Pioneer Plastics Corp.

1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of wages or other benefits or privileges because any employee joins, or contemplates joining, American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with harm or physical violence should they seek the assistance or support of the above-named Union respecting the maintenance of the terms and conditions of their employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in American Bakery and Confection- ery Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by reducing the number of hours worked by any employee, by discharging, refusing to reinstate or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of employees, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Johnny Mike Lummus immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his senior- ity or other rights and privileges and make him whole for all losses he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union. SCHOTT'S BAKERY, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NoTE.-We will notify Johnny Mike Lummus if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228- 4722. Pioneer Plastics Corporation and Leather Workers International Union, AFL-CIO and Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Help- ers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 1-CA-5150 and 5210. June 23, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On April 18, 1966, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and 159 NLRB No. 110. PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1053 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 'Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility findings unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they were in- correct, we find no basis for disturbing the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner in this case. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 844, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Leather Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Leather Workers, and by Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, the General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board on December 10, 1965, issued a con- solidated amended complaint' against Pioneer Plastics Corporation, herein called the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the amended complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at Auburn, Maine, on January 11, 12, and 13, 1966. After the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with me. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and plant in Auburn, Maine. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of plastic laminates and related products. Annually, the Respondent receives raw materials, the value of which exceeds $50,000, from points located outside the State of Maine, and ships goods, the value of which exceeds $50,000, to points located out- side the State of Maine. On these facts, which are not in issue, I conclude and find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 'The charge in Case 1-CA-5150 was filed by the Leather Workers on September 8, 1965. The original complaint in this case was issued on October 28, 1965. Charges in Case 1-CA-5210 were filed by the Teamsters on October 26 and November 12, 1965. 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Respondent concedes , and I find, that the Leather Workers and the Team- sters are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Case 1-CA-5150 1. Background and sequence of events The Respondent has a plant in Sanford, Maine. It had a contract covering this plant with the Leather Workers. At sometime during about the spring of 1965 the Respondent began operating the Auburn plant. Albano Quadros, International representative of the Leather Workers, assisted in negotiations and handled almost all grievances for the Sanford plant. Before the Auburn plant opened, Quadros had a number of conversations with Arnold Aron, and Robert Trembly, president and personnel director of the Respondent, respectively. They discussed the opening of the Auburn plant. Quadros asked that the Leather Workers be recognized as the bargaining agent for this plant. Aron stated that it was "premature" to talk about the Auburn plant. On August 4, 1965, Quadros began organization of the Auburn employees. He followed several employees in their cars and spoke to them. On August 9 Quadros met in Boston, Massachusetts, with Aron and Louis Chan- dler, the Respondent's attorney, in connection with the Sanford operation. Quad- ros stated that the Leather Workers intended to organize the Auburn employees and asked Aron to recognize it on the basis of a card check. Aron replied that the Respondent at that time was "not ready for a union" in Auburn. On August 16 Quadros was parked in his car near the Auburn plant, when Trembly drove up in his car and talked to him. He told Quadros that Aron had sent him to find out what he (Quadros) was "passing out today." Shortly after Trembly left, Aron appeared and told Quadros that he wanted to talk to him. They went to the Holiday Inn near Auburn where they had a conversation which lasted about 1 hour. Aron told Quadros that the Respondent planned a new product for the Sanford plant which would employ approximately 30 people, and that he would grant a union checkoff at that plant if he would discontinue the organizational campaign at the Auburn plant. Quadros refused. On August 18 Quadros met with three employees. They agreed to hold a union meeting at 3 p.m. on August 23 at an Esso gas station in Auburn. The meeting was held as scheduled. About 15 employees, including Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould, were present. Shortly after the meeting started, a police officer told Quad- ros "to break the meeting up." Quadros and the employees then went to Boston's home where the meeting continued. Employees Karen Blaisdell and Barbara Le Bel attended the meeting. Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and La Bel signed union authorization cards at the meeting. On Tuesday morning, August 24, the follow- ing appeared in the local newspaper: Auburn police were called, Monday afternoon, on a report of a disturbance near 290 Main St. only to find that a union organizer was talking with a group of men concerning starting a new union at Pioneer Plastics Corp. Boston and Gould were discharged on August 25. On August 26 from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. Quadros, Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and some Sanford employees sta- tioned themselves near the Respondent's plant. They passed out union literature to employees and solicited them to sign union authorization cards. About 2:40 p.m. Donald La Chance, a supervisor, arrived in one of the Respondent's cars. He parked the car a short distance away, facing the group, and remained there until about 4:20 p.m. Shortly after La Chance arrived, Aron drove by in his car. He stopped and talked to Quadros. When Quadros gave him a union leaflet, Aron said, "too bad it's not pouring . . . I'll see what I can arrange." Shortly after Aron left, a police officer arrived and parked across the street from the group. When Quadros asked him if he and the employees were doing "anything wrong," he replied, "as far as I know right now you're not, but we have got a complaint that you've been tying up traffic." The police officer remained until Quadros and the employees stopped passing out leaflets. Similar conduct was engaged in by Trembly on September 1 and 7. He parked his car and observed Quadros and his group of employees. I find that La Chance's PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION -1055 and Trembly's surveillance of the union activity of the employees was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On September 21 Aron sent the following letter to the employees: Over the past several months all of us have joined in a common effort which I hope will be friendly and lasting as well as profitable. It has been heartwarming to experience the warmth and friendliness with which you have helped to establish in Auburn the Pioneer family of which we are all mem- bers-a family which we hope will grow even more closely knit over the years ahead. When we first met one another, you probably wanted to know something about us and about Pioneer working conditions and what our hopes were for the future. That is why these things were written out and given to all employ- ees in the form of a booklet. In a sense, this is our contract with you. We told you about the paid vacations and paid holidays that you could expect. And of the group insurance and makeup pay you would get for time lost for personal reasons, whether because of family bereavement or National Guard duty. A program was outlined for paid rest periods and for extra overtime pay and for recognition of length of service in the form of seniority. We decided before we opened to extend to employees benefits and condi- tions that were at least as good as our employees had in the location from which we are moving in fact, some of the benefits here are improvements. We did this because we are of the opinion that this would be good for Pio- neer and good for you. And in order to keep pace with the future, we all are realistic enough to know that improvements can be expected. The trend of group insurance benefits will increase; in 1966 Pioneer will increase the number of paid holi- days. Our first annual wage review will occur next spring; this should lead to annual wage increases for all employees. We know that several unions are attempting to get you to sign cards. We believe there is no need at this time for a union to come in here and disrupt the relationship we are trying to build. We hope that you sign no cards because there is no need for you to pay $60.00 a year to a union. That is like losing 3 or 4 paid holidays a year. And under union contracts, you get fired if you don't pay dues. We hope you sign no cards because we would like to have the opportunity of working together to see how things go without interference from outsiders- without possible strikes and without the conflict that most unions bring to a plant. That is why we came into this community on a fair and friendly basis and extended a liberal benefits program to employees. Your program of benefits is a superior one. A union which promised more would have no recourse but to tell you to strike if we felt compelled to say No to the things they promise. There is no need for you to sign union cards. We hope that you will say "No"-and say it loud and clear so that any insiders who are on the union payroll will know you mean it. We sincerely hope you will give us a chance to work directly with each other to see how things work out-without interference from outsiders and without signing cards. And just bear in mind that this is only the beginning of our relationship. I am hopeful that as we live and work with each other- and as we get to really know one another-we will build a relationship that will be peaceful and prosperous-for all of us. The General Counsel contends that the above letter is violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. I do not so find. 2. The discharges There were approximately 50 female employees, "floor girls" and "builders," in the "buildup room." Paul Roy and Joseph Alexander were the foremen. Elsie Boston was the "lead girl," and Rebecca Gould was one of about four "ticket girls." In its brief the Respondent contends that Boston was a supervisory employee within the meaning of the Act. Concerning Boston's duties, Roy testified, "She's 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supposed to help me out on the floor and does paper work . . . Go around the floor, see that the proper work was being done, see the proper work was at the right stations, and if there was any question about the work she was there to help out and answer the questions and instruct the people." He also testified to the effect that the lead girl relayed his orders as to which employees were to perform the work, and that she was expected to report to him before any changes in his orders were made. Alexander was questioned and testified as follows in this connection: Q. Of course Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould merely relayed the orders from you and Mr. Roy, isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. They had no authority to change assignments on the girls, did they? A. No. Boston testified that it was her duty to report to the foreman when.employees were not performing their work properly; that she did this on only one occasion; and that she never made, or was asked to make, recommendations concerning employees. The builders, the ticket girls, and Boston all were paid an hourly rate. Roy and Alexander were paid a weekly salary. From the entire record in this connection I find that Boston was not a supervisory employee. On August 2 Boston and Gould had a conversation with Frank La Scola, assist- ant plant superintendent. They asked him if it would be possible to bring "some Sanford girls" to the plant to help them train the builders. La Scola replied that he would look into the matter. Some few days later about four Sanford girls arrived at the plant. La Scola introduced them to the assembled employees in the buildup room. He told the employees that Boston and Gould had performed "a terrific job," and that nobody else could have done "any better a job in such a short time." On or about August 9 Boston, Gould, LeBel, and several other employees asked the Sanford girls what pay they received at Sanford. When they could not get an answer from the Sanford girls,3 Boston and Gould asked Alexander for the name of the Union at the Sanford plant. He told them to ask La Scola. They then went to La Scola and inquired when they were going to get a raise in pay. When Boston asked him for the name of the union at Sanford, he replied, "I'm not quite sure, . . . but at any rate we don't want that union up here. It didn't do much for our company anyway, . I think it's Amalgamated Steel." He asked Gould if she thought a union would get into the Auburn plant. She replied, "yes. ... if the girls are treated the way they have been lately, ... there's been talk about it, and I think there will be." Immediately after the above conversa- tion Boston talked to La Chance. She asked him for the name of the union in Sanford. He answered. "we've been told not to talk about the union in Sanford or to say anything about the Sanford plant to anyone." After August 6 Boston and Gould talked to the other employees about a wage increase and the need for a union in the plant. They engaged in this activity dur- ing rest periods, the lunch hour and in the buildup room. Alexander at times was "within hearing distance." 3 On or about August 9 Roy went to Gould's place of work. He asked her if the "union from Sanford" was going "to get in up here." When she replied that she did not know, he said that the union was "no good." At sometime during the day of August 13, Boston walked past Monica Bedell, a Sanford girl, and employee Sandra Gayton. Referring to Boston, Bedell said to Gayton, "I think she can be bitchy when she wants to." Boston stopped and said, "if she thinks I'm a bitch, then she's a bitch too." About 4 p.m. on August 13 Boston and Gould were called to Trembly' s office. He told them that their supervisors had complained that their work was "unsatis- factory" and that they were "instigators"; that he was making up his mind whether or not to terminate their employment; that in the meantime they were suspended; 2Boston testified, "[one of the Sanford girls] just sneered at us and giggled and didn't say anything, so it made us mad .. . . They wouldn't tell us how much they got, so it did make us a little bit angry." 3 Constance Moad, a Sanford girl, was called as a witness by the Respondent. She testified that "just a few days" after August 9 Boston and Gould talked to her about a union. Moad was a lead girl at the time of the hearing herein. PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1057 and that they should report back to him at 3 p.m. on August 16, at which time he would give them his final decision. Boston asked Trembly what she was sup- posed to be "instigating." He replied, "you know what." During the morning of August 16 Blaisdell and LeBel spoke to the other employ- ees about going to Trembly's office to "speak about Elsie and Becky's return." Blaisdell, LeBel, and about 15 employees then met with La Scola in the cafeteria. Blaisdell and LeBel told La Scola that the employees wanted to speak to Trembly on behalf of Boston and Gould, but that they were "all scared" to leave the buildup room to go to his office because they might lose their jobs. They asked him if it was possible for Trembly to come to the buildup room to talk to them. He said he would "look into the matter." About 2:20 p.m. Trembly went to the buildup room, Blaisdell and LeBel were standing at a desk. He asked them what they and the other employees wanted to see him about. They said that they wanted to talk to him about Boston and Gould. He asked them to get the other employees. When the employees were assembled, he told them that he had not made up his mind about Boston and Gould, that he was the one who hired and fired in the plant; that it was his decision to make, and that they would have to wait until he made that decision. Boston and Gould reported to Trembly's office at 3 p.m. on August 16. After conferring with some of the Respondent's supervisors, Trembly reinstated Boston and Gould to their jobs without any loss of pay. He told them that he had "learned a lot today," that we was going to keep his "eyes open," and that they should "keep your words to yourself." Shortly after Boston and Gould started work on August 17, Roy spoke to them. He told them that they were "very smart girls" and had done "a good job up until now"; and that they should go back to their jobs and be "very careful" because the Company would be watching "for the least little thing you do wrong." Gould did not work on either August 18 or 19. She called the plant and stated that she was sick. Boston received permission from Roy to be off from work dur- ing the afternoon of August 18 in order to visit her dentist. As related above, Boston and Gould attended the union meeting held on August 23. On August 19 Boston was told about this meeting by one of the male employees. She in turn informed Gould, LeBel, and Blaisdell. On August 20 Boston told both Roy and Alexander that she had "to go to the dentist again on Monday at 2:30." They granted permission for her to leave the plant at that time. Gould told Roy that she wanted to leave the plant at 2.30 p.m. on Monday in order to visit her doctor. He granted her request. About 8:45 a.m. on August 24 Alexander came to Boston and asked her for the name of her dentist, telling her that Trembly wanted the information and that it was "company policy to check on anyone that was ever out." 4 She gave him the name of her "eye doctor." During the day Boston talked to a number of the girls in the buildup room about the union meeting. She asked them to attend the next meeting which was to be held at her home. On August 24 Gould told her "two floor girls" about the union meeting. She said that the employees needed a union and asked them im they would attend the next union meeting. Some of this conversation took place at Gould's desk which was only a few feet away from Alexander's desk. Alexander was present at his desk during part of the conversation. At sometime during the day Alexander asked Gould for the name of the doctor whom she was supposed to have visited on Monday. She gave him the name of a doctor. About 11 a.m. on August 25 Boston was called to Trembly's office. He said that her employment was "terminated" and told her that her supervisors had reported to him that her work was not satisfactory and that she had been "swearing at the girls." He said that she did not know how to keep her "mouth shut" and that he felt that she had been out "looking for another job" the day before. He stated she had not been to a dentist and asked her why she had lied. Boston replied that she had been granted permission to leave at 2:30 p.m.; that she was not get- ting paid for that "2:30 to 4:00 o'clock"; and that she did not think that it should concern him since it was her "personal business." * It is undisputed that Boston and Gould were not asked for this information when they were absent the previous week. 243-084-67-vol. 159-68 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gould then was called to Trembly's office and discharged. Trembly told her that he had called the doctor's office; that he had found out that the doctor was "out of town" that week; that it was "against company policy" for an employee to "lie for their reason for being out"; that Alexander was not satisfied with her work; and that he did not want "to waste time training a girl" who did not stay on the job. After Boston returned from Trembly's office, she told Blaisdell and LeBel that she had been discharged. Blaisdell and LeBel took off their smocks and put them and their knives on Roy's desk. Roy was at his desk at the time. When some other employees asked them why they had taken off their smocks, Blaisdell and LeBel stated that Boston had been discharged "for speaking about union in the plant"; that they "figured it was unjust and unfair"; and that they were "going to leave with her." Boston, Blaisdell, and LeBel went to the "breaking room" where they talked to some male employees about Boston's discharge. A possible "walk out" by the employees was discussed. Gould returned from Trembly's office and joined the group. After about 15 minutes Alexander went to the breaking room and told Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, and LeBel to "go get [your] checks and leave the premises." On August 30 Boston and Gould returned to the plant and spoke to Trembly. They asked to be rehired. He said that he would "talk it over" at a forthcoming meeting at Sanford and that he would let them know later. During the conversa- tion Trembly stated that he did not want "a union" in the plant at that particular time as the Company would like "to have a chance to get back on [its] feet." On or about September 2 Boston and Gould called Trembly. He told them that the Respondent had decided not to rehire them. The above facts are based upon credited portions of the testimony of Boston, Gould, Blaisdell, LeBel, Alexander, Bedell, and Moad. Testimony of Trembly, Roy and Alexander, contrary to the above, is not credited. Concerning his reason for suspending Boston and Gould on August 13, Trem- bly testified that he had complaints from both Roy and Alexander. In this con- nection he testified to the following: ... there was a combination of excess absenteeism and their not being happy with their performance their work, their duties, such as taking too much time away from their stations, away from their job, spending too much time in the ladies room, just a combination of items that they wanted them dismissed from the room. When I say that, I say that because sometimes we transfer girls from one department to another where they don't make out in one, we try them in another department, so they came up to me for whatever action I thought I would take. When asked if he suspended them without any investigation, Trembly testified, "Yes, but I also, when I find that I'm wrong I repaid them for the time they were loafing [August 16]." As to the results of his investigation, he was questioned and testified as follows: Q. Isn't it a fact that you concluded that it was in fact your supervisors who were at fault and not the girls themselves? A. Well, in taking them back I told them that it was a new plant, we were very busy, I was trying to do more than I could do, and do it right, and that perhaps there was an area here where we hadn't given enough attention to the personal function of the employees, and we would revise it and go over it. Roy and Alexander testified to the effect that before the Sanford girls arrived the work of both Boston and Gould was "very good"; that they so informed them; 5 that Boston and Gould resented the Sanford girls; and that after the arrival of the Sanford girls their work "slowed down" and was otherwise unsatisfactory. As to During cross-examination Roy was questioned and testified as follows : Q. You say that in August you never told Elsie Boston or Rebecca Gould that they were doing a very good job? A. I told them when I first went there, yes, if that was the first part of August, that's when it was. Q. This was when the Sanford girls were there? - A. Before or after the Sanford girls. I told them before. As a matter of-fact, I told them that day they come back after that suspension I thought they did a very good job, and I told them. PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1059 the reason for the suspension, Alexander testified, "Well, the girls were slowing down, Rebecca and Elsie Boston, and they were slowing others down,6 and this was the reason why I suspended them the first time." Alexander also testified that Boston and Gould stayed in the ladies' room for as long as "15 or 20 minutes at a time," and that he spoke to them about it. The undisputed evidence shows that before August 13 the Respondent knew of the intention of the Leather Workers to organize the plant, and that the Respond- ent had attempted to dissuade it from doing so. Also before that date, both Boston and Gould had evinced an interest in the Union at Sanford. On or about August 9, the date of the arrival of the Sanford girls in the plant, they asked Alexander, La Scola, and La Chance for the name of the Union. Before August 9 it is undis- puted that La Scola, Roy, and Alexander had been lavish in their praise of Boston and Gould. There is no claim that their work was unsatisfactory before the advent of the Sanford girls. This means that during the week of August 9 to 13 the Respondent discovered all of the alleged faults testified to by Roy and Alexander and found it necessary to suspend them without any warning. I find this to be incredible. I am convinced and find that the Respondent resorted to this action in order to forestall the Leather Workers from gaining a foothold in the plant. After their reinstatement on August 17, Boston and Gould continued to talk to the employees about a union. They attended the meeting of the Leather Workers and told the employees about it. Although warned that they would be watched "closely," they were not secretive about this union acivity. It is noteworthy they were not asked for the names of their doctors when absent before August 23. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's claim that it discharged Boston and Gould for lying was a pretext, and that the discharges were in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. Blaisdell and LeBel On August 25 Blaisdell and LeBel accompanied Boston and Gould to Trembly's office. The checks of Boston and Gould were ready for them. Blaisdell and Lebel asked for their checks. Trembly asked them if they wanted their checks immedi- ately or if they would return on Friday to pick them up. They answered that they wanted their checks and would wait until they were prepared.8 After receiving their checks they left the plant. Blaisdell and LeBel returned to the plant on August 26 and asked to see Trem- bly. His secretary told them that he was at Sanford. They returned to the plant again on August 27 and spoke to Trembly. They asked for their jobs back and told him that they were "sorry for walking out" and that they were "mad" when they "walked out with Rebecca and Elsie Boston." Trembly said that their work had been "very good," but told them that their jobs had been filled. He said that he would "look into the matter more." He showed them a leaflet of the Leather Workers and said that it had been sent to his office. He told them that he wanted "a couple of years" without a union in the plant. LeBel called Trembly on September 1 and again asked for her job. He refused her request telling her that he thought it was "better ... left ... the way it was." Trembly testified that he saw Blaisdell with Quadros, Boston, and Gould when they were passing out union literature on August 26. Concerning the filling of vacancies in the buildup room, Trembly was questioned and testified as follows: Q. How many girls were hired in the buildup room as builders between the period Wednesday, August the 25th, and let's say August 29th, 1965? A. I don't know the exact figure. I would-I know of four girls that were hired during that period. e Bedell testified that on one occasion she heard Boston tell two builders to "slow down " Boston denied that she at any time ever told employees to slow down . Her denial is credited. 7 Bedell testified that on two occasions, before and after August 13, she heard Alexander reprimand Boston and Gould for staying too long in the restroom. Moad testified that Boston went to the restroom "quite often " Roy testified that after the Sanford girls came to the plant he told Boston to go to the restroom "and get some of these girls out of there that were spending too much time in there," and that "there was a great amount of time lost while [Boston] was in there." 8 The above is based upon credited testimony of Boston, Blaisdell, and LeBel Tienibly testified that Blaisdell and LeBel told him that they wanted "to quit" their jobs. I do not credit his testimony in this connection. 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. And isn't it a fact that the day that Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel left the plant, that is August the 25th, isn't it a fact that there were vacancies in that buildup room a that time? A. I don't know whether they were or not. Q. (By Mr. DICIERO.) Isn't it a fact, Mr. Trembly, that on the morning of August the 25th, the day in which the four girls, rather, Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould were fired, and Karen Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel left, isn't it a fact that that morning four girls were hired in the buildup room and reported to work that morning? A. Well, there were three girls reported to work that day. I don't know what time of day they reported to work. Q. Isn't it a fact that they reported first thing in the morning. A. I don't remember, really. Q. And aren't these the four girls that you're referring to that were hired between the 25th and the 29th. A. They're the only four that I know were hired at that time. Q. So they were not hired to replace any of these four girls, were they? A. That was the intent, to replace these four girls. It is clear from the record that Blaisdell and LeBel walked off the job on August 25 in order to protest the discharge of Boston. They announced this in front of Roy. They did not say that they were quitting their jobs. They merely said that they were "going to leave" with Boston. Later Alexander told them to get their checks and leave the premises. Under the circumstances, I find that they ceased work concertedly and refused to work in protest of Boston's discharge, and that the Respondent's failure and refusal to reinstate them or and after August 27 was violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. B. Case I-CA-5210 The Respondent transports its finished products by trailer truck and has a sepa- rate trucking division at Auburn. Hubert Libby, a former member of the Team- sters, is the traffic manager for the division. There were about 18 employees in the division, including drivers and mechanics. Arthur Page is secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters. During about late August 1965, he met Libby and employee Merrill Cowperthwaite in Gray, Maine. Page said to Libby, "you and I ought to be able to do business. It ought to be an easy job to sign up your drivers." Libby replied, "to hell with you, it's my job to keep you [the Teamsters] out." Thereafter the Teamsters sent letters to the Respond- ent's employees. One such letter was sent just prior to October 23, notifying the employees of a union meeting. During the morning of Saturday, October 23, Homer Thurlow, the garage mechanic, told Libby that he had heard "rumors of union activities . every- body was unhappy"; that he did not feel "too secure" in his job; and that he was resigning in order to take another job. Libby then called a number of the employ- ees to his office. Charles Keller, the Respondent's general manager, was present during some of the conversations, as was Robert Stiffler, a supervisory assistant to Libby. Libby was alone when he spoke to Cowperthwaite. Libby told him that, due to "union activities," some "changes" would be made. He asked Cowperthwaite if he knew "anything about the union." He replied that he did not. Libby said that it was his job "to keep the union out." He stated that effective October 26 all local work would be performed by Highway transportation; 9 that the long hauls would be a "single man operation at $3.00 an hour, drive for 10 hours, lay over for eight"; 10 that "arrangements" had been made at Rochester, Toledo, and Chi- cago "for lay over facilities for the drivers"; and that this would be at no cost to the drivers as long as they refueled at such places. Libby asked Cowperthwaite if he wanted to become a long haul driver. He replied that he did not. Libby also spoke to employee Harold Hall alone. He asked Hall if he knew anything about the union activity. Hall replied that he had "heard about it." 9It is undisputed that the Respondent had informed the employees some months be- fore the above date that local hauling would be terminated as soon as possible after the move from Sanford. 10 The Respondent uses tractors with sleeping accommodations and a two-man crew. PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1061 Libby told him about the changes that were going to be made due to the "union activities going on in the plant." He stated that he was going to "start at the top of the seniority list and go down," asking each employee if he wanted a long haul job; and that "if the man said no, he was done, if he said yes, he would drive." Libby stated, "Mr. Cowperthwaite, for instance, (tried] to get the union in, .. . I could call any place that he went and stop him from getting in but I . . . wouldn't . . . do that." Employee Ernest Cota was at home on October 23 when he was called by Stiff- ler. He asked Cola if he had received a letter from the Teamsters. When Cota replied that he had, Stif ler said, "well, we got problems, . . . Come on in. We want to talk to you." When Cota got to the plant he talked to Libby and Stifiier. Libby said that there had been "some talk of union"; that it was his and Stifler's job "to keep the union out", that "if the boys wanted the union ... the Company would be willing to go better than the union and pay ... $3.00 for the long haul which would mean a single man to Chicago or other destinations"; that there would be "just five drivers picked by seniority"; and that the mechanic work would be performed by a local concern. About noon on October 23 employer Bernard Muehle had a conversation with Libby. Libby stated that he and Muehle knew that there were "union activities going on," and that it was his "job to keep the union out." He informed Muehle of the changes that would be made. Later that day Muehle was called to the office again. Libby, Keller, and employees Richard Lowell and Roger Jacques were present. Keller stated that he had "worked in a union shop once" and that he thought that "our operation would be better without it." Muehle said that if the Respondent did not want the Teamsters, there should be "a meeting with Mr. Aron and Mr. Keller and Mr. Trembly, . and all the drivers, and hash it out . . We could come up with something " They discussed the closing down of the local operation including mechanic work, "gripes" of the employees such as breakdown time, and having a single driver on long hauls. I find that the interrogation concerning the Teamsters by Libby and Stiflier of Cowperthwaite, Hall, and Cota was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Libby's statement to Hall concerning Cowperthwaite is also found to be violative of the Act since it was a threat of reprisal. His statement about discontinuing the local operation threatened the local drivers and mechanics with loss of employ- ment.ll Since he made it clear that this was because of the employees' union activity, it is found that his statements in this connection were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. From Libby's statement to Cota concerning long hauls it is apparent that he intended a promise of benefit if the employees would forgo the Teamsters. The fact that none of the employees found this change acceptable does not detract from the illegality. Accordingly, I find this statement of Libby to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On January 7, 1966, Elliot received a telephone call from Libby. He asked Elliot, "would you be able to go out Sunday or did you get a subpoena." 12 When Elliot replied that he had received a subpena, Libby said that in such case he must have signed a statement and asked, "what did you have to tell them." Elliot answered, "I told them the truth ... I told them just what I'd tell you or anybody else." It is found that Libby's interrogation was violative of the Act. Kenwood Brown was hired by the Respondent as a welder for the trucking divi- sion during August of 1965. In addition to welding, he also worked at times as a mechanic. He made about three trips to Sanford as a local driver. On Monday, October 25, driver Robert Elliot was the only employee who reported for work. Brown had his wife report to the plant that he was sick. It appears that only Brown and Elliot reported for work on October 26. About 8:30 a.m. on that day Brown had a conversation with Libby. Elliot was present. Brown asked Libby "where everybody else was." Libby replied that he did not know but thought "probably they went to a union meeting." He then told Brown that "because the boys wanted to get the union in here" he thought he might have to make "a few changes such as . . . doing away with the local operation and the mechanics and having A & W do the mechanic work." He said that there was no 11 As of the date of the hearing herein the Respondent had not taken this action 12 The hearing herein was scheduled to commence on January 11. 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work, for Brown unless he wanted to "go on the road" as a driver . Brown refused the offer. Libby told Brown that he would call him as soon as he had work for him.13 Brown was called back to work on October 28. About 6:30 p.m. on October 29 Libby spoke to Brown. He asked him what he knew "about the union." Brown replied that he did not know "too much about it" and that he was not "for it" or "against it." Libby said, "I thought the boys had forgotten about it, and things were back to normal, but evidently they haven't." 14 It is found that Libby's interrogation was violative of the Act. On November 3 Libby told Brown that he "might possibly be able to find enough for [him] to finish out the week"; and that "then that would be it" unless he wanted "to go to driving." Brown replied that his answer was "still no." Brown did not report for work on November 4. On either November 4 or 5 Brown went to the plant and had a conversation with Libby and Trembly. Brown wanted to know if he was being laid off or fired. Libby stated that he had "voluntarily quit" since he had not reported for work and had refused a driving job. Libby explained that "there was not enough welding to keep a man busy . . . an operation such as ours there would always be welding, probably fixing a mud flap , or whatever it might be, there's always a little welding, but definitely not enough to warrant keeping a man on steady as a welder." Libby offered him work as a driver or as a mechanic . Brown refused both jobs. As to the mechanic job offer, Brown stated that he was not going "to invest in several hundred dollars worth of tools and work for an outfit that didn't know what they were doing." I find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving that Brown's layoff on and after October 26 was violative of the Act. Since none of the employees had appeared for work on October 26, it is understandable why his regular work was not available. However, Brown was offered employment as a driver or as a mechanic. If the Respondent was motivated illegally in the layoff, I do not believe that the Respondent would have offered him this work . As to the welding work, Libby testified without contradiction that since November 4 there has been only 8 to 10 hours of welding work and that this has been performed by a mechanic. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as Brown is concerned. IV.' THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discharged Boston and Gould on August 25, 1965, and failed and refused to reinstate Blaisdell and LeBel on August 27, 1965. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privi- leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of reinstate- ment, less her net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula pre- 13 The above Is based upon credited portions of the testimony of Brown , Elliot, and Libby. 14 Brown testified credibly to the above He also testified, "I think that was the evening that he told me that he'd just received a call from a man telling him that I was the leader on this union. . . . I believe he said that, but I believe it was on that date. I'm not sure." Libby, in effect, denied making this statement In view of Brown's uncer- tainty, I credit Libby' s denial. PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION 1063 scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, '90 NLRB 289, together with interest on such sum, such interest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Leather Workers and the Teamsters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of theAct, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. By discharging Elsie Boston and Rebecca Gould and by failing and refusing to reinstate Karen Blaisdell and Barbara LeBel the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Leather Workers, the Teamsters, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in or activities on behalf of the above unions, or making threats of reprisal or promises of benefit because of such activity. (c) Engaging in surveillance of the union activity of its employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action ' which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen Blaisdell, and Barbara LeBel immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the deter- mination of the amount of backpay due under these recommendations. (c) Post at its plant in Auburn, Maine, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized repre- sentatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Oider of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.16 IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates to Kenwood Brown. is 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that- WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Leather Workers International Union, AFL-CIO and Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire of tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their membership in or activities on behalf of the above unions or make threats of reprisal or prom- ises of benefit because of such activity. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activity of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Leather Workers International Union, AFL- CIO and Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Elsie Boston, Rebecca Gould, Karen Blaisdell, and Barbara LeBel immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva- lent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. PIONEER PLASTICS 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 concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Bos- ton Five Cents Saving Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, Telephone 223-3358.