Proctor-Silex Corp.

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Proctor-Silex Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIG. Cases 11-CA-2509 and 11-RC-2001. June 17,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On September 29, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a sup- porting and answering brief. 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 cross-exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the proceedings, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations 2 of the Trial Exam- iner, as modified herein. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications : [1. Add the following to paragraph 2(b) : ", and make Richard Womack whole for any out-of-pocket medical expenses resulting from the discrimination practiced against him, with interest thereon I We concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion that certain conduct that was violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) was sufficient grounds to set aside the election In so doing, however, we find it unnecessary to rely on conduct that occurred prior to June 25, 1964, the date the representation petition was filed herein. 2 The Charging Party has excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to recommend pay- ment to employee Womack for his out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred as a result of his discriminatory discharge and to the failure to find additional violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. We agree that Womack is entitled to payment for medical expenses that he would have received but for his discriminatory discharge , less any premiums he would have paid for such medical coverage, with interest thereon He is not , of course, entitled to payment for medical expenses incurred prior to the time he would have normally qualified for benefits. 159 NLRB No. 50. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 599 at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date such medical pay= ments were made." Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 158 NLRB 186. [2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) the present paragraph 2(b) and those subsequently thereto being subsequently relettered. ["(b) Notify the employees listed in the Appendix if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." [3. Delete the seventh paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision and add the following new paragraph: [WE WILL offer those named below immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi- leges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them, and WE WILL reimburse Richard Womack for his out-of-pocket medical expenses, plus 6 percent interest thereon, suffered as a result of our discrimina- tion against him. [4. Add the following immediately below the signature line at the bottom of the Appendix : [NOTE.-We will notify the above-named individuals if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.] [IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on August 25, 1964, in Case 11-RC-2001, be, and it hereby is, set aside.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Carthage and Southern Pines, North Carolina, on February 15 through 17, 1965, pursuant to due notice, with all parties represented by counsel. The complaint was issued on No- vember 27, 1964, by the Regional Director of Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of its General Counsel, herein called the General Coun- sel and the Board. It was based on charges filed and served on August 28 and October 12, 1964, which alleged that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac- tices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The substance of the allegations was that Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by various specified conduct, and had discriminated against its employees in regard to their 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hire or tenure of their employment by the discharge of various employees I because of their union membership, activities, or sympathies, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Union. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied any violation of the Act. In addition to the unfair labor practice matter, the complaint hearing was con- solidated with a hearing on the matter of whether or not the employees had been afforded a fair and free choice in a representation election which had been con- ducted by the Board on August 25, 1964, and which the Union lost by a large majority. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS At all times material Respondent has been a Connecticut corporation owning and operating a plant at Southern Pines, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electric irons. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period, Respondent received at its Southern Pines, North Carolina, plant raw materials from points outside the State of North Carolina valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period of time, Respond- ent sold and shipped finished products from its Southern Pines, North Carolina, plant to points outside the State of North Carolina, valued in excess of $50,000. At all times material Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, at all material times herein, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction The Union's organizing campaign started at Respondent's Southern Pines plant late in March 1964.2 On June 10 the Union wrote the Respondent in part as follows: This is to advise you that the names listed below are employees in your plant in Southern Pines and they are serving on the in-plant organizing com- mittee for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. As you know, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives your employees this right and any discrimination on your part toward these employ- ees will be handled as an unfair labor practice charge. These employees will continue to perform their duties in their particular jobs as they have in the past but will be actively supporting the campaigning for the Union on their break periods, lunch time, before and after working hours. Among the employees named in this letter were Royce Lee Baker, Eugene Hurl- bert, and Wilford Jewell, alleged herein as discriminatees. On June 12 Respondent replied to the Union as follows: We have received your letter in which you state that each of the following employees is "serving on the in-plant organizing committee" of your union and is engaged in active efforts on your union's behalf, namely: (Names deleted) We are taking due note of this information. We want these employees, whom you have named, to understand, however, that their being- members of your union does not give them any immunity of 1 Those alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged were Royce Lee Baker on May 22, Leroy Ivey and Eugene Hurlbert on June 18, Richard Womack on June 26, Maurice Holland on June 29, and Wilford Jewell on August 28, 1964. 2 All dates are in 1964 unless otherwise noted. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 601 any sort nor any preferences of any kind over any other employees at this plant. Although your letter seems to disclaim any idea that these individuals are seeking different treatment from other employees, it appears to us that this is exactly the purpose of your letter. We want to make it entirely clear, both to you and to them, that these employees will be expected and they, will be required to perform their jobs and abide by our company rules as fully and completely as any other employees-if they wish to remain in this Company's employment. On June 17 the Union again wrote Respondent as follows: This is to advise you that the names listed below are employees in your plant in Southern Pines and they are to be added to the list that are now serv- ing on the in-plant organizing committee for the International Union of Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. We are not seeking immunity,of any sort for this committee nor any pref- erence of any kind over any other employees. These employees will continue to perform their duties in their particular jobs as they have in the past but will be actively supporting and campaigning for the Union on their break periods, lunchtime, before and after working hours. Among the four named employees in this letter were Leroy Ivey and Maurice Holland, also alleged herein as discriminatees. In a union leaflet dated June 23 which was passed out at the plant, the mem- bers of the organizing committee were all listed (now totaling 20 in number) and included the name of Richard W. Womack also alleged herein to be a discriminatee. There are four general issues in this case: (1) whether the discharges of the- alleged discriminatees (who in addition to being on the organizing committee were all active on behalf of the Union) were for cause or were in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; (2) whether Respondent did in fact engage in various 8(a)(1) conduct; and (3) whether or not the leadmen, including Al Hunt,3 Leroy McKay, and Wayne Phillips were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Also in issue is the validity of the representation election. B. The status of leadmen The Respondent objected vigorously to any inquiry into the supervisory status of the leadmen on the grounds that the matter had been determined in the Regional Director's "Decision and Direction of Election" and that his Decision was not rehti- gable. In his decision the Regional Director found as follows regarding the leadmen: The Employer's operations are conducted in 12 departments. On the first shift, where there is full operation, each of the departments is supervised by a fore- man; on the second shift-not all operated in all departments-there are three department foremen. The parties have agreed that the department foremen on day and night shifts should be excluded as supervisors. There are in the departments, below the level of foreman, either one or two working leadmen depending on the size of the department. The leadmen (unlike the foremen, who are salaried) are hourly paid, at a rate of about 10 percent higher than that of rank-and-file employees in their departments. The leadmen spend about 90 percent of their time moving materials in their departments. They instruct new operators and, at times, relieve operators at machines, but their primary function is to assist the foreman in maintaining an even flow of parts and materials in the departments. If disciplinary problems arise, the leadmen report to the foremen; they have no independent authority to discipline, sus- pend or discharge employees, and their recommendations are subject to investi- gation by foremen before action is taken. The leadmen do not attend the supervisory meetings, which are attended by foremen and higher supervision. As the record shows that the leadmen's direction of employment is of a rou- tine nature, and at all times subordinate to the foremen who are continually present within the departments, it is found that the leadmen are not super- visors within the meaning of Section • 2 (11) of the Act: They are included in the unit. Plastic Industrial Products, Inc., 139 NLRB 1066, 1068. 3 Named in the complaint as Hurt. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Over Respondent's objection I permitted testimony on the .matter. Whether or not this was error on my part and Respondent right in its contention 4 is unneces- sary for me now to decide since I am convinced and find that there was nothing in the evidence presented to me that would require a different conclusion that was reached on the matter by the Regional Director.5 Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has not shown by a necessary preponderance of the evidence that the leadmen were supervisors as defined in the Act. C. Interference, restraint, and coercion Royce Lee Baker, a former employee whose discharge on May 22 is alleged herein to have been discriminatory, testified credibly and without denial as to a conversation with Leon Jones (the night superintendent and admittedly a super- visor herein), around the 14th of May.6 Jones asked him, "Do you know of any union meetings?" He told Jones that he had heard of one that past Monday. Jones asked, "Have you attended any?" He replied that he had not. Jones said, "Well, will you attend some meetings and get the names of all employees who attend those meetings and turn them into me, and I will forward them to Mr. Tucker." He told Baker that the Company would reward him. Jones also told him either in this conversation or in another one around the 18th , "That this is our bread and butter, and we can't let no union get it. All they want is your union dues and it is your money. There will be strikes, and we are going to have trou- ble, and it is best that they don't get in." In this conversation with Jones around the 18th, he told Jones that he would try to have a union meeting set up at his house and see how many employees he could get to attend. Jones said "Well, then you get me the names and turn them in." The following day Jones asked him who had attended the meeting. Baker's reply was that "Two of the hardest working people in this plant. One of them is kin• to me. I will not tell you because I don't want to see him fired. These two boys have worked a lot of overtime. They are food workers. I will not tell you because they will be fired because they came and listened to the union officials. I know." Jones never asked him anything else. Maurice Holland, another alleged discriminatee herein, testified about a conver- sation he had with Supervisor Nash Heath on the last day of his employment with Respondent. Heath stopped him at lunch and said to him, "Why don't you take off your union button before you find yourself out of a job?" 7 Heath then asked him what he thought the Union could do for the Company. He told Heath that he did not think it was fair the way he had been shifted from job to job and his production cut. Heath told him that the Company already had "locks on the doors, and if the Union got in, they would shut down the plant, and the people would be out of work." I credit Holland. Ray Junior Furr, a former employee who had worked for Respondent about 7 months during 1964 and who had been on the Union's organizing committee, testified that about the first of August his supervisor, Nash Heath, offered him a better job if he would have his name taken off of the Union's organizing commit- tee. At the time he was working in the paintroom. As a result of the offer he went to Union Organizer Hooks and prevailed upon him to have his name removed from the roster of the negotiating committee 5 after which he was made leadman over the paintroom. 4 See Rish Equipment Company, 150 NLRB 1185 5 The attempt to show hiring and firing on the part of the leadmen by the General Counsel's witnesses reveals nothing more than was found by the Regional Director in this respect. The possibility that the WP initials appearing on a couple of timecards were those of leadman Wayne Phillips was not proved and remained merely a possibility. In any event, addition of such a duty would not in my opinion serve to show that Phillips was a supervisor 6 Jones was not called as a witness nor was the failure to call him explained by Respondent. 7 Holland was on the organizing committee of the Union and like all the other members of the committee had been given a union button or badge to wear showing his committee membership. 8 This was corroborated by Hooks in his testimony. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 603 Although admitting that he had made a leadman out of Furr, Heath denied felling Furr "that if he would stop union activities" he would be given a better job. He further testified affirmatively about the matter as follows: In the paintroom at that time, we had about four employees, and one guy was assigned as a leadman to mix paints, and start up the spray machine; and before this time, Clyde Smith was the guy that did that, he was classified as a leadman; he quit; and Dick Tucker called myself, and all the guys in 'the paintroom to his office, and told the` guys that if they wanted to do the job, and it looked like they could do the job, that he would give them a lead- man's job.9 It seems to me that Heath's testimony as to how the promotion of the leadman was handled here raises considerable doubt as to its veracity. It seems incredible to, me that an offer of this sort would have been made as described by Heath. I credit Furr here. According to the credited testimony of Wilfred Jewell, another alleged discrimi- natee herein , sometime prior to his discharge he had talked to the then plant man- ager, Benkowski, about the Union on a couple of occasions. These conversations both took place in the Company's parking lot, and were on a friendly basis. About the first conversation he testified as follows: Well, it was just more or less give and take, you know off the cuff. Mr. Ben- kowski stopped myself and Mr. Allen when we were going home, and he wanted to know why we brought the Union down, what we wanted, and why we brought it in there; and I told him personally that I thought it would be a good thing; that the place had deteriorated, the working conditions in the last 6 months to where you couldn't hardly stand to work there. Not only was this testimony undenied, it was substantially corroborated by Benkowski in his own testimony. I find on the basis of the foregoing that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following respects: 1. The interrogation of the employees by Jones, Benkowski, and Heath. 2. Jones' solicitation of Baker to report on the union activities of his fellow workers and his promise of reward therefor and the threat of strikes and trouble if, in essence, the Union was successful in the organizing campaign. 3. Heath's threat of the shutdown of the plant to Holland if the Union won the election and the further implication by Heath to Holland of loss of his job for wearing the union organizer's badge. 4. Heath's promise of a better job (and its fulfillment) to Furr for getting his name taken off the Union's organizing committee. D. Discrimination 1. Royce Lee Baker Baker worked for Respondent from late January 1964 to May 22, 1964 10 For approximately the last 4 weeks of his employment he worked on the 10900 hand iron production line. According to his testimony, his job was to tighten down the front screw in the iron, place and tighten the back stump screw, and fix over- lapping covers. He testified that he had nothing to do with inserting the main- springs which were already placed when the iron came to him. He also denied any responsibility for inspecting the springs which he claimed were inspected two or three stations below him on the line and also at about three stations above him. On May 22, he was discharged for unsatisfactory workmanship. According to Baker, Plant Manager Tucker charged him was passing bad mainsprings notwith- standing his denial to Tucker that he had had anything to do with the mainsprings. Baker admitted on cross-examination that the quality of work on the 10900 line was particularly bad and that the line supervisor, Clyde Heath, "kept harping" about 9 According to Heath, Tucker had called these employees into the office all at the same time About a week and a half later Furr was made leadman. 10 His membership on the organizing committee, his conversations with Night Superin- tendent Leon Jones about the Union, and his bluntly phrased refusal around May 18 to disclose to Jones who had attended a union meeting have been set forth above. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it. He also testified on cross-examination that Plant Manager Tucker on several occasions had called the whole plant together to discuss the poor quality of work generally as reflected in the number of irons being rejected. Kenneth Hopkins, assistant manager of quality control for Respondent, was called as a witness by Respondent and testified that on May 21, a screening report was made on the 10900 line by the quality control department showing that 64 irons had been rejected out of 990 produced on that day's run. Upon receiving this report Hopkins wrote the following memorandum to Plant Manager Tucker at- taching the report to it: During the week beginning 5/18/64, the quality control department helped set up screening operations with the final assembly production area for the pur- pose of screening out rejects during the assembly processes. The attached screening report for the 10900 line, dated 5/21/64, is particu- larly significant in that 50 of the 64 irons rejected on this date were rejected for bad or missing steam lever, tight or lose trigger, or lapped-cover-all con- ditions which point to one particular station on the production line. I feel that immediate corrective actions are necessary to overcome this situation. On direct examination Hopkins had testified that he was thoroughly familiar with the operations of the 10900 line and was examined at some length about them both on direct and cross-examination. He also testified in substance that on the basis of the screening report he was able to attribute 50 of the 64 rejects to one particular operation; that he did not' know the man whose station was highlighted in the report nor did he have any knowledge of the Union at this time. He fur- ther testified that after the report was turned over to him and he had transmitted it to Tucker with his memorandum, he had nothing further to do with the matter. On cross-examination Hopkins testified that when the May 21 screening report on the 10900 line reached him, he "went to the line to see what was causing these troubles." There, on the basis of about a half hour's check, and apparently in con- cert with someone else,ii it was determined that 50 of the 64 rejected irons were attributable to one particular station in the line. That station was manned by Baker. He further testified that the entire plant was having quality control problems at this time and he estimated that 30 percent of the plant's entire production at this time was winding up as rejected or faulty production. In this connection, according to Hopkins, the 10900 line was one of the worst lines. The current quality control manager," William Montgomery, was called as a witness by Respondent and, in an apparent effort to counter Hopkin's testimony that the plant was gunning about 30 percent faulty or rejected production, was asked, "What is the level of rejects within any given area under which you must keep to operate that plant, what percentage?" He answered, "Throughout the plant including the suppliers who supply us with materials, we hold this quality level at 1 percent. And this is the quality level that we try to maintain within this plant." He was then asked what percentage of the raw materials acquired by the plant come out in a quality control product, and he answered, "About 70 percent at the present time; we have a loss of 30 percent of the raw materials that we put into fabrication." This, he testified, has a direct relationship "with the level of quality workmanship that the employees are doing in the plant ... . Neverthe- less, he also testified that the plant will not tolerate a 30 percent deficiency on the part of any employee. He was then asked what was the maximum of defec- tive work that Respondent would ever tolerate at any work station. To this he answered: In order to describe that, any defective work turned out by an operator, it is a repetitive thing-where there is a recurring or troublesome occurrence due to defective workmanship, I report this, of course, to management, and to that individual's immediate supervisor; report direct; let me say one thing; an operator who is going to tool or die an instrument making a part, if that tool or die is not making a quality part, you can do one of two things with it; you can either recorrect that tool, you can scrap it; the same thing holds with any operator assembly; if that operator is turning out defective work, the operator has to be corrected or gotten rid of; I mean, it is that simple. n He testified that "we checked everything." 11As of August 1964 he was production manager under the then plant manager, Benkowski. PROCTOR-SILLY. CORPORATION ,i 605 Respondent's direct examination then continued as follows: Q. Now to enlighten me and the record , Mr. Montgomery, is this 30-70 ratio, does that mean that you are producing approximately 30 percent defective? A. Not necessarily, no, sir. Q. What does it mean, I am confused. A. Well, this means that we are producing 30 percent of parts of which there are a certain percentage which is a total loss in that percentage which can be salvaged through rework ; and of course , there is additional cost incurred in these rework operations. Q. But that does not mean at any place have you ever tolerated only 70 per- cent performance from any employee as I understand it? A. That's right. Finally, Montgomery was posed essentially the same question as was put to Hop- kins, namely "What percentage do you estimate that the plant was running at this time, overall plantwide, faulty products that had to be actually reworked or scrapped?" His answer was, "At that time, it was around 30 or 40 percent." He further testified that of this 30 or 40 percent "8 or 10 percent would be total loss and the rest would be something that could be corrected and remedied .. . Besides Hopkins' testimony about the operations of the 10900 line as particu- larly concerned with Baker, Montgomery, and former Plant Manager Tucker also testified at some length for the purpose of showing that at least 50 of the 64 defects shown in the May 21 screening report were attributable to Baker. The testimony on this matter is very technical, often seemingly contradictory and con- fusing to say the least. In any event, it is interesting to note that when Montgom- ery was asked in substance if Baker had any responsibility with respect to the switch or trigger which activated the steam lever , he answered, "Not really, only to hold the handle in place while he is driving the screws ." This is essentially what Baker testified to and what he maintained in substance to Tucker when he was discharged. The screening report shows that 25 irons had inactivated steam levers and 17 had improperly adjusted steam triggers or switches. Conclusions as to Baker In my opinion, the foregoing evidence clearly shows that Baker's discharge was based on a transparent and ineptly contrived pretext designed to mask Respond- ent's antiunion motivation . Montgomery's testimony substantially eliminates 42 of the faulty irons from Baker's responsibility. Quite apart from this however, even if it were to be determined that Baker was responsible for 60 rejects or for that matter the entire 64 rejects on May 21, I think that the evidence would still point to a pretext here. Thus, it would appear that Baker's performance on that day would have been just about four or five times better than the general plant average was at that time. Moreover, there is no showing whatsoever as to what Baker's purported production deficiencies were on any other occasion except this one day. Notwithstanding what a cynical attitude his discharge would demon- strate on the basis of 1 day's bad work, it does not comport with the implication in Montgomery's testimony (and with what would be the obvious and normal pro- cedure) and an attempt would be made to correct an employee's deficiencies and that only after repeated failures would he be terminated . In addition to all this, it seems strange to me that Clyde Heath, Baker's foreman at the time in question, was not put on the stand by Respondent to testify as to his subordinate 's compe- tence nor was he shown to have been unavailable if such was the fact . In view of the foregoing and considering that Baker's termination occurred so soon after he had so pointedly indicated to Jones that he would not do Respondent 's illegal bidding, I find that he was discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Wilfred Jewell Jewell had worked for Respondent from June 1963 until the night of August 24, 1964. At the time of his discharge he was working a night shift. On the night of August 24 he had attended a union meeting after which he had gone to the plant to go to work. As he started in the plant, the security guards stopped him and told him that Night Superintendent Jones wanted to see him. As he started down the aisle Jones met him and told him that he was no longer employed by the Com- 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD party. He asked who had discharged him and why, and Jones said he did not know-that he had received a telephone call and that Jewell was no longer employed. Jones did not testify as already indicated. But Plant Manager Benkowski did. When he was asked to tell about the discharge of Jewell and the part he played in it and'how it was carried out, he testified as follows: Late one evening two nights prior to the election, I was staying at the Holi- day Inn; I stayed at the Holiday Inn from the time I came to Southern Pines until October 15, 1964; during the period up to October 15, 1964, I resided at the Holiday Inn; and other than eating at the various places; the only two places I visited, or would move from place to place would be the Holiday Inn to the plant or from the plant there, or on the weekends going home. Now one evening, two evenings prior to the election, I received a phone call from the plant from Mr. Bruce Cox who stated that he observed Mr. Wilfred Jewell . . . defacing company property. Just prior to this time Benkowski had inaugurated a plantwide program to beau- tify and improve the appearance of the plant, to remove trash and dirt, and improve the housekeeping of the plant generally. They had even instigated an employee contest in connection with the program. Then "there begin to show up at various places around the company property large IUE stickers." Accordingly, he instructed his people to watch for the ones responsible for "defacing the prop- erty" and gave instructions that if they found out who the culprits were he wanted to be called immediately. When he received the call about Jewell, he ordered the latter's discharge. Bruce Cox was called as a witness by Respondent and testified as follows: He was a current employee of Respondent who had had experience in another plant as a security officer. Apparently because of this Benkowski had assigned to him "among others" the function of "watching for things occurring" in the plant He was told to report anything out of the ordinary. This was during the time of the plant's improved housekeeping program during which "these gooey, sticky-back union labels or notices" were appearing on the walls. On the occasion of Jewell's discharge he saw Jewell place two stickers on the bulletin board during Jewell's break times. The first one was placed on the bulletin board at 1 o'clock and the second one during the 3 o'clock break. Although he testified that he observed these sticky posters on tow motors, bathroom doors, and lockers, the only two he saw being posted were the ones he saw Jewell post. Whether he called Benkow- ski at 3 o'clock in the morning as his testimony seems to indicate is not clear but the fact is that he reported Jewell's actions to Renkowski. On cross-examination Cox was asked where on the bulletin board Jewell had placed the union sticker and he replied that Jewell had placed the sticker over the "no" in a "Vote No foi 'IUE'f sticker. On cross-examination Jewell admitted that he carried a supply of union stick- ers in his pocket and in his lunchbox and that he handed them out in the plant to whomever would take them. Some of the these stickers were about 4 inches across, some 6 or 8 inches, and some 2 feet long. Conclusions as to Jewell In my opinion the evidence as to Jewell's discharge reveals just about as flimsy ,a pretext as in the case of Baker. Posting a union sticker on a bulletin board can hardly be called "defacing proptrty.'3 And even if Respondent was aware that Jewell had been passing out the union stickers and posters (which the evidence does not show), I would still find that his discharge under the circumstances here was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. Richard Womack Womack was on the union organizing committee and solicited and signed up union members during break periods and after work. They would sign cards in his pickup truck outside. His last day of work for Respondent was on June 23. According to his termination papers, he quit without notice. About his discharge he testified as follows: 13 That it was posted over some other material might have lent some justification to this accusation had it not been for the particular item involved. In the circumstances here I believe it was legitimate activity. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 607 On June 23 about 3:30 a.m., he became ill and called his carpool rider, George Riggsbee, and told him he was unable to work and asked him to notify his boss or foreman that he would not be in and that he was going to the doctor he was admitted to the hospital . He had an attack of kidney stones and was in the hospital for about 3 days. He was discharged from the hospital about 4:30 on a Thursday. The following day about noon he went to the plant to pick up his check and to find out if his insurance was in effect because he was going to be readmitted to the hospital the following Monday for surgery. In the handle department of the plant he saw leadman Wayne Phillips who said "Our wonder boy has returned-where in the hell have you been?" Then Phillips told him that Foreman Nash Heath wanted to see him. He told Heath that he had been in the hospital, that he was scheduled to go back in the following Monday for surgery and wanted to know if his insurance would cover him. Heath told him that he had turned in a report to the personnel office and that he would have to check with them. This conversation apparently took place in the presence of Phillips. At the personnel office Womack asked Mary Grover if his insurance was in effect. She said she would check and find out and was gone approximately 1i/2 to 2 hours before she came back and told him that he had quit without notice. She also said that his insurance was not in effect because he had not started work until March 25 and that he would have had to work through June 25, a period of 90 days, to have had his insurance become effective . While he was in the personnel office and apparently while Grover was absent , he saw the mill nurse and had asked her if the hospital had notified them about his insurance and she had replied "Yes." George Riggsbee , Womack's rider, corroborated Womack's testimony about the early morning call on June 23, in which Womack asked Riggsbee to inform the Company of his illness. Early that morning he told Wayne Phillips about it. At - the end of the day Phillips came to him and told him to tell Womack if he saw him that night to come in early the next morning. When he got home that night be learned from his sister that Womack was in the hospital . When he went back to the plant the next day he told Phillips that Womack was in the hospital expect- ing an operation for kidney stones and that he did not know when he would get out. Riggsbee further testified that he thought that Phillips was foreman over their line. Phillips gave them their paychecks and told them what to do on the job. He never asked Phillips for time off but Phillips told them what time to come in if they were going to work overtime . If they ran out of parts on the job Phillips would give them the parts or tell them what to do. Phillips walked around and told them what to do and did not work in the production line with the rest of them. Nash Heath testified that he made out termination papers on both Holland and Womack because they "quit without notice ." He denied receiving any word about either of them being out or why. When Womack came in and got his check he told him that he had been discharged . Womack asked him why and he told Womack that he had been out for 10 days and had not called in and that he had put in a separation on him. In her testimony Grover stated that she had no recol- lection of having talked to Womack about his termination or about his discharge. She was asked on cross-examination who the hospital would talk to if they called about the insurance and she replied "If the hospital called about insurance, they would talk to the insurance clerk. At that time the insurance was carried on through the personnel office and I handled it myself." Conclusions as to Womack Notwithstanding that I have found that Phillips was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, I nevertheless find that because of the circumstances of his relationship between the employees and Respondent , he was cloaked with appar- ent authority to receive the kind of notice that Riggsbee gave him regarding Womack's illness , and that for this purpose he was Respondent's agent. I am con- vinced that Respondent had actual knowledge of the circumstances of Womack's absence and that it is simply attempting to justify its action (which I find was dis- criminatorily motivated ) on a technicality. 4. Leroy Ivey and Eugene Hurlbert , These two employees were discharged on June 18 for having failed to return from their lunch bleak on time. Both of these employees were on the organizing 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD committee. Both testified without denial and credibly that they had been active in the Union and had signed up several union members during their break periods and after work. They further testified credibly and without denial that their discharge had occurred within a day or two after they started wearing their organizing com- mittee badges at work. About the discharge Huribert testified as follows: He and Ivey got back from lunch on that day 3 minutes late. He knew it was 3 minutes because he looked at the timeclock. Their foreman, Nash Heath, stopped them from going back to work when they came in saying that they were 10 minutes late and "That the big boss didn't like people coming in late." Ivey asked if he was going to dock them a half hour and Heath replied, "I might stop you permanent." About this point Heath was paged over the loudspeaker to come to the office. When he returned a few minutes later he told them that Plant Manager Tucker wanted to see them. When they got to the office Tucker was not there but came in a minute or so later with the personnel woman. Tucker told her to "Take these two boys to the office and discharge them because they reported late to work after lunch." In the office they were asked to sign and did sign their discharge notices which showed that they were discharged for failing to report to work on time after lunch and that they fully understood the reason given for the discharge. According to Hurlbert, he had never been late from his lunch break before. Ivey corroborated Hurlbert's testimony that they were 3 minutes late on the occasion in question. He denied that he was carrying anything in his hands, specif- ically a Pepsi Cola and a package of crackers, when he returned from the lunch break. He also testified that he had been late on several occasions before this but had received no prior warnings. Womack testified that on the occasion of the dis- charge of Ivey and Hurlbert, when the buzzer sounded the end of the lunch break the two in question were not back but that he then saw them coming in and looked at his watch; it was 3 minutes after 12.14 Roland Parks, a witness called by Respondent, testified as follows: In the sum- mer of 1964 he worked in the same production line as Ivey and Hurlbert. About 3 weeks before the latter two were fired there was a bulletin posted on the board about people being late returning from break times. Besides the posting of the bul- letin the employees had all been called together by Heath and talked to personally about the subject. Ivey and Hurlbert were about 10 minutes late on the day they were discharged and had been late several days before that time. This testimony was substantially corroborated by three other witnesses called by the Respondent, Jimmie Bullard, Elbert Sullivan, and Jerry Graves. The latter two witnesses also testified that one of the two in question was carrying something, one specifying that it was a Pepsi Cola. The supervisor of Ivey and Hurlbert, Nash Heath, testified about the discharge as follows: He was having trouble with people coming back late from breaks. As a result he not only posted a notice about it but gave them warnings and threatened discharge for failure to heed the warnings. Ivey and Hurlbert had been late several times and had been warned about it. The day before their discharge they had been 5 to 10 minutes late and were told at that time that this was their last warning. On the day they were discharged they came in 10 to 15 minutes late from lunch with Pepsi Colas in their hands and asked, "Are we fired?" Heath told them, "Wait here just a minute before you go to work," and "left them there with an arrogant smug attitude" to tell Plant Manager Tucker what had happened. Tucker told him to discharge then. According to Heath's testimony he had discharged 25 to 35 others for the same reason. Asked if he could name any individuals he had discharged for this reason around that time he named Shaver, Oniske, and Flynn.15 It appeared that on May 15 Flynn had left for lunch at 11:30 and was located by Heath and Tucker about 1 o'clock in a bar drinking beer. He had three other employees with him. All were terminated. Oniske had reported 30 minutes late from lunch on June 2. Shaver never did return from lunch on May 15. Heath also testified that he did not con- sider a couple of minutes late as serious but that anything over 5 minutes he "would question." His rule, his own practice in his department, was "any man gets two warnings and then they are discharged," unless they had a good explanation- "an emergency." He had this authority without further authorization from his superiors. 14 Presumably the lunch break ended at 12. 15 The first two he was uncertain about the names, calling them Chavis and Orneck until shown the correct names in the Company's records. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 609 Conclusion as to Ivey and Hurlbert Of the foregoing testimony, I credit Hurlbert's that he had never before been late from lunch break. I also credit the General Counsel's version that the two employ- ees were 3 minutes late. In these circumstances and considering the admission by Heath that he did not consider a tardiness under 5 minutes as being serious, I find that these discharges also were based upon a pretext, and that the true motive was discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. While it may be that Ivey had been warned about his admitted previous tardiness, it seems to me that his case is tied in with that of Hurlbert, and I believe that the common denominators of both should govern the result here. Thus, not only was Hurlbert never late before, but there are other factors which lead me to the conclusion I reach. For instance, notwithstanding Nash's plenary authority regarding the handling of this type of matter, he found it necessary to take it to Plant Manager Tucker before taking any action. Moreover, when asked to name people and describe the circumstances of similar discharges, he was able to recite only three examples and they were so disparate with the two in question as to be detrimental to Respondent's position here. 5. Maurice Holland Maurice Holland was discharged as of July 2 for having been absent 3 days without notice or explanation to the Company. According to Holland's testimony he had become ill under 29th of June and had told his aunt, Caroline McLeod, to contact his foreman, Nash Heath, and tell him that he was sick, that he was out on doctor's orders and would probably be out 2 or 3 days. The following Friday he went to the plant to pick up his check and "went in to talk to the foreman to explain why [he was out], his condition" and to talk about his vacation which was to start the following day. Heath told him "he didn't know," that he felt that Hol- land "had gotten to the place where [he] thought that [he] could just lay out any time [he] wanted to." In any event Heath told him to see him the Monday after vacation. Prior to going on his vacation he had no regular duties but had been used more or less as a utility man. On the morning that he returned from his vacation, not finding Heath at the moment, he asked the leadman, Wayne Phillips, what he wanted him to do. Phillips said, "Just a minute and I will check." In a few min- utes Phillips came back and told him that he had quit without notice and that he would have to go over to personnel and be rehired. Having explained the cir- cumstances to the lady at personnel, she said she would check it for him. He sat there until the afternoon and she finally came back and said that she did not have an opening and told him to come back later. When he went back later to pick up his unemployment slip he was told that there still was no opening. According to Holland, however, the Company had hired somebody the same day to fill the job that he had been doing as a buffer prior to the time he had been discharged. On cross-examination Holland twice alluded to the fact that when he returned to the plant on the Friday after his illness to pick up his check, one of his purposes was to explain his absence. One of these explanations was as follows: Well, if you are speaking in terms of priority, number one, I went there to explain why I haven't been to work, and when I would be back, and my con- dition, the reason, and secondly to get my check, to get groceries. He further testified that the personnel woman had told him that he had been dis- charged and had filled out his discharge notice for him then and there. His employee status card shows the notation "Quit without Notice" with the added, "Out since June 30-no notice-no explanation." Holland's aunt, Caroline McLeod, corroborated his testimony that he had asked her to call the plant and get hold of Nash Heath and tell them that Holland was sick and would be unable to come to work. According to her testimony she called the plant several times and did not get an answer until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. When she finally got an answer the voice on the other end of the line said "Hello" McLeod said "Proctor-Silex plant, and would you give Mr . Nash a message, and tell him that Maurice Holland is sick." Nash Heath testified that during his employment with Proctor-Silex he has dis- charged between 25 and 35 people for failing to report an absence. According to him his enforcement of this rule never varies . He denied having any knowledge or 243-084-67-vol 159-40 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD word whatsoever regarding Holland's absence. As to the details of Holland's dis- charge, Heath testified: He came in about 4 days, I would say about 2 days after,I had signed that separation paper on him, and he asked me for his check, and so, I got his check, and I told him that he had been discharged from Proctor-Silex and he asked me for what, and I told him he was out for 2 days and had not called in, and I had to put in separation. As to Holland's discharge Mary Grover was called as a witness by Respondent and testified as follows: In the latter part of June and up until August she had worked in the personnel department under the personnel director. When Holland came to her office he told her that he had been sent there and that he had been terminated. She told him that it was true and he wanted to know why. She told him that he had not notified the Company and had been absent 2 days or longer and that since it was company policy to automatically terminate people who were absent 2 days or longer without notification, he was discharged. She denied that there had been any word from Holland about his absence, stating that she had checked it specifically because he had told her that he had somebody at the hospital to notify the Company-16 Grover further testified credibly that the Company has a full-time switchboard operator at the plant with five incoming trunklines; that at no time between 8 and 5 is the switchboard left unattended. She further testified that the operators are all instructed to answer the telephone "Proctor-Silex Corporation, good morning." She also testified that she never had heard any operator answer a call with just "Hello"; that such an answer would receive a reprimand. Conclusions as to Maurice Holland While the overall record here leaves me with a suspicion that Holland, too, was the victim of Respondent's discrimination against its employees because of their union support, I am of the opinion and find that the General Counsel has failed to prove this allegation of the complaint by the necessary preponderance of the evidence. In this connection I am unable to credit McLeod's testimony that she called the plant about her nephew's absence. In the first place I find it difficult to believe that her earlier calls to the plant would have failed to answer. But even if they were not answered, I further entertain some doubt that she followed up her attempts to reach the plant later that day. I believe that the human tendency at that point would have been to become preoccupied with something else and to have forgotten about her original purpose by that time. Thus, I doubt that Respondent had any word about Holland's absence and I find that a discharge under such circumstances would have been in line with Respondent's practice. Accord- ingly, I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to the allegation regard- ing Holland's discharge. The Objections to the Election The violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as found above were the basis of objections to the election. These violations were actions which clearly interfered with the election and are ample grounds upon which to set the election aside. In addition, however, there is substantial uncontroverted and credible evi- dence of further interference with the election of the part of certain community interests. While the Union was unable to show that the Company had any responsi- bility for the actions of the Southern Pines Industrial Advisory Committee, it is clear that its actions,' whether or not the Company had anything to do with them, 16 There was nothing in Holland's situation involving a hospital and it would appear that Grover had Holland and Womack confused here. 17 This committee sponsored meetings of businessmen and individuals, the sole purpose of which was to discuss the Union's organizing campaign at Respondent's plant and to publicize the names of people from their immediate communities or vicinities who were employed by Respondent. This afforded an opportunity for the businessmen and other interested individuals to discuss the Union's campaign with these employees when they came to their places of business, which they did, and even to seek out these employees at their homes to discuss the campaign, which they did. In the course of these contacts numerous threats were made to the employees that if the Union prevailed in the election, the plant would, close down, jobs would be lost and the community would suffer irrepara- ble loss. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION 611 were sufficient in and of themselves to impair and prevent a fair election and to require that the election be set aside and a new election ordered. IV. THE EFFECT - OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States , and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY - Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as set forth above, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated against various employees by dis- charging them, I will recommend that Respondent offer those employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages they would have earned from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, and that the loss of pay and interest be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties hereto are expressly referred. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent here strike at the heart of the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.i$ The inference is war- ranted that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purpose of the Act with respect to the protection of employee rights in general. It will, accordingly, be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.ie Having found that Respondent committed various acts of intereference , restraint, and coercion which involved objections raised by the Union to the election which was conducted on August 25, 1964, and having found that the activities of certain members of the Southern Pines Industrial Committee and the Industrial Advisory Committee further prevented a free and fair choice in that election by the employ- ees, I shall further recommend that the results of that election be set aside and a new election ordered. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. Protor-Silex Corporation at all times material herein has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, at all times material herein, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating against its employees as found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.. - is N L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C A. 4) m May Department Store, d/b/a Famous-Bair Company v. N.L R B., 326 Us. 376; Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F.2d 641 (CAD C ). 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that the Respondent, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: - (a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening loss of employment or jobs or any other economic reprisals because of their employees' union activities, membership, or sympathies. (c) Soliciting employees to report on the union activities of their fellow workers. (d) Offering or granting better jobs or other benefits to employees for the pur- pose of influencing their union support or activities. (e) Interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sympathies, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to the employees listed on the Appendix hereof, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Southern Pines, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 11, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep- resentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.21 I also recommend that the results of the election herein be set aside and that a new election be ordered. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tion Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees by discriminatorily discharging them or in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. 20In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the voids "a Decision and Order." 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY 613 WE WILL NOT threaten loss of jobs, employment, economic benefits or other reprisals because of our employees' union activities, union membership, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to report on the union activities of their fellow workers. WE WILL NOT offer or grant better jobs or other benefits to our employees for the purpose of influencing their union support or activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named, or any other, labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through their representative of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer those named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially similar positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. Royce Lee Baker Richard Womack Leroy Ivey Wilford Jewell Eugene Hurlbert All our employees are free to become, or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named, or any other, labor organization. PROCTOR-SILEX CORPORATION, Employer. Dated-----------`------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question conecrning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2911. Monroe Auto Equipment Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-5835 and 5950. June 17,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 18, 1966, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. 159 NLRB No. 65.