Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 441 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 441
Wolverine World Wide , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-8068
September 30, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On April 29, 1971, Trial Examiner Sidney D.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The
Respondent also filed a brief in answer to the
Charging Party's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications.'
In addition to the violations of Section 8(a)(1) found
by the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent
also violated Section 8(a)(1) in the following respect:
On June 15, 1970, conversations were instituted by
Plant Manager Lovell and Superintendent Vanderwa-
ter with employee Richard Dard, who had signed an
"open letter" of June 9 espousing the Union's cause.
When Dard expressed his dissatisfaction with condi-
tions of work, he was asked whether there was general
I We find merit in the exceptions of the Charging Party to the failure of
the Trial Examiner to order that the Respondent remove from its personnel
files discriminatory warning notices issued to the employees named in the
Trial Examiner's Decision This remedy is appropriate to remove the
effects of the discrimination found and our Order shall so provide Gateway
Transportation Company, 190 N LRB No 26
Chairman Miller does not agree that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by interrogating Sims insofar as she was questioned whether she
dissatisfaction and whether it would help if depart-
mental committees were formed by the Respondent.
When Dard indicated an interest in this question, a
discussion ensued as to how many employees from
each department should serve and how they should be
chosen.
The Trial Examiner found that the above conversa-
tions only amounted to a legitimate solicitation of
Dard's opinion as to the utility of a committee to
handle grievances and fell short of suggesting forma-
tion of a committee, as alleged in the complaint. We
disagree.
These discussions were initiated by the Respon-
dent's inquiries as to both the nature of employee
dissatisfaction and whether the formation of commit-
tees would help and progressed to the point of
actually considering the employee composition there-
of. In the context of the Respondent's unlawful
opposition to the Charging Union, these statements
not only indicated the Respondent's preference for
such an arrangement, but, also, employees would
rightfully lead to more favorable disposition of their
grievances. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)(1) through these conver-
sations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Lat'or
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Wolverine World
Wide, Inc., Big Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order as herein
modified.
1. Add the following as the new paragraph 1(c)
and reletter paragraph 1(c) as 1(d).
"(c) Suggesting the formation of a grievance
committee as an alternative to the Union."
2. Add the following as paragraph 2(d) and
reletter paragraphs 2(d) through 2(f) consecutively:
"(d) Remove from their personnel files any refer-
ence to, and rescind, the written warnings issued for
discriminatory reasons to employees named in the
Trial Examiner's Decision and make provision that
these warnings shall not be used as a basis for further
disciplinary action against said employees."
had engaged in worktime solicitation in contravention of a lawfully
promulgated plant rule Similarly, he would not find the 8(a)(l) violations
based on the statements made by Forelady Yost to employee Pontz, on
June 17, those made by Foreman Hendricks to employee Owens, and
Superintendent Vanderwater's conversation with employee Derby on April
13 The evidence with respect to these allegations, in the view of Chairman
Miller, shows little more than the type of noncoercive banter to be
expected in the course of a union campaign.
193 NLRB No. 54
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The trial held in Big Rapids on January 19, 20, and 21,
1971, in which we participated and had a chance to
give evidence, resulted in a decision that we had
committed certain unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and this notice is posted
pursuant to that decision.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their membership in, or activi-
ties on behalf of, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the lawful distribu-
tion of union literature; WE WILL NOT keep the
self-organizational activities of our employees
under surveillance or make statements to give
them the impression that we are doing so; WE
WILL NOT threaten our employees with the loss of
their jobs or loss of benefits or that we will close
our plants, if they choose Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
represent them in collective bargaining; and WE
WILL NOT acquiesce in the circulation of antiunion
petitions among employees during working hours.
WE WILL NOT suggest the formation of a
grievance committee as an alternative to the
Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or
discriminatorily issue oral or written warnings to
them to discourage their membership in Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, nor will we suspend them on the
basis of such warnings.
WE WILL offer Sandra Lynn Murray immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, if this
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make her whole for
any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of her discharge.
WE WILL make whole Albert W. Derby for the
loss of pay which he suffered when suspended for 3
days from June 26, 1970.
WE WILL remove from their personnel files any
reference to, and rescind, the written warnings
issued to employees named in the Trial Examiner's
Decision and make provisions that these warnings
shall not be used as a basis for further disciplinary
action against said employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WOLVERINE WORLD
WIDE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately Sandra Lynn Murray if
presently serving in the Armed forces of the United
States of the right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion after discharge from the Armed Forces, in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule-
vard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 443
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SIDNEY D. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: This case,
involving allegations of company interference with an
organizational campaign among its employees, was tried
before me January 19, 20, and 21, 1971, at Big Rapids,
Michigan.
The complaint,' issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act),
alleges more than 40 incidents, between April 13 and
August 12, 1970,2 claimed to constitute interference by
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (respondent or the Company),
in the self-organizational efforts by its employees with the
assistance of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (Amalgamated or
the union), and several acts of discrimination against
employees to discourage their membership in the union.
Respondent answered, admitting that it was engaged in
commerce and had in its employ certain supervisors named
in the complaint, but denying the commission of any of the
acts alleged as unfair labor practices, and the issues so
raised came on for trial before me as set forth. All parties
were represented, afforded an opportunity to adduce proof,
cross-examine witnesses , and argue on the facts and the
law. The General Counsel presented his arguments in oral
summation and respondent has filed a brief, both of which
have been carefully considered.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, I find that the
record supports many of the allegations of interference,
that respondent discriminated against several of its
employees and that it discharged Sandra Murray to
discourage employee membership in the union.
Upon the entire record herein, including my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties
The complaint alleges that, during the year 1969, the
Company imported into Michigan, from points outside that
State , materials valued at more than $50,000 and that it
exported, from its plants in Michigan to points outside that
State , products valued at more than $50,000. The answer
admits these allegations and that the Company is an
employer engaged in commerce. I so find. The complaint
also alleges that Amalgamated is a labor organization and,
at the trial, respondent so conceded.
2. Background
The Company is engaged in the manufacture of boots,
shoes, gloves, and other leather products, operating plants
in Michigan, Iowa, New York, and other States. Its
principal offices are at Rockford, Michigan, and its two
plants at Big Rapids, Michigan, designated as B/F and C,
are the only ones involved in this case.
Since November 1969, Amalgamated has been engaged
in a campaign to organize the employees in the Company's
Michigan plants.3 Prior thereto, in November 1968, a
charge was filed by a Teamsters Local, growing out of an
incident at the Ithaca plant, and a complaint alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act was issued.
When the case came on for trial before Trial Examiner
Boyls on February 12, 1969, the parties stated that they had
arrived at a settlement whereby the employee alleged to
have been unlawfully discharged would waive his right to
reinstatement and would be paid a specific sum in
satisfaction of lost pay; that respondent would withdraw its
answer; and that a Trial Examiner's Decision might issue
on the uncontroverted complaint. Accordingly, on March
28, 1969, Trial Examiner Boyls issued a decision finding
that the Company had maintained an unlawful antisolicita-
tion rule; that it had coercively interrogated its employees
concerning their union activities, interests , and desires; that
it had improperly prohibited its employees from wearing
union buttons; that it had threatened to close the plant if
the union should become the employees ' bargaining
representative; and that it had made statements to
employees to convey the impression that it was keeping
their union activities under surveillance. An order, directing
the Company to cease and desist from those activities, as
well as from any other activities interfering with its
employees' exercise of rights granted in the Act, and
requiring it to post an appropriate notice, was issued with
the decision and the Respondent complied with it.
3. Chronology of events
During the week of April 6, while the plants were shut
down, there was a conference between some representatives
of Amalgamated and Albert W. Derby, an employee in
plant C and, on April 13 the first day of resumption of
operations, he was questioned concerning it by Keith J.
Vanderwater, the plant superintendent.
Thereafter, on several occasions in May and early June,
management representatives questioned employees con-
cerning union activities, and disciplinary warnings were
issued to Derby and his wife.
Under date of June 8, the union issued an invitation to
respondent's employees to attend a meeting on Saturday,
the 13th, at the town hall in Paris, about 5 miles north of
Big Rapids.
On June 9 there was distributed, outside respondent's
plants in Big Rapids, copies of an "open letter," stated to be
"From Wolverine World Wide worker-to worker" and
signed by 48 employees. The employees stated that they
had investigated various unions, that they had come to the
conclusion that Amalgamated was a "good, strong union,"
and that they urged fellow employees to sign its authoriza-
tion cards. Immediately following distribution of the "open
letter" Sandra Murray, whose name was on the letter, was
discharged, and, thereafter, several incidents occurred in
which other employees whose names were on it were either
questioned concerning union activities or had warning
notices issued to them.
As scheduled by the notice of June 8, the union meeting
i Issued October 22 , 1970, on a charge filed July 9, 1970, and an 3 These plants are as follows: Plant C at Big Rapids, Plant B /F at Big
amended charge filed August 27, 1970 Rapids, Plant D at Ithaca, and Plant A at Rockford.
2 All dates are 1970.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was held on June 13 . As it was concluding , employees
noticed that a car standing across the road was occupied by
Dan Elliott , one of the factory foremen , and he remained
there as the employees left the meeting . Also close to the
meeting place was Jack Ward, another foreman.
On June 19 the Company mailed to each employee, and
posted on its bulletin boards, a letter setting forth the
"ground rules" during union organizing campaigns.
Throughout this period, and continuing until August 12,
the Company was involved in a series of questionings,
warnings, threats , and other conduct alleged by the
complaint to constitute unlawful interference and discrimi-
nation.
4. The issues
The General Counsel contends that all the allegations of
the complaint have been proved; that those matters
requiring proof of improper motive, but possibly lacking it,
may take such proof from its presence in other incidents;
and that respondent's course of conduct during the period
involved constituted a pattern of interference and discrimi-
nation violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The respondent contends that any incidents of interroga-
tion which may have occurred were isolated and without
coerciveness; that the strictures placed on the distribution
of handbills were unimportant; that with respect to the
threats, they either were not made or were not meant as
threats, but were mere expressions of opinion or jocular
exchanges; that the warnings were all properly issued for
deficient workmanship and that no surveillance was
practiced or indicated. The discharge of Mrs. Murray is
claimed to have been bawd solely upon economic
considerations and the choice of this employee rather than
one junior to her was made solely on their comparative
efficiency.
5. Discussion and conclusions
a. Interrogation
As stated above, respondent's first knowledge of union
activity among its employees in Big Rapids was evidenced
by the conversation on April 13 when Superintendent
Vanderwater of Plant C stopped at the work station of
Albert W. Derby and said: "I heard you had company
while we were off."4 When Derby answered that lots of
people come to his place, Vanderwater asked whether there
had not been some union people out to see him and what
union they represented. Derby said they were from the
"boot and shoe union" and Vanderwater remarked that
"we had been in the union before" and that there were
"some places the union might be all right" and in others
"not so good." Vinderwater, admitting the conversation,
first testified that he had only asked Derby whether he had
been visited "by a third party" but he finally conceded that
he had referred to a union. Under the circumstances, I
regard Vanderwater's testimony as a concession of the
accuracy of Derby's account and find that the exchange
4 The plant had been shut down the previous week.
5 It is undisputed that the Amalgamated union authorization cards were
white
occurred as described by Derby. Vanderwater's approach
to Derby indicated that surveillance was being maintained
over him and his visitors and that such surveillance was
connected with his union activity. Accordingly, I find that
such conduct constituted interference with employee rights
under the Act and was violative of Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
Incidents of interrogation of employees by respondent's
supervisors subsequently occurred as follows:
May 11. On this date, Mable Sims testified , she was
summoned to the office of Clem Lovell, plant manager of
Plant C, and found Lovell there with Ronald Todd, a
section manager in the plant. Todd made the statement that
Mrs. Sims was handing out union cards on company time
and asked her whether it was true. Mrs. Sims said she did
not have to answer the question and Todd then said he had
been told that she was doing so. Mrs. Sims answered that
the information was false, that she was not handing out
cards on company time, but that what she did on
breaktimes and after working hours was her own business.
Todd then said that, with her poor attendance record, the
Company had a good excuse to fire her but had not done
so. At that point Mrs. Sims stated that she would have to
have the rest of the week off because her son was scheduled
for eye surgery; that she had given a note from the doctor to
her foreman, and that he had given her permission to be
away. Todd said that "all this time off from work was going
to have to stop" and that he knew of a shop where a woman
was denied time off to bring her husband home from a
hospital.
Todd testified, but he was not questioned concerning this
incident and Lovell, admitting that there had been a
meeting with Mrs. Sims on that date, testified that, although
she did not say so, she seemed dissatisfied with her
supervisor. Lovell could not recall any of the details and he
was evasive and unimpressive in his testimony. I accept that
of Mrs. Sims and find that, by both the interrogation
concerning the union cards and the implied threats to fire
her and to refuse time off, respondent's agents interfered
with, restrained, and coerced this employee in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
May 22.• Ted Pontz testified that, while he was at his
machine in Plant B/F, he heard Jack Wright, a section
manager, ask Irene Shannon, working near him, whether
she had signed "one of those white union cards" 5 and, if so,
from whom she had received it. He did not hear her answer.
Wright did not testify and Pontz' account stands uncon-
tradicted. This inquiry was not related to any matter with
which respondent was legitimately concerned and it was, by
its very nature, coercive. Accordingly, it violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
End of May: Hugh Fulkerson, an employee at Plant B/F,
was approached at his work station by Annabelle Yost, a
forelady in another department, who asked him whether his
"whole family was union."6 Fulkerson replied: "Maybe we
are and maybe we aren't" and Mrs. Yost walked away.
Mrs. Yost admitted having had a conversation with
Fulkerson about this time concerning the union and
testified that she asked him whether he had had a quarrel
6 Albert Derby, Betty Derby, Sandy Caudill, and Jack Lisco, all related
to Fulkerson, are employed at Plant C , and Sharon Vincent , his sister-in-
law, is employed at Plant B/F
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 445
with Mrs. Derby about signing a union card. Her testimony
was so confused and evasive and her demeanor on the
stand so unimpressive that, except insofar as it supports
Fulkerson, I reject her testimony as not truthful. Accord-
ingly, I find that the encounter occurred as Fulkerson
testified.
Since there was no legitimate reason for respondent to
make inquiries concerning the union sympathies of
employees or their relatives, such inquiries are coercive and
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
June 10: On June 9, Charlotte Pontz, an employee in
Plant B/F whose name is signed to the "open letter," was
distributing copies of it to employees entering and leaving
that plant. As she was walking along the sidewalk in front
of the plant, carrying the copies in her hand, she met
Annabelle Yost, her forelady. The following morning Mrs.
Yost came to Mrs. Pontz at her work station, looked over
her shoulder for a time, and then asked her why she did not
like her job. Mrs. Pontz said she did like her job, whereupon
Mrs. Yost said, "I saw your name on the list." Mrs. Pontz
said her name was there and Mrs. Yost asked her why she
felt she needed a union. Mrs. Pontz said she did not think
the people "were getting a fair shake" and, when pressed for
examples, referred to uneven wages for the same amount of
work, whereupon Mrs. Yost walked away.
Mrs. Yost testified that on the morning of June 10 she
brought some unfinished work back to Mrs. Pontz but that
Mrs. Pontz was defiant and said: "Don't make something
of it." Mrs. Yost then said: "Have you got a problem?
Everytime I come back to talk to you, you act like there is
something wrong : there must be something about your job
you don't like." She also testified that the subject of the
union came up in some way she cannot recall and that Mrs.
Pontz refused to talk about the union on company time. To
this, Mrs. Yost testified, she said: "Is that your problem,
because I know you had your name on that list," and that
they then talked about the union but she could not recall
what was said.
As noted several times in this decision, Mrs. Yost was a
most difficult and evasive witness. Her testimony is replete
with self-contradictions, and her demeanor while testifying
convinced me that her account of the matters under inquiry
was designed to protect herself or the respondent rather
than to answer questions truthfully. She was not a credible
witness and I reject her testimony. Accordingly, I find that
Mrs. Pontz correctly described the incident and that Mrs.
Yost conducted herself on this occasion as a minor despot,
making a studied effort to frighten and coerce this
employee concerning her union activities. Her conduct
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
June 10: Shirley Kooistra, whose name is signed to the
open letter distributed on June 9, was approached at her
machine the next morning by Section Manager Ronald
Todd and asked why she had signed it. Mrs. Kooistra
answered that she did not want to talk about the union on
company time but Todd assured her that it would be "all
right to do so." She then said that the markers, of whom she
was one , could not make their "rate"; that their request that
the Company revalue the rates had been refused; that they
had to carry their own work to the tables, whereas the
employees in the fitting room had their work brought to
them, and that they had to sort out the shoes, which also
took time, but they were paid only for work "at the table."
Todd then asked her if she thought the employees would
benefit from the union and said that union dues would cost
"quite a bit." When Mrs. Kooistra suggested that a union
contract "would probably improve the insurance and
rates," Todd answered that, if the union came in, the
employees would lose "small benefits," like smoking
between breaks.
Although Todd testified, he was not questioned concern-
ing this interview with Mrs. Kooistra and her testimony
stands uncontradicted. I accept it and find that Todd's
insistence that she discuss the union tended to compel her
to disclose her attitude toward it and thereby interfered
with rights guaranteed her under the Act and violated
Section 8(a)(1) thereof. Moreover, Todd's threat concerning
the loss of benefits if the union came in constituted
coercion and restraint, also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
June 12: Ted Pontz testified that he heard Orville
Hendricks, a foreman, ask employee Ruth Owens whether
she was going to the "open meeting," 7 and that he said she
should because "the drinks are free." Mrs. Owens
answered: "I am sorry, but I cannot talk about the
unmentionable." There is nothing in the record to indicate
that either respondent or anyone else had specifically said
that talk about the union was forbidden but there was
employee testimony of a general impression to that effect.
In itself, this exchange would appear to be innocuous but
it cannot be separated from respondent's many incidents of
interference at this time of intensive self-organizational
activity. Under the circumstances, this bit of jeering by a
supervisory official must be regarded as one more item in
the pattern of respondent's harassment of employees
engaged in self-organization.
June 15: Richard Dard testified that Vanderwater came
to his work station about 7:30 a.m. and engaged him in
conversation concerning working conditions at the plant.
The conversation opened with Vanderwater asking how a
dance over the weekend had turned out. Dard said he had
not been able to attend but had sold some tickets for a $2
profit, to which Vanderwater remarked that the money
would pay Dard's union dues for a month. Dard said:
"Let's not get started on that subject" but Vanderwater
persisted by asking Dard why he believed people had
signed the open letter. Dard answered that they were
dissatisfied with rates of compensation and working
conditions and that he, himself, was "on the fence." Dard
then accused Vanderwater of having asked another
employee whether he, Dard, was pushing the union and
Vanderwater denied having done so.
Although this incident, standing alone, might not be
coercive, it must be considered in conjunction with the
recently antecedent circulation of the open letter, followed
by the discharge of Sandra Murray and the other incidents
set forth herein about this time. So viewed, I find that
7 The union circular dated June 8, which invited all those who received
it to attend, also stated "You may invite any of your fellow or sister
Wolverine workers from both the C and B/F plants."
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vanderwater's questioning of Dard was coercive and
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
June 17: Charlotte Pontz testified that on this occasion
she came to the end of the production line to show
Floorlady Yost her percentage figure for the day. The
figure was obviously satisfactory8 and Mrs. Yost said:
"See, you don't need a union to do it." Mrs. Pontz simply
walked away. A few minutes later Mrs. Yost came to Mrs.
Pontz' work station and said: "You didn't like my saying
that, did you?" Mrs. Pontz answered that it is a "free
country" and that everyone was entitled to have an opinion,
but Mrs. Yost replied "not really." Mrs. Yost then said:
"you don't need five dollars to get what you want" and
Mrs. Pontz, understanding the reference to be to the
monthly dues of the union, answered: "It's seven-fifty and I
can't get it myself." Mrs. Yost told her to look in the shops
in Big Rapids that have unions and said that she would find
that the wages were no better than at respondent's plants.
Mrs. Pontz testified that Section Manager Culp was
present at the conversation, but Culp was not a witness.
Mrs. Yost testified that on this occasion Mrs. Pontz' work
was going along "pretty good" but "hadn't come up to
where it should be" so she went to talk with her about it.
Although she denied that there was any discussion about
the union she admitted having said: "Before I would pay
five dollars for anything a month, I would make sure it was
worth it." Mrs. Yost first testified that her statement about
$5 a month had no reference to anything in particular but
she then conceded that the question of the union had come
up and her reference was to it.
Once again I reject Mrs. Yost's testimony and find that
the encounter occurred as Mrs. Pontz described it. If this
incident stood alone, there might be some doubt concern-
ing its coerciveness but, in view of the earlier conversation
between these two women, I find that it was another item in
a pattern of harassment of Mrs. Pontz and that it violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
End of June: Josephine Ringquist testified that it was late
in June or the beginning of July when Ronald Todd, a
section manager concerned with employee ratings, called
her into his office for a conference. He said she did not have
to talk about the union if she did not want to but he
nevertheless asked her "why she signed." Mrs. Ringquist
testified that they both knew they were talking about the
"open letter" and that she answered that she did not think
her retirement benefits, which she would soon be receiving,
were adequate. During the conversation, which lasted
about 45 minutes and was much longer than the customary
15-minute rating conference, Todd said that she was
supposed to get a 10-percent raise but he would not be able
to give it to her because "we could not make up the time."
This phrase was not explained.
Todd corroborated Mrs. Ringquist's account in most
details and admitted that, although he could not recall
whether she was producing above the rate expected of her,
she did not receive an increase in her hourly rate. He could
not recall whether they discussed the increase but he did
recall that there was discussion of the union and her
activities with respect to it.
8 Mrs Pontz testified , in connection with her account of the June 10
exchange with Mrs Yost, that her production percentage was approaching
Mrs. Ringquist, who testified before Todd, stated that
the refusal to grant her an hourly increase was discussed
and I accept her testimony. Although the complaint does
not allege this refusal as discriminatory, Todd's reference to
it during the discussion of Mrs. Ringquist's union activities
which he instigated constitutes restrain and coercion
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
End of July: Fulkerson testified that one day toward the
end of July, just before the plant was to shut down for
vacation, Robert Sturdivant, one of the foremen, came to
him and said: "I will be your new foreman after vacation
and the first thing I have to do is get you away from the
union." When Fulkerson asked why, Sturdivant said: "The
union can't do you any good. The plant management had a
meeting and you were brought up: they were asking if you
would be for the union or not. I told them you were your
own union and did as you wanted." Sturdivant did not
testify: Fulkerson's testimony is not incredible and I accept
it as true.
Sturdivant's statements , that when he became Fulker-
son's foreman it would be his job to get him away from the
union and that management had "brought up" Fulkerson's
attitude toward the union, may have had little actual effect
on this particular employee, but only because of Fulker-
son's strength of personality. They were, I am convinced,
intended to coerce him by disclosing that management was
giving his union activities particular attention and the
statements were, therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
End of July: During the last week in July, Doris Kirk
testified, she went to the office of Plant Manager Jensen to
discuss her request for transfer from splitting to cutting
because the splitting work was diminishing and she felt that
her seniority entitled her to the transfer . Both Mrs. Kirk
and Jensen testified that, while they were discussing the
matter, Jensen began to discuss the union and that he said:
"I don't need to tell you that I know your name is on the
open letter." Mrs. Kirk said that she was honest about it
and that management knew her position. Jensen assured
her that he did not hold it against her but that he did not
want the union in the plant. Jensen then said: "You know
you can always come to me or one of the supervisors with
your problems and we can work them out without any third
party." He then told her that if she would continue for 4 to
6 weeks as a splitter they would then see whether she could
not be transferred to cutting. This did, in fact, occur.
The testimony of Mrs. Kirk and Jensen agreed in every
detail and it seems quite clear that Jensen held out a
promise of more favorable consideration of employee
requests on the basis of direct negotiation between
employees and management rather than through union
representation. Such promise of benefit interferes with
employee rights of self-organization and violates Section
8(a)(l).
While some of the foregoing incidents may not appear
obviously coercive, they must be considered in their
relationship to each other and to other elements in this
case .9
115
8 See Lenkurt Electric Company, Inc, 169 NLRB 941.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 447
b. Interference with distribution of union leaflets
On several occasions, employees distributed handbills on
respondent's plant premises but outside the buildings. On
June 9, they distributed copies of the "open letter," referred
to above. On June 23, between 3:30 and 4 p.m., Lois
Spencer, Mable Sims, and Betty Derby handed out union
leaflets at the entrances to Plant C. Mable Sims testified
that she was passing out the leaflets near the front door of
the plant when Victor Schultheiss, respondent's employ-
ment relations manager in Big Rapids, asked her to move
out onto the sidewalk, 8 or 10 feet away, and she did so.10
On the same day, Betty Derby testified, she was crossing
the parking lot with some handbills when Richard
Mondrella, the night superintendent, drove his car into the
parking lot and turned it toward her. She said: "Well, Rich,
don't hit me, I will give you a pamphlet" and Mondrella
told her to "get the hell off company property." it
On July 2, Mrs. Ione Dard and Leonard Sims were
passing out leaflets at the Plant C parking lot. Mondrella,
who had just parked his car, came toward Mrs. Dard as she
was about to give out a handbill and, according to Mrs.
Dard, he shouted, "Get the hell off company property."
Mrs. Dard said that she had a right to be there because she
worked there and Mondrella demanded her name. She did
not say anything and Mondrella said: "I will get you for
this." He then went into the plant and soon reappeared at a
doorway with Superintendent Lovell and Vanderwater, day
manager of the plant.
Mondrella admitted having seen Mrs. Dard passing out
handbills on the parking lot but stated that he did not know
her then and asked her what she was doing. He testified that
she said nothing but thumbed her nose at him and that he
then said he would "get even" with her. He denied having
told her to get off the Company's property. Mondrella's
promise to "get even" with Mrs. Dard makes little sense
except in a context of an employment relationship and,
therefore, I credit Mrs. Dard's testimony that she told
Mondrella she worked at the plant Upon my general
rejection of Mondrella's credibility as a witness, I find that
his threat to "get even" was based solely upon Mrs. Dard's
distribution of handbills.
On July 9, according to the testimony of Richard Dard,
he was passing out handbills on the parking lot of Plant C
when Plant Manager Lovell told him that, under company
policy, no soliciting was permissible on company property.
Dard left. The following morning, Dard testified, Lovell
came to him at his work station and told him that he had
been within his rights in handing out the leaflets.
Lovell corroborated Dard's testimony in every particular
except the date, which he said he could not remember,
although he adopted the June 9 date in the question of
respondent's counsel. Dard also accepted the date used in
the question of counsel-this time the General
Counsel-but he also fixed it as a month following Lovell's
10 Schultheiss testified but was not questioned on this matter
1i Mable Sims, who was with Mrs Derby, corroborated her testimony
in all details Mondrella denied having turned his car toward Mrs Derby
but he admitted seeing her passing out union literature and, with respect to
telling her to "get off company property," testified "I don't recall I don't
think I did" On the basis of Mrs Sims' corroboration of Mrs Derby's
testimony, of Mondrella's demeanor while testifying, and of the analysis of
proposal to him that he organize an employee committee,
discussed below , and I accept his testimony rather than that
of Lovell.
As Lovell recognized , the employees had the right to pass
out circulars in the nonproduction portions of respondent's
premises 12 and the supervisor's efforts to intimidate
employees engaged in such distribution or to block or
interfere with it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.13
c. Surveillance of the union meeting
In accordance with the notice distributed by the union, a
meeting of Wolverine employees was held at the town hall
in Paris on Saturday, June 13, beginning about 2 p.m.
Between 60 and 80 employees were present and the meeting
ended about 4 o'clock. Among the employees present were
Ted Pontz, Hugh Fulkerson, and Betty Derby.
Shortly before the close of the meeting, Ted Pontz
testified, he noticed Dan Elliott, one of respondent's
foremen, sitting in a car on the far side of the road and
somewhat south of the point opposite the meeting hall.
When the meeting ended, Pontz went over to Elliott and
asked him whom he was waiting for but Elliott made no
answer. As Pontz went back into the meeting hall, he saw
another employee going over to talk to Elliott and then also
come back into the hall. When Pontz again left the meeting
hall at 4:30, Elliott was gone. At that time, however, Pontz
testified, he saw Jack Ward, another of respondent's
foremen, in a car some distance north of the meeting hall,
near one of the stores on that side of the road, sitting partly
turned around and with his head out of the window facing
toward the hall.
Hugh Fulkerson testified that, about 15 or 20 minutes
before the close of the meeting, he saw Dan Elliott sitting in
a car on the opposite side of the road and somewhat south
of a point opposite the meeting hall. When the meeting
ended, Fulkerson left the hall, walked over to Elliott, and
asked him what he was doing there. Elliott, who had started
the engine as Fulkerson crossed the road toward him, said
he was going to the store and he drove away to the north.
Betty Derby testified that she noticed Elliott in his car
opposite the meeting hall about 10 minutes before the close
of the meeting and that she saw Fulkerson go over to talk to
him.
There is no dispute that the Green Town Hall is located
on the west side of U.S. Route 131 and that on the east side
of the road at that point there is a shoulder along the road
but nothing other than open land beyond that. There are
some stores and a post office on the east side of the road but
sketches submitted by both employee and company
witnesses show that they are a considerable distance north
of the point opposite the town hall.
Elliott testified that between 12:30 and 1 p.m. on that day
he received a telephone call from his son, who was in
Portland, Michigan, on his way home. Elliott testified that
Mondrella's credibility in this decision, I reject his denials and find that he
acted as described by Mrs Derby and Mrs Sims.
12 Respondent's evidence that work was performed in the parking lots,
i e, that broken lights were repaired and the area kept free of broken glass,
is frivolous in this connection , and I disregard it as irrelevant
13 Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co, 138 NLRB 615
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he forgot to tell his son that there was a bridge out on
Twenty-two Mile Road between his home and U.S. 301 and
he realized that it would be necessary for him to intercept
his son and guide him home through Twenty-one Mile
Road . He also testified that he needed a part for the
bathroom he was overhauling and he could buy it in Paris
when he met his son . Elliott left his home between 1.15 and
1:30 and testified that he reached Paris in 10 or 12 minutes,
coming east to Route 131 on Twenty-one Mile Road,
making a left turn into Route 131 and parking on the right,
or east, side of that road a couple of car lengths north of the
intersection . At that point , according to the sketch and
measurements prepared by respondent, he would have been
a couple of car lengths less than 784 feet south of a point
opposite the town hall where the union meeting was held.
Elliott testified that he waited at that point for about an
hour , possibly more, before his son arrived; that he signaled
his son to follow him to the hardware store in Paris, where
he spent about 10 minutes buying what he needed,
exchanging brief greetings with Jack Ward; and that he
arrived home at or before 3 p.m.
While he was waiting for his son, Elliott testified, both
Pontz and Fulkerson came over and spoke to him He
testified that Pontz asked him whether he was waiting for
anyone and that Fulkerson told him there was a union
meeting at the hall and he had come down to see what was
going on.
Although this matter was vigorously litigated at the trial,
it appears that the testimony of Elliott and the testimony of
the three employees are not mutually exclusive . Elliott
testified that he had completed his wait for his son at Paris,
made his purchase , and was at home by 3 o'clock. The three
employees testified that they first saw him near the town
hall shortly before 4 o'clock. Elliott testified that he waited
for his son on Route 131 two car lengths north of its
intersection with Twenty-one Mile Road and the company
sketch shows this to be 784 feet south of the town hall. The
employees testified that they recognized Elliott shortly
before the 4 o'clock end of their meeting from inside the
meeting hall and that Pontz and Fulkerson more or less
walked across the road to talk to him. I am, consequently,
compelled to the conclusion that , with the exception of one
element, Elliott 's testimony concerning the chronology of
his trip to Paris to intercept his son may be true, but there is
no testimony that, after he came home at 3 o'clock, he
remained there: there is no evidence precluding the
possibility that he made more than one visit to Paris that
afternoon . If, as Elliott testified , it took him only 10 to 12
minutes to reach Paris from his home and he had reached
home with his son by 3 o'clock, he could easily have
returned to Paris and parked near the town hall, where the
employees testified they saw him shortly before 4 o'clock.
The one element referred to above is the pair of
conversations which he admittedly had with Pontz and
Fulkerson . That Elliott could have been recognized from
inside the meeting hall, as Pontz, Mrs. Derby, and
Fulkerson all testified , if he had been parked over 700 feet
away I reject as inherently improbable, and I similarly
reject any suggestion that Pontz and Fulkerson would have
walked 700 feet down the road to talk to him. Accordingly,
I find that Elliott was near the meeting place of the union
shortly before 4 o'clock when the meeting ended and that it
was then and there that he had the conversations with
Pontz and Fulkerson . Since he gave no explanation for his
presence there at that time and the physical surroundings at
that point contain no clue to any other possible explanation
for his presence , in view of his attempts at evasion, I find
that he was there to observe the identities of the employees
attending the meeting . Such surveillance tends to restrain
employees in their exercise of self-organizational rights and,
therefore, it violates Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
Jack Ward testified that he met Elliott in the store
between 1:50 and 1:55, talked briefly with him and then
went home , reaching there between 2 o'clock and 2:15. He
testified that he left his home again at 3:15 or 3:20 to go to
Reed City, about 8 miles north of Paris, to keep an
appointment with a lumber dealer at 3:30 and that he was
at the lumber company for a little while.
While Ward was not directly asked whether he had been
parked near the town hall about 4 o'clock , the implication
of his testimony was that he was not at the point where he
was placed by the testimony of Pontz because he was at
Reed City at that time. Interestingly , however , respondent's
counsel goes no further than to state in his brief that:
... it is at least doubtful as to whether Messrs . Elliott
and Ward were at the places described at the time the
union meeting ended.
The lack of connection between this issue and the
testimony of Elliott has been noted above . There are several
reasons why a similar implication , sought to be drawn from
Ward's testimony , must be rejected . In the first place, even
if Ward's statement were taken at its face value, he
indicated that he arrived at the lumber company about 3:30
and was there between 45 minutes and an hour . This would
keep him in Reed City until about 4:30 at the latest, and he
certainly could drive the 5 miles of open road to Paris in
less than 10 minutes to be there about 4 : 30, since all the
lengths of time and hourly references are approximate. It is
not, however, necessary to be concerned with precise
arrivals, lengths of stops, and departures because the
lumber company employee with whom Ward claimed to
have had the appointment testified that the establishment
had closed on that day at noon and that neither he nor any
other employee with whom Ward could have conferred was
there that afternoon . This lumber company employee had
no interest in this case , he testified simply and forthrightly,
and I accept his testimony as true . Accordingly, I reject
Ward's testimony and find that the facts related by Pontz
truthfully describe the situation . It was Pontz ' testimony
that at 4:30, when he left the meeting hall, Elliott was no
longer parked on the east side of Route 131 but Ward was
parked on that side of the road somewhat north of the
meeting hall and that Ward was sitting in his car with his
head out of the window looking toward the hall as the
employees were leaving . In this position he was able to note
the identities of those in attendance at the meeting and, by
his presence , to indicate to them that they were being
watched . I find that this constituted interference with the
employees ' right of self-organization and violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC 449
d Threats
The name of Richard Dard, a company employee for
more than 20 years, appears on the "open letter"
distributed June 9 Early in the morning on June 10, Clem
Lovell, the factory manager, came to him at his work
station and said, in the presence of several other employees:
"I see you are not satisfied with working here " Dard
answered: "Well, Clem, I didn't sign the open letter
because I was not satisfied with working here. I signed it
because I am not satisfied with some of the conditions that
exist here." Lovell responded- "We are going to have 100
percent operators on all the machines or they aren't going
to be operated" and he walked away.
Dard testified that his relative efficiency as a toe laster at
that time was 86 percent and that at no time in the past had
the Company insisted on 100-percent efficiency, that only
two of the six toe lasters were doing better than 100
percent; that the rate of efficiency had recently been set so
high that it was very difficult to reach it, and that the
employees had been told that their wage scale would not be
cut so long as they maintained their efficiency at its then
level. Even at the periodic conferences on efficiency, when
employees were routinely urged to raise their efficiency
ratings, Dard testified that he had never been told that he
was required to attain 100 percent.
Lovell admitted that he had talked with Dard on June 10
but claimed that it was only about "handbills." He
conceded, however, that he talked with a lot of people
about performance and that he probably did tell Dard he
would have to raise his efficiency to 100 percent He denied
having said that they would have 100-percent operators or
none at all. Lovell was generally an evasive witness and his
demeanor on the stand was defensive. I find that Dard's
testimony truly reflects the conversation of June 10 and
that Lovell's remarks were a threat that, unless Dard raised
his efficiency to 100, he would lose his job. In view of its
background, this threat constituted coercion and restraint
with respect to the exercise of employee rights and violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
June 9• The "open letter" was circulated among plant
employees during the afternoon. At 7 or 8 that evening an
antiunion petition was circulated and it is discussed below.
Shortly after the circulation of this petition, Donald
Whiteside, a Plant C foreman, came to employee Albright,
who had refused to sign it and, according to the testimony
of Kurtis Winkler, an employee working in that area,
shouted that "if we don't keep the union out we will be all
out looking for jobs." Sometime soon afterward, Winkler
testified, he was called into the office for an evaluation of
his job performance and Whiteside made the same remark
directly to him. In mid-July, when Winkler was again called
up to the office of Night Superintendent Mondrella with
several other employees to discuss errors in matching shoes
to lasts, Mondrella opened the subject of the union, saying
that, "if the union gets in, we are going to be hurting for
jobs, every one of us."
Whiteside was very vague in his testimony- he conceded
that, on the occasion of the antiunion petition, the question
of the union had come up but he could not recall what was
said and did not remember whether he made the statement
that they would be out looking for work . He also was
unable to recall whether he made a similar statement
directly to Winkler but only because, he said, he had
received a list of "do's and don'ts" with respect to the
union. Mondrella, who testified, was not questioned
concerning the incident described by Winkler
On the basis of Winkler's testimony and Whiteside's
evasiveness on the stand, I find that both Whiteside and
Mondrella made the statements attributed to them and that
they constituted threats violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
One Saturday or Sunday evening in the latter part of July,
employee Beatrice Johnson testified, she was in the Pans
Bar, a restaurant and dance hall in Paris, and saw Plant
Superintendent Mondrella there. They had been acquain-
tances for a number of years and, as she passed his table,
Mondrella took her by the arm and asked her to sit down
because he wanted to talk to her. Mondrella said that he
had heard that she had been "a bad girl." Mrs. Johnson
said she had always been a bad girl and Mondrella then
said: "I hear you are for the union." At that point, Mrs.
Johnson testified, she said she did not wish to discuss it and
she got up and left. Later that evening Mondrella again
attempted to get Mrs. Johnson into conversation concern-
ing the union by calling remarks to her from his table about
10 feet away. When he told her she had better be at work on
time the next day 14 she said she always did and Mondrella
responded: "If you were on nights you would be fired."
On a Sunday night about 3 weeks later, Mrs. Johnson
testified, she again met Mondrella in the Paris Bar during
plant vacation and he said he was off for a month. When
Mrs. Johnson was skeptical, saying he had the same 2 weeks
as all other employees, Mondrella said: "You are going to
get a lot longer vacation if you get a union in there," and
followed this by saying that he had another job lined up to
which he could go if the union came in. A few minutes later,
Mondrella came over to her table and said he would like to
be working for the union because they made a lot of money
but that, if the union came in, within 6 months the
Company would "move south" to save on wages and they
would all be out of jobs.
Mondrella conceded his long acquaintanceship with Mrs.
Johnson and admitted having talked with her several times
in the Paris Bar, but he denied having said that if she were
on the night shift she would be fired, and he could not recall
saying that he had a job lined up elsewhere or that, if the
union came in, the Company would shut down within 6
months and move south.
Mrs. Johnson's testimony was direct and it was given
with considerable conviction but Mondrella was evasive
and unimpressive. I accept Mrs. Johnson's account as
accurate and find that on these dates (probably July 19 and
August 9) Mondrella made threats to Mrs. Johnson that
interfered with employee rights under the Act and violated
Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
14 Mrs Johnson had been working on the day shift for 3 years, although
she had previously worked nights , and Mondrella was the night-shift
superintendent
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
e. Disparate enforcement of a nonsolicitation rule
Hugh Fulkerson testified that in the morning on June
27,15 he was called into the office of Dewey Smith,
superintendent of Plant B/F. He was accused of having
given a union card to a fellow employee during working
time and told that the Company would not allow it.
Fulkerson denied having done so: he said that his son sold
copies of a weekly paper and was delivering them to plant
employee-customers on the evening shift; that because
there were machines in operation he would not permit his
son to go about the plant alone; and that while he was in
the plant an employee asked him for a union authorization
card but he refused to give one, asking the employee instead
to wait until the next break and come outside to his car for
it. Fulkerson testified that the employee did come outside
and that a card was delivered to him as requested.
Fulkerson also testified that he has sold and delivered
other products to employees in the plant, including the wife
of Foreman Elliott, and that other employees take orders
for, and deliver merchandise to, employees in the shop.
Dewey Smith, using the same June 27 date, testified that
he spoke to Fulkerson about solicitation because he had
union cards with him and because he sold newspapers in
the plant. He testified that he could recall "writing him up"
and, therefore, he believed that he gave Fulkerson an "oral
warning," but there is no evidence that there was a warning
in Fulkerson's file in connection with this occurrence.
Moreover, although Fulkerson was one of the signers of the
"open letter," the complaint does not allege that he was
given a warning or that there was any other discrimination
against him. Accordingly, I cannot find that the activities of
Smith in this case amounted to a violation of the Act.
f. Discussion concerning employee committee
On June 15, Richard Dard testified, Plant Manager
Lovell came to him at his work station, asked him why he
thought the people were dissatisfied, and whether it would
help if committees were formed in each of the departments
"to try to resolve some of these problems." Dard said he
thought it might be a good idea but, the way he saw it at
that time, "the union is going to win." Lovell said he didn't
like to see a "twenty-year man" dissatisfied and left. At 2
p.m. on the same day Superintendent Vanderwater
questioned him along the same lines. Dard answered that
"something has got to be done" and he "figured the union
would be the only way to go" but that "if we could work out
something, fine." Dard testified that they discussed the
matter further, getting into the specifics of how many
employees from said department should serve and how they
should be chosen.
Vanderwater corroborated Dard's testimony fully but
Lovell evaded, said he "may have talked with him" about
employee grievances and, when asked directly whether he
had suggested to Dard that he, Dard, form a plant
committee, answered, "I don't remember . . that." In
view of Vanderwater's corroboration and Lovell's evasive-
ness , I accept Dard's credible testimony on this point and
find that they solicited Dard's opinion concerning the
utility of forming an employees' committee to handle
grievances. While I have no doubt that Lovell and
Vanderwater were motivated by a desire to divert Dard's
loyalty away from the Amalgamated,16 and crediting
Dard's testimony fully, nevertheless their conversations
with him fell short of actually suggesting formation of such
committee 17 and they did not actually solicit such
grievances for adjustment.18 Accordingly, I cannot find, in
these inquiries, interference, restraint, or coercion violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
g. The antiunion petition
On June 9, after the "open letter" was distributed, an
employee on the afternoon shift named Horner approached
employee Kurtis Winkler, showed him a paper with the
words "anti-union petition" written across the top, and
asked him to sign it. Winkler refused and Horner moved
along, soliciting other employees to sign it. One of the
employees so solicited, Jerry Albright, told Horner to "get
the hell away from me with the petition" and Horner left.
According to Albright, Homer said he had permission from
Foreman Whiteside to circulate it.
A few minutes later, Whiteside came into the area and a
shouting match erupted between him and Albright over
Homer's circulation of the petition. According to Albright,
he stopped Whiteside and asked him why he "let Horner go
around with this petition," since the employees had
received instructions from the Company not to do this
during working hours, and Whiteside answered that Horner
was worried about his job. Whiteside added that he, also,
did not want a union in the plant; that it had had one in the
past; that they were no good; and that he and some others
had run the union out. Whiteside also stated, according to
Albright, that he knew Horner was circulating the petition
and that he added that he knew "what kind of guys worked
in the casing area" because none of them had signed this
petition.
Winkler, who observed the argument between Albright
and Whiteside, testified that Whiteside asked Albright why
he did not sign the antiunion petition and, raising his voice,
so that all about could hear, said that if they did not keep
the union out they would all be looking for jobs.
According to Whiteside, he went looking for Homer, who
was away from his machine and, as he passed Albnght's
station, Albright came shouting at him and accused him of
being "behind all of this." When he asked Albright what he
was talking about, Albright said that Homer was "taking a
list around" but that he said he knew only that Homer was
not at his machine. Whiteside denied asking Albright why
he did not sign the petition, but admitted that he knew
about the petition because Horner had asked him whether
he could take it around. Whiteside testified that he
answered Horner's question by saying "I don't believe you
can" and that he would have to find out. He had gone to
find out, Whiteside said, when Horner was taking the
petition around. With respect to the statement attributed to
him that, if the union came in, everybody would be on the
15 June 27 was a Saturday and the testimony indicates that the plant 18 Dard had signed the "open letter "
does not operate Saturdays The precise date of this incident is 11 Compare L C Cassidy & Son, Inc., 171 NLRB No. 136
unimportant and I find that it occurred on Monday, June 29 18 Compare Sears, Roebuck and Co, 182 NLRB No. 68.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE , INC. 451
streets, Whiteside testified that he "couldn't recall" making
it. Whiteside also testified that Horner was given neither a
warning nor a suspension for his conduct in leaving his
work station and soliciting signatures on the petition and
that when he reported the incident to Mondrella, he was
given no indication that Horner should be punished.
Whiteside was not an impressive witness; he was self-
contradictory in saying that, in his argument with Albright,
the question of the union "came up" but that nothing was
said about it; and he was evasive. On the basis of his own
testimony I find that, while there is no evidence that he
instigated the antiunion petition, his conversation with
Horner about circulating it implied that he favored-or, at
least, did not oppose-his doing so. Moreover, I find that
he adopted and gave support to the petition by asking
Albright why he had not signed it. I also find that Whiteside
told the employees that if the union came in they would all
lose theirjobs.
By the foregoing conduct of Whiteside I find that
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of self-organizational rights and
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
h. Warnings
Respondent maintains a system of written warnings
which, when given, are entered in the employee's file and
form the basis for disciplinary action.19
The complaint alleges that the following warnings,
administered to the respective employees involved, consti-
tuted discrimination to discourage their membership in, or
support for the activities of, the union.
(1) May 28: Betty Derby
As set forth above, Albert Derby was the original
employee contact with Amalgamated and, as far back as
April 13, management had questioned him concerning it.
On May I1 and 22, it has been found, supervisory
personnel interrogated plant employees concerning solicita-
tion and signing of union authorization cards and, on a date
only defined as "around the end of May,"20 Forelady Yost
asked Fulkerson whether his "whole family" was union.
Fulkerson's family, he testified, included Albert and Betty
Derby, whom he identified as "brother-in-law and sister-in-
law," and Mrs. Yost testified that she knew them all.
On May 28 at 8:30 a.m., Mrs. Derby was called from her
"cigarette break" into the conference room by Donald
Nelson, her foreman. Section Manager Todd was present.
19 All the warning slips in this record are on the same printed form but
some are on white paper and some on yellow in the upper right hand
corner there are two boxes, one marked "1st Notice" and the other "2nd
Notice " Some of the slips in evidence are without marks in either of these
boxes, there was testimony that such slips are called "oral warnings", and
on some slips in evidence, without marks in either box, the written material
states, "This is an oral warning " Although the testimony with respect to
Albert Derby indicated that it was his "third warning" which resulted in
his 3-day suspension, the three slips in the series dealing with him are
consistent with the foregoing procedure The first slip, dated May 28, is not
marked in either of the boxes, the second, dated June 23, has a mark in the
box designated "Ist Notice" and it states 1 1 . the next time it will result
in 3 days off", the third slip, dated June 26, has a mark in the box
designated "2nd Notice," refers to the slip of June 23, and states that he is
being given 3 days off This system, however, does not appear to have been
According to Mrs. Derby, Todd asked her how long it had
taken her to smoke the cigarette she had just finished. She
said she did not know and that she had not even finished
smoking the cigarette when she was called in. Todd then
said they were going to have to "start cracking down on this
smoking and absences." Mrs. Derby answered that she had
not been absent. Todd responded that her "efficiency
couldn't stand this," that she had been kept on the job for a
year with her efficiency remaining "the same," 21 and that
she had been smoking since she had been there. She was
then given an "Employee Warning Notice," which she
refused to sign. The warning states, inter alia, that she
"spent too much time at smoking area" but neither of the
boxes in the upper right corner of the slip was checked.22
Mrs. Derby testified that employees who smoked were
permitted, between 8:15 and 9 a.m., to go to the designated
area and smoke one cigarette and that the only other
limitation on the privilege was that no more than two
employees be in the smoking area at the same time.
Mrs. Derby also testified that the smoking break she
took that morning was no different from those she had
taken previously and that she had often been observed,
without comment, by supervisors. She said she had never
been told of any time limitation and she had never received
any warning or other intimation that she was doing
something wrong.
Nelson started by testifying that the smoking break was
specifically limited to 3 minutes and that he observed Mrs.
Derby in the smoking area for 9 minutes. He then conceded
that no employee had ever been told to limit his smoking
time but he took refuge in saying, "I think they all knew 3
minutes was the limit." He then testified that a sign was
posted in the smoking area limiting the time an employee
could remain there but finally conceded that the notice
merely said that smoking there is limited to the two
smoking break periods, 8:15 to 9 a.m. and 9:34 to 10:15
a.m.
Nelson's testimony was, as appears above, unreliable and
Todd, although his name is on the warning slip, testified
that he had no recollection of talking to Mrs. Derby on
May 28.
It is obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Derby were regarded as
active participants in the organizational activity among
respondent's employees. Moreover, in Mrs. Yost's interro-
gation of Fulkerson, which occurred about this time, she
portrayed Mrs. Derby as an active solicitor of union
authorization cards. In view of the notably unconvincing
testimony of Nelson with respect to this incident, I draw the
inference that he created the situation for the purpose of
followed uniformly and the foregoing general summary is based upon the
testimony and other evidence Respondent's "Employee Handbook"
provides that "for just cause , and dependent on the importance of the rule
that is broken, an employee may be discharged " The handbook also
provides for "reprimands" or "time off" before separation and stipulates
that "warnings" will be removed from employee unit records after I year.
20 The final week of May was from Monday, the 25th, to Friday, the
29th
21 Mrs. Derby testified that her efficiency at this time was between 67
and 75 but that no efficiency rating had ever been shown to her by the
Company, she had seen the figure on "a sheet of paper"
22 This reduced the status of the warning notice to an "oral notice" but
it was placed in her file and it would determine the status of the next
warning she might receive
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimidating Mrs. Derby and instigating a series of
warnings that could result in disciplinary action against her.
Accordingly, I find that the warning notice constituted
discrimination to discourage her membership in the union
and that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(2) May 28, June 23 and 26 : Albert Derby
Albert Derby received, on May 28, the first of the three
warning notices that culminated in a 3-day suspension. This
first notice was given to him on the same day, and at almost
the precise time when Mrs. Derby received the warning
notice described above.
It was between 8 and 9 a.m., Derby testified, when Dale
Durfee, his foreman, came to him at his work station and
told him that he had inspected and passed two pairs of
shoes with "bumpy toes." Durfee then gave him a warning
slip which was countersigned by Vanderwater.
The essential fact, that he may have permitted two pairs
of defective shoes to pass, was not disputed by Derby: he
testified that it might happen to him and to all other
inspectors "a couple of times a month." 23 On previous
occasions, however, the foreman would tell him "to watch
them a little closer" and that no warning of any type was
ever given. He also testified that George Hileman, the other
inspector who worked with him, had defective shoes
similarly brought back to him two or three times a month.
Derby was active in distributing the "open letter" on June
9 and testified that several supervisory employees observed
him doing so.
Sometime before noon on June 23, Durfee issued another
warning to Derby, this one labeled "1st Notices,"
specifying that "3 shoes" had been passed although
"damaged" and stating that "the next time it will result in 3
days off." This was also countersigned by Vanderwater.
Another distribution of union handbills, and respon-
dent's reaction to it described above, occurred during the
afternoon on June 23.
Late in the afternoon on June 26, Derby was again
summoned to the superintendent's office. Vanderwater
greeted him by saying: "Here we are again. We have got
some more shoes here; we are going to have to give you a 3-
day suspension." At that time Plant Manager Lovell came
in: he first made a statement that the shoes had to be "made
better" and he then began to tell Derby about his
experience at another plant in the area which was about to
go union when he left it. They talked about mutual
acquaintances for a short while and Vanderwater then said
that he hated to do this to Derby because they had worked
together so long. Vanderwater also said that Derby had
always given the company "100 percent" of his work but
the last "couple of weeks must have been bad ones" for
him. Derby answered by telling Vanderwater "not to worry
about it, because I know what the deal is all about" and
that he then left the office. He remained away from work
for 3 days as directed.
Durfee did not testify and Vanderwater, who did, did not
dispute Derby's testimony. He stated that the second and
third warnings were given in his office. He also testified that
his action in suspending Derby was in accordance with
"procedures in our handbooks," but this statement was a
broad approximation of established practice because the
handbook, as stated above, makes only a very general
reference to warnings.
As noted above, there is no dispute that defective shoes
were sometimes passed by the inspectors. The issue here is
whether Derby, because of his union activities, was treated
in a discriminatory manner with respect to his lapses.
Derby testified without contradiction that, during this time,
he saw both Durfee and Vanderwater bring back defective
shoes to his associate inspector, Hileman , but that Hileman
did not receive any warning notice until about a week
before the trial. Under questioning by counsel for
respondent on this matter, Derby testified that he was told
by Hileman that Durfee, when he gave him the warning,
said that Vanderwater had said that he, Durfee, had better
give him one because he had given him, Derby, one. This
testimony was not contradicted by Vanderwater who said
only that he did not recall whether Hileman had been given
any warning after the series given Derby. Neither Durfee
nor Hileman was called to testify.
On the basis of the foregoing testimony, I find that the
warnings and suspension were discriminatorily adminis-
tered to Derby to discourage his membership in the union
and that respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
(3) June 11: Josephine Ringquist and Beatrice
Johnson
Mrs. Josephine Ringquist had been employed by
respondent for 22 years as a stitcher. Sitting next to her, and
doing the same work, was Mrs. Beatrice Johnson, who had
been employed by respondent as a stitcher since May 1963.
Their task was to stitch, or close, the back seams on shoes.
Each unit of material came to them as two pieces of leather,
placed face-to-face, that had been cut, then skived (i.e.,
pared or beveled to reduce the thickness of the two pieces of
leather when they have been sewn together), marked, and
had some other operations performed on them. Although
not fastened, the two pieces of leather stick together.
Both Mrs. Ringquist and Mrs. Johnson signed the "open
letter" which was distributed on June 9. On July 11, about 9
a.m., their foreman, Donald Nelson, came to their work
station, bringing a case of shoes upon which each of them
had worked. He said that the sides which they had stitched
together were mismatched, that it was theirjob to match the
colors when the material came to them and that they were
not to stitch the sides together until they had checked the
color.
Mrs. Johnson testified that she disputed the matter with
Nelson at once, pointing out that the sides came to them
face-to-face and that, considering the speed at which they
are required to work, they could not possibly separate the
sides to compare their colors. She also pointed out to him
that the lights on their machines throw shadows making it
impossible to compare closely similar colors. Mrs.
Ringquist corroborated Mrs. Johnson and added that she
23 Derby testified, without contradiction, that he inspects between 1,500
and 1,800 pairs of shoes every day
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 453
occasionally did catch mismatched sides when the differ-
ence was notable and the two pieces came apart. She also
testified that mismatched sides which she had sewn
together were sometimes brought to her attention but that it
was the responsibility of the cutting room to match the
colors and she had never been given a warning for sewing
mismatched sides.
Nelson testified and confirmed that he had given both
Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Ringquist "oral warnings" because
of the mismatched shoes. He claimed that he had told these
employees to check the color of the sides but his testimony
was generalized and evasive. His recollection of when he
had told Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Ringquist to check was
that he "couldn't recall": he also couldn't recall the month
and thought it possible that it might have been 1 year or 5
years since he told it to them
Based upon Nelson's testimony and his demeanor while
giving it , I find that these employees had never been told
that it was their duty to check the pieces of leather for color
match before sewing them and that the procedure which
they descnbed does not contemplate their doing so.
Respondent's evidence with respect to these employees was
so contrived that, bearing in mind the fact that their names
were on the "open letter" distributed only 2 days earlier, I
infer that respondent's action was discriminatory and
designed to discourage their membership in the union.
Accordingly, I find that these warnings constituted
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(4) June 11 • Anna Petersen
Anna Petersen had been employed by respondent for 18
years and, for the past 3 years, had worked as a "marker,"
using a machine which made guidelines for the stitchers.
In the afternoon on June 11, she was summoned to the
office by Donald Nelson, her foreman, and told that she
had marked some shoes too lightly He said that they would
have to bring down the cost of production and said she
would be given an "oral warning." She was given the shoes
to remark. Mrs. Petersen testified that certain pins on her
machine which held the marking die in place were too
short; that the dies often slipped out of place; and that, on
previous occasions when the markings were crooked,
Nelson usually just told her about it, although in March,
when it had also happened, he made out a slip that he
characterized as an "oral" warning.24 She also testified that
the pins in the machine were replaced, after the June
incident, with longer pins and that it thereafter operated
satisfactorily.
Nelson confirmed Mrs. Petersen's testimony but said that
he did not think it was the fault of the marking machine
that the shoes were marked too lightly because he expected
the employee to build up the base of the die with scraps of
leather . He conceded, however, that the pins had been
replaced.
Mrs. Petersen was one of the signers of the "open letter"
distributed 2 days earlier and June 11 was a day of
considerable activity by respondent found herein to
constitute unfair labor practices. Although respondent's
basis for a written warning to Mrs. Petersen is not shown by
this record to be obviously without merit, Nelson's
testimony nevertheless convinces me that, except for her
signature on the "open letter," Mrs. Petersen would not
have had another warning25 placed in her file. With the
exception of the March incident, previous errors attributa-
ble to the defective machine had not been so treated and I
infer that the purpose of this warning, considering its
timing, was to discourage her membership in the umon.
Accordingly, I find that the giving of this warning violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(5) June 24: Lois Spencer
Lois Spencer had been in respondent's employ for 10
years, all the time as a skiver, whose task is paring or
thinning the edges of the leather so that it can be sewed. She
had signed the "open letter" distributed June 9.
Between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. on June 23, after her work
was over, Mrs. Spencer, together with fellow employees
Betty Derby and Mable Sims, handed out union leaflets to
employees entering and leaving the parking lot. One of the
cutting room foremen entered the lot as she was passing out
the leaflets.
At 8:30 the next morning, Mrs. Spencer was called into
the superintendent's office by her foreman, Donald Nelson.
Also in the office were Section Manager Todd and Plant
Superintendent Vanderwater. They asked her whether a
case of shoes and boots, still in the process of manufacture,
had been worked on by her. Mrs. Spencer's number was on
the ticket and she conceded that she had worked on it. On
one pair of the six in the case she had skived too sharply
and had cut off corners on the four pieces making up the
two shoes in the pair. They asked her how long she had
worked at skiving and, when she said 8 years, they said that
anybody on the job that long should know better "than to
put through work like that." They then said that they would
have to give her a warning notice and they did so. It is
marked "1st Notice."
Mrs. Spencer testified that she skived 1,500 pairs of
shoes each day and that some of their parts were
occasionally skived too thin or had their corners cut off.
She also testified that her fellow workers also made the
same errors and that the damaged parts were routinely
called to their attention with the request to be more careful.
She conceded that prior to June 24, Nelson told her and the
two other skivers that they were making a lot of "cripples,"
i.e., damaged parts, and that they should "watch it." All
three of the skivers, according to Mrs. Spencer, make some
errors but no warning notices have been issued to them on
the basis of such routine errors.26
Nelson confirmed Mrs. Spencer's testimony except that
he thought she skived only 1,200 pairs of shoes per day. His
testimony contains no explanation for the issuance of a
written warning to Mrs. Spencer under circumstances
which, I find, did not normally result in such warning.
While her union activity could not immunize her from
justifiable discipline, her undisputed testimony shows that
the errors involved herein did not normally result in written
24 The slip has no mark in the upper right corner 26 The warning slips given on May 26 to Mrs. Spencer and Mrs Howell,
25 This warning slip is not in evidence and its character, i e, whether another skiver, are identified with work on a specific shoe pattern, No
"oral" or "1st Notice," cannot be ascertained 2044, but there is no further testimony concerning it
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warnings . Accordingly, I find that, but for Mrs. Spencer's
action in passing out union leaflets the previous day, the
warning would not have been issued. By issuing the
warning, respondent discriminated against her to discour-
age her membership in the union and violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(6) June 26: Leonard Sims
Leonard Sims had been employed by respondent for 8
years, the last 7 of them as a "shag cleaner" whose task it is
to clean and buff the uppers of shoes to remove excess
cement . He signed and helped distribute the "open letter"
on June 9 and, on June 23, his wife27 distributed union
leaflets in the parking lot.
In the morning on June 26, Sims testified, his foremen,
McIntyre and Marks, came to him at his work station and
Marks showed him a shoe on a rack, stating that Sims had
damaged it. Sims conceded that he "could have done it";
Marks told him he "had better be careful" and Sims replied
that he would, he did not make a habit of doing it on
purpose. After 3 o'clock that same afternoon, Marks
brought Sims to the superintendent's office where he found
Foreman McIntyre, Superintendent Vanderwater, and
Plant Manager Lovell. Vanderwater reminded Sims that he
had been warned earlier that day about damaging shoes;
Sims answered that he had not done it on purpose and he
would try to do better, but Vanderwater continued by
saying that three pairs had been damaged in another rack
and they would have to give him a warning slip. Lovell said
they were going to have to put a stop to damaging shoes
and handed him the warning slip but Sims refused to sign it.
Sims then remarked that it was not too bad, after 7 years, to
get a warning slip for bad work.
Sims testified that he handled between 900 and 1,100
pairs of shoes each day and he conceded that he had
damaged shoes , but he stated that it happened less often
than twice a week. He testified that, whenever he
recognized that he had damaged a shoe, he put it aside to
show the foremen. He also conceded that damaged shoes
had been brought back and shown to him, principally in an
effort to determine how the damage was done, but he had
never received any warning except an oral warning in 1963
or 1964 when he started on this line.
Vanderwater's testimony was not in conflict with that of
Sims . In claimed contradiction of Sims' testimony that he
had never had a written warning for defective work,
respondent introduced another written warning-which
had been given , however, for being absent.
The proof on this issue is notably weaker than on many
of the others in this case . However, on the basis of Sims'
record in not receiving warning notices although he
conceded that he damaged shoes about twice a week, his
signature and that of his wife's on the "open letter", and the
recent handbilling activities of his wife, I find that, but for
the union activities of Sims and his wife, this warning notice
would not have been given to him. Accordingly, it
constituted discrimination to discourage his membership in
the union and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(7) July- 3: Shirley Kooistra
Shirley Kooistra had been employed by respondent as a
marker in Plant C for slightly more than 2 years when she
signed the "open letter" distributed June 9. As detailed
above, the next morning she was interrogated by Section
Manager Todd and warned about a loss of benefits if the
union came in. It is to be noted that she shrugged off
Todd's warning by saying that, if the union came in, "The
company would probably be upset for a while but they
would settle down in time," and that her principal
complaint was that the markers could not make the
production standard.
On July 2, union leaflets were again distributed in the
parking lot by Mrs. lone Dard, Leonard Sims, and some
other employees.
In the afternoon on July 3, Foreman Nelson brought
Mrs. Kooistra to Todd's office. Todd said she had marked
some shoes "off," i.e., in the wrong place, and Mrs.
Kooistra said she knew it because she had pulled the shoes
"off the line" and given them to a floorgirl for recutting so
that they would not be worked on by other employees.
Todd said that they would nevertheless give her "a white
slip," a warning. Mrs. Kooistra further testified that the dies
on the marking machines were defective and that she had to
put "shims" underneath them to get marks on the shoes;
and that when the dies slipped, she had marked the shoes
off. Todd also brought out some sample shoes that she had
marked incorrectly but she testified, without contradiction,
that she had marked them as directed but the directions
were wrong. Mrs. Kooistra testified that she had made
occasional errors that were known to her supervisors, but
that she had never been called to the office to discuss them
or had a personal warning, although there had been group
warnings to all three markers in which they were told to be
careful.
Todd did not contradict anything Mrs. Kooistra said but
simply confirmed that he and Nelson had talked with her
on July 3 about some wrong marking.
On the basis of Mrs. Kooistra's testimony, it appears that
there was nothing unusual about occasional marking errors,
particularly when the employee himself weeded out the
rmsmarked material. It is also uncontradicted that any
errors in the marking of the sample shoes were not due to
inadequate performance by Mrs. Kooistra. It is also
undisputed that the marking machinery was defective and
that Mrs. Kooistra had been given no warnings, although
she made occasional errors.
The only explanation in the record for this change in
respondent's treatment of Mrs. Kooistra lies in the
inference, which I draw, that she was an apparently
unrepentent signer of the "open letter" and that the
distribution of union leaflets on July 2 stimulated Todd to
prejudice the status of a union sympathizer. Accordingly, I
find that the warning28 issued against Mrs. Kooistra
constituted discrimination to discourage her membership in
the union. Such conduct by respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
27 Mable J Sims was addressed as "Mrs Sims," she gave the same while this proof is not conclusive and might not justify a finding were it an
address "Route 2, Reed City," as he did, they are the only two persons issue , it is sufficient for this purpose.
named Sims on the "open letter," and they are both employed at Plant C 28 The slip is not in evidence and its potency is, therefore , unknown
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 455
i. The discharge of Sandra Lynn Murray
Sandra Lynn Murray worked for respondent on two
separate occasions. Her first period of employment began
March 15, 1968, and she worked for precisely one year
before taking maternity leave and subsequently resigning.
On April 27, 1970, she returned to respondent's employ but,
since there was no vacancy in the fitting department, where
she had formerly worked, she was assigned to the finishing
department, washing shoes on the 4:30 to I I p.m. shift.
The washing of shoes is performed by five women who
work side-by-side facing a conveyor belt above the tubs.
They take their stations in their order of seniority, with the
one longest on the job having the first place in the direction
from which the racks of shoes come to them. The senior
washer takes her choice of shoes off the belt, choosing those
which, she believes, will be quickest and easiest to complete
and will yield her the highest return.29 The second washer
gets second choice, and so on down the line to the fifth
washer, who must take what remains.
Mrs. Murray, of course, took the fifth place when she
began to work in April, but on the following day another
employee, Katherine Lee, was hired so Mrs. Murray moved
up to fourth place where she was until she was discharged.
On June 8, Stafford, foreman of this group of washers,
held monthly work review conferences with the three senior
washers, but he was not able to get to Mrs. Murray that
evening so he told her that he would see her the following
evening.
Mrs. Murray signed the "open letter" about 2 p.m. the
following afternoon, and it was distributed shortly
thereafter. She went to work as usual, at 4:30 p.m.
About 8 p.m., Stafford called her to the cafeteria for a
conference. He told her that her job production was "too
low" for the time she had been there and that she was to be
terminated that evening. Mrs. Murray asked whether
Katherine Lee, the most junior employee, was also to be
terminated and Stafford said that Lee was being given the
rest of the week "to better herself on the job."
Mrs. Murray protested that her discharge was unfair
and asked Stafford whether she was being discharged
because she had signed the "open letter." Stafford said it
was not but Mrs. Murray insisted that there could be no
other reason for her discharge and asked to see Night
Superintendent Mondrella. She asked Stafford whether she
should finish out her evening's work and Stafford refused;
she asked whether she could continue until 9:30 and he
again refused.
Mrs. Murray then went to Mondrella's office but she
learned that he was not in the plant that evening. She did
see, however, Victor Schultheiss, the employee relations
manager . She told Schultheiss that she had been terminated
by Stafford and Schultheiss answered that her production
was low. Mrs. Murray picked up the top copy of several of
the "open letters" that were lying on his desk, showed him
her signature on it, and said that was the reason she had
been fired . Schultheiss said it was not and he defended
Stafford. He then asked her what time she was "all done
working" and she said she guessed it was "as of right now."
Schultheiss told her that she could not go back into the
plant alone since she no longer worked there; he
accompanied her back to her work station and either he or
Stafford kept watch over her until she took her purse and
left about 9 p.m.30
According to Mrs. Murray's testimony, which was not
contradicted, she had never been given any kind of warning
concerning the quantity or quality of her work. Due to the
fact that she and Katherine Lee made up their work reports
together, Mrs. Murray testified, she knew that Lee's
performance was just about the same as hers.
Stafford's complete testimony with respect to the
discharge of Mrs. Murray consists of the following three
questions by respondent's counsel on direct examination:
Q. Mr. Stafford, were you involved with the
termination of an employee named Sandra Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. Upon what did you base your decision to
terminate Sandra Murray?
A. Upon her work production.
Q. Where did you get the figures for her work
production from?
A. From the cards that they in turn turned in.
The balance of his testimony was devoted to a description
of the card system and to respondent's effort to lay a
foundation for the receipt into evidence of Katherine Lee's
card.31 Stafford, however, made no reference to any
comparison between the work records of Mrs. Murray and
Katherine Lee.
In appraising the testimony of Stafford, who claimed that
it was he who made the decision to terminate Mrs. Murray,
consideration must be given to the uncontroverted
testimony of Beverly Gardner who, at the time of Mrs.
Murray's employment as a washer , was the senior employee
and first in the line. She testified that when she was hired as
a washer in August 1969, the man who was foreman at the
time told her that she had a 6-week period to learn the job
and, at that time, if she had not brought her production up
to the point desired, she would receive a warning slip and
be given another month to bring her production up; and
that if, at the end of that month, her production was still not
up, she would receive another warning, to be followed, if
appropriate, by transfer or discharge. Mrs. Murray's
discharge, it is to be noted, occurred 6 weeks and a day
after she began working as a washer. It appears, therefore,
that Stafford did not follow the established procedure.
Joyce Martiny, who was third in seniority and worked just
above Mrs. Murray, began working as a washer early in
1970. She testified that, even when she was the last in the
line, there were no written warnings , although at each of
their monthly meetings they were urged to pick up speed.
She also testified that she was never threatened with
discharge for failure to pick up speed and that, although the
number of washers varied during her employment, no
washer had ever been discharged for failure to make
production.
29 Different types of shoes have different amounts of compensation June 10" but no objection was raised to the proof on the ground of
fixed for various operations The compensation may be fixed in terms of variance in date This variance is insubstantial and has been ignored.
" time" or "productivity " 31 The card was received in evidence with strongly expressed
30 The complaint alleges that Mrs Murray was discharged "on or about reservations concerning its reliability and probative weight.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Relations Manager Schultheiss, however, gave
an account differing from that of Stafford. He testified that
on June 8, he conferred with Stafford and concluded that
they "had too many people in the area . . . and the
performance of the people was not up to par." They
decided to "relieve" one employee but would wait to see the
"performance cards" before making a decision so that the
employee with the "lowest work record for that week"
would be separated.32 He then confined the competition for
separation to the two "probationary employees," Murray
and Lee, because the others, having been there over 90
days, had "seniority." He also testified, however, that the
performance of these senior employees was higher than that
of the other two.
The performance cards of Murray and Lee for the week
ending May 30 were received the morning of June 9 and
they showed, Schultheiss testified, a performance record of
56.5 percent for Murray and 63.1 percent for Lee.33 There is
no explanation for the use of cards showing production
figures more than a week old, since the employees testified
that the standards of compensation for the work they
performed were already on the cards when they received
them at the beginning of the week and each day they simply
filled in the quantity of each type of work performed and
the number of hours they worked,34 so that computation of
each employee's efficiency, on the basis of the two sets of
figures, is a comparatively simple matter.
More important than the questionable reliability of the
comparative efficiency ratings shown on the cards is
Schultheiss' admission that these ratings were not the sole
criterion which he used in choosing the employee to be
discharged. The two other elements which entered into his
decision, he testified, were that Mrs. Lee had formerly
worked for respondent 10 years but Mrs. Murray had
worked only one year, and that Mrs. Murray could not be
transferred back to her previous department because the
foreman there, under whom she had formerly worked,
would not have her. These matters ment examination.
Based upon his statement that Lee previously worked 10
years for respondent, although he did not know the
department, Schultheiss drew not only the conclusion that
Lee was a "longevity employee" but that Mrs. Murray, who
32 Schultheiss testified that, although he personally did not tell any of
the employees of the intention to reduce the force, stated that "to his
knowledge" the supervisor did, but he admitted he did not hear him do so.
Joyce Martiny, one of the washers, testified that prior to Mrs. Murray's
discharge neither Stafford nor any other management representative told
them that anyone was to be discharged
33 A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to the data on the
cards, its origin , the calculations based upon it, and the uses to which it is
put, but nevertheless the origin of and justification for some of the
elements remained unexplained . Although the Lee card was received on a
very unsatisfactory foundation , since it could have been concocted for the
purpose of this litigation , the calculations on the two cards showed the
above efficiency ratings for the two employees
34 There is also no explanation for the fact that both cards show the
employees working only the first 4 days of that week, although Schultheiss
testified that it was a 5-day, 40-hour week , and he testified that he did not
know why the cards showed only 4 days.
35 Big Rapids is the site of Fems State College, a component of the
Michigan State University system . There is nothing to show what
Schultheiss knew about the academic status of Mr Murray but it is to be
noted that at the time of the trial of this case , more than 7 months later,
Mrs. Murray gave her address as "West Campus, Big Rapids."
had worked one year, "would be leaving Big Rapids upon
the graduation of her husband." 35 Schultheiss conceded
that Mrs. Murray had never told him this and no justifiable
basis is shown for this assumption which he made or his
claimed reliance upon it.
The other element relied upon by Schultheiss was his
statement that he chose Mrs. Murray for discharge because
the foreman in the department where she had formerly
worked would not accept her. The reasoning of Schultheiss
exhibited by this statement seems strangely awry; if
Murray's former supervisor would not accept her on
transfer and, inferentially, Lee's would, does that constitute
a justification for discharging Murray?36 Another, and
more serious, deficiency in Schultheiss' use of this
denigrating argument is that, since the record proves it to
be without basis in fact,37 it constitutes a slur justifying an
inference of both recklessness and malice.
Respondent's assigned bases for the discharge of Mrs.
Murray have been rejected as groundless,38 but it is
undisputed that, only a few hours before her discharge, the
"open letter," signed by Mrs. Murray and other employees
supporting the Amalgamated, had been distributed outside
the plant and Mrs. Murray saw several copies in a pile on
Schultheiss' desk. Also important in this connection is the
uncontradicted testimony of Mrs. Murray that she was
discharged at 8 p.m. but not given her final check at that
time. If the choice of Mrs. Murray as the one to be
discharged had been made, as Schultheiss testified, when
the performance cards were received on the morning of the
9th, it would seem an appropriate step and a simple matter
for respondent's office force to have prepared her final
check sometime during the day before her reporting time at
4:30 p.m. and it also would appear likely that Mrs. Murray
would have been notified of her termination when she
reported instead of after 8 p.m. If, on the contrary, the
decision was not made until the distribution of the "open
letter" between 3:30 and 4, or even later, it is understanda-
ble that the clerical staff would be unable to prepare her
check in time. I also take into consideration the abrupt
timing and manner of the discharge , as well as Schultheiss'
discourtesy in refusing to permit Mrs. Murray to pick up
her belongings without surveillance.39
While Schultheiss testified that he denied Mrs. Murray's
36 Schultheiss did not claim to use this as a test of their comparative
efficiencies.
31 Schultheiss testified that a man named Stripco was Mrs . Murray's
foreman in the prefitting room and that, for reasons unknown to
Schulthetss , he did not want her back in that department . Mrs. Murray
testified on rebuttal that her previous work was in the fitting department
and that her foremen during that period were Jim Laviska, Bryan Scott,
and Donald Nelson. She knew there was a man named Stripco in the area
at the time and that he was a supervisor because he wore a white shirt but
she never worked for him. She also testified that, when she was interviewed
by Schultheiss for reemployment , she asked to be placed in the fitting
department but Schultheiss said there was no opening there . While this
interview was in progress , she testified , Laviska came in and greeted her,
Schultheiss asked him whether it was a good idea to hire her bark , Laviska
said, "She's a good kid", and Schultheiss hired her . Mrs. Murray's
testimony was not controverted and I find it to be an accurate account of
the interview.
38 An additional reason for rejecting respondent 's contentions is the fact
that Schultheiss, by the contradictions in his testimony and his demeanor
while testifying, impressed me as a not credible witness.
39 See Laney Tank Lines, Incorporated, 166 NLRB 1053, 1059.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 457
accusation that her signature on the letter was his real
reason for discharging her, I find, on all the credible
evidence, that it was precisely that and that he discharged
her to discourage membership in the union. His action,
therefore, constitutes a violation by respondent of Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
j. Additional conclusions
Although it has been necessary to examine and
adjudicate, separately, each of the acts and occurrences
alleged in the complaint as an unfair labor practice and, for
the purpose of such discussion, the acts and occurrences
have been grouped with others of a similar nature, it must
be kept in mind that each of the items litigated stands not in
isolation but in a vital relationship to each other. As the
court of appeals recently stated:
Each 8(a)(1) violation contributed to an anti-union
pattern which gave color to each.40
Accordingly, a chronological summary of the events herein
is set forth to show this interrelationship.
Union activity
Apr. 6: Union representatives
meet with Albert Derby
Company reaction
Apr. 13: Albert Derby questioned
by Vanderwater; given
impression he is under
surveillance
May 11: Mable Sims interrogated
concerning union cards;
threatened with refusal
of time off
May 22: Irene Shannon interrogated
concerning union cards
May 28: Betty Derby given warning
notice for smoking break
May 28: Albert Derby given
warning notice for
passing defective shoes
End of Fulkerson interrogated
May: about union status of
members of his family
40 New Alaska Development Corp, et a! v N L R B (C.A 7), March 22,
1971, enfg. 175 NLRB No. 131.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union activity Company reaction
June 9: "Open Letter" signed June 9: Antiunion petition
by 48 employees is circulated with implied
distributed outside consent of respondent;
plants. threats made that plant
will close
June 9: Sandra Murray is
discharged
June 10: Charlotte Pontz
interrogated concerning
her reasons for signing
"open letter"
June 10: Shirley Kooistra
interrogated concerning
her reasons for signing
"open letter" and
threatened with loss of
benefits
June 10: Threat by Lovell to Dard
that operators would be
required to attain "100%
efficiency"
June 11: Warning given Johnson
and Ringquist for
failure to check
colors
June 11: Petersen given warning
for light marking
June 12: Foreman Hendricks
questions Ruth Owens
on her attendance at
the union meeting*
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 459
Union activity COMPany reaction
June 13: Union meeting at town June 13: Elliott and Ward
hall in Paris engage in surveillance
of union meeting
June 15 : Plant Manager Lovell
"consults" employee
about formation of
of employee committee*
June 17 : Charlotte Pontz
interrogated concerning
union dues
June 23: Handbills passed out June 23 : Supervisors Schultheiss
in parking lot by and Mondrella attempt
Spencer , Mable Sims, to bar handbill dis-
and Betty Derby tributors from premises
June 24 : Spencer given warning
for damaging corners
in skiving
June 26: Albert Derby issued
2nd warning for
passing defective
shoes
June 26: Leonard Sims issued
warning for damaging
shoes in cleaning
June 27: Harassment of Fulkerson
re union cards*
End of Ringquist interrogated
June: concerning her reasons
for signing "open
letter"
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union activity Company reaction
July 2: Handbills passed July 2: Attempt by Mondrella
out by Lone Dard and to intimidate and bar
Leonard Sims distributors of
handbills
July 3: Shirley Kooistra issued
warning for marking
errors
3d week Threats of plant
in July: closing by Mondrella
End of Fulkerson told that
July: his new foreman would
try to get him away
from the union; also
told that he was being
watched
End of Doris Kirk promised
July : favorable consideration
of application for
transfer if employees
would "negotiate directly"
with management
Aug. 9: Threats of plant closing
by Mondrella
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 461
6. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon
commerce
The activities of respondent, set forth in finding of fact 5,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in finding of fact 1, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
7. The remedy
Having found that respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that respondent, by administering warning
notices to certain employees, committed unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it expunge the warning
notices from the files of those employees.
Having found that respondent, by suspending Albert W.
Derby, committed an unfair labor practice, I shall
recommend that it make Derby whole for the loss of wages
he suffered by the suspension, with interest thereon as
prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Having found that respondent, by discharging Sandra
Lynn Murray, committed an unfair labor practice, I shall
recommend that it offer her reinstatement to the position
she held on June 9, 1970, or, if that position no longer
exists , to a position substantially equivalent thereto,
without loss of seniority or other rights and benefits, and
that it make her whole for any loss of compensation she
may have suffered, computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest
as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., supra.
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices found herein to have been engaged in by
Respondent, which indicate its determination to interfere
aggressively with its employees' rights of self-organization,
I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order herein.41
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record herein, I reach 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. The union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At the time of the activities set forth in the Decision,
Clem Lovell, Donald Whiteside, Victor Schultheiss, Henry
Jensen, Keith John Vanderwater, Dewey Smith, Richard
Mondrella, Jack Wright, Ronald Todd, Lynn Todd, Dale
Durfee, Daniel W. Elliott, Jim Laviska, Orville Hendricks,
Donald Nelson, Robert Sturdivant, Thomas Stafford, Jack
D. Ward, and Annabelle C. Yost were supervisors of
41 N L.R B v Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C.A 4, 1941)
42 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and acted as its agents.
4. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their self-organizational activities, or their union sympha-
thies and activities; by interfering with employee distribu-
tion of handbills in nonworking areas; by placing the union
meeting under surveillance and giving employees the
impression that their union activities were kept under
surveillance; by threatening to close the plants and
discontinue their employment; and by permitting the
circulation of an antiunion petition, respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in their
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act and committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. By issuing warnings to employees under circum-
stances not normally resulting in such warnings and by
suspending Albert W. Derby on the basis of such warnings,
respondent discriminated against those employees to
discourage their membership in the Union and committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
6. By discharging Sandra Lynn Murray, respondent
discriminated against her to discourage her membership in
the Union and committed an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By the unfair labor practices set forth in conclusions
of law 5 and 6, respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
the Act and committed unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 42
ORDER
Respondent, Wolverine World Wide, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
self-organizational activities, their union sympathies or
activities, their membership in or activities on behalf of
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion; interfering with employee distribution of union or
organizational handbills in nonworking areas of the plants;
placing union meetings under surveillance or giving
employees the impression that their union activities are
being kept under surveillance; threatening to close its
plants and discontinue employment because of their
employees' exercise of self-organizational rights guaranteed
by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended; or by
permitting the circulation of antiunion petitions.
(b) Warning, suspending, or discharging any employee to
Section 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.
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discourage his or her membership in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form organizations , to join or assist
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Sandra Lynn Murray immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or , if that position no
longer exists , to a position substantially equivalent to that
which she held immediately prior to June 9 , 1970, without
prejudice to her seniority or other privileges , and make her
whole for any loss of wages in the manner set forth in the
section of the Decision entitled "The remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement , upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces , in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
43 In the event that the Board 's 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 be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
(c) Make Albert W. Derby whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of his suspension on June 26,
1970, in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision
entitled "The remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(e) Post at its Plants B/F and C in Big Rapids , Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 43 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 44
The allegations of the complaint, insofar as not found by
the Decision to be violative of the Act, are hereby
dismissed.
44 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.