U.S. Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 619 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

U.S. RUBBER COMPANY
APPENDIX C
WALTER ZION
[Backpay period April 28, 1961 , to February 1, 1963]
619
Gross earnings
Value of Vaca- Total
Year Qusiter demon- tion gross Interim Net
Weeks
Average
weekly
wage
Total
strator
car'
pay earnings earnings backpay
1961___ 2d------- 4 X $204. 58 ='$1,841 . 22 + $130 .00 + ____ _ $1,971. 22 - $1,088 - 51
- $882.71
3d------- 11 X 204. 58 = 2,250 . 38 + ------- + $100 = 2,350 . 38 - 2,072 . 68 = 277.70
4th______ 13 X 204. 58 = 2,659.54 + ------- + ____ = 2,659 . 54 - 2,446.40 = 213.14
1962___ 1st______ 13 X' 204 .58 = 2,659 . 54 + ------- + = 2,659.54 - 3,239.15 = ---------
2d------- 13 X 204. 58 = 2,659.54 - ------- + = 2,659 .54 - 4,156.50 = ---------
3d------- 11 X 204. 58 = 2,250 . 38 + ------- + 100 = 2, 350.38 - 3,500.75 = ---------
4th______ 13 X 204. 58 = 2,659 . 54 + ------- + = 2,659.54 - 2,980.25 = __--____-
1963___ 1st______ 4 X 204. 58 = 818 . 32 + + = 818. 32 - 1,180 . 78 = ---------
1,373.55
U.S. Rubber Company and United Textile Workers of America
U.S. Rubber Company and United Textile Workers of America,
Petitioner . Cases Nos. 26-CA-1663, 26-CA-1716, and 26-RC,-
1975. June 23, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
.ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on July 11, 1963, under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
sixth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the con-
clusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 370 eligible voters, 358
valid ballots were cast, of which 174 were for, and 178 against, the
Petitioner 1 and 6 were challenged. The challenged ballots were suffi-
cient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on Septem-
ber 5, 1963, issued his report on objections and challenged ballots,
in which he found that objections Nos. 1, 2, and 4 raised substantial
and material issues affecting the election results and recommended that
the election be set aside and a new election be held. The Employer 2
filed timely exceptions to these recommendations.
1 Hereinafter also called the Union or the Charging Party.
2 Hereinafter also called the Respondent or the Company.
147 NLRB No. 82. .
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 24, 1964, the Board, having duly considered the
matter, ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised with
respect to objection No. 1 and remanded the case to the Regional Di-
rector for the Twenty-sixth Region for the purpose of conducting
such a hearing.'
On March 17, 1964, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled unfair labor practice proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the'
Act and' recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain -affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices as alleged and recommended that
the complaint be dismissed as to such allegations.
Thereafter, on March 25, 1964, the Union moved that, inasmuch as
the facts upon which objection No. 1 was based were fully litigated
in Cases Nos. 26-CA-1663 and 26-CA-1716, and inasmuch as findings
and credibility resolutions thereon were made by the Trial'Examiner,.
the Board adopt the pertinent portions of that record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision thereon as the record for resolving the merits of
objection No. 1 in Case No. 26-RC-1975. On April 2, 1964, the Board.
issued a notice to show cause why the record in Cases Nos. 26-CA--
1663 and 26--CA-1716 should not be made a part of the record in Case
No. 26-RC-1975, and why the proceedings should not be consolidated
for purposes of decision.
Thereafter, on April 13, 1964, the Company filed a response to the
notice to show cause, conceding "that no good purpose would be served
by the conduct of'an additional Hearing for the purpose of rehearing-
the testimony which appears in the Transcript of Evidence in the CA
cases." However, the Company moved that the representation pro-
ceeding be referred to the Trial Examiner with instructions that he,.
on the basis of the record in the CA cases, make additional findings and.
recommendations relating to the objections to the election and that.
the parties be afforded an opportunity to file exceptions to such find-
ings and recommendations.
On April 20, 1964, the Board granted the parties' motion that the-
record in the complaint cases be regarded as the. record in the rep-
8 Further in that Order the Board, in the absence of exceptions thereto, adopted pro'
forma the Regional Director' s recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of James
Gassaway , Thomas Overcast, and Ronnie G. Youngblood be sustained ; that the challenges.
to the ballots of Chesley Enloe, William G. Westbrooks, and Alice Dozier be overruled, but
that their ballots not be opened and counted since they are not determinative of the elec-
tion ; and that objections Nos. 3 and 5 be overruled.
The Board also reserved ruling on objections^Nos. 2 and 4. In view of our decision,
herein, we need not pass on those matters.
U.S. RUBBER COMPANY 621
resentation case. It denied, however, that portion of the Company's
motion which requested that the representation proceeding be referred
to the Trial Examiner for additional findings and recommendations.
Further, the Board rescinded its order directing hearing, issued on
February 24, 1964, and ordered that Case No. 26-RC-1975 be con-
-solidated with Cases Nos. 26-CA-1663 and 26-CA-1716 for purposes
of decision. The Board also extended the time for filing exceptions
in the consolidated proceeding and requested that the parties brief
the question of whether the findings of the Trial Examiner, relating
to objection No. 1, warrant setting aside the election of July 11, 1963.
Thereafter, the Company filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief. The Union filed a brief urging that
the election be set aside.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in these cases; and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
Additionally, we fund merit in the Union's objection No. 1 to conduct
affecting the election which alleged that statements made by Super-
visor Bullion shortly before the election constituted implied threats
of reprisal if the Union won the election. As found by the Trial Ex-
aminer, the Company, through Bullion, on three separate occasions
shortly before the election, made statements to its employees which
constituted restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act. We find that these statements, being directly related to
the impending election, interfered with the free choice of all em-
ployees voting in the election and improperly affected the results of
the election. Accordingly, we sustain objection No. 1 and will order
-that the election of July 11, 1963, be set aside and a second election
conducted.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
-amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
.the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on July 11, 1963, among
the employees of U.S. Rubber Company in Shelbyville, Tennessee, in
the stipulated unit be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
James R. Webster in Shelbyville , Tennessee , on February 4 and 5, 1964, on con-
solidated complaint of the General Counsel as amended at the hearing and answer
of U.S. Rubber Company, herein called the Respondent . The complaint alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the business of processing
textile materials, among other commodities . Only its plant located in Shelbyville,
Tennessee, is involved in this proceeding. During the past 12-month, period, Re-
spondent processed, sold, and shipped from its Shelbyville, Tennessee , plant , finished
products valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points located outside the State
of Tennessee. It is found that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America , herein called the Union , is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues in this case are: ( 1) whether or not Respondent refused to give em-
ployee Aulene Howell work during a layoff period from October 7 to November 4,
1963, because of her union activities ; (2) whether or not Respondent refused to
recall employee Christine Sims from November 4 to December 10, 1963, because
of her union activities ; ( 3) whether or not Shift Supervisor Booker Bullion and Over=
seer Ed Ward made statements to employees that would come within the proscrip-
tion of Section . 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
A. The alleged violations of Section 8(a) (1)
On July 12, 1963 , the day following the Board election at the Shelbyville plant,
Overseer Ed Ward, a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, told Christine Sims
that he did not think she would be working for the Company much longer; that she
had better ask for employment at the Winnsboro , North Carolina , plant of the
Respondent, which was unionized ; that she should have thought about her three
children before voting for the Union ; that whenever she got hungry not to come
running to him for help; and that he knew she had voted for the Union.'
I find that these remarks constitute interference , restraint , and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In the early part of June 1963 , Shift Supervisor Bullion , a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, told employee Mary Neely that "if the [union ] thing Aulene
Howell was working on" should come in, he would ,not be able to put her on hour
work; that if she ran out of work , he would have to send her home; and that once
an employee got in the Union , he could not get out of it.
' Ed Ward acknowledged the conversation and substantial portions of it as testified to
by Christine Sims. Where his version is at variance with these findings, I credit ^,Christine
Sims.
U.S. RUBBER COMPANY 623
Bullion also had a talk with Aulene Howell about a week before the Board elec-
tion regarding the Union. Among other things, he informed her that if the Union
came in she would not eat lunch or take breaks when she wanted to; that they would
work from starting time until quitting time and would take breaks when told?
These may have been his predictions of the concomitant conditions of unionization
but they were asserted as facts and not as possibilities and included matter that the
Respondent could regulate irrespective of pressure from the -Union. I find that these
assertions of Shift Supervisor Bullion constitute interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
On another occasion about a week before the election on July 11, 1963, Bullion
stated to Neely that they (Respondent) knew what was going on; that Aulene Howell
and Carrie Marsh were the ringleaders "in this [union] thing"; that they knew
about the little meetings employees were holding in the restroom; and that they
knew more about what was being said than Neely did and knew who the followers
were; and that he hoped they did not have to put up with Aulene Howell much longer.
I find that these statements of Supervisor Bullion conveyed the impression of
surveillance of union activities by Respondent and therefore constitute interference,
restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
On July 10, 1963, the day before the Board election, Bullion asked Howell if
she was "going to have some more to do with the mess tomorrow." She replied
that she was to be the union-observer. He stated that he figured she would and
that she had better think it over, whereupon he gave her a piece of chewing gum
with election literature of Respondent stating, "Don't gum up your future, vote no."
I do not find that these remarks of Bullion to Howell constitute a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1),as contended by the General Counsel:
B. Alleged discrimination against Aulene Howell
Howell is employed as a tie-in hand on the creeling looms in twisting No. 2 de-
partment, and she works on the second shift with hours from 2 to 10 p.m. She
has worked for the Company since September 1951, and has been doing tie-in work
for about 11 or 12 years. Her supervisor is Shift Supervisor Booker Bullion.
On Wednesday, October 2, 1963, Howell was due to report for work at her usual
starting time of 2 p.m. Her department worked only 3 days that week, and Wednes-
day, October 2, was to be the last day'of work that week for her department. That
morning her mother called to tell her that her grandfather was critically ill and was
being carried to the hospital. This was between 10:30 and 11 a.m. She called
two of her fellow employees, Christine Sims and Mary Neely, and told them that
her grandfather was critically ill. She told Mary Neely that in the event she should
not be able to get to work to tell Supervisor Booker Bullion what had happened
and that she would not be in to work that day. Howell's grandfather is 90 years
of age and was in such a condition that he needed approximately six pints of blood.
The doctor expressed some concern as to the grandfather's reaction to the trans-
fusions. Howell went to the hospital and waited while tests were being run on her
grandfather; then she decided to go home and change into her work clothes in the
possibility that she might be able to work that day. She changed clothing between
12 noon and 12:30 p.m. On her return to the hospital the doctor told her that
she should not leave the hospital until after he had given her grandfather at least
two pints of blood, and that this would take until about 6 or 7 p.m. Upon being told
this at approximately 1:30 p.m., she called Norman Hasty, the industrial relations
manager at Respondent's Shelbyville plant. She told him that she was at the hos-
pital, that her grandfather was sick, that they were giving him blood transfusions, and
that the doctor told her not to leave. Hasty asked her if she had called Bullion
and she stated that she had not-that she had not done so because at that time of day
he could not be reached; he would be on his way to the plant or at the plant gate.
She asked Hasty to give her message to Bullion.
21 credit the testimony of Neely and Howell and discredit that of Bullion . Bullion testi-
fied on one occasion that he had never had a conversation with Neely concerning the Union
and on another occasion that he had . His demeanor and manner in answering questions
regarding alleged conversations with Neely and Howell convinced me that his recollection
of these events and remarks was not as sound as was theirs.
8 Although Respondent argues that Bullion was relating no more than was discernible at
the plant , I find that his remarks conveyed the impression of knowledge of covert activities.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next workday scheduled for Howell's department was Monday,, October 7.
However, due to strike conditions at other plants of Respondent it was necessary
to curtail temporarily the production at the Shelbyville plant. It was planned to re-
duce the work force in twisting No. 2 department by approximately 98 employees,
leaving approximately 25 or 30 to work. Bullion knew on Tuesday, October 1, of
the pending cutback in personnel, and he prepared on that date a list of employees
for work the following week. This list was prepared in accordance with the plant's
policy in short-term layoffs, i.e., employees were retained if their machines were
scheduled to operate; and if there were two or more employees on similar machines
or operations and only one of that type was to operate, the senior employee by shift
was retained .4 Howell was the senior tie-in hand on her shift, and Bullion had her
name on the list of employees scheduled to work the following week. After Howell's
absence and reason therefor were reported to Bullion, he consulted with Plant
Manager Ed Ward on the matter, and it was decided that in view of the fact they
did not know how serious her grandfather's condition was and did not know what
time she would report back to work, her name should be removed from the work list
for the following week and Mary Neely, the next senior tie-in hand, substituted in her
place.
Howell had no knowledge of the turn of events until Friday evening, October 4,
when Mary Neely called her and informed her that a layoff was scheduled for the
following week and that she was to work in her place as Bullion stated he did not
know whether or not Howell could work. Howell did not call Bullion at that time.
On Monday morning she called the industrial relations manager about the matter
but he merely referred her to Bullion. At approximately 9 o'clock that morning she
called Bullion and asked him if she was supposed to work. He replied in the negative
and told her that he was going to let Mary Neely work in the tie-in job, and that the
reason he had chosen Neely was because Howell had not worked on the prior Wed-
nesday and he did not know whether or not she would be able to work as she had
not called him and he did not know the seriousness of her grandfather's condition.
He told her that when they started up more looms, he would let her know when
to report back to work.
Bullion was displeased by the fact that Howell did not call him on October 2.
The proper procedure at the plant in case of absence is to call the shift supervisor
regarding the absence; but employees have utilized other means to get word to their
supervisors and these have been accepted. Howell's absence on October 2 was an
excused asbence.
The issue here is whether or not Bullion used Howell's failure to call him on Octo-
ber 2 as a pretext for removing her name from the work list because of her union
leadership.
Although Howell did not follow proper procedure and notify her supervisor
herself of her absence, nevertheless she used an accepted procedure and her absence
was excused. She asked only for the 1 day off. Monday, October 7, was 5 days
away. According to the testimony of Overseer Ward, he or someone made arrange-
ments with Christine Sims to be on standby for Carrie Marsh in the event she should
be absent the following Monday, October 7. The same arrangement could have
been made with Neely to stand by for Howell, if it was believed that she might be
absent again 5 days later. Also, Bullion or someone could have called Howell on
the matter; she was unaware of the scheduled layoff until Friday evening, October 4.
Howell's union activities were extensive and there is no question as to Bullion's
knowledge thereof and displeasure therewith. Howell contacted the Union, held
a meeting in her home, and solicited between 80 and 100 of the approximately 350
employees on behalf of the Union. She served as the union observer in the Board
election on July 11, 1963.
Bullion told Mary Neely the day before the election that if the Union came in at
the plant, she would have Aulene Howell as a floorlady and she would have to take
orders from her and she "knew how she is"; and when she went to vote to, "look at
Aulene Howell sitting there with those glasses on and that little chain around her
neck and you make up your mind whether you had rather work for her or work for
4In long-term layoffs (over 7 days) employees were retained on a basis of departmental
seniority rather than shift seniority. It is true that the October 1963 layoff lasted more
than 7 days, but it was not expected to extend more than 1 week when it was first scheduled.
Since there were approximately 98 employees laid off, Respondent did not change the layoff
system as it would have required a reshuffling between laid-off employees and working em-
ployees, and the cutback was expected to end at any time. Howell would probably not
have worked if the long-term layoff system had been followed as there were three tie-in
employees on other shifts that were senior to her.
U.S. RUBBER COMPANY 625
me and Ed [Wardl." Also, as mentioned in more detail in section A, supra, Bullion
told Neely in July before the election that he hoped they did not have to put up with
Howell much longer.
Bullion did not notify Howell that she was not scheduled to work October 7; she re-
ceived no official word not to report on her shift until that date. Regarding the cut-
back, Bullion told Neely that Howell "didn't call me and let me know where she was
and I'm not going to get out and look her up," and he added that "she has shown that
she doesn't care anything about me and I don't care anything about her." This
statement and the record as a whole indicate that Bullion resented Howell's role
in the union organizational drive and also regarded it as a personal affront.
Respondent contends that as Mary Neely was an active union adherent, there could
be no discrimination, as the choice of her to substitute for Howell was the choice of
one union adherent for another. Neely was an active union adherent, but it was
Howell whom Bullion regarded as the instigator and ringleader of the Union.
Under all the circumstances of the case, I find that Bullion's reasons for removal of
Howell's name from the worklist were pretextuous and that her role in the Union was
the motivating factor.
C. The alleged discrimination against Christine Sims
Christine Sims works in twisting No. 2 department on the second shift. There is
controversy as to just what her job has been as she worked both as a splice sewer and
as a spooler or respooler.
She was laid off with approximately 98 other employees in her department on
October 2, 1963. There is no contention by the General Counsel that there was any
discriminatory motive in the layoff nor in the selection of Christine Sims as one of
the employees to be laid off. The General Counsel contends, however, that Respond-
ent discriminatorily delayed her recall until December 10, 1963, because of her
union activities and sympathies. This contention is predicated mainly on the fur-
ther contention that she was a spooler, rather than a splice sewer, and that other
spoolers with less seniority were recalled prior to her recall.
Sims sewed splices part of the time and spooled part of the time. When she took
the job sewing splices, she was told that when there was not any sewing to do, then
her job would be respooling. On the second shift the only employees that sewed
splices were Sims and Carrie Marsh. Marsh was a senior employee to Sims, and on
the layoff she was retained and Sims was laid off. Sims testified that prior to Octo-
ber 1963, when she would catch up on sewing, then she would spool. She did not
indicate which work required more hours prior to the layoff, but stated that she
did spooling practically every day; some days she spooled all day and other times it
was just part of the day. After December 10, 1963, when she was recalled, there.was
less sewing work and she spent more time spooling. Sewing splices remained her
first responsibility.
Supervisor Bullion was aware of the union sympathies of Sims and of her as-
sociation with other union adherents. But, I find that her job was that of splice
sewer. Respondent laid Sims off as a splice sewer, retaining Carrie Marsh, the
senior and only other employee in that classification on Bullion's shift. And, I find
that Sims was recalled when an additional employee was warranted in the job.
The fact that there was little splice sewing to be done and that she, therefore, did
more respooling after being recalled does not mitigate from the fact that she was
a splice sewer. No discrimination was practiced by Respondent's recalling employees
assigned as spooler or respooler before recalling Sims, although some of these had
less seniority than she. This was in accordance with Respondent's aforementioned
policy in layoffs and recalls.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,,above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V..THE REMEDY
Havi ig found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action as provided in the Recommended Order set forth below, which'is found neces-
sary to remedy the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
756-236--65-vol. 147-41
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by the
discriminatory removal of Aulene Howell 's name from the worklist for October 1963;
which resulted in her layoff from October 7 to November 4, 1963, it is recommended
that Respondent make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered ; if any, byreason of the discrimination against her , by payment to her of a sum of money equaltothe difference , if any, between the wages she would have earned , absent the discrimi-nation , and the amount she actually earned from October 7 to November 4, 1963,
with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions , and upon the entire
record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. .
2. United Textile Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent. has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(a)(i) of the Act.
. 4. Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Aulene' Howell by removing her name from the October 7 worklist and by laying
her off from October 7 to November 4, 1963, because of her activities on behalf
of the Union, thereby discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of
A merica in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8,(a) (3 ), or (1) of the Act as alleged with respect to Christine Sims.
7. The Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged with respect to a threat by Shift Supervisor
Booker, Bullion on or about July 10, 1963, that an employee would suffer discharge
or, other reprisals if she acted as a union observer in the. election.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire
record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, U.S. Rubber Company,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
•(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Textile Workers
of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating
against any employee in regard to hire or tenure or any terms or conditions of
employment.
. (b) Threatening employees with loss of employment or loss of work or loss of
privileges as consequences of union activity or affiliation.
. (c) Conveying the impression of surveillance of union activities by statements to
employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Make whole Aulene Howell for any loss of pay she may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished. by the Regional Director for
6In 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."
OIL CITY BRASS WORKS 627
the Twenty-sixth Region , shall, after being signed by a managing representative of
Respondent , be posted by the Respondent 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region , in writing , within
10 days from the date of this Recommended Order , what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.°
I 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 United
Textile Workers of America, or any other labor organization of our employees,
by discriminating against any employee in regard to hire or tenure or any terms
or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment or loss of work
or loss of privileges as consequences of union activity or affiliation.
WE WILL NOT convey the impression of surveillance of union activities by
statements to employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce
any of our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL make Aulene Howell whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of United Textile Workers of America , or any other labor
organization.
U.S. RUBBER 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, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone
No. 534-3161 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Oil City Brass Works and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Help-
ers, Local 587, AFL-CIO. Case No. 23-CA-1470. June 21,,,196!1
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 29, 1.963, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that
147 NLRB No. 76.