V P Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vernon L. Hanson d/b/a V P Company and
Communications Workers of America , Local 9513,
AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA- 1181
June 9, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 20, 1969, Trial Examiner Henry S.
Sahm issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision together with a supporting statement.
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 made by the
Trial Examiner 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 supporting
statement , and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the . Trial Examiner, as
modified below , and hereby orders that Respondent,
Vernon L . Hanson d /b/a V P Company, Pasadena,
California, its officers , agents , successors, and
assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner ' s Recommended Order , as herein
modified:
Delete paragraph l(a), (b), and (c), of the
Recommended Order and insert the following:
"(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
membership in or activities on behalf of
Communications Workers of America , Local 9513,
AFL-CIO.
"(b) Discouraging membership in
Communications Workers of America , Local 9513,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its
'The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to include in his Recommended
Order the broad Sec . 8(a)(I) remedial provision which he recommended in
"The Remedy" section of his Decision . We have modified the Order to
include this provision.
employees, by discharging its employees, or
otherwise discriminating against them in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
"(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above-named
labor organization, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, as amended."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY S. SAHM, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
was heard in Los Angeles, California, on January 23 and
24, 1969, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, which
issued on November 14, 1968, on a charge dated August
22, alleged that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by coercively interrogating and discriminatorily
discharging an employee. Briefs were received from
General Counsel and Respondent which have been
considered fully.
Upon the entire record in the case and from
observation of the witnesses, there are hereby made the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent, an individual proprietorship owned by
Vernon L. Hanson, has its principal place of business in
Pasadena , California, where it employs approximately 140
employees and is engaged in electronic assembly. It sells
and ships annually to extrastate points products valued in
excess of $50,000, and is, therefore, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Charging Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Douglas B. Filter was hired by Respondent Company
on July 19, 1968. Three weeks later, he spoke to a
member of the Charging Union, who was a steward at
another factory, with respect to the possibility of
organizing a union at Respondent's plant. This union
steward gave Filter authorization cards on August 13 or
14, which authorized the Union to act as bargaining agent
of the employees. Filter thereupon solicited various
employees to sign these cards, among them Delia Galindo,
176 NLRB No. 62
V P COMPANY 469
whom he asked to solicit other employees for the eventual
purpose of having the Union represent them in
collective - bargaining negotiations with the Respondent V
P Company. Galindo agreed to do so and solicited
employees to sign union cards. On the afternoon of
August 16, Galindo was summoned to the personnel
director's office, where she was questioned about union
activities in the plant. Immediately thereafter, Filter was
interrogated as to what he knew about a union attempting
to organize the plant. On the same day, August 16,
Galindo quit her job and Filter was discharged.
B. The Testimony
Delia Galindo was employed from April 30, 1968, until
August 16, 1968. About a week before her voluntary
termination, Galindo agreed at Filter's request to solicit
employees to sign union cards. Filter gave her ten to
fifteen cards and she signed one and distributed the
remainder to other employees on August 15 and 16.
About 2 p.m., on August 16, she was ordered to come to
the office of Don Castro, personnel director. Also present,
in addition to Castro, were Vernon Hanson, Respondent's
president, Vice President Claude Hanson, and Supervisors
Kerr and Beckwith. Her testimony reads as follows-
.. . [Castro] started the conversation by telling me
there was a rumor in the plant about a union being
organized. He wanted to know if I knew anything
about it. I told him yes, I did. He asked me if I had
anything to do with it. I told him no, I didn't. Then he
asked me, "Have you passed out any union cards?" At
that [point] Mr. Vernon [Vernon Hanson] walked in
with his brother [Claude Hanson]....
[Vernon Hanson] started asking me if I had heard a
rumor about a union being organized . I said, "Yes," I
had. Then he asked me if I had anything to do with it,
with the Union being organized. I said, "No." He had
a card in his hand which was a union authorization
card. . . . He asked me if I passed any of these union
cards out. I told him no, that I hadn't. Then he asked
me if I knew anyone who was passing out union cards,
and who had cards, union cards. I said, "I didn't."
Then he asked me if I knew anything about the Union
being organized, and if I did, did I know the people
who were trying to organize it. I said, "No, I didn't."
And then I asked them, or told them what kind of
people were they, that they had Mr. Kerr come down
and tell me they wanted to see me about my wage
review, and then when they take me up here, they ask
me all these questions about the Union.
We then started a conversation about my wage
review. [Hanson] asked me who told me that I would
not have a wage increase. I told him that I understood
from Mr. Kerr -- it was Mr. Beckwith who said that I
could not have a wage increase, because of my
attendance. I told him I had permission to be absent. I
was given permission [to go to the dentist] . . . . Then
[Hanson] said that it was he who said who would get
raises and who wouldn't get raises. He said, "Anyway,
you have been late this week." I said yes, I was. I
explained to him why, because of the bus service .... I
told him, "First you tell me I can't have a wage
increase because I am late, because I am absent, and
now it is because I am late. Can't you make up your
mind?"
And then he slammed the folder and said, "How did
we get talking about your wage increase ? I came in
here to talk to you about the Union." He said "Do you
know who is passing out these cards?" And I said,
"No." He said if the Union did come into the plant,
that it would break the Company, and the employees
would all be out of a job . . . He asked me again,
"Who is passing out the cards?" I said I didn't know.
"Are you passing out the cards? Do you know why
anyone would have a reason to think you are passing
the cards out?" I said, "No." He then got up and
walked out of the office. Then Mr. Hanson 's brother
came up to me . . . and told me he was sorry they
treated me this way, but they had to find out about the
Union By this time I was upset and crying. I just
walked out of the office....
When I left the office, I want back to my work
station to pick up my purse, because I was going to
leave the plant. I saw Mr. Filter standing there. I asked
him if I could speak to him for a minute. We walked
aside, and I told him they had me up in the office
asking me questions about the Union. I told him I
thought it would be better if he took the cards I had
with me, which were signed. I then took them out of
my purse and gave them to him. By this time Mr. Kerr
walked up.... I asked Mr. Kerr if I could talk to Mr.
Filter privately for a moment. He said I could not.
They wanted to see him in the office.
Galindo left the plant and did not return until August
30, when she received her final paycheck.
Douglas B Filter, the alleged discriminatee in this
proceeding, was hired as an in-process inspector technician
on July 19, 1968, and fired on August 16, 1968. His
testimony reads as follows:
After being employed at the V. P. Company, I
shortly thereafter became aware of the poor working
conditions for the employees there Approximately a
week before the date of my termination I contacted a
personal friend of mine, John Glenn, who is a union
steward for the CWA Union I asked him the
procedure about going to start a union . I explained the
situation to him. He told me to find out if the people,
the employees were in favor of the Union, to try to find
a couple of people who would help me to distribute the
cards for signatures.
The following week, which was the week of my
termination, during a break time and noon hour times I
asked the employees if they were in favor'of the Union.
I got full cooperation. At that same time, I found a
couple of people who would help me. Delia Galindo
was one of them, and there were two others. There
were three of them. I issued cards to each of these three
people. I got them [the cards] from John Glenn [a
CWA union steward]. I went back, I believe, the night
before, or a couple of nights before the date of my
termination . He gave me approximately 65 CWA
representation cards....
Then after giving the cards to the three people - I
gave them 15 cards each - they began having them
signed right away. This would have been the last day or
two of my employment. I believe I gave them to Delia
[Galindo] first. She had most of hers signed. Then upon
the day of my termination I had handed out two cards
myself during the noon hour, and that was all.
On August 16, about 3 p.m., continues Filter's
testimony, he was summoned to the office of Don Castro,
the personnel director. Present, were Vernon Hanson, the
president, his brother Claude, vice, president, and
Supervisors Kerr, Beckwith and Quality Control Manager
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glenn Bearman . The meeting began with Vernon Hanson
handing Filter his personnel file and asking him to read it.
Following is a verbatim recital by Filter of what
appears in the transcript of this case:
I read it [the file) and verified it. [Hanson] said, "Is
that your signature?" And I said, "Yes, it is." He said,
"Did you understand that when you signed this?" And I
said, "Yes, I did." And I haven't broken any of those
policies.' The paper was to state whether I had followed
company rules and policies, and this type of thing. I
signed the paper the day of my employment. He
hesitated a minute or so, and then he asked me, "I
understand there is some information being passed
around the plant. Do you know anything about that?" I
said, "No, I don't." He said, "All right." And then he
said, "Mr. Bearman [quality control manager] has
brought it to my attention today that you are not
qualified for the job." I said, "Really? Don't you
generally give any kind of a warning that I wouldn't be
qualified for the job, or something?" He said, "Well,
we don't have to. It is not necessary for us to give you
anything." He said, "But you have been warned,
haven't you, about talking to one particular person?" I
said, "Yes. Delia Galindo. That was only one time."
And then there was a few minutes hesitation, and as
best I can recall, the next thing that happened was he
asked me, "I understand there was some cards being
circulated. Do you know anything about them?" I said,
"No, I don't." He said, "Are you sure?" I said, "Yes, I
am sure that I don't know anything about it."
About that time, one of the people sitting beside me
got up and walked behind me. He made a few motions
to Mr. Hanson. And then he said to me again, he says,
"Do you know it is against the law to have such a list
of names of people employed in this office?" I said,
"No, I don't." Then he said in a slightly loud voice,
"Well, it is." He said, "Are you sure you don't know
anything about these cards?" I said, "No, I don't...."
Somewhere along this time he handed me a blank
[union] card. But there was a smudge over the name
where a name had been printed in. He asked me if I
had ever seen these . I said , "Yes." I had. . . . I said,
"Yes, I have seen these cards." He said, "Do you know
who is distributing these?" I said, "No, I don't." He
said, "You are not aware of anyone who is doing this?"
I said , "No, I don't."
s * s
He said, "I understand you have some of these cards
on you now. I want you to empty your pockets on the
table." I said, "No, I won't." He said, "All right, you
are in trouble . I am calling the police. I am going to
get you in hot water." I said, "Go ahead, call them. It
is fine with me. No one is getting anything I have,
except the police." Then he got on the telephone. He
got ahold of the switchboard and called the police.
After he exchanged a few words, he hung up. He said
all the men are out right now, but they will send
someone down in a little bit.'
Then he said to me, "You realize this may bring in
the FBI." I said , "No, I don't." And then I said, "If it
helps anything, I will show you what I have in my
'This is a reference to a paper he signed when Respondent hired him
that he would abide by specified company rules and policies.
'On redirect, Filter testified that Hanson said to hun, when he was
calling the police, "Well, we are getting rid of you. We do not need people
like you working here."
pockets, but I won't give you anything I have." He
said, "Well, it won't do us any good now. The FBI and
everybody will be involved in this. I am a lot older, and
wiser and smarter than you. I have you over a barrel."
Something to that effect.
So I got up. I took the things out of my pockets, and
I set them on [the] desk. He wanted me to put them on
the desk. I put them on the desk. I took the cards out
of my left rear pants pocket. I put them in my right
hand. I held them there tightly. He pointed to the desk
and said, "Put them on the desk." I said, "No, I am
not going to put them on the desk." I said, "The only
reason you want these cards is so that you can get a list
of the people' s names on these cards, so you can fire
them." He said, "I said put them on the desk." He
said , "That is part of the stuff that is on you, and it is
supposed to go on the desk." I said, "No, I am not
giving them to you. The only person that can take these
from me is a police officer."
So then I believe he was standing up, and I believe
he sat down. He hesitated for a minute. He then turned
to Glen Bearman and asked him, "Are you sure he is
not qualified for the job?" And Glenn Bearman more
or less shrugged his shoulders, and said, "No, I don't
believe so." And then Vern Hanson said, "Well, maybe
we could put him somewhere else. Maybe in
production. Do you know of any place?" Mr. Bearman
shrugged his shoulders. He didn't know of any other
place . So then he asked me if I would be willing to sign
some papers stating what is taking place in this office
this afternoon. I said, if it was not discriminating
against me , I couldn't see any reason why I wouldn't.
So he said, "Fine." He got up and walked out of the
room.
Then Claude Hanson, the vice-president of the
company, asked me after he left the room, he said,
"What do you have to gain by this?" And I said,
"Nothing." He said, "What do you want from us,
then?" I said, "Nothing." I said, "I am just tired of
seeing big people stepping on other people. I am aware
of the circumstances around here, the employees'
payment, and the way they are trying to get their
wages , but they couldn't." We got into a discussion for
about 10 or 15 minutes on moral ethics, more or less.
Then Vern Hanson came back in. He had the papers
typed out. He handed a copy, which consisted of two
pages. They were different documents. There was an
original and a copy of both papers. He asked me to
read them, and if I thought they were correct and in
order, I should sign them. I read the first one. The first
one was the statement that regarded what had
happened at the office that day. . So I read that
page . I signed it. And then he had all the witnesses in
the room sign the page.
When I first looked at these documents, as best I can
recall, there were no signatures on them. Then I read
the other one, and it said something about my being
terminated because I was not qualified for the job. I
said to him before I signed it, "This doesn't state that I
agree with this. It just states it is some of your paper
work that you proceed with when you terminate
someone ." He said, "Yes, that is all it is." I signed
that. Then Glen Bearman signed that. He had to sign
that one, too. Then I asked for copies, and he said he
would give me a copy when he had all the papers in
order. He had to get my check and everything. So he
got up again and he again left the room. Shortly after
V P COMPANY 471
that he came back in and he had my final release
paper, my final check release . I signed it . He gave me
a copy of the two papers.
He said, "For your own protection, put the [union]
cards in this envelope, and we will seal the back of it,
and everyone will sign across the label." I said, "I am
not going to let you put them in. I will put them in."
He said, "Fine." He gave me the blank envelope. I put
the cards in there, and he sealed it and signed on the
back of it. Everyone else in the room signed it. Then he
said to me, he said, "Take good care of these cards.
Take them home with you, because the FBI will be
around to pick them up." That is all that I can recall.'
Filter concluded his recital by testifying that there were
approximately 40 union cards sealed in the envelope of
which 17 were signed and that he later turned the envelope
over to the union steward who opened the envelope and
removed the cards.
Carol J. Belknap, who is presently employed by the
Respondent V P Company as a "leadlady" in the
production department, was called as a witness by the
General Counsel. Belknap testified that on August 16, the
day Galindo and Filter were called to the office, that
employees Charlene Parton and Irene Rodriguez told her
during the lunch hour that Filter had "approached" them
concerning the Union; Union.' Belknap in turn,
immediately notified Supervisor Kerr of what Parton and
Rodriguez had told her. Kerr asked Belknap to keep him
advised if she heard anything more and if she did, to
contact him.'
Don O. Castro, formerly Respondent' s personnel
manager , who left its employ in October 1968, testified on
behalf of Counsel for the General Counsel. He testified
Filter was warned by Supervisors Bearman and Larson on
August 12 or 13.6 He testified that about 1:30 on the
afternoon of August 16, Kerr, a supervisor, stated "one of
his supervisory people had been approached to pass out
cards for the union. . . . He indicated he thought Galindo
was tied in with the passing of cards." Castro stated Kerr
showed him a blank union authorization card at that time
and Kerr said . he had established there was
somebody else and he believed it was possibly Filter.... I
told him [Kerr] to let me know if there is any further
activity and that I wanted to see Galindo. . . I [then]
alerted Vernon [Hanson] to the fact that I had this
employee coming up and there was a possibility of some
activity on behalf of the union. . . . [Vernon Hanson]
knew I mentioned to him Filter was coming up. He had
been slated for an exit interview.... Galindo had come in
[to Castro's office] and she left and then I indicated to
Mr. Hanson that I believed Doug Filter may also have
had some involvement in the problem." Castro's
testimony continues that after Galindo left his office,
Filter was then brought in by Kerr at "probably 2:15 or
2:30 o'clock."
The Respondent 's sole witness was its president and
proprietor, Vernon L. Hanson. He testified that Filter was
fired for good cause, namely: he was incompetent;'
falsified his application for employment and his timecards;"
'Castro , the personnel manager , testified "Vernon Hanson had already
prepared the final check for [Filter]" which he was then given.
It was stipulated Belknap and Parton are supervisors within the
meaning of Sec. 2( 11) of the Act.
'Vernon Hanson testified on his cross-examination that he learned of
Filter ' s and Galindo 's union activities when Galindo was called into the
office on August 16.
'The record is not clear about what they warned Filter.
"socializing" during working hours and spending too
much time at Delia Galindo's working station, "hanging
around" and "horsing around" with the girls on four
occasions; frequently absent from his work station;' not
taking his "breaks" at assigned times and attempting to
take from the plant at the time he was fired Federal
Government inspection stamps.10 General Counsel's
Exhibits 3 and 4 state the Company's reasons for
terminating Filter, namely, his refusal to show Hanson "a
stack of [union] cards" and "incompetency to perform his
duties."
C. Credibility
The testimony of Galindo and Filter has been quoted in
haec verba copiously because the General Counsel bases
almost his entire case on the testimony of these two
witnesses as to what Hanson told them and said to them.
In the interests of accuracy, and because of the distinctive
circumstances here present, those two witnesses' testimony
has been quoted in extenso to avoid the ambiguities
created by paraphrasing.
Considerable credence has been placed upon Belknap's
testimony who was in the employ of Respondent at the
time she testified. As such, she depended on her job for
her livelihood and this practical consideration leads one to
believe that she was impelled to tell the truth regardless of
what consequences might eventuate. The testimony of
Galindo and Filter is credited as the events narrated by
them follow a logical sequence, which is consistent with
certain undisputed and demonstrable facts as well as the
attendant circumstances and entire background of
evidence adduced in this case. Moreover, Belknap's and
Castro's testimony corroborates certain salient aspects of
Galindo's and Filter's version of what occurred.
On the other hand, Hanson's testimony with respect to
the details and circumstances of the events in this case is
contradictory, confused and in some instances outright
improbabilities. He did not impress the trier of these facts
as a forthright witness but appeared as not only seeking to
color his testimony, but also to be concealing facts in an
effort to hide an unlawful motive, in order to discharge
Filter because he was the known proponent of the union
movement in Hanson's plant.
D. Conclusions
1. The Discharge of Filter
In this proceeding , the bare recital of facts is sufficient
to show discrimination within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act and the Company' s union animus as
demonstrated by its 8(a)(1) violations , infra. The
variations in the Respondent's contentions and the
multiplicity of, and pervasive infirmities in, the reasons
ascribed for Filter 's dismissal, cast doubt upon the
'This evaluation was based on Bearman , quality control manager, telling
Hanson that Filter was not qualified for the job.
'Hanson claimed there was a discrepancy in the dates that Filter stated
he was employed elsewhere . The mistake , if any, was trivial
'Hanson testified, "[Filter] just doesn't seem to want to stay on the job. .
couldn 't keep him on the production line," which resulted in a "slow
down."
"The inspection stamps are used to identify which employee inspected
and approved a piece of equipment . Hanson testified these stamps were of
value "To any employee of the Government.... To any of the inspection
personnel in our company who would want to mislead someone as to who
actually inspected a piece of equipment."
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meritoriousness of the Respondent's many unpersuasive
grounds for discharging him. There is no credible evidence
in the record which discloses that there was any
substantive basis for Respondent's alleged dissatisfaction
with the quality of Filter's work prior to the time Hanson
learned of Filter's union activities. This significant fact
compels the conclusion that the decision to discharge him
was not made until Respondent had learned of Filter's
union activities on the same day he was fired. This
conclusion is based on the precipitate manner in which the
discharge was effected;" the lapse of only a few hours
between the time Supervisor Kerr notified Hanson of
Filter's union activities and his discharge; the absence of
complaints with respect to the quality of his work prior to
his union activities;'2 Hanson's hostile union attitude and
the unconvincing nature of the reasons which Hanson
offered for Filter' s discharge . This is a situation where the
Respondent has characterized the union activity for which
Filter was discharged as inefficiency in an effort to justify
discrimination against him . These alleged reasons for
Filter's discharge were pretextual in nature. It is,
therefore, concluded and found that by discharging Filter,
the principal organizer for the Union in the plant,
Respondent was guilty of discrimination in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
any assurance that no reprisals would be taken against
them. Under these circumstances, Hanson's interrogation
of them interfered with their statutory rights."
Accordingly, it is found Respondent, through its alter ego,
President Vernon Hanson, committed an unfair labor
practice when he interrogated Galindo and Filter and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
2. By discharging Douglas B. Filter as set forth above,
Respondent discriminated against him in regard to his
tenure of employment , and the terms and conditions
thereof, to discourage membership in the Union and
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
2. Interrogation"
During the time Galindo was in the office on August
16, she was unlawfully interrogated by Vernon Hanson
when he asked her if she had heard a rumor about a union
being organized ; if she was connected with this union
activity; if she had distributed union cards and who of the
employees was passing out union cards in an attempt to
bring a union into the plant.
Hanson also was guilty of coercive interrogation when
he asked Filter in the personnel office on August 16, if he
knew anything about union cards being passed out in the
plant and if he knew who was distributing these cards.
When Filter disclaimed any knowledge, Hanson stated
that he understood Filter had such cards in his pockets
and ordered him to produce them. When Filter refused to
comply, Hanson telephoned the police in his presence,
whereupon Filter produced the cards.
All of the above stands undented as Hanson admitted
on his cross-examination , to asking these questions of
Galindo and Filter, and Castro, the personnel manager,
corroborated these facts." It is clear that as soon as
Hanson learned of the union campaign, he began
interrogating Galindo and Filter in an effort to learn the
details about the organizing of the employees. At no time
did he explain the purpose of the questions or give them
"Noteworthy is Hanson 's testimony that he had decided at 9 30 a.m., on
August 16, before he had even spoken to hum , to fire Filter but he was not
terminated until 5 p .m , that same day Respondent contends in its brief
that inasmuch as Filter was fired in the morning (without his knowledge)
Respondent was free to interrogate Filter about his union activities. Such
an argument is sheer sophistry and, to say the least , frivolous. Respondent
prefaces statements in its brief to the effect that certain principles are well
settled by Board decisions but gives no citations nor has the Trial
Examiner been able to discover any such Board precedents . Moreover, the
record shows , and it is so found , that Hanson had not decided to fire Filter
until the afternoon meeting on August 16
"The day before Filter was fired , Hanson testified he was reprimanded
for "horsing around "
"See N. L.R.B v . Longhorn Transfer Service , Inc.. 346 F.2d 1003, 1005
(C.A. 5); N. L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers , 325 F.2d 360, 364 (C.A. 6).
"See Bourne v. N.L R B, 332 F 2d 47, 48 (C.A. 2).
This is an aggravated case of deliberate and flagrant
violation of the Act by the Company Having found that
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices as set forth
above, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth below,
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As it has been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Douglas B. Filter, it shall be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered by payment to
him of sums of money equal to the amount he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
when it interfered with, coerced, restrained, and frustrated
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, namely that it interrogated,
coercively its employees; and inasmuch as the discharge of
employees for reasons of union affiliation or concerted
activity has been regarded by the Board as one of the
most effective methods of defeating the exercise by
employees of their rights to self-organization, the Trial
Examiner is of the belief that there is danger that the
commission of unfair labor practices generally is to be
anticipated from Respondent's unlawful conduct in the
past. It will be recommended, therefore, that Respondent
be required to cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
"See quoted material, supra.
"See Struksnes Construction Co., Inc.. 165 NLRB No. 102
V P COMPANY
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , the entire record in the case and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , it is recommended that Respondent,
Vernon L . Hanson d /b/a V P Company , its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or
any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminatorily discharging , or in any other manner
discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire,
tenure or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Discouraging membership in Communications
Workers of America , Local 9513 , AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of its employees , or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to hire , tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Interrogating employees with respect to their union
activities and that of other employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Douglas B. Filter immediate , full and
unconditional reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights , privileges, or working conditions , and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination in the manner set forth in
the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify said discriminatee if he is presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his 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) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social
security records , timecards, personnel records and records
and reports , and all other records necessary or useful to
determine or compute the amounts of backpay due, as
herein provided.
(d) Post at Respondent ' s plant premises in Pasadena,
California , copies of the notice attached marked
"Appendix ."" Copies of said notice , on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the
Board , shall, after being duly signed by Vernon L.
Hanson, be posted by him immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.18
"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."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the aforesaid Regional
473
Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it 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:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organ ization;
To form, join, or help unions;
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing;
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; and
To refrain from any or all of these things.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances:
1. As to your rights as Employees:
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with the
rights listed above.
WE WILL NOT ask any of you any questions about
your union attitudes or activities or any of our other
employees.
WE WILL NOT fire you or take away any current job
benefits - or threaten to do either - because you join or
support the Union or because you form, join, or help
any other union.
II. As to the employee we fired:
We fired Douglas B. Filter because he supported the
organizational campaign of Communications Workers
of America, Local 9513, AFL-CIO. Firing him for this
reason violated the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, therefore, offer to give him back his job
with full seniority, and all other rights and privileges.
WE WILL also make up any pay he lost, with 6
percent interest.
Dated By
VERNON L. HANSON
D/B/A V P COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify Filter if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his 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.
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, 10th Floor,
Bartlett Building , 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles,
California 90014, Telephone 688-5850.