44 years old he told her that she was too old for linework but hired her
for tablework. In the light of the foregoing, the testimony of Inez Cox (manager
of the River Falls plant) denying that it was the general practice to staff the lines
with young women is not credited. I also find that the linework is more strenuous
and physically taxing than the majority of Respondent's other jobs.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
In April 1962 there was an OCAW meeting in the Odd Fellows' Hall attended
by most of Respondent's employees including two of its then supervisors, Emma
Austrum and Olive Healy. Union Representative Hunter read the proposed con-
tract's union-security clause to the assembly. Harold Johnson, the steward of the
Independent, asked if that meant they all had to join the OCAW. Getting an affirma-
tive reply he announced, "then we can just as well all leave." Thereupon most of the
employees including the two supervisors left the meeting. When the exodus was
completed, about 9 or 10 employees were left in the meeting. These included the
six employees named in the complaint as discriminatees.2
About the same time that this meeting took place, according to testimony adduced
by the General Counsel, Plant Manager Cox called the employees together and in-
formed them of Respondent's prohibition against union discussion on company time
and premises .3 She also informed them that Respondent's president would never
11 Arlonne Larrabee, Ethel Peterson, Ruby Skovbroten, Mary Van, Heide Minder, and
Marie Jansa.
8 Respondent contended that this rule was necessary because the arguments between the
two factions disrupted production. I agree with the General Counsel that this "bare and
naked" assertion is not sufficient to establish the necessity for the rule.
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1637
sign a contract containing a union-shop or checkoff clause and would close the doors
before she would sign such an agreement .4 Essentially the same positions were
voiced by Respondent's spokesman, King, in a negotiation meeting on April 26,
1962. There King also said that anyone caught "red handed" in violation of the
no-solicitation rule would be subject to discharge.
As for these comments of Cox and King, the General Counsel concedes that they
are barred by Section 10(b) from consideration as unfair labor practices. But he
apparently contends that since the otherwise illegal no-solicitation rule or pronounce-
ment was never rescinded its consideration as an unfair labor practice is not barred
by Section 10(b) of the Act. Since Cox testified that she never rescinded it and
stated that so far as she knew it was still in effect, I find it to be a violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act notwithstanding that it was not alleged in the complaint.
In August 1962, shortly after the employees voted to strike, Respondent posted in
its plant a notice to the employees concerning the strike vote. Among other things
it stated that "any employee absent from work without company permission shall be
discharged." About a week later the Company followed with another communica-
tion concerning the strike. While the latter communication was presumably legal 5
and stated that "the company shall continue to furnish jobs to employees choosing to
work, and those choosing not to work will be replaced," at no time did Respondent
retract what in the first notice amounted to, and I find to have been, a threat of dis-
charge for engaging in strike activity. This violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.6
Reed & Prince Manufacturing Co., 96 NLRB 850, 859-860, enfd. 205 F. 2d 131
(C A. 1); Rice Lake Creamery Company, 131 NLRB 1270, 1792.
With the foregoing facts in mind, let us now examine some of the various allega-
tions of discrimination.
The Failure To Reinstate Skovbroten, Larrabee, and Peterson
On December 18, 1962, Mary Van, Ruby Skovbroten, Ethel Peterson, Arlonne
Larrabee, Heide Minder, and Marie Jansa went as a group to the River Falls plant
and applied for reinstatement. Cox gave timecards to and took back Minder, Jansa,
and Van, but told the other three that she had orders not to take them back They
immediately went to see Union Representative Toth at Hastings. He got in touch
with the Company and a meeting resulted that afternoon between him, Cox, and
Denn and Swanson of the Hastings plant. The case of each employee was discussed
separately with the result that Skovbroten's reinstatement was approved immediately
and that of the other two was conditioned upon their supplying medical certificates
regarding past illnesses. The evidence as to each of these employees is as follows:
Skovbroten
Skovbroten had worked for Respondent about 7 years and was a class three em-
ployee whose services and performance had always been admittedly acceptable. She
was hired as an inspector, which remained her primary job. She had performed
other class three jobs but had never been assigned to assembly line work. Accord-
ing to Cox's testimony the first day of the strike Skovbroten called in ill. Having
heard nothing further from her and learning that others had seen her on the street
and at social affairs Cox wrote on her card, "Must have quit."
It also appears from the credited evidence that Skovbroten was on the negotiating
committee and had attended most of the negotiation meetings after the strike began.
She had picketed for 2 of the 3 weeks that the picketing took place at the River
Falls plant,7 and was present at the December 14 meeting when the Company and
the Union reached an accord on the contract and the strike. Skovbroten testified
that she recovered from her illness within a day or two after the strike started but
that because her union was on strike she joined the strike and did not go back to work.
Larrabee
According to Cox's testimony, Larrabee (who had had two periods of employment
with Respondent, the last starting in January 1962) and whom Cox described as
4 In her testimony, Cox denied these threats. I credit the General Counsel's version.
5 There is no contention that the strike was caused by unfair labor practices. Accord-
ingly striking employees could be permanently replaced
6 See also footnote 20 for an additional 8(a) (1) finding against Respondent
7 Although the strike began on August 27, picketing at the River Falls plant by River
Falls employees did not begin until October 17 or 18 and continued for approximately
3 weeks.
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"quite capable," had told her in the spring that she thought she would have to quit
for the summer because of her children being out of school. She later took some
time off in June to do some house painting during which time she became hospitalized
with an ulcer. She had been attending negotiations up to this time and was the
steward for the OCAW at the River Falls plant. In October she went on a trip,
having been released by the doctor. Cox admitted talking to her about coming back
to work, claiming that she asked Larrabee if she was coming back to which Larrabee
replied, "I don't know." Cox also admitted having told Larrabee that it might be
best if she did not come back until she felt better. Because Larrabee had said she
was going to quit and had taken the October trip after her illness Cox "assumed she
didn't intend to come back" and "didn't feel she was entitled to come back." The
fact that Cox never sent Larrabee's name to Hastings (where all personnel records
were kept) as having been terminated, Cox claimed was just an oversight.
The evidence also shows that in addition to being the OCAW's steward at the
River Falls plant, Larrabee was on the negotiating committee and had attended
at least one negotiation meeting after the strike started (late in September or early
in October) and that although she did not picket at the River Falls plant, she dis-
tributed handbills during the strike from house to house in River Falls on two
successive Saturdays.
According to Larrabee's undenied and credited testimony, when she presented
her doctor's certificate for reinstatement, Cox told her that she had to come back
as a new employee. Larrabee claimed that she was to be reinstated to her old job
and classification. Cox said she did not understand it that way and would call
Hastings . After a half-hour conversation with Hastings, Cox told Larrabee she
could come back in her old class (she was in class two) but that her old job was
filled and she would find something else for her to do.8 Cox could not understand
how she could be put back as an old employee because in January she would have
a vacation coming and she was concerned how she would explain this to the other
employees. Larrabee was assigned at first to inspecting and then to other class
three duties (with no reduction from her class two pay) and then in January was
placed on the five-piece line.
Peterson
Peterson's employment with Respondent dated back to 1955. She was a class
three employee who had performed many of its functions, the majority of her work
being inspection and threading backs? She originally had belonged to the In-
dependent Union but joined the OCAW,and like Skovbroten and Larrabee became
a member of its negotiating committee. As such she attended most of the bargain-
ing sessions up to early August when she became ill.lo
About the refusal to reinstate Peterson, Cox testified as follows- On the morning
of August 13, Peterson's husband called Cox and told her that Peterson would not
come to work that day, that she was ill and was going to see a doctor. From the
description the husband gave Cox at this time the latter "was certainly satisfied
that she should see . a doctor." The following morning Mr. Peterson called
again to say that his wife would not be in that day or the following one either.
On the 16th, he again called to say that his wife would not be in that day or the
next. On August 15, Peterson attended a negotiation meeting at Hastings. On
August 11, she had visited a doctor. She also had seen the doctor on August 16,
21, 24, 28, and on September 1 and September 7.
According to Cox's further testimony, knowing that Peterson had attended a
negotiation meeting on August 15, and having "proof that she had attended a
Homemaker's gathering" on August 14,11 she told Mr. Peterson when he called on
the 16th, "You tell Ethel when she comes back I want a doctor's statement sub-
stantiating her claim that she was ill and unable to work and that she went to the
doctor on the 13th . . .." Peterson said, "All right."
8 Before the strike and her illness Larrabee had the job of hand pasting
Threading backs involved attaching the envelopes or folders with the strings or tapes
that the customer utilizes when he wants to tie up the folder
10 Negotiations took place practically every week from the spring of 1962 to December 14.
11 Cox got this information from »n employee, Ada Ray, but she was unable to say when
she got it It had been made clear to Cox that Ray's information was based on what some-
one had told Ray. Cox testified that she did not accept Ray's information as the truth
until she investigated it. Her investigation amounted to asking another employee who be-
longed to the club but at no time did she inquire of Peterson about it Peterson denied
going to such a meeting.
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1639
Cox testified that it was company policy to require a doctor's certificate from
employes who have been absent due to illness, but that there was no set rule as
to how many days' absence would put the rule in motion. It was also a company
rule that any prospective absence had to be promptly reported to the Company.
Notwithstanding this rule, Delphine Zingy, who had been hired during the strike,
was absent for 3 days and never bothered to call Respondent at all. When she
returned she informed Cox that she had been ill. No doctor's certificate was re-
quired of her, nor did she receive a warning slip about the matter.
In Mr. Peterson's testimony, he denied telling Cox that Mrs. Peterson was-
going to attend the doctor on any of the days in question but admitted that Cox
had told him his wife would have to supply a doctor's report before returning to
work. He also testified that his wife did not go out of the house on the 13, 14,
or 15 except to attend the negotiation session on the 15th.
When Cox's refusal to reinstate Peterson was taken up by Union Representative
Toth with Respondent's officials at Hastings it was agreed that Peterson would be
reinstated upon her supplying a doctor's statement that she had been treated by
the doctor on August 13, 14, and 15. In accordance with this requirement, Peter-
son immediately got a statement from her doctor which indicated only that she-
had visited him on August 11, 16, 21, 24, 28, and September 1 and 7. Cox would
not accept this as an excuse for her absence on August 13, 14, and 15 and refused
to reinstate Peterson on that basis.12 Several days later Toth again met with
officials of Respondent about the matter. At this time it was brought out that
Peterson could not produce the statement it requested because she had not been
to the doctor on the dates in question. Toth maintained that she should be rein-
stated in any event and offered to waive any retroactive pay involved. Swanson,
Respondent's assistant production manager, observed that the Union could not feel
very strongly for its position if it was willing to waive 2 weeks' backpay. Toth
replied that he had made the offer in the spirit of good labor relations, the ink
not yet being dry on the contract, but withdrew the offer and indicated they would
go to arbitration on the matter. Nevertheless, Swanson told them they would re-
instate Peterson if she produced a statement from the doctor that she was too ill to
work on August 13, 14, and 15. She was unable to obtain such a statement.
In addition to the foregoing, it appears from Cox's testimony that her action
regarding Peterson's reinstatement was also motivated by Peterson's record of
absenteeism which dated from 1955 (being particularly bad up until 1960 or 1961)
and by "her attitude, her arrogant attitude (and) disrespect" toward Cox.
While each of the above cases must be judged essentially on its own merits, there
is a connection between them and their relationship to Respondent that prevents-
the facts of each case from being considered in isolation to each other. They were-
all employees of relatively long acquaintance with Respondent. They were all
leaders of the Union and were all given the same treatment at the same time by
Respondent for essentially the same reasons. Accordingly, in my opinion, Re-
spondent's defense as to all will be affected somewhat by any deficiencies the evi-
dence shows in that respect as to any one of them.
In this light, Respondent's position as to Skovbroten initially colors its position-
as to all of them. Skovbroten's picketing and attendance at negotiation meetings
after the strike began was a clear and patent indication of her participation in
the strike and her continuing interest in her job. Kit Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 142 NLRB 957. Respondent had no grounds whatsoever to act on the assump-
tion that she "must have quit." Nor do I think that Cox was so naive or un-
sophisticated as to have believed that such was the case.
Much the same can be said of Larrabee's situation. Her attendance at a
negotiation meeting in late September or early October plus Cox's admission that
she told Larrabee that it might be best if she did not come back to work until
she felt well enough pretty much undercut any assumption (real or feigned) on
the part of Cox that Larrabee "didn't intend to come back." Indeed, I am convinced
that Cox's true attitude or motivation about the matter was revealed in her testimony
that she "didn't feel [Larrabee] was entitled to come back," and that this feeling
was prompted by Larrabee's OCAW adherence.
Peterson's case, if viewed entirely in the light of its own facts, might have pro-
duced a different conclusion . But it rests in the aura of Respondent 's discrimina-
tion against Skovbroten and Larrabee. In addition it also must be considered in the
light of earlier discrimination by Respondent against Peterson as is set forth below
12 It was apparently on this occasion that Cox told Peterson that she did not know why
Peterson wanted to return to work and that if she were Peterson she would not return.
1640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the heading "The Discriminatory Assignment of Work." Moreover, there
are additional factors that help to persuade me that regardless what ostensible
substance there was to Respondent 's position about Peterson , it was nevertheless
secondary to its real and primary motive which was antiunion and was raised
simply as a pretext to mask that motive. Those factors are (1) the disparity of
Respondent's treatment of Zingy on the occasion of her illness: (2) Respondent's
having reached back some 7 years for additional criticism of Peterson as reasons
for not reinstating her; and ( 3) Respondent 's threat to discharge its striking em-
ployees On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, I conclude and find
that by refusing to reinstate Skovbroten, Larrabee, and Peterson, Respondent dis-
criminated against them in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The Discharge of Mary Van and Ruby Skovbroten
Ruby Skovbroten was discharged by Respondent on January 16 and Mary Van
on January 17, 1963. When these two employees were reinstated by Respondent they
were both (being class three employees ) assigned to the one-piece line , a class three
operation, which had never been performed in the River Falls plant prior to the
strike. From Cox's testimony it appears that there were eight people on the one-
piece line when Van and Skovbroten came back to work. Cox assigned two of these
eight to other work and put Van and Skovbroten in their places on the line. As of
this time, all of the girls on the one-piece line were new girls 18, 19, and 20 years
old.13 Skovbroten was about 46 years old and Van was also considerably older
than the others. It soon became apparent that the two older employees were not
progressing as Respondent felt they should have 14 and Cox called them into the
office to ask them about it, saying that if they were having trouble Respondent
"would be glad to help." Skovbroten said that she could not compete with the
younger women in the line . Van claimed that an operation she had had 10 years
previously was restricting her performance and asked for assignment to her previous
job.15 Cox admitted refusing Van's request even if she was at the time hiring new
employees to perform the job Van had been on prior to the strike.
At the time of this interview both Van and Skovbroten were given written warning
notices. This was the first such notice for Van but the second for Skovbroten who
had received her first warning on January 2. The following day Van got her second
warning and Skovbroten her third and with it her discharge notice. The next clay
Van received her third warning together with her discharge.
When Van was hired she had informed Cox that she had been a tuberculosis patient
and could do no heavy work.16 She was hired for inspection (as was Skovbroten)
but both performed other tasks within their classification when called upon. Neither
had ever done any linework. Neither had ever had warning notices prior to the ones
in question.
Both employees had had relatively long tenure with Respondent, Van's employ-
ment dating from 1954 and Skovbroten's from 1955. Van had been a member of
the independent union but whether Skovbroten was also a member is not shown.
Their support of and activity on behalf of the OCAW and Respondent' s awareness
of it are amply established in the record.17 As indicated, Skovbroten was on the
negotiating committee and the strike vote was taken at a meeting held in her home.
Van had indicated her unequivocal support of the OCAW in a conversation with
Austrum early in 1962 when she told Austrum in the presence of Stella Stein that
is Cox admitted that she possibly had hired a number of new girls for inspection
14 About 4 or 5 days after the two reinstated employees had begun working on the one-
piece line , Cox had the machine operator start keeping track of their skips It was on
this basis that Cox was able to appraise their performance . It Is Respondent 's practice
to keep track of the individual skips on the line after an employee haq had an adequate
breaking- in period
15 According to Van's undenied and credited testimony , when she asked to be trans-
ferred Cox said, "No , you were placed on that job. I sson't discuss it any further as it is
a class 3 job "
16 She had spent 2 years in a sanatorium during which time she had undergone surgery
as part of her treatment.
17 Nowhere has Respondent made any contention that It had no knowledge of any of the
alleged discriminatees ' adherence to or support of the OCAW. Indeed, Cox praised the
effectiveness of the grapevine in the plant and realstically added that there is always a
grapevine source of information in plants thereby demonstrating a sophistication some-
times less apparent in some who are supposed to have "expertise" in these matters
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1641
she "was for the Union" and that it was her belief that strike action would produce
"better benefits." 18
Based on the number and distribution of the skips attributed to the two employees
in comparison with the record of others on the line, it was and is Respondent's con-
tention that the two employees deliberately slowed down their performances and
were discharged for that reason. Respondent further contends that the assignment
of these two employees to the one-piece line was in accordance with its obligation
under the Act to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions
since they were both class three workers, since the one-piece line involved class
three functions, and since it was the accepted practice to use its employees inter-
changeably and without restriction on any or all duties falling within the employees'
classifications . Notwithstanding that on its face Respondent's action may seem to
have been valid, I disagree with its contention.
Considering the record of these two employees in the light of all the circumstances
herein,19 I am convinced and find that in assigning them to the one-piece line Re-
spondent was imposing upon them undue and burdensome conditions which were
outside the usual requirements of their prestrike positions . By so doing Respondent
failed to fulfill its obligation under the Act to reinstate them to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions. Eastern Die Company, 142 NLRB 601 It follows,
then, that Van and Skovbroten had no obligation to accept or to perform such as-
signments. Thus, whether their failure was the result of design or honest inability
is not for me to decide. Nor is it grounds upon which Respondent can eliminate
its responsibility to them under the Act. Accordingly, I find that their terminations
were discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The Discriminatory Assignment of Work
Jansa
Marie Jansa's employment with Respondent dated from 1952. The majority of
her work during this time was inspection and threading backs. She too had been
a' member of the Independent, but had switched to the OCAW. She attended two
negotiations in the fall and engaged in picketing three times a week for about 3
weeks. According to her undenied and credited testimony, 1 day after the strike
started when she was threading backs (and had some left to do) Forelady Austrum
ordered her to clean the toilets. While she was engaged in this task, Austrum kept
coming in to check on her progress. On one of these inspections, Austrum said to
her, "Why did you join that other Union9" 20
This evidence considered with Cox's admission that the toilets were cleaned by
the employees only on a volunteer basis compels a finding that Jansa's assignment
to the task was motivated by her support of the OCAW. As such it was discrimi-
natory within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
Peterson
Peterson testified that prior to her attendance at the negotiation meetings, she
was called upon to wash blocks and presses 21 no more than once a month, usually
when she had none of her regular work to do and then rarely for a full 8-hour period.
1s Austrum 's reaction to this information is reflected in a remark she made in Van's
presence to another employee, Lenore Fin stead, sometime in September or October Austrum
had said to Finstead, "I would rather be anything than to be a scab." They both looked at
Van and laughed.
19 Among these circumstances, I refer particularly to (1) the numerous instances in the
record reflecting Respondent's antipathy toward the OCAW supporters; (2) Respondent's
practice to staff its one-piece line at Hastings with very young women mostly newly hired
(as emphasized by the refusal to hire Aaron for linework) ; and (3) the fact that in order
to place these two older women of long tenure on that line it was necessary to displace
two others already working thereon
20 In the context of the other unfair labor practices found herein, I find this question by
Austrum to have been illegal interrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
21 The blocks and presses used in the formation of the various products apparently
accumulated glue and residue from the production process and had to be cleaned by
scrubbing with soap and water . This job was frequently assigned to employees in lieu of
sending them home when their production duties slacked off Often, too, the cleaning
functions were assigned on a volunteer basis as an alternative to layoff.
1642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After she joined the OCAW and became a member of the negotiation committee,
- Forelady Austrum began the practice of assigning her to wash the blocks and pi esses
for a full day after practically every weekly negotiation session that she attended
Moreover, these assignments were made when she had plenty of her regular work
to perform. This testimony was largely corroborated by other of the General
Counsel's witnesses.
Although Cox testified that she doubted that no other employee was assigned to
the cleaning detail from April to August 11 (as Peterson also had testified in effect)
and maintained that Peterson was not given the job after negotiations, Austrum did
not testify. In this posture, without any word other than Cox's somewhat doubtful
testimony and without any attempted explanation whatsoever by Austrum, while it
may be that Peterson was not called upon to perform this task quite as much as she
would have one think, I am inclined to believe that she was assigned such work more
frequently than was normal for her or the other employees and more frequently
than was the case before she began attending the negotiations. Although this task
was perhaps not as onerous or degrading as washing the toilets, I nevertheless find
that in the circumstances here the assignment of this work to Peterson carried some
of the same overtones of retribution and disparagement of Peterson for her support
of the OCAW and thus was also discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
Minder
Minder was employed by Respondent March 8, 1961. She worked 5 or 6 months
on the first press on the five-piece line and then at her own request was placed back
on the fourth press. Minder had been a member of the Independent but transferred
her allegiance to the OCAW in April or May. A few weeks after she had joined the
Union, on an occasion when the Union was engaged in handbilling at the plant, an
employee, Alfreda Griffee, asked Forelady Austrum what the handbills were about.
Austrum said, "Why don't you ask Heide Minder, they are her friends." Minder
had been on vacation when the strike started. She came back to work September 1
and did not go out on strike until October 17 or 18 22 During the interim Austrum
had asked her, "How come you are not on strike? Are you a chicken?"
About 2 weeks before she joined the strike, Minder was taken off the No 4 press
and placed on the No. 2 press without explanation, according to her testimony.23
When she was reinstated after the strike, she was placed on the first press at which
position she was working at the time she testified some 5 months later. At the time
she was reinstated Griffee, over whom she had seniority, was working at the No. 4
press.
At the outset of her reinstatement Minder had asked Austrum for a different posi-
tion on the line. Austrum said, "You sit there." Early in January Minder told
Cox, "I would like to have my old press back." Cox said, "The girls don't want
you back there." When Minder asked why, Cox told her she did not know and
had no time "to run around and find out everything," that she was not interested in
finding out. Minder told Cox, "You should have some of them tell me to my face."
That afternoon, in the presence of Cox and Austrum, Minder was given the oppor-
tunity in the office to confront the girls in question-four of them Minder asked
why they did not want her at the end of the line. Griffee answered, "You went out
on strike and we don't want any of you people back there Besides, you should
apologize to Mrs. Cox for picketing." Jane Fry accused Minder of "threatening"
her. Minder denied it and Fry admitted that she may have been mistaken but
countered with the accusation that Minder had called them scabs. Minder denied
that she had called anyone a scab. Austrum spoke up and said, "We are not scabs.
You are the scabs." Then she said, "You don't like me do you?" Minder said,
""No " Cox said, "You never say `Good Morning' to me either " Minder claimed
she did.
22 As indicated the River Falls employees did not go out until about that time although
the Hastings plant went on strike August 28. Minder engaged in the picketing when she
went out.
23 Cox testified that Minder had started at the front of the line and had been moved
back as the front presses were needed But at the back "she constantly caused trouble"
by talking too much or by getting the machine operator "all riled up" by not saying "skip
me" loud enough and then loudly berating the operator for failing to skip her. On one
occasion, unidentified as to time by Cox, she reprimanded Minder for her conduct. Minder
admitted the reprimand and testified credibly that this was shortly after she had been
moved back to the No 4 press
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1643
According to Cox's testimony, when Minder was reinstated she was given a
press only 4 feet ahead of the one she formerly had She admitted that Minder
had complained about it but Cox "couldn't see any sense in making an issue out of
what press she was going to sit at." Cox's refusal to accede to Minder's requests
was the subject of a discussion with Union Representatives Toth and Larrabee on
December 21.
I have already indicated my conclusion and finding that the work on front positions
of the production lines is more difficult than that of the back positions. Minder testi-
fied credibly that notwithstanding that she had few skips 24 at the front of the line,
she "just about had to make every file twice" at that location.
On the above evidence I am persuaded and find that Minder was not reinstated to
the former or substantially equivalent position she held before the strike. I have
no difficulty in reaching this conclusion particularly since it is obvious that Respond-
ent was strongly influenced in its conduct toward Minder after her reinstatement by
the attitude of her fellow employees who, because of her union support and ac-
tivities, asserted that they would no longer accept her. Abdication by an employer
of his obligations under the Act to such employee dictation is illegal. H. M. Thayer
Company, 99 NLRB 1122, 1133-1134, 1225; Longview Furniture Company, 100
NLRB 301, 305.
The Other Alleged Discrimination
In addition to the foregoing there is considerable evidence in the record regard-
ing the difficulties both Jansa and Larrabee had with Respondent in connection with
the duties assigned them after their reinstatement. These center chiefly around
physical disabilities they claimed interfered with tasks given them and were the basis
upon which they both sought assignment to other work. These matters were largely
disposed of before the hearing herein except that Larrabee never was reinstated to
the identical job she held prior to the strike; 25 and Jansa, at the time of the hearing.
was being threatened with a cut in pay because her availability for assignment to
jobs within her classification had been curtailed as a result of doctor's orders.
These matters the General Counsel alleges as failures of Respondent to reinstate
these two to their former or equivalent employment in further violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. While there may be a suspicion that the General Counsel is
correct, it would essentially involve matters that are done with. Accordingly, I
deem it unnecessary to make such additional findings of discrimination since they
would be cumulative and would have no effect on the order I shall recommend herein.
In disposing of this case I am mindful that it involves a conflict of philosophies
that probably have been accentuated by a prior and basic conflict of personalities;
that these conflicts, old and new, are strictly between women and may for that reason
take on a flavor of acrimony and intensity far out of proportion to their importance;
that it also involves a conflict between employees' rights under the Act and an em-
ployer's right to run its business
To further comment, I sympathize with an employer who is confronted with the
bitterness that develops between two conflicting groups of his employees regarding
who is to represent them as their collective-bargaining agent particularly if the em-
ployer is genuinely neutral. But my sympathy quickly cools when it becomes ap-
parent that the employer is favoring one side over the other and demonstrates its
bias by aiding, abetting, and condoning the side it favors In my opinion the record
here adequately demonstrates such an attitude of partiality by Respondent for the
Independent. This, of course, considered in the light of the record as a whole, has
had its influence upon the conclusions I have reached to this point.
The Alleged Discharge of Mabel Nelson
The complaint alleges as follows:
On or about August 28, 1962, Respondent, by its supervisors and agents,
Inez Cox and Emma Austrum, aided and abetted by employees who acted in
concert with and condonation by the said Cox and Austrum, harassed its em-
ployee, Mabel Nelson, subjected her to indignities, physically ejected her from
the plant and discharged her because of her membership in, support of and
24 The record shows that Respondent considers her to be an excellent worker.
2e Unlike Minder , Skovbroten , and Van , I do not believe that Larrabee ' s initial assign-
ments upon reinstatement were necessarily discriminatory . As Cox told her on one occa-
slon, "Why , Arlonne , you are the least discriminated against of the bunch."
1644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities on behalf of the Union, and at all times since said date has failed
and refused , and continues to fail and refuse to reinstate said Mabel Nelson
to her former position of employment.
Regarding this allegation Nelson testified on direct examination as follows:
On August 28 when she went to work, there were no pickets at the front entrance
of the plant 26 and she was not aware that a strike had started. It was a few
minutes to starting time. She went to her machine and started cleaning it in
preparation to begin work at 8 o'clock. At this point a group of about 40 em-
ployees, Supervisors Austrum and Healy among them, gathered at the back door,
located to the side of her work station, making fun of a picket who was patrolling
the alley back of the plant. Employee Fmstead said that the members of the
"big union" (the OCAW) belonged in Russia in the salt mines. Cox, who arrived
on the scene also, said that the union members "had no business working in the
place at all"; that she did not know what they wanted there and that people should
not have to be buying jobs. Nelson became upset by their attitude "(their im-
plications and . . . remarks) and got the impression that she (wasn't wanted around
there anymore)." She "took it as long as (she) could," gathered up her things,
and proceeded to leave. The employees followed directly behind her, very closely
right out the front door. On the way, someone took her by the arm and was
"generally shoving (her) toward the door." Austrum was immediately behind her
but Nelson did not know who touched her.
On her cross-examination, Nelson testified that she was so upset on this occa-
sion that she was crying; that at the time the comments were being made most of
the people were looking at the picket and no one mentioned her name. When
asked if they were not directing their remarks to the picket, she answered, "I felt
they were talking to me." She admitted that: by the time she started to leave,
the starting bell had rung; all the women worked between her station and the front
entrance; there was only one aisle (stacked with material) for them to traverse
to get to their post; they (some 40 of them) followed her closely through this
restricted passage to get to their work stations; as she and they were walking
someone "gently" touched her on the elbow; and finally, all that Cox had said was
"They had no business in here."
Nelson also testified that she did not know when the strike ended, explaining
That after she left she got a job in St. Paul at which she was still employed when
she testified. She never received a notice from the Company to return to work
and never made an application to return.
This evidence does not, in my opinion, support a finding that Respondent physi-
cally ejected and discharged Nelson.27 At most it shows that Nelson, when she
left, became a striker. As such, under the circumstances here,28 she is entitled
upon application to be reinstated to her former or substantially equivalent position.
I so find.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices viola-
tive of Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
28 Respondent's business is on the main street of downtown River Falls just across the
street and in the block above the place where this hearing was held. The building abuts
on the public sidewalk which I should judge to be no more than 8 or 10 feet wide Accord-
ingly, any picketing In front of the building would give the pickets and those entering
the plant ample and close opportunity to view each other.
211 make this finding on the assumption that Respondent was fully aware of the fact
that Nelson belonged to the OCAW. Actually, there is some doubt in my mind that the
evidence the General Counsel relies upon to show knowledge on the part of Respondent is
substantial enough to support such an assumption.
2s There is no contention that any of the strikers or alleged discriminatees had been
permanently replaced.
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1645
Having found that Respondent discriminated against various employees by inter
alia failing to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions
or by discharging them , I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer
each immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position , and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
because of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount of wages he would have earned from the date of the dis-
crimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement together with interest thereon
at the rate of 6 percent per annum , and that the loss of pay and inerest be computed
in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB
716, to which the parties hereto are expressly referred.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act 29 The inference is warranted
that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act
with respect to the protection of employee rights in general. It will , accordingly,
be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.so
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Smead Manufacturing Company is, and has been at all material times,
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Local 6-717, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, affiliated with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is and has been at all material times a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against its employees Ruby Skovbroten, Arlonne Larrabee,
Ethel Peterson, Mary Van, Marie Jansa, and Heide Minder as found above, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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 proceeding , I recommend that the Respondent , it agents,
representatives , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in Local 6-717, Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, affiliated with Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of its employees by discharging , discriminatorily assigning work, or
in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire,
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment , except as au-
thorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Threatening discharge to any employee for engaging in a legal strike or
work stoppage.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership , activities, or
sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint , or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(d) Imposing an illegal no -solicitation rule.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing it employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor -Manage-
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
" NLRB. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C A. 4).
-30 May Department Stores v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S . 376; Bethlehem Steel Company v.
N.L.R.B, 120 F . 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.).
1646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon application reinstate Mabel Nelson • to her former or substantially
equivalent position with backpay to begin 5 days after she has applied and to run
until she has been reinstated.
(b) Offer to Ethel Peterson, Mary Van, and Ruby Skovbroten immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and
Arlonne Larrabee whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the Respondent's discrimination against them, together with interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful
to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under
the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plants in River Falls, Wisconsin, and Hastings, Minnesota, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 31 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith 32
If this Recommended Order be 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 be 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."
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Local 6-717,
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, affiliated
with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of our employees by discharging, discriminatorily
assigning work, or in any other manner discriminating against any individual
in regard of his hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Ethel Peterson, Mary Van, and Ruby Skovbroten immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them
and Arlonne Larrabee whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffeied
as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL, upon her application, reinstate Mabel Nelson to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position.
WE WILL NOT prohibit union discussion or activity by our employees on Our
premises in their free , nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge for engaging in a legal
strike or work stoppage.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership, ac-
tivities, or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
STORY OLDSMOBILE, INC. 1647
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage.
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
THE SMEAD MANUFACTURING 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Fed-
eral Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No.
339-0112, Extension 2601, if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Story Oldsmobile , Inc. and Robert E. Ball. Case No. 7-CA-3729..
February 10, 1964
DECISION ON BACKPAY AND SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
On November 8, 1963, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued
his Decision on Backpay in the above-entitled proceeding. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion , with 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 Fanning and Jenkins].
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
attached Decision on Backpay and the entire record in this case, in-
cluding the exceptions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
1 We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's calcula
tions. For the second quarter of 1963 the total earnings of Barnes and I-lineman appear-
ing in Appendix 2 of the Trial Examiner's Decision should be $3,740.74; this error did
not affect any further calculations as the average earnings of Barnes and Hineman for
this period were correctly found by the Trial Examiner to be $1,870.37. In the first
quarter of 1963 the sum of expenses appearing in Appendix 4 of the Trial Examiner's.
Decision should be $233.19 ; accordingly, for this period the net interim earnings become
$1,666.81, the net backpay becomes $167.09, and the interest owing as of June 30, 1963,
becomes $2.51. Adjusted to correct these errors, the figures for the total period through
June 30, 1962, are as follows: net backpay-$5,052.72 ; interest thereon through June 30;
1963-$265.20; total amount found due and owing Robert Ball as of June 30, 1963-
$5,317 . 92, and the figure $5,316 . 90 in the conclusions of law becomes $5,317.92.
145 NLRB No. 156.