Western Marine Electronics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

WESTERN MARINE ELECTRONICS
Western Marine Electronics, Inc. and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, Local Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-
CA-12170 and 19-CA-12221
July 29, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 12, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Western
Marine Electronics, Inc., Seattle, Washington, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended
' The Administrative Law Judge's Decision contains some apparently
inadvertent or inconsistent statements which do not, however, affect the
results herein. First, the Administrative Law Judge at fn. 9 of his Deci-
sion based a finding that Supervisor Thom told employee Jarvis that, if
Blakey found out that it was true that Jarvis was involved in organizing
meetings, Jarvis would be fired, on the credited testimony of Jarvis. The
Administrative Law Judge notes Thom denied that he told people that
they would be fired. but concludes, in the last sentence of that footnote,
that while Thom on his own behalf may have told anyone that that
person would be fired, he credited Jarvis that Thom did in effect pass on
the information that he had received from Blakey to Jarvis It is apparent
from the context of that footnote that the word "not" was inadvertently
omitted from the statement "While Thom, on his own behalf, may [not]
have told anyone that that person would be fired .... ' Second, the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge in the first full paragraph of the section entitled
"4. The Alleged Surveillance" refers to a December 20 meeting, when it
is likewise apparent that he in fact means the March 20 meeting other-
wise discussed in that section. Finally, in the last paragraph of the section
entitled ". The Interrogation and Threats" in the Administrative Law
Judge's Analysis and Conclusions, he states that Blakey had threatened to
fire Jarvis if Jarvis engaged in union activity and that that threat was
passed on to Jarvis by Supervisor Blakey. Based on the facts as found by
the Administrative Law Judge, it is apparent that Blakey's threat was
passed on to Jarvis by Supervisor Thom.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The Administrative Law Judge failed to include the appropriate rein-
statement language in his recommended notice. Accordingly, e hereby
modify the notice to conform with the recommended Order
Member Jenkins would compute interest on Respondent's backpay ob-
ligation in accordance with his partial dissent in Olvmpic Medical Corpo-
ration. 250 NLRB 146 (1980).
257 NLRB No. 57
Order, except that the attached notice is substituted
for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against any employee for engaging
in activity on behalf of International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Local Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any
employee about union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with
discharge because of his union activity.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the
union activities of any of our employees.
WE WILL NOT transfer any employee to a
less desirable job because he processes a griev-
ance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer John Daughters immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job in the
machine shop or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent job, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
with interest.
WE WILL offer Bruce Jarvis immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent job, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole with interest.
WESTERN MARINE ELECTRONICS,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPI.ITZ, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on August 26, 1980, at Seattle,
Washington. The charges in Cases 19-CA-12170 and 19-
CA-12221 were filed respectively on March 7 and
March 29, 1980. by International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 9, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union. The complaint, which
issued on April 28, 1980, alleges that Western Marine
Electronics, Inc., herein called the Company, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
361
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, as amended. The Company, through its attorneys,
Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olson, and Williams, filed an
answer to the complaint dated April 30, 1980, admitting
some of the allegations of the complaint and denying
others.'
Issues
The primary issues are:
I. Whether the Company through its agents violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by threatening and interrogat-
ing employees concerning their union activity, by engag-
ing in surveillance of union activities, and by transferring
John Daughters to a less desirable job because he proc-
essed a grievance.
2. Whether the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act by discharging John Daughters and Bruce
Jarvis because they engaged in union activity.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs.
Though given timely notice of the hearing, the Company
did not appear or participate at the hearing. No briefs
were filed.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Washington corporation with an
office and place of business in Seattle, Washington, is en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing industrial electri-
cal controls and marine electronic equipment. During the
12 months immediately preceding issuance of the com-
plaint the Company had gross sales of goods and services
valued in excess of $500,000. During the same period of
time the Company sold and shipped goods or provided
services from its facilities within Washington to custom-
ers outside Washington, or sold and shipped goods or
provided services to customers within Washington,
which customers were themselves engaged in interstate
commerce by other than indirect means, of a total value
of in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, the
answer admits, and I find that the Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
'On August 19, 1980, that law firm notified the Regional Director for
Region 19 that it was withdrawing as representative of the Company.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Sequence of Events
1. Background
Sometime prior to 1974 the Union had contractual re-
lations with a small machine shop firm known as A.O.G.
The Respondent, Western Marine Electronics, builds
marine electronic equipment including a line of sonar for
commercial fishing. Western Marine Electronics pur-
chased A.O.G. and A.O.G. ceased to exist except as a di-
vision of Western Marine Electronics. The machine shop
operation was then performed on Western Marine Elec-
tronics premises. Two or three employees were em-
ployed in that machine shop operation. In 1974 the Com-
pany entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union which covered those employees. In 1977 the
Company refused to enter into a new contract on the
ground that A.O.G. no longer existed. After a strike and
various NLRB proceedings a contract was entered into
between the Union and A.O.G. Manufacturing, Division
of Western Marine Electronics Company. That contract,
which was executed on April 27, 1978, was effective by
its terms from April 1, 1977, until April 1, 1980. It cov-
ered various classifications of employees as specified in
an appendix to that contract. All of the classifications re-
lated to the machine shop operation. The Company has
about 3 employees in the machine shop operation and
about 50 production employees in other aspects of its op-
eration.
2. The Daughters grievance and his transfer
John Daughters was employed by the Company from
late October 1979 until he was discharged on February
27, 1980. Though he did not have prior experience as a
machine operator he worked in the Company's machine
shop operating various machines. While he was working
he took machinist's courses at Seattle Central Communi-
ty College two evenings a week. His supervisor, Kurt
Corraline,2 encouraged him to take the courses and told
him that they would go well with the type of work he
was doing. When Daughters had been working for 90
days, Corraline gave him a written evaluation dated Jan-
uary 24, 1980. The overall evaluation was "definitely
above average." Corraline wrote on the evaluation:
John's interest in machine work combined with his
mechanical abilities and on-the-job training have
brought him to a skill level that is above average
based upon his experience and time on the job. Re-
petitive operations are mastered in a very short time
and machine set-ups can normally be handled by
John after he has been shown only once how to do
them. John has taken it upon himself to attend
Mach. Shop Tech. classes which will without a
doubt enable him to perform additional skilled work
as he learns techniques for doing so.
2Corraline was vice president in charge of operations and an admitted
supervisor.
362
WESTERN MARINE ELECTRONICS
During the evaluation interview Corraline asked Daugh-
ters whether he would be interested in operating a plas-
tics machine. That involved fairly skilled work. Daugh-
ters said that he preferred to stay where he was and Cor-
raline said that it was fine and he could stay in the ma-
chine shop.
Shortly after he began work Daughters learned from
the other two employees in the machine shop, Ken Win-
press and Richard Szadowski, that the machine shop was
covered by a union contract. He was being paid less than
any scale set forth in the contract and was not receiving
contract benefits, but he decided not to take any action
during the first 90 days because the Company had a pro-
bationary period.
Shortly after the 90-day probationary period ended
Daughters went to the union office and spoke to the
Union's directing business representative, Ed Bernosky.
He told Bernosky the type of work he was doing and
said that he felt he was covered by the contract in a spe-
cialist classification. Bernosky agreed with him and sug-
gested that he file a grievance. He did file a grievance
and the same day he joined the Union.
By letter dated February 1, 1980, Bernosky notified
the Company that Daughters was not receiving the cor-
rect rate of pay under the contract and was not receiving
the proper welfare benefits. The letter requested that a
grievance meeting be scheduled. On February 12, 1980,
Corraline wrote to Bernosky saying that Daughters was
performing traditional Western Marine Electronics work
and was not part of the traditional machinists bargaining
unit. After a further exchange of correspondence a griev-
ance meeting was scheduled for February 19, 1980.
About February 12, 1980, the Company's president,
Bruce Blakey, 3 approached Daughters on the shop floor.
Blakey asked Daughters when he joined the Union and
Daughters replied that it was 2 weeks before. Blakey
said that it was the Company's position that Daughters
was doing traditional Western Marine Electronics work
and that they did not see the need for a grievance.
Daughters replied that he thought he was covered by
the contract and that he intended to follow through on
the grievance procedure.
The grievance meeting was held on February 19, 1980,
in the Company's office area. The Company was repre-
sented by Blakey and Corraline. The Union was repre-
sented by Bernosky. Daughters as well as machine shop
employees Winpress and Szadowski were also there.
They discussed the grievance, with Bernosky taking the
position that Daughters should be getting the proper
wage scale and benefits under the contract and Blakey
taking the position that Daughters was doing traditional
Western Marine Electronics work which was not cov-
ered by the contract. Bernosky pointed out that Daugh-
ters was running the machines and helping with the set-
ups. Blakey asked whether it would satisfy the grievance
if he took Daughters out of the machine shop and Ber-
nosky responded that it would not and that they were
going to continue to process the grievance. Blakey then
3 The answer admits and I find that Blakey is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
said that the Company was going to take Daughters out
of the machine shop.
On February 20, 1980, Daughters reported for work at
the machine shop as usual at 8 o'clock. A few minutes
after that Corraline told him that because of the griev-
ance meeting he was being taken off the machines. Cor-
raline assigned him to the paint area where there were
about 500 sonar cases stacked up. Corraline told Daugh-
ters to sand the cases and prepare them for painting.
From then to the date of his discharge Daughters sanded
the sonar cases. He was paid the same rate of pay but it
was a very dusty job and was much more monotonous
than the machine shop work.
At the conclusion of the February 19 grievance meet-
ing Bernosky indicated that he wanted to go to the ma-
chine shop to talk to the people there. Blakey said that
the Company was involved in some highly technical
electronic work and that he did not want strangers walk-
ing around. Blakey said that if Bernosky wanted to chat
with his members he could do so upstairs in the lobby.
Bernosky then went to the lobby where he spoke to the
employees. That was the first time the Company ever
prevented Bernosky from visiting the machine shop.
Over the past years Bernosky visited the machine shop
about once every 3 months. When the Company was at
its original location Bernosky used to go directly into the
machine shop. After the Company moved, Bernosky
used to check into the office and tell them that he was
going to the machine shop and then go there. There
never had been any objection to his visiting the machine
shop. Many nonemployees are permitted to visit the ma-
chine shop. About once a week groups of businessmen
and customers are taken on a tour of the plant which in-
cludes a visit to the machine shop. During the Fish Ex-
position during the winter there are tours several times a
day for a period of a week or two. The tours are gener-
ally led by management people.
On February 22, 1980, Bernosky wrote to Corraline
asking for a step-three grievance meeting or for arbitra-
tion on the grievance. On February 27, 1980, Daughters
was discharged.
3. The discharge of Daughters and Jarvis and the
alleged coercive remarks
After Daughters filed his grievance and joined the
Union he spoke to a number of employees in the non-
union sector of the plant about joining the Union. On
about February 14, 1980, Daughters, and another em-
ployee, Joe Schindler, met with union organizer Bill Pat-
rick at the union office. They spoke about organizing the
nonunion sector of the Company. Patrick suggested that
there be 8 or 10 people on an in-plant organizing com-
mittee. He gave Daughters and Schindler authorization
cards for them to use in recruiting other people. They
scheduled a union meeting for February 21, 1980, in
Daughters' home. Before the February 21 meeting
Daughters spoke to at least six employees and some of
them signed authorization cards. He invited them all to
363
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the February 21 meeting at his house. Bruce Jarvis4 was
one of the employees who signed a union card and
agreed to attend the first meeting at Daughters' house.
On February 21, 1980, Daughters, Jarvis, and several
other employees met with union organizer Patrick at
Daughters' home. They discussed the organization of the
plant and Patrick gave them all authorization cards to
distribute. They also agreed to meet weekly at Daugh-
ters' home. Thereafter Daughters and Jarvis passed out
cards during lunch breaks and after work.
Sometime after the union activity began Company
President Blakey told Supervisor Dan Thom 5 that he
(Blakey) wanted to fire Jarvis because he felt that Jarvis
was involved in the union organizing. Thom replied that
he did not think that Jarvis was involved.6
About the same date Thom was at a prayer meeting
which was attended by company employee Jones. Jones
spoke about union organizing and Thom asked him who
was doing it. Jones replied that Joe Schindler was trying
to get people signed up for the Union. 7 On or about Feb-
ruary 25, 1980, Schindler and Jarvis were in the glue
room when Supervisor Thom asked Schindler to step
outside and talk to him. Thom told Schindler that Jones
had said that he (Schindler) was trying to get people
signed up for the Union and he asked Schindler whether
it was true.8
On or about February 26 Thom had a conversation
with Jarvis and Schindler in the glue room. Thom asked
Schindler who was passing out authorization cards.
Schindler did not tell him.
On February 27, 1980, Blakey discharged Daughters.
Blakey escorted him to his office, told him that he did
not need a painter and that he was letting him go.
Daughters asked whether he would be given a letter for
unemployment purposes saying that he had been laid off
and Blakey replied that they did not give such letters.
The usual payday is a Friday and Daughters was dis-
charged on Wednesday. At the time of his discharge he
was given a final check which paid him for some time
beyond that Wednesday. At the time of the layoff
Daughters was about halfway finished with the pile of
sonar cases that he had been assigned to work on. In ad-
dition there was a backlog of cases in the storage room.
4 Jarvis was employed by the Company in its glue room from January
1979 until his discharge on about March 3, 1980. He prepared elements
for fabrication. It took about 6 months to learn that work. He received
evaluations at the end of 60 days, 6 months, and 1 year and nothing ad-
verse was said about him on any of his evaluations. His starting pay was
$3.20 an hour and he received a number of increases to $4.55 an hour. At
the I-year evaluation on February 7, 1980, he was given an overall evalu-
ation of "outstanding."
s The answer admits and I find that Thom was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
b This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Thom who
was subpenaed as a witness for the General Counsel.
' These findings are also based on the credited testimony of Thom.
Patrick, Daughters, and Jarvis testified that Jones reported to them at a
subsequent union meeting that he had informed supervisors during that
prayer meeting of other union activities. I have not relied on that hearsay
evidence.
i This finding is also based on the credited testimony of Thom. Jarvis
testified that Schindler came back into the room and reported to him cer-
tain remarks made by Thom. I have not relied on that hearsay testimony.
Union organizer Patrick held another meeting at
Daughters' home on February 28, 1980. Daughters,
Jarvis, and other employees attended that meeting.
On March 3, 1980, Supervisor Thom spoke to Jarvis
and Schindler in the glue room. Thom said that Blakey
had heard that Jarvis was involved in organizing meet-
ings and he asked Jarvis whether it was true. Jarvis said
that they should not discuss it. Thom then said that if
Blakey found out that it was true Jarvis would be fired.
Later, on March 3, Jarvis was told to get his stuff and
to report to Blakey's office. Blakey accused Jarvis of
writing graffiti about him in the men's room and of writ-
ing obscenities on a copy of a bonus plan. t' Jarvis denied
the accusation." Blakey then said that they had found a
falsification on Jarvis' employment application, that he
was terminated, and that they would mail him his
check. Jarvis was not shown the actual employment
application that he was accused of falsifying.
4. The alleged surveillance
On March 12, 1980, union organizer Patrick met with
Daughters, Jarvis, and other employees at the Bow Tie
Tavern. At that meeting they decided that Daughters
and Jarvis would pass out handbills outside the Compa-
ny's premises and that they would have another meeting
at Daughters' home on March 20, 1980. It was also de-
cided at that meeting that Patrick and Jarvis would wait
in a parking lot outside of the restaurant known as Dag's
to give employees rides to the December 20 meeting.
Dag's is adjacent to the Company's property. Jarvis told
a number of employees about the availability of the ride.
On March 17, 1980, at about 4:30 p.m. Daughters and
Jarvis distributed union handbills to employees outside
the company plant. They told employees about the
scheduled meeting for March 20 and also told them
about the availability of a ride at Dag's. While they were
handbilling, Blakey came out of the plant, stood in the
middle of the door, called them creeps, told them to
shove off, and threatened to call the police. Two people
stood next to Blakey with notepads and pencils. Daugh-
ters said that they had the right to be there because it
was a public sidewalk. Daughters and Jarvis continued in
their effort to distribute handbills, but Blakey stood there
and the employees refused to take the handbills. Daugh-
ters and Jarvis again distributed handbills on March 19.
9 This finding is based n the credited testimony of Jarvis. Thom in his
testimony denied that he told people that they would be fired. However,
he acknowledged that the president of the Company, Blakey, told him
that he (Blakey) wanted to fire Jarvis because he felt that Jarvis was in-
volved in the union organizing. While Thom, on his own behalf, may
have told anyone that that person would be fired, I credit Jarvis and find
that Thom did in effect pass on the information that he had received
from Blakey to Jarvis.
lo Shortly before, the Company had instituted certain production goals.
At that time Blakey had a broken leg and walked in a cast with the help
of crutches. The graffiti referred to said, "My goal is to break Bruce Bla-
key's other leg." The writing on the bottom of the copy of the bonus
plan said, "F-the bonus plan."
" Jarvis credibly testified that he did not write any graffiti.
A Jarvis credibly testified that he was not aware of any falsification on
his application though it was possible that he had inadvertently made
minor mistakes with regard to exact dates of certain prior employment.
364
WESTERN MARINE ELECTRONICS
Once again they informed employees about the sched-
uled meeting and the availability of a ride at Dag's.
At or about 4:15 p.m. on March 20, 1980, Patrick and
Jarvis were sitting at a table in Dag's waiting for em-
ployees to give them a ride to Daughters' house. Em-
ployee Schindler had agreed to meet them there. They
saw Schindler approach Dag's in the parking lot and
then walk away. Jarvis went outside and asked Schindler
what was going on. Schindler said that he did not want
to lose his job and when Jarvis asked him what he meant
Schindler pointed over his shoulder at Blakey, who was
walking into Dag's parking lot. Schindler told Jarvis to
keep going and that he would call him later. Jarvis then
went back into Dag's and sat next to Patrick. Blakey
came into Dag's and stood there for about 30 seconds
until Patrick approached him and told him that it was
against the law for him to follow union people who were
trying to organize. Though Patrick had not made any
threatening gesture to Blakey, Blakey replied by saying
that if Patrick hit him he would charge him with assault.
Patrick went back to the table and told Jarvis that they
might as well leave. Blakey then walked over to them
and asked Patrick who he was. Patrick offered him a
business card. Blakey looked at it and said that he did
not want to dirty his hands. Blakey then went to the
middle of Dag's and stood there for a minute. He bought
a soft drink'3 and stood there with it until Patrick and
Jarvis left. As Patrick and Jarvis were driving out of the
parking lot they saw Blakey leave Dag's and stand in
Dag's parking lot talking to a clerical employee.
It is about 120 feet up a substantial grade from the
Company's office to the entrance to Dag's parking lot
and then about another 100 feet through the parking lot
to the entrance of the restaurant. Blakey made that trip
on crutches with his broken leg in a cast.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The interrogation and threats
On or about February 25, 1980, Supervisor Thom
asked employee Schindler whether Schindler was trying
to get people signed up for the Union. On or about Feb-
ruary 26, Thom, in the presence of employee Jarvis,
asked Schindler who was passing out union authorization
cards. On or about March 3, Thom asked Jarvis whether
Jarvis was involved in union organizing meetings.
Particularly in the light of the other unfair labor prac-
tices found below, those interrogations were coercive
and interfered with the employees' Section 7 rights in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 14
In the course of his interrogation of Jarvis on March
3, 1980, Supervisor Thom told Jarvis that if Company
President Blakey found out that he (Jarvis) was involved
in union organizing activities he would be fired. Blakey
had threatened to fire Jarvis if Jarvis engaged in union
activity and that threat was passed on to Jarvis by Su-
pervisor Thom. The threat was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
13 There are several soft drink machines located in the Company's
plant.
J4 PPG Indutris. Inc., Lexington Plant. Fiber Glass Division, 251 NLRB
1146 (1980); Pacific Intermountain Express, 250 NLRB 1451 (1980)
2. The Company's refusal to allow Union
Representative Bernosky to visit the machine shop
At the close of the grievance meeting on February 9,
1980, union business representative Bernosky indicated to
Company President Blakey that he (Bernosky) wanted to
go to the machine shop to talk to the people there.
Blakey refused to allow Bernosky to go to the machine
shop but he agreed to allow Bernosky to talk to the em-
ployees at another location in the plant. Bernosky then
did talk to those employees. Bernosky had been allowed
to visit the machine shop in the past and Blakey's assert-
ed reasons for not wanting him to go to the machine
shop at that time were spurious. However, I do not be-
lieve that this incident is significant enough to involve a
violation of law. Bernosky wanted to talk to the employ-
ees and he was permitted to do so. Bernosky did not tell
Blakey that it was necessary for him to go to the ma-
chine shop in order to process a grievance. With regard
to unilateral changes affecting the bargaining unit, there
is no refusal-to-bargain allegation in the complaint.
3. The surveillance
On March 17 and again on March 19, 1980, Daughters
and Jarvis distributed union handbills outside the Compa-
ny's plant. They told a number of employees that anyone
who wanted a ride to the union meeting on March 20
could get one at Dag's restaurant. Company President
Blakey was present when the handbilling took place.
Though there is no direct evidence that Blakey over-
heard any remarks about the ride to the meeting, compa-
ny representatives did make a concerted effort to keep
abreast of what was happening concerning union matters
by engaging in unlawful interrogation.
After work on March 20 employee Schindler went to
Dag's to get a ride to the meeting. Blakey walked to
Dag's behind Schindler and because of that Schindler did
not accept the ride. Under all the circumstances an infer-
ence is warranted that Blakey was involved in surveil-
lance of his employees' union activities at Dag's. Consid-
ering the fact that he had a broken leg and was walking
on crutches it is most unlikely that he would have taken
the long uphill trip to Dag's simply to buy a soft drink
that he could have obtained in his own plant. His con-
duct in standing in Dag's until Patrick and Jarvis left
also indicated that he was concerned with union activity
rather than beverages. In a similar vein his remark to
Patrick that he did not want to dirty his hands by look-
ing at Patrick's union business card indicated that his
concern was for other than refreshment. The Company
has not come forth with any evidence to rebut the infer-
ence that Blakey was engaged in surveillance of union
activity. I find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1)
by engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activ-
ities.
4. The removal of Daughters from the machine
shop
Daughters, through his union representative, processed
a grievance against the Company in which he contended
that he was not receiving the pay and benefits called for
365
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under a collective-bargaining agreement. The processing
of such a grievance is a protected activity under the Act.
At the grievance meeting on February 19, 1980, Compa-
ny President Blakey told Daughters that he (Daughters)
was going to be taken out of the machine shop because
the grievance was being pressed. The next day Supervi-
sor Corraline transferred Daughters from the machine
shop to the dusty, monotonous job of sanding sonar
cases. Corraline told Daughters that he was being trans-
ferred because of the grievance meeting. By transferring
Daughters to a less desirable job because he processed a
grievance under a collective-bargaining agreement, the
Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The discharge of Daughters
As indicated by Supervisor Corraline's written evalua-
tion of Daughters, which was given a month before the
discharge, the Company considered Daughters to be a
very good and competent employee. Daughters' difficul-
ties arose only after he filed his grievance and joined the
Union. Blakey was extremely antagonistic toward
Daughters because Daughters processed the grievance
and that antagonism manifested itself in the Company's
unlawful transfer of Daughters out of the machine shop.
Blakey also knew that Daughters was a member of the
Union. On or about February 12, 1980, Blakey interro-
gated Daughters concerning his union membership and
Daughters acknowledged that he was a member. Once
Blakey transferred Daughters out of the machine shop
Daughters was, in Blakey's eyes, a union member in the
nonunion sector of the plant." The Company's virulent
hostility toward unionization in the nonunion sector of
the plant was manifested by the unlawful interrogation,
threats, and surveillance described above.16 Two weeks
after Daughters acknowledged to Blakey that he was a
union member Daughters was discharged. The discharge
took place in the middle of a payroll period when there
was a substantial amount of work still to be done.
The General Counsel has made out a prima facie
showing sufficient to support the inference that the Com-
pany discharged Daughters because of his union activi-
ty. '7 The Company has offered no evidence to rebut that
prima facie showing. I therefore find that the Company
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging
Daughters because of his union activity.
" It is likely that the Company learned of Daughters other union activ-
ities. Daughters was a key organizer for the Union and held meetings at
his home. When. as here, a company interrogates employees about union
activities and engages in surveillance of such activities it is not unreason-
able to assume that it obtains some information in that regard. However
the Company's subsequent conduct toward Daughters is explainable in
terms of the Company's animosity toward union members in the nonor-
ganized sector of the plant even if the Company did not know that
Daughters was a key union activist.
"6 In addition, as is set forth below in the discussion of Jarvis' dis-
charge. Company President Blakey told Supervisor Thom that he
(Blakey) wanted to fire a union activist and Thom told that employee
that he would be fired if Blakey found out that he had engaged in union
activity.
" See Wright Line. a Division of Wright Line, Inc.. 251 NLRB 1083
(1980); Weather Tamer. Inc. and Tuskegee Garment Corporation. 253
NLRB 293 (1980).
6. The discharge of Jarvis
Jarvis worked for the Company for over a year. He
received pay raises and an overall evaluation of "out-
standing."
Jarvis attended union meetings at Daughters' house
and passed out union authorization cards during lunch
breaks and after work.
As is set forth above, the Company harbored a viru-
lent animosity against employees who engaged in union
activities and demonstrated that animosity through un-
lawful interrogation, threats, and surveillance as well as
by the unlawful transfer and discharge of Daughters.
Company President Blakey suspected that Jarvis was
involved in the union organizing. He told Supervisor
Thom that he (Blakey) wanted to fire Jarvis because he
felt that Jarvis was involved in the union organizing.
Thom replied that he did not think Jarvis was involved,
and the discharge did not take place at that time.
On March 3, 1980, Thom told Jarvis that Blakey had
heard that he (Jarvis) was involved in organizing meet-
ings and he asked Jarvis whether it was true. Jarvis nei-
ther confirmed nor denied it and simply said that they
should not discuss it. Thom then said that if Blakey
found out that it was true Jarvis would be fired. The
same day Jarvis was discharged. At the terminal inter-
view Blakey accused Jarvis of writing graffiti and then
told him he was discharged for falsifying his application
for work. However, no evidence was offered to prove
that those accusations were true or that Blakey believed
them to be true.
The General Counsel has made a prima facie showing
sufficient to support the inference that the Company dis-
charged Jarvis because of his union activity. The Com-
pany has offered no evidence to rebut that inference. I
find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging Jarvis because of his union activi-
ty.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Company discharged Daughters
and Jarvis in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act, I recommend that the Company be ordered to offer
them reinstatement and to make them whole for any loss
of wages and other benefits resulting from their dis-
charges by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount he normally would have earned as
366
WESTERN MARINE ELECTRONICS
wages and other benefits from the date he was dis-
charged to the date on which reinstatement is offered,
less net earnings during that period. The amount of back-
pay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'4
It is further recommended that the Company be or-
dered to 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 re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
by:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about union ac-
tivities.
(b) Threatening an employee with discharge because
of his union activity.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
its employees.
(d) Transferring an employee to a less desirable job be-
cause he processed a grievance.
4. The Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging Daughters and Jarvis because of
their union activity.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER' 9
The Company, Western Marine Electronics, Inc., Seat-
tle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in activity on behalf of Inter-
' See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
'g In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, Local Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO.
(b) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
activities.
(c) Threatening any employee with discharge because
of his union activity.
(d) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
any of its employees.
(e) Transferring any employee to a less desirable job
because he processes a grievance.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Daughters immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job in the machine shop or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make him whole, with interest, for lost earn-
ings in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer Bruce Jarvis immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his senior-
ity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole, with interest, for lost earnings in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) 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 re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(d) Post at its Seattle, Washington, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by its au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by 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 it to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
'0 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read " Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
367