Tiidee Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

TIIDEE PRODUCTS, INC.
Tiidee Products, Inc. and International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-4618,,9-CA-4639-2, and
9-CA-4710
June 24, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On April 11, 1969, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs.
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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Tiidee Products,
Inc., Dayton , Ohio , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
,in his Decision , the Trial Examiner inadvertently cites Case 9-CA-4440
as Can 9-CA-440. He also inadvertently failed to place the word "not"
between the words "is" and "necessary" at I. 43 in fn. 23 of his Decision.
These inadvertencles are hereby corrected.
'These findings are based, in part , upon credibility determinations of the
Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted. After careful review
of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary
to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly , we find
no basis for disturbing these findings . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.,
91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
176 NLRB No. 133
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
969
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: Cases
9-CA-4618, 9-CA-4639-2, and 9-CA-4710, proceedings
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, herein called the Act, were heard in Dayton,
Ohio, on September 18 and 19, 1968,' with all parties
participating pursuant to due notice.
The complaint= in Case 9-CA-4618 alleges that Tiidee
Products, Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent, during
the latter part of January instituted plant rules threatening
discharge of employees for talking about the Union during
"company time" or for distributing literature on
"company property," thereby unlawfully limiting union
soliciting of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act; and unilaterally changed the terms and conditions
of employment by publishing and instituting new rules of
employment in a unit of employees for which the Union is
the exclusive bargaining representative, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The complaint' in Case 9-CA-4639-2 alleges that
Respondent constructively discharged employee John
Haywood and refused to reinstate him in violation of
Section 8(axl), (3), and (4) of the Act because of his
union support and his adverse testimony to Respondent's
interests in a prior Board hearing.
The complaint' in Case 9-CA-4710 alleges that in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees by
admonishing them not to associate with union
sympathizers and stating that union adherents were
troublemakers, unliked by Respondent, that they would
soon find out to whom to talk, and that involvement with
union activity would be harmful; that in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, employees David
Leffler and Pauline Messer were discriminatorily
discharged because of their union support; that employee
Claudine Tackett was discriminatorily discharged because
of her union support and adverse testimony in a prior
Board hearing in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1)
of the Act; that employee Phyllis Wilson was
constructively discharged or, in the alternative, discharged
because of her union support and adverse testimony in a
prior Board hearing in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (4),
and (1) of the Act; and that the terms and conditions of
employment were changed by unilaterally instituting new
work rules and issuing written warnings to employees for
alleged infractions of said rules, unilaterally adopting a
90-day probationary period for new employees, and not
permitting an employee to be represented by a union
agent with respect to a grievance concerning a condition
of employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3),(5), and (1)
of the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer to each
complaint denying the commission of any of the alleged
violations. By order of July 19, the Regional Director for
Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereafter referred to as the Board, consolidated the
aforedescribed cases for purpose of hearing.
' All dates hereafter refer to the year 1968 unless otherwise noted.
'Based on charges filed on February 7 and March 7 and 28, respectively,
by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union.
'Based on charges filed on April 26 and May 27, respectively, by the
Union.
'Based on charges filed by the Union on April 26 and May 17,
respectively.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument,
and to file briefs. General Counsel, the Charging Union,
and Respondent filed briefs which have been duly
considered. On the entire record in the cases , and from
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Respondent, an Ohio corporation engaged in the
manufacture of metal products at its plant in Dayton,
Ohio, had a direct outflow during the past 12 months in
interstate commerce of goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000, which it sold and shipped from its
Dayton plant directly to plants outside of Ohio.
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
herein Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find , that at all times
material herein the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
following-
5. Soliciting or collecting contributions for any
purpose whatsoever, on company premises, without the
approval of the management.
9. Distribution of literature, written or printed matter
of any description on company property, not incidental
to company business.
The rules and regulations state further that an
employee committing minor offenses shall be warned, that
two such infractions shall constitute a major offense
subjecting an employee to a 3-day layoff, and that two
major infractions constitute an intolerable offense for
which an employee is subject to dismissal.
Irvin Hollander, Respondent's president, testified that
posted rules had been in effect since 1945, that due to a
fire 2 years ago the posting was destroyed and he had
neglected to replace it, and that they were reposted
following the prior Board hearing because the employees
began to neglect their work. He testified further that prior
to the fire only part of the rules were posted on a small 3
by 5 card. The current posting contains 34 rules and
regulations in addition to other typed matter and is 8 by
l I inches in size. No evidence, however was presented to
show which, if any, of the rules were allegedly previously
posted.
Conclusions
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Prior Board Proceedings
Pursuant to several charges' filed against Respondent
by the Union during September, October, and November
1967, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of
the Act, a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner of
the Board during January 1968. On August 27, the Trial
Examiner issued a decision in which he found , inter alia,
that Respondent (1) violated Section 8(a)(5) for its refusal
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees
pursuant to a certification' issued by the Regional
Director for Region 9 on November 8, 1967, following a
Board-conducted representation election on September 14,
1967; (2) violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with,
coercing, and restraining its employees in a widespread
manner in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act; and (3) violated Section 8(a)(3) by arbitrarily
raising production quotas of employees and
discriminatorily laying off and discharging employees in
retaliation for their support of the Union. The Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and Recommended
Order providing appropriate relief were adopted by the
Board on February 24, 1969,' with slight modification not
pertinent herein.
B. The Alleged 8(aXI) Violations
1. The posted rules
It was stipulated that in January following the prior
Board hearing (January 16-18), Respondent posted a set
of work rules and regulations containing , inter alia, the
' ases 9- A-440, 9-CA-4488, 9-CA-4536, and 9-CA-4563
'Challenged by Respondent but upheld by the Trial Examiner.
'174 NLRB No 103.
Regardless of prior postings of the rules, the
nonsolicitation rule is invalid and in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. The rule applies to employees on their
own time as well as to working time.' Moreover, it was
posted not long after the Union won a representation
election, and closely following the Board hearing at which
several of Respondent's employees testified adversely to
its interest. It appears, and I find, that Respondent was
motivated to post the rules in retaliation against
employees for their union support.' See Marlene
Industries Corp., 166 NLRB No. 58; and Wm H. Block
Company, 150 NLRB 341.
The nondistribution rule is presumptively violative of
Section 8(axl), unless rebutted by evidence of special
circumstances demonstrating its need based upon safety
factors, interference with plant production or plant
discipline. No such showing was established herein." I,
therefore, find that the nondistribution rule was also
violative of Section 8(a)(l)." The threat to impose
disciplinary measures for infractions of the posted
proscriptions served to aggravate the interference with the
rights and the coercion of the employees.
2. The alleged threats to, and unlawful interrogation
of, Wells
About 3 weeks after the prior Board hearing,
Hollander, in a conversation with employee Bill Wells at
his work station concerning his salary and the type of
'Any ambiguity in the scope of these rules is held against the
promulgator rather than against the employees N.L R.B Y. Miller Charles
A Co., 341 F 2d 870, 874 (C.A. 2), enfg. 148 NLRB 1579; Campbell
Soup Company, 159 NLRB 704, enfd 380 F.2d 372 (C.A. 5).
'In the prior cases, Respondent was also found to have unlawfully
retaliated against employees for their union support.
"See Republic Aviation Corporation v. NLRB., 324 U.S. 793,
797-798.
"The posting without consultation or negotiation with the Union is
discussed , infra, as a violation of Sec 8(a)(5).
TIIDEE PRODUCTS, INC. 971
work he is qualified to perform, stated ". . . because when
you cut my throat you're cutting your own throat." About
a week after the foregoing conversation, Hollander
summoned Wells to his office and accused him of having
made inconsistent statements in his testimony at the prior
Board hearing, and also interrogated him as to what he
had discussed with the General Counsel and union counsel
during that hearing.
On April 10, Wells was given a warning notice' _
pursuant to the posted rules because he allegedly failed to
watch the work of a new employee, as directed, with the
result that she turned out defective parts. Wells, however,
testified that her work was satisfactorily performed while
he was in a position to observe it but that inasmuch as he
also had to attend to the operation of his own machine he
was unable to check on all her work. His testimony was
not refuted, nor was any evidence presented to indicate
either in what manner or to what extent the new employee
turned out defective work."
On April 12, Hollander, in a conversation with David
Leffler who began working for Respondent about the
middle of March, inquired whether he was becoming
intimate with some of the employees, mentioning
specifically the names of Messer and Phyllis Wilson.
Leffler replied that he had not but stated that he had a
date with Messer for that evening. Hollander then told
him to be careful with whom he associated or talked to
because he could get into big trouble. The next morning,
Saturday, a nonworkday, Leffler was summoned to the
plant by Hollander who questioned him about his date of
the preceding evening and then asked whether he realized
what was meant by his remark of the preceding evening in
connection with associating with the wrong people. When
Leffler replied that he thought he meant "union
sympathizers," Hollander denied it and stated he was
referring to improper social relations between the women
and men employees, which could subject the men to
blackmail."
Conclusions
The General Counsel asserts that Hollander's "throat
cutting" remark constituted a threat directed against
Wells for his union activities, and that his interrogation of
Wells interfered with his statutory rights in violation of
Section 8(a)(1). I find that, although the "throat cutting"
remark of Hollander raises a suspicion that it was related
to Wells' union activity, the evidence reflects no reference
to unionism or union activities during this conversation,
and appears only to concern Wells' gripe that he was
relegated to low-paying relatively unskilled jobs despite his
ability to perform higher remunerative work. I conclude
that the General Counsel has failed to establish by the
preponderance of the evidence that this incident
constituted a threat to Wells to abstain from union
activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find,
however, that Hollander' s interrogation of Wells
concerning his conversation with the General Counsel and
union counsel during the prior Board hearing constituted
unlawful interrogation. Such interrogation can be
reasonably equated with that regarding the contents of
affidavits given to Board agents by employees, which
under well-settled Board law has been found violative of
Section 8(ax 1) of the Act.
3. The alleged coercion of Pauline Messer and David
Leffler
The uncontradicted evidence shows that on March 27,
Hollander hired Pauline Messer as a 90-day probationary
employee and, at that time, told her ". . . we have quite a
few troublemakers here, and we do not like
troublemakers," and that she should learn to whom she
should talk and to whom not to talk. Messer admittedly
did not comprehend the significance of these remarks at
the time. It also appears that similar remarks were
addressed to Messer by Supervisor Mary Burgher and
Hazel Ward." However, Messer testified that neither
Ward nor Burgher ever mentioned the Union to her in
these conversations. Nor is there any evidence that
Hollander referred to the Union in his comments to her
when hired or at any other time.
"The notice had notations of defective work and carelessness , and failure
to perform work , as directed.
"The effect of the warning notice as a violation of the Act is discussed,
Infra
Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that through knowledge
subsequently acquired by Messer while working on the
job, she learned that the term "troublemaker" was
synonomous with the term "union adherent ," and that,
therefore , Hollander's comment to her when hired was
coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act provides that it shall be an
unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7. It is well settled that the test of
interference , restraint , and coercion is whether the conduct
involved may reasonably be said to tend in those
directions . Kroger and Company v. N.L.R. B., 401 F.2d
682, 686 (C.A. 6). I find that the record fails to establish
by the preponderence of the evidence that Messer, during
the course of her employment , eventually comprehended
the significance of Hollander' s remark to mean that she
was not to associate with union adherents . I, accordingly,
conclude that Hollander ' s alleged admonition to Messer
did not tend , insofar as she was concerned, to interfere
with her statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(l).
The General Counsel contends that Hollander's
remarks to Leffler were also directed against his
association with union adherents , and, therefore,
coercively similar to his remarks to Messer. It appears,
and I find , that Leffler , in contrast to Messer ' s possible
lack of sophistication , believed that Hollander was
referring to union adherents . I am not persuaded by
Hollander's belated explanation to Leffler that he was not
referring to union adherents , and his expressed concern for
the morals of his employees in their personal relations
away from the plant . In these circumstances I find that
Hollander' s statements to Leffler may reasonably be
found to have tended to interfere with or coerce him
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (4)
1. The discriminatory discharges
a. John Haywood
"A procompany employee who testified on behalf of Respondent in the
prior Board hearing as well as in the instant cases.
"A few of the women employees , including Messer, were either
separated from their husbands or divorced. Leffler was also either
separated from his wife or divorced.
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Haywood, an ex-convict under the supervision of Parole
Officer John Weiher, began working for Respondent on
March 15, 1967. In June of that year, Hollander in a
conversation with Weiher praised Haywood as a good
worker. During November of that year Weiher received a
call from Hollander complaining about his work. On
November 20, Weiher visited Haywood at his home and
informed him that he had received a telephone call from
Hollander to the effect that he had become too involved in
union problems." On March 7, Weiher received another
call from Hollander complaining about Haywood's
conduct at the plant in using foul language which would
not be tolerated because of the women employed there."
That night Weiher visited Haywood at his home and
advised him that Hollander wanted him to quit because
his work was poor and he had lied about Hollander at the
prior Board hearing . Weiher urged him to quit but
Haywood was reluctant to do so because he lacked l
week's work to qualify for a week's vacation with pay.
He, however, agreed to follow Weiher's advice if he were
permitted to work 1 more week to qualify for the paid
vacation. Weiher stated that he would take it up with
Hollander the next day. The following afternoon Weiher
called Hollander and after discussing Haywood's proposal,
Haywood was called to the telephone and told by Weiher
that Hollander was willing to give him the week's vacation
pay if he quit then and there. Weiher also advised him
that otherwise he was "afraid Mr. Hollander would write
to Columbus [Ohio] and might cause you a lot of trouble
later." Haywood then related to Hollander that Weiher
advised him to quit to which Hollander replied, "Well,
he's your boss; you ought to do what he says." Haywood
agreed to leave, and upon receiving his paycheck from
Hollander was told "you can call it a vacation check or a
separation check.""
Adam Campbell, an employee, testified that at the end
of November 1967, he had a long conversation with
Haywood about the latter' s immoral exploits with women,
and that on January 8, he had another conversation
lasting 3 to 4 hours during which Haywood neglected to
remove certain castings from his machine, causing them to
get scratched. Campbell also testified that he complained
to Hollander that Haywood 's long conversations with him
interfered with his work. Haywood denied engaging in
such conversations.
Conclusions
General Counsel contends that Haywood was
constructively discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (4) of the Act. Respondent asserts that Haywood
resigned on the advice of his parole officer. It appears that
Haywood had testified" on behalf of the General Counsel
in the prior Board hearing, and had been unlawfully laid
"In the preceding Board cases it was found that during the union
campaign Hollander used Haywood to ferret out information about union
adherents, but that Haywood later refused to sign a company -sponsored
petition circulated among the employees to indicate whether or not they
were in favor of the Union.
"Haywood testified without contradiction that he had never been warned
about using foul language in the plant.
"The above findings are based upon the credited composite testimony of
Haywood and Weiher . Although Hollander testified he made no reference
to the matter.
"It was stipulated that the alleged discriminatees herein , who testified at
the prior Board hearing did so adversely to Respondent
off in December 1967 in retaliation for his support of the
Union." Hollander continued to show his opposition to
and displeasure with union adherents when he complained
to Weiher that Haywood was becoming too involved in
union problems. Realizing the vulnerability of Haywood's
position because he was on probation, Weiher advised him
to quit otherwise Hollander could do him great harm by
complaining to the (parole) authorities in Columbus
(Ohio). Under these circumstances, Haywood was
pressured into resigning because he had no alternative but
to follow his parole officer's advice. I find that Hollander
was motivated in applying this pressure by reason of his
opposition to the Union and desire to retaliate against
union adherents. I find further that the complaints against
Haywood grounded on his profanity at the plant and his
failure to diligently apply himself to his regular work
tasks were pretextual and intended to mask Respondent's
union animus . I conclude that Haywood's quit was
induced by Respondent's discriminatory action against
him and he was therefore constructively discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act.
b. David Leffler
Leffler began working for Respondent in March,
operating a sander and finishing mill. According to
Hollander's son , Joseph, he had taught Leffler how to
operate his finishing machine and had instructed him not
to load it with castings for polishing if he were going to
quit for the day before the polishing was completed, and
instead to work on sand jacks until quitting time.
Otherwise, a lubricating detergent would not be added to
the machine every 15 minutes, as required, and the
castings would get scratched.
As related and found above Hollander asked Leffler, on
April 12, whether he was getting friendly with the
employees , mentioning , in particular, Pauline Messer and
Phyllis Wilson," which could get him in trouble, and that
he should be careful with whom he spoke, to which Leffler
replied that he was having a date that evening with
Pauline Messer. In that conversation Hollander also
complimented him on his work and said he expected him
to work there for a long time.
Joseph Hollander testified that on the night of April 12,
after Leffler had left the plant, he found his machine
running , loaded with castings which had been damaged,
and that he had advised his father that night of the
incident." The following morning (Saturday, a
nonworking day) Leffler was summoned to the plant from
his home. After questioning him about his date with
Messer and referring to his conversation of the preceding
day, as related above, Hollander told him that his work
was not efficient, that on the preceding night at quitting
time he had left castings in his machine, causing them to
be scratched, and that he would have to let him go.
Leffler claimed that he had been advised previously by
Hollander that he could leave the castings in the finishing
mill when he quit for the day, and that Adam Campbell,
who was working overtime, would remove the castings
"It was also found in the prior cases that when Haywood called for his
check following that layoff , Hollander asked how he had voted in the
election . After Haywood answered that he voted for the Union , Hollander
stated that he knew it but was merely checking to ascertain what he would
say
"An avowed union adherent who had testified against Respondent at the
prior hearing
"He also testified that he had informed his father 2 weeks earlier that
Leffler could not take instructions and was not working out.
TIIDEE PRODUCTS , INC. 973
when finished , which took from 20 to 30 minutes.
Hollander did not refute this claim , nor was there any
denial of Leffler ' s assertion that this procedure had been
previously recommended by Hollander , his son Larry, and
Adam Campbell . Haywood also testified without
contradiction that he not only never received such
instructions as were allegedly given by Joseph Hollander
to Leffler, but asserted that he was told to reload the
polishing machine even when the castings would not be
completed before his quitting time for the day because in
that event the machine would be unloaded by one of the
night men or Hollander.
Conclusions
Hollander ' s expressed concern and preoccupation as the
guardian of the morals of his employees appears
suspiciously pretextual as an attempt to immunize his new
employees from contact with older employees who were
known union adherents . His interrogation of Leffler on
Saturday morning regarding his date with Messer , and his
belated explanation that he was referring to immoral
women employees rather than to union sympathizers, as
understood by Leffler, was an attempt to dissipate any
claim of antiunion motivation in preparation for Leffler's
discharge immediately thereafter . Nor was there any
reason or need to refer to the morality of the employees,
if Leffler was being discharged because of his inability to
perform his job properly . Furthermore, I find the evidence
far from persuasive to establish that Leffler was
disregarding instruction in the operation of the milling
machine , which was asserted as the motivating cause for
his discharge .. Oddly enough, no evidence was presented to
show the extent of the damage to the scratched castings,
which would indicate the gravity of the single alleged
incident as warranting such drastic action as a discharge,
especially in view of the fact that on the preceding day
Hollander had complimented his work . Considering all the
evidence in the context of Respondent ' s antiunion
propensity as found in the prior cases, I conclude that
Leffler's discharge was, at least in part, motivated by
Respondent's desire to discourage unionism in the plant in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
C. Pauline Messer
(Thursday ) Union Attorney Janetzke telephoned
Hollander about mid-morning and informed him that
Messer had signed a union card . Later that afternoon
Hollander approached Messer , handed her a paycheck,
and stated that he had been watching her and her attitude
towards her work and did not think she was going to
make it . Messer pointed out without avail that she had
been hired as a 90 -day probationary employee . Although
her normal workweek was Monday through Friday, she
was discharged on that Thursday and paid for 4 days.
Ward testified on behalf of Respondent that for the
first week or two she trained Messer on her moulding
machine and she caught on quickly and was a good
worker . Thereafter , she began to take long coffeebreaks
and to carry coffee to the men , as a result of which her
production fell off because she was not at her machine to
unload and reload , when necessary . She reported this to
Hollander, but said nothing to Messer . Messer denied
taking long coffeebreaks , and stated , without
contradiction , that she had never received any warning
about her work . Based on the demeanor of the witnesses
and the sequence of events precipitating her discharge,
Messer ' s testimony is crt.dited.
Conclusions
The General Counsel submits that Messer was
discriminatorily discharged because of her union support
and to discourage unionism in the plant. Respondent
contends that she was terminated because she failed to
attend diligently to her machine causing her production to
fall, and she had participated in the removal of a
protective curtain hung between her machine and the one
operated by Phyllis Wilson , which caused extensive
damage to Wilson ' s machine." I find it highly significant
that there is no evidence indicating that Messer was ever
reprimanded for her alleged shortcomings , that she was
praised for her learning ability and work not long before
she was fired , that within hours after Hollander was
informed that she had joined the Union, she was
discharged, and that there was no immediate precipitating
incident which necessitated or warranted her discharge a
day prior to the ending of the normal workweek. These
considerations viewed in the light of Respondent's
antiunionism confirm the conviction that her discharge
was motivated by antiunionism and retaliation against a
union adherent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
Messer was hired by Hollander on March 27 as a
90-day probationary employee to work on the moulding
machine . As related above, Hollander told her at that
time that they had quite a few troublemakers and that she
should learn with whom to associate . During her first
week Hollander informed her that he had received a
favorable report about her ability to learn and work from
Hazel Ward who was breaking her in . During lunchtime
on April 1, as she passed by the table occupied by
Supervisor Mary Burgher , she was invited to sit down
with her. Messer declined stating that she was going to sit
with Phyllis Wilson , an active prounion employee . Shortly
after lunch Hazel Ward , accompanied by Burgher,
approached Messer at her machine and cautioned her
about with whom she should associate . On April 15,
Messer signed a union authorization card at the request of
employee Claudine Tackett . On April 17, Ward came to
Messer' s machine and observed her work all day long,
which had not occurred previously . The next day
d. Claudine Tackett
Tackett began working for Respondent in January
1967. As found in the prior cases, she had been the chief
union protagonist in the organizing campaign during 1967,
had served as the Union 's observer at the representation
election, and had testified adversely to Respondent at the
prior hearing. 14
"The curtain was hung to deflect plastic particles emanating from
Messer's machine from penetrating Wilson's machine . There is conflicting
testimony as to whether the curtain had been partially opened or removed
prior to Messer 's hiring . However , I find for purposes of adjudicating her
discharge that it is necessary to resolve whether or not she was involved in
the alleged curtain incident.
"The findings in those cases also show that Hollander visited Tackett at
her home during August 1967 while she was convalescing from her foot
injury and gave her $50. At that time , apparently unbeknown to
Hollander, she was acting as liaison between the Union and the employees.
Immediately following the announcement of the election returns on
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 12 , Tackett was recalled from layoff status
by Hollander . Before she began working , Hollander
warned her that he was tired of her bad work and she was'
not to cause any more trouble ." He also changed her
work procedures by restricting her to her work area, her
boxes were to be brought to her and later removed to the
shipping area , she was not to seal her boxes, Hollander
was to inspect her work , and she no longer was to keep a
record of her production , all of which she had personally
done previously . And, whereas before she used to cut and
wind five boxes of plastic water hoses and then place
couplings on them , henceforth she would complete one
box at a time . " On March 13, Hollander had her read the
posted work rules and directed her to increase her
production to 27 boxes a day, although previously she had
produced 12 or 13 boxes a day and had not been
pressured to augment her production. 17 During that week,
Hollander also reprimanded her for quitting at 4:25 p.m.,
instead of 4:30 p.m., despite the established practice of the
employees to stop working at 4:25 p.m. to wash up before
leaving.
On March 20, Tackett received a warning notice" from
Hollander for allegedly placing three couplings instead of
two on a 15-foot water hose which had been found on top
of one of her unsealed boxes . Tackett stated that she
could not tell whether it was her doing or that of other
employees who worked on hoses before she began such
work on that day." On April 17, Tackett received a
second warning notice for allegedly packing 10-foot hoses
in a box marked for 15-foot hoses, and was given a 3-day
suspension . Tackett disclaimed responsibility for the error,
claiming that it happened between the time she left the
plant for the day and before she reported on the following
morning . About 2 weeks later, Hollander accused her of
being short in her count of hoses in one of her boxes,
which she denied.
During April she worked alternately on the winder and
drill machines . About April 30, Hollander assigned her to
learn and work on the elbow machine,'' despite her
protestations that she was fearful of working on that
machine . The morning after Tackett began working on the
elbow machine, a new girl was hired to operate the drill
doing the work previously done by her. Tackett operated
the elbow machine for a day and a half and then asked
Burgher to relieve her for an hour because her foot hurt * 31
Burgher replied that she would have to consult Hollander.
Not long after , Hollander appeared at the machine and
told Tackett he would see about relieving her the
following day because they had only 45 minutes left to
qutting time . Tackett did not report for work the
September 14, Hollander turned to her and accused her of ungratefulness
after all he had done for her . The morning following the election Tackett
was the first employee laid off allegedly for lacking work . She was recalled
on September 25 for approximately I week and again laid off ostensibly
for lack of work . Her layoffs were found to have been discriminatorily
motivated because of her union support.
"No evidence was presented to justify these complaints.
"These procedural changes , however, were not applied to other
employees as appears from the testimony of employee Jewel Romaine.
"Although Jewel Romaine testified on behalf of Respondent that she
produced from 45 to 50 boxes a day , sometimes only 35, Tackett's
testimony as to her production prior to her recall was not refuted.
"The notice listed defective work and carelessness as infractions of the
work rules, and stated that another infraction of a minor rule would
subject her to a 3-day layoff.
"Employee Romaine testified that it was virtually impossible for an
operator not to detect so flagrant a defect (an inspection of Respondent's
Exhibit I confirms that impression ), and Respondent's witness , Eleanor
Kleismit , stated that it was the only such defect she had seen in 15 years.
following day, but showed up on May 6, when she told
Hollander she declined to work on the elbow machine
because she was afraid he would not relieve her in the
event she became sick , and she was also afraid of what he
might do to the machine to mess up her work in order to
fire her. Hollander replied that he had nothing else for her
to do and told her to wait for him in the lunchroom.
Shortly thereafter , he appeared in the lunchroom and
advised her that he had no other work for her and would
call her when it became available . At that time there was
practically no 10- or 15-foot hoses in stock , and there
were outstanding orders for these products.
Not hearing from Hollander, Tackett and her father
appeared at the plant on May 16. Her father went into the
office while she remained outside and he demanded her
paycheck from the office girl. Hollander was summoned
and ordered him out of the plant. He then asked Tackett,
who appeared in the doorway , why she had not been in or
called in and if she had quit. When she denied quitting, he
asked her to wait a minute and went into his office and
reappeared with a notice " which he gave her, and stated
"Now, you are fired."37
Conclusions
The evidence clearly establishes that beginning with
March 12 when Tackett was recalled to work, Hollander
resumed his harassment of her by warning her about her
future conduct in the plant. It would also be reasonable to
assume that Hollander was particularly incensed at her at
that time because of his feeling that she had deceived him
in supporting the Union and was regarded as ungrateful.
He continued to harass her as is shown by his change of
her work procedures, raising her production quota , taking
her off the drill machine and hiring a new employee to
operate that machine , assigning her to work on the elbow
machine despite her protestations , and laying her off when
she declined to work on the elbow machine, allegedly
because there was no other work available despite a
shortage of inventory . ' It also appears that in the first
two warning notices issued to Tackett she was held
responsible for alleged carelessness and defective work in
circumstances where there was reasonable doubt as to her
blame . Also, although Respondent claims that Tackett
was discharged for her refusal to work on the elbow
machine , it appears that she was only laid off at the time
"This is a large machine which produces plastic elbows to fit on pipe in
the plastic department . In its operation large pliers are used which require
balancing on one foot and bracing the other foot against the machine.
Although Respondent witnesses Connie McGoon , Barbara Tipton, and
Mary Burgher testified that it was no harder to operate than other
equipment, I find based on all the evidence that it was not only more
cumbersome to operate but also required greater effort compared to a
winder or drill.
"She had sustained injuries to her foot the preceding August in an
automobile accident , which incapacitated her for some time and of which
Hollander was aware.
"The notice , dated May 5, was designated "3rd Notice" and stated
"Violation 6 Gross insubordination . Refused to operate a machine you
were assigned to."
"The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Marjorie
Pratt, the office girl who witnessed the confrontation and testified on
behalf of Respondent . Tackett's testimony of the incident differed in that
she stated Hollander told her that she had quit and she denied it.
According to Hollander , he asked Tackett where she had been , and when
she replied that he had told her he would call her, he accused her of lying
and gave her the discharge ticket because she refused to run the elbow
machine . Tackett's testimony to the effect that she denied quitting is
credited
"As appears above in the prior cases, Respondent was also found to
TIIDEE PRODUCTS, INC. 975
of her refusal . The discharge was a later development.
Based on the foregoing , I conclude that Hollander was
motivated to discharge Tackett on May 16 because of his
desire to retaliate against her for her union support in
violation of Section 8(a)(3),(4), and (1) of the Act.
e. Phyllis Wilson
Wilson began working for Respondent on November
22, 1966 . As found in the prior cases, she was
discriminatorily laid off in September and October 1967,
but had been recalled before the prior Board hearing at
which she testified adversely to Respondent ." She had
worked primarily on the assembly table before that
hearing , and at no time had she operated the drill, the
moulding machine , or the elbow machine . A few weeks
after that hearing she was transferred to work on the
elbow machine when Connie McGoon , who operated that
machine , became ill . Upon McGoon ' s return to work, she
alternated with Wilson in operating the elbow machine,
each working half a day for the next few weeks until
McGoon hurt her finger . Wilson then ran the elbow
machine all day for the following month . She then
complained to Supervisor Burgher about why she was not
being relieved by McGoon . Burgher replied that she did
not know and that if she had any complaints to take them
directly to Hollander."
Wilson decided that she would not continue working on
the elbow machine unless she obtained relief and did not
report for work on Monday , April 15. She called Mr.
Janetzke , the union attorney , and explained her
predicament to him . He suggested that she see Hollander
about obtaining relief but she declined to go alone. He
then asked whether she would see Hollander accompanied
by Creola Reese , the union representative , to which she
agreed . The following day she and Reese visited the plant
where Reese explained to Hollander that she was there on
behalf of Wilson 's request for relief on the elbow machine.
Hollander refused to discuss the matter and told her to
see Harvey Rector , his representative , if it concerned any
employee or union matter. Harsh words were then
exchanged between them , and Reese , if not both of them,
was ordered to leave the plant . Reese and Wilson then
went to see Janetzke who called Rector and, after
referring to and relating the Reese - Hollander incident, he
discussed the failure to relieve Wilson on the elbow
machine as was the practice with other female operators."
Rector replied that Wilson had indicated animus towards
Hollander by her testimony at the prior hearing. Janetzke
admitted that there were hard feelings between them, and
asked Rector to intercede on her behalf with Hollander in
resolving the matter . Rector agreed to do so , and later
that day he called Janetzke and informed him that he had
spoken to Hollander who insisted that if Wilson wished to
continue working , she would have to do so under the
conditions assigned by him.
have discriminatorily laid her off , allegedly for lack of work.
"A week after the election Hollander warned Wilson "to watch her step
and her mouth."
"By that time McGoon had recovered sufficiently from her finger injury
to relieve Wilson during her 10-minute mid-morning and afternoon
coffeebreaks.
"Although some female employees testified on behalf of Respondent
that they operated the elbow machine all day for extended periods,
Burgher admitted that for quite some time there had been a practice for
two girls to alternate working on the machine for half a day at a time.
Cn April 19 , Wilson and her husband visited the plant
to pick up her paycheck . There , they met Hollander who
asked Wilson where she had been . She replied that she
had received a telephone call from Janetzke to the effect
that she had been fired . When Hollander remarked that
he (Janetzke) knew more about it than he, Wilson stated
that it made no difference because she quit on Monday."
Hollander also informed her that not calling in for 3 days
constituted an automatic quit , and he also complained
that she had belittled him in her testimony at the prior
hearing.
Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Wilson was
constructively discharged on April 19 . Respondent in its
brief appears to take the position that she quit on April
15. It appears , and I find , that Wilson declined to report
for work on Monday , April 15, because of her decision to
no longer operate the elbow machine unless she was given
appropriate relief. With that in mind and pursuant to
Janetzke ' s suggestion , she and Reese , attempted
unsuccessfully to discuss the matter with Hollander. Upon
learning how Hollander rebuffed them , Janetzke requested
Rector to intercede on Wilson ' s behalf with Hollander.
After consulting Hollander, Rector advised Janetzke that
Hollander insisted that - his work assignments would have
to be followed , which in effect , meant that no relief would
be forthcoming for Wilson . At the subsequent meeting on
April 19 , Wilson or her husband plainly stated that she
would not submit to any further harassment and would
not operate the elbow machine without appropriate relief.
I conclude from the foregoing that Wilson declined to
work on or after April 15 unless regularly relieved on the
elbow machine . Inasmuch as no such relief was thereafter
offered to her , I find that she quit on the last working day
preceding April 15 , presumably April 12. I find further
that Hollander strongly resented her because of the
testimony she gave in the prior hearing , which was
personally degrading to him , and her union support, and
he declined to follow in her case the usual and established
policy of providing a half day relief on the elbow machine.
Hollander was following his pattern of making it very
difficult , if not intolerable , for union adherents to continue
working in the plant . I conclude that Wilson 's quit was
induced by Hollander ' s discriminatory tactics and
constituted a constructive discharge in violation of Section
8(aX3), (4 ) and (1) of the Act.
2. The alleged discriminatory warning notices
It is contended that the warning notices given to Wells
and Tackett constituted discriminatory action in violation
of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
As appears above, Wells and Tackett received warning
notices for alleged infractions of the posted rules. The
evidence reflects , and I find , that both employees raised
reasonable doubts as to their responsibility for the acts
complained of by Hollander . Moreover, I find it
unnecessary to resolve their responsibility. The evidence
viewed in its entirety establishes that Hollander, motivated
by vindictiveness, followed a pattern of retaliation against
"These findings are based upon the credited composite testimony of
Majorie Pratt, Hollander, McGoon , and Burgher . Wilson testified that
Hollander asked her twice whether she was coming back , and that either
she or her husband replied that she was not going to tolerate any more
harassment.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who supported the Union and/or testified
adversely to him in the prior Board hearing. He used the
warning notices, apparently as a new device, to" indicate
his displeasure with union adherents and opposition to the
Union. I, therefore, conclude that the issuance of the
warning notices changed the terms and conditions of
employment, and thereby constituted violations of Section
8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act.
Furthermore, regardless of whether Wells and Tackett
actually committed infractions of the rules, the rules,
themselves, as appear infra, were adopted and
implemented in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Thus, the use of the warning notices were per se violative
of the Act.
D. The Alleged 8(aX5) Violations
The General Counsel contends that in violation of
Section 8(aX5) of the Act, Respondent unilaterally
instituted the work rules referred to above, including
penalties to be imposed on offenders, issued warning
notices pursuant thereto for infractions, and unilaterally
instituted a 90-day probationary period for new hires, at a
time when Respondent was obligated to recognize and
bargain with the Union pursuant to its certification. The
General Counsel contends further that Hollander's refusal
to discuss Wilson's grievance with Reese for relief on the
elbow machine, denied union representation to Wilson,
also in violation of Section 8(aX5).
As found above, the evidence does not establish the
prior existence and/or posting of each or any of the rules
before their posting herein. Even assuming that some had
been posted years ago, I find they had been abandoned by
lapse of time and were unilaterally revived and invoked.
Nor is it necessary to determine which, if any, of the rules
constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining. The fact that
penalties were prescribed for breaches thereof sufficiently
affected the conditions of employment to make them
mandatory subjects of bargaining. Their unilateral
promulgation and implementation were in derogation of
Respondent's obligation to bargain pursuant to the
Union's certification in violation of Section 8(aX5) and (1)
of the Act."
The evidence shows that in March, Messer was hired as
a 90-day probationary employee. According to the
unrefuted testimony of Wells, that practice had not been
followed previously. The General Counsel contends that
instituting a probationary hiring practice following the
Union's certification without consultation with it was in
derogation of Respondent's obligation to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. It is well
settled, and I find, that unilaterally instituting a new
hiring practice, a mandatory subject of bargaining,
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
I find no merit in General Counsel's contention that
Wilson was deprived of union representation when
Hollander declined to talk to Reese about her grievance.
The testimony of Reese shows that in refusing to discuss
anything with Reese, Hollander told her "If you have
anything to say about the Union or any of my employees
you are to go to through my representative, Harvey
Rector," and that she was ordered to leave the plant. It
appears further that shortly thereafter Janetzke discussed
"The Timken Roller Bearing Co.. 70 NLRB 500, 502, In. 3, set aside on
other grounds 161 F.2d 949 (C.A. 6k Tower Hoskry Mills. Inc.. 81 NLRB
658, 660.
the matter with Rector and it was expeditiously resolved
adversely to Wilson. I find that Hollander did not deny
Wilson union representation but, in fact, declined to
represent himself and insisted that the grievance or other
union matters be discussed with Rector, his representative,
which is what subsequently transpired. In view of these
circumstances, I find that the General Counsel has failed
to establish a violation of Section 8(aX5) of the Act with
respect to Wilson's grievance and union representation.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the cases, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union is the duly certified collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Dayton, Ohio, plant, excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical
employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
4. Respondent has interfered with, restrained, or
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act, by promulgating
and maintaining no-solicitation and no-distribution rules,
interrogating employees concerning union matters, and
admonishing employees not to associate with union
adherents.
5. In violation of Section 8(aX3) and/or (4) of the Act,
Respondent discriminatorily discharged John Haywood,
David Leffler, Pauline Messer, Claudine Tackett, and
Phyllis Wilson.
6. In violation of Section 8(aX3), (4), and (1) of the
Act, Respondent discriminatorily changed the terms and
conditions of employment by issuing warning notices to
employees Wells and Tackett.
7. In violation of Section 8(ax5) and (1) of the Act,
Respondent failed to bargain with the Union by
unilaterally and without consultation with the Union
posting and adopting work rules, and instituting a
probationary period of employment for new employees.
8. Respondent did not commit alleged violations not
specifically found herein.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(aXI), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has
discriminatorily discharged certain employees, I shall
recommend that Respondent recall all employees so
discharged and offer to reinstate them to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
TIIDEE PRODUCTS , INC. 977
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis and in a
manner consistent with the Board policy set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Having found that
warning notices were issued to certain employees by
Respondent in violation of the Act , I shall recommend
that it rescind such notices and delete them from the
employment records of said employees . Having found that
Respondent failed to consult and/or bargain with the
Union as the duly certified bargaining representative of its
employees in the unit found appropriate regarding the
terms and conditions of employment , I shall recommend
that it rescind and withdraw its posted work rules and
regulations and the practice of hiring new employees on a
probationary basis, and bargain with the Union
concerning such terms and conditions of employment.
The Union also requests, in addition to backpay
recommendations made herein , that the employees be
made whole for any wages and benefits which they might
have received had Respondent bargained in good faith and
negotiated a bargaining agreement . The request is not
recommended on the rounds that the Board has not
adopted that policy , which is pending consideration before
it, nor was evidence adduced for its support at the hearing
herein.
In view of the broad scope and nature of the unfair
labor practices found herein and Respondent's past history
of unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record in these cases, I
recommend the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Tiidee Products , Inc., its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Promulgating and maintaining no-solicitation rules
prohibiting employees during nonworking time from
soliciting for the Union on Respondent ' s property.
(b) Promulgating and maintaining no-distribution rules
prohibiting employees during nonworking time from
distributing materials on behalf of the Union in
nonworking areas of Respondent' s property.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning union matters
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
(d) Coercing or restraining employees from associating
with union adherents within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(e) Discriminatorily discharging , laying off, or forcing
termination of, or otherwise discriminating against,
employees in order to discourage membership in or
support of International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(f) Failing to bargain with the aforesaid Union by
unilaterally posting and adopting work rules without
consultation with the Union as the duly certified exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees concerning
terms and conditions of employment in the following
appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent 's Dayton , Ohio, plant, excluding all office
clerical employees , professional employees , technical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(g) Discriminatorily changing the terms and conditions
of employment by issuing warning notices to employees
imposing disciplinary measures for infraction of work
rules in order to retaliate against union adherents and to
discourage membership in the aforesaid Union.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Haywood, David Leffler, Pauline
Messer , Claudine Tackett, and Phyllis Wilson , immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify those employees set forth above if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act , as amended , after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Rescind and withdraw the posted work rules and
regulations.
(d) Rescind and delete from the personnel files of
employees William Wells and Claudine Tackett the
warning notices heretofore given to them for alleged
infractions of the posted work rules.
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid
Union as the duly certified collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit found
appropriate with respect to the terms and conditions of
employment and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
(f) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
and the rights of employment under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(g) Post at its Dayton, Ohio, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." '19 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent ' s official
representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found.
" In e event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 9, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps 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
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
This notice is posted pursuant to a Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner , issued after a trial in which
both sides had the opportunity to present evidence. The
Trial Examiner found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and has ordered us to inform our employees
of their rights.
The Act gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves , to form, join , or help unions,
to bargain as a group through a representative of their
own choosing , to act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection or to refuse to do any
and all of these things.
We assure all our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge , lay off, force termination
of, or otherwise discriminate against employees in order
to discourage membership in or support of
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain, or enforce
no-solicitation rules prohibiting solicitation on behalf of
the Union during nonworking time on our property.
WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain , or enforce
no-distribution rules prohibiting the distribution of
material on behalf of the Union during nonworking
time in nonworking areas of our property.
WE WILL NOT change working conditions of our
employees by posting work rules and regulations and
imposing penalties for infractions thereof without
consulting with the Union , nor will we post such rules
and regulations in order to retaliate against our
employees for their union support.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act.
WE WILL make whole John Haywood , David Leffler,
Pauline Messer , Claudine Tackett , and Phyllis Wilson
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of their discriminatory discharges and offer
them reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL notify any of the above -named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL rescind and delete from the personnel files
of employees William Wells and Claudine Tackett the
warning notices heretofore given to them for alleged
infractions of the posted work rules.
WE WILL rescind and withdraw the posted work rules
and regulations.
WE WILL , upon request, bargain collectively with the
above Union as the duly certified collective-bargaining
representative in the unit found appropriate for
bargaining purposes with respect to the terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached , we will embody such terms in a signed
agreement.
Dated By
Tiidee Products, Inc.
(Employer)
(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 , Federal Office
Building , Room 2407 , 550 Main Street , Cincinnati, Ohio
45202 , Telephone 513-684-3686.