Meade Manufacturing Co.

MEADE MFG. CO. Meade Manufacturing Company and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO. Case 17-CA-2955. May 22,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On February 16, 1967, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions, with a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an 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 this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Meade Manufacturing Company, Meade, Kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 805 DAVID S. DAVIDSON , Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed June 22 , 1966 , and thereafter amended by Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Union , the General Counsel issued a complaint against Respondent, Meade Manufacturing Company. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by threatening employees with economic or other reprisals, creating the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities , discontinuing the night shift of its aluminum department , transferring employee Helen Rule to a different work shift with reduced pay, and constructively discharging Helen Rule. Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner David S. Davidson in Meade, Kansas, on December 6, 1966. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument and were given leave to file briefs, which the General Counsel and Respondent filed. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Kansas corporation, manufactures tractor cabs and campers at its plant and principal place of business at Meade, Kansas. In the course of its operations, Respondent annually sells goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers outside the State of Kansas and annually purchases goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Kansas. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction is warranted. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Helen Rule Is Employed on the Night Shift and Transfers to Department 8 Helen Rule was first hired to work for Respondent in May 1965.1 However, after only a few days , she left work because of pregnancy. In September 1965, one of Respondent's supervisors , Ben Reimer , visited her and asked her to come back to work. She told him she would have to work nights if she were to return because she helped her father mornings in his business and because she had no one to care for her children during the day. Reimer told her that Respondent had a shortage of employees on the night shift and that he was sure she I When not otherwise indicated the findings herein are based on uncontradicted credited testimony 164 NLRB No. 120 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD could go back to work on that shift. About a week later Rule visited the plant and talked to Personnel Manager Herman Harms. She told Harms that she could only work on the night shift, and Harms replied that Respondent could not keep enough employees on the night shift and would be glad to have her. He also told her that Respondent wanted to employ a full night shift and that as long as there was a night shift, she could work on it. Around October 1, Rule returned to work in departments 1 and 2 on the night shift. She was classified as a punch- press operator but operated all the machines in her departments and also did some spot welding. Toward the end of October 1965, Respondent added a night-shift operation in its department 8, transferring Cecil Overbay from the day shift in that department to oversee the night-shift operation. Sometime thereafter, Rule talked to Reimer, Overbay, and Harms and requested transfer into department 8 because she wanted to learn the welding operation performed in it. In December she was told that Respondent had decided to let her try the work in department 8. Personnel Manager Harms asked her if she would be willing to work on the day shift for a 2-week period of training for the department 8 work. Rule agreed on the condition that the day-shift work would continue only for 2 weeks. Harms told her that she could go back to the night shift in department 8 after being trained. Rule asked Harms what would happen if she could not learn to do the work. Harms told her that in that event she could go back to her old job. Rule satisfactorily completed the 2 weeks' training on the day shift and was transferred to department 8 on the night shift. At the time of her transfer, she and Overbay were the only two employees in the department at night. Sometime later, Elizabeth Adolph was added to the night shift in that department, transferring there from the glass department. Rule's work record in department 8, at least until April 1966, was good. On two occasions, in January and March 1966, Personnel Manager Harms discussed Rule's work with Overbay and commented favorably about it. Rule received several wage increases between September 1965, when she started at the rate of $1.30 an hour, and June 1966, when she was paid at the rate of $1.65 an hour, which included a 10-cent night differential. Until union activity started among the employees at the plant, she received compliments about her work and no criticism. B. Rule's Union Activities Commence and Respondent Indicates Opposition to the Union In March 1966, Rule invited Ronald Weems, a representative of the Union, to come to Meade to talk about the Union, first to her and then to other employees at a meeting which she helped arrange. She passed out union authorization cards, solicited signatures , passed out union literature, and talked about the Union. She obtained a list of names and addresses of the employees in the plant which she mailed to Weems.2 In April, Rule gave Foreman Floyd Downs a union authorization card and union literature and asked him to sign the card. Downs did not sign the card but kept it and offered it and the literature to Personnel Manager Herman Harms the following day. Downs told Harms that Rule had given it to him. Harms instructed Downs to watch Rule and not to let her talk about the Union during working hours, explaining that her union activities had to take place on her own time. After that incident, Downs watched Rule when he had time and observed that she confined her union activities to her own time. When Harms occasionally asked him whether Rule's union activities were on Respondent's time, Downs answered that they were on her own time. Sometime during April, the employees on the night shift were gathered at the coffee bar where Clarence Isaac, Respondent's vice president, read a letter to the employees that Respondent had received from the Union. Isaac also read the Company's reply to the letter expressing opposition to the unionization of Respondent's employees. Thereafter, in May 1966, Harms again discussed Rule's work with Overbay. Harms stated that he thought Rule's work was falling off a little bit. Overbay disagreed with Harms and told him that in his opinion , her work was just as good as it had been and that production records would show that her quality and quantity were as good as ever. At that time, Harms also told Overbay that Respondent had to watch its step because of the union activities and could not give raises or reprimands. C. Isaac Encounters Rule at the Timecard Rack and Allegedly Engages in Interference 1. The facts On June 1, about 5 a.m., during working time, Respondent's president, George Isaac, encountered Rule standing near the timecard rack in the plant. No one else was present.3 Rule was going through the timecards. She had a clipboard with a number of papers on it and appeared to be recording names.' Isaac walked up to her and asked her what she was doing. Rule explained that she was looking for the name of a girl in the plant. Isaac said to her, "I suppose you know that we know someone is getting the names from the timecards and sending them in to the union at Wichita."5 Isaac also told her that Respondent did not appreciate the Union and people working for the Union to undermine the Company. Rule said that she was t The circumstances under which Rule obtained the addresses of some of the employees in the plant are the subject of disputed testimony. Although Rule's testimony with respect to this matter was to some extent evasive and inconsistent, there is no affirmative evidence that Rule engaged in impropriety which would deprive her of any potential reinstatement rights Cf Uniform Rental Service , Inc, 161 NLRB 187 3 I credit Isaac that he had come to the plant early that morning to pick up some papers in preparation for a trip to Kansas City " I credit Isaac in this regard I do not credit Rule's explanation for stopping to look at the cards this explanation together with her other testimony concerning her activities in obtaining names of employees lacked plausibility, was marred by some inconsistencies, and did not impress me as candidly given 5 As to this and the remainder of the conversation , I do not wholly credit Rule or Isaac but rather find that the facts lie between their two versions Each impressed me as remembering the exchange between them in a way most favorable to his respective interests Isaac's version portrays this conversation as essentially a monologue by Rule after an initial question by him to her He also testified that beyond what he testified he could not recall anything else about the conversation because he was not interested in it Accepting his version of what Rule was doing at the timecard rack and bearing in mind Isaac's concession that he had heard previously that Rule was the chief instigator of the Union in the plant, I am persuaded that he and Rule said more than he now recalls MEADE MFG. CO. not trying to undermine the Company, and a brief discussion of working conditions followed with Rule complaining about some conditions and indicating satisfaction with others. When Rule complained that wages were too low, Isaac responded that if she did not like the wages, she could go elsewhere. Rule conceded that she was getting better wages than she could get elsewhere in the area but said that they were not enough for her to support herself and her family. At the end of their encounter, Rule observed that morale in the plant on the night shift was low. Isaac responded with the question, "You know why, don't you, Helen?" At that point the buzzer sounded signaling the start of the employees' coffeebreak, and the conversation ended. 2. Concluding findings The General Counsel contends that Isaac's statements at this time created the impression that employees' union activities were being kept under surveillance and threatened reprisals because of union activities. To the extent that Isaac stated that he knew that employees were obtaining names from the timecards, he only asserted that which was fairly observable in the plant and did not thereby create impression of surveillance.6 The impression of surveillance, if any, must stem from Isaac's further assertion of knowledge that the names were being sent to the Union, suggesting that he knew of employee union activities beyond those he had the opportunity to observe when employees were at work in the plant. However, in the light of the circumstances, including the nature of the knowledge which Isaac claimed, I find it as reasonable to construe this portion of Isaac's statement as an educated guess of the reason why the names were being taken as it is to view it as a statement of knowledge obtained from surveillance of union activities away from the plant. In these circumstances, I conclude that the General Counsel has not established that Isaac's remark created the impression of surveillance of union activities. While Isaac in his further remarks left no doubt that he disapproved of the union activities and viewed them as a threat to the Company, I find nothing in those remarks as testified to by Rule which conveyed a threat to her that reprisals would be taken against her or other union supporters. The suggestion that Rule should look for work elsewhere if she did not like the wages paid by Respondent was not accompanied by any suggestion that Respondent intended to discharge her or take other reprisals if she did not quit . Isaac's final question to Rule, which he asked in response to her assertion that morale on the night shift was low, may have been intended, as the General Counsel contends, to suggest that Rule's union activities were responsible for the low morale, but there is no threat of reprisal or other impropriety in such a suggestion made in response to Rule's complaint. In sum, I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to establish that Isacc's statements to Rule on June 1 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6 Cf Precision Products & Controls, Inc , 160 NLRB 1119 ' There is no basic conflict between the testimony of Overbay and Robertson with respect to this conversation My findings are based on a composite of their testimony " There is no evidence to show whether or not Overbay's rate in his new job was that called for by Respondent's classification and rate schedules " Robertson testified that he made the decision to eliminate the night shift in department 8 about 2 weeks before he put it in 807 D. The Election Is Held, Department 8 Is Eliminated on the Night Shift, and Rule is Transferred to the Day Shift 1. The facts On June 9, the representation election was conducted among Respondent's employees. The election resulted in a decisive defeat for the Union. The Union's observers at the election were Rule, Overbay, and Elizabeth Adolph, the three employees in department 8 on the night shift. On Saturday morning, June 18, just before the night- shift quitting time, Jack Robertson, director of manufacturing for Respondent, called first Overbay and then Rule into his office separately to inform them that the night-shift operations of department 8 were being eliminated. Robertson told Overbay that department 8 was ahead three orders and that he was going to have to eliminate the night shift in that department.' Robertson told him that the night-shift employees in department 8 would have to go on days. When Overbay indicated that he could not work days, Robertson said that he had one opening on the night shift and that as Overbay had seniority, he would let Overbay take it with no loss in wages." Overbay agreed to take it, and Robertson told him to report for work the following Monday in department 2. Robertson also told Overbay that he had been considering the elimination of the night shift in department 8 for 2 weeks before, but that he had been called to Topeka for tornado duty with the National Guard and had not had time to do anything about it until then as he had just gotten back.`' Robertson told Overbay that Rule would have to go to work on the day shift as there were no openings for her on the night shift. Overbay replied that he thought there was plenty of work on nights, that Rule had worked in department 1 prior to her transfer to department 8, that she knew how to run the machines, and that she had seniority over the majority of the employees who worked at night. Robertson told Overbay that there was nothing he could do about it. Robertson said that Rule would have to go on the day shift and that if she did not want to work days, she would just have to quit. Overbay told Robertson that it was practically impossible for Rule to work days because of her babysitting problem. Robertson said there was nothing he could do about it and that she would have to work days. Robertson then sent Overbay out of his office and asked him to send Rule in. Rule went into Robertson's office after Overbay left. Robertson told her essentially what he had told Overbay concerning termination of the department on the night shift and that she would have to work on the day shift.10 Rule said that she could not do so because she had a babysitting problem. Robertson told her that if she could not go on days, she would have to quit." She asked Robertson if there were something else she could do on the effect The record does not indicate whether the union observers had been designated at that time "'There is no significant conflict between the testimony of Rule and that of Robertson with respect to the conversations between them on this day My findings are based on a composite of their testimony i i Rule so testified Robertson testified that he could not recall telling Rule she would have to quit if she could not work days but did not deny that he said it 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD night shift.12 Robertson replied that he had only one vacancy on the night shift, which was in the framing department, and that Robertson had offered it to Overbay who had greater seniority and took it. Robertson also told Rule that in 60 to 90 days Respondent was planning to start a full night shift and that she could go back on nights then. Rule said that she would have to think about it and left Robertson's office. She returned later and talked to him further. During her second conversation with Robertson, she asked if she would lose her 10-cent night bonus upon transfer to the day shift. Robertson answered that she would. She told Robertson that it was her understanding with Harms that she would stay on nights as long as they had a night shift. Robertson said that the decision to transfer was his. 2. Concluding findings The complaint alleges that the elimination of the night shift of department 8 and Rule's transfer to the day shift at a decreased rate of pay were caused by her union membership and activity. With respect to the first, the alleged discriminatory discontinuation of the night shift, it is true that the three employees in department 8 on the night shift served as observers for the Union in the election and that Rule was the most active of union supporters in the plant. There is also evidence that Respondent was hostile to the Union. These circumstances together with the timing of the elimination of the night shift in department 8 raise considerable suspicion as to the motivation for it. On the other hand there is uncontradicted evidence in the record that there was a valid economic reason for discontinuation of the night shift in department 8. Department 8 had operated on a two-shift basis for only approximately 6 months before its night-shift operation was terminated. During this period, it had built up steadily increasing inventories. Although it may have been ahead on finished orders in the past without being shut down, the evidence is undisputed that for the several months which followed the elimination of the night shift in department 8, without any expansion of the day shift other than Rule's addition for approximately 10 days, the day shift was able to produce all that Respondent needed. In the light of this evidence of economic justification for the discontinuation of the night shift in department 8,13 I find that the record is insufficient to sustain the General Counsel's burden of proving that the union activities of the employees in department 8 on the night shift caused its elimination. it In one of her two conversations with Robertson on this day, Rule also told him that she had seniority over others on the night shift and that they were doing the same work that she had done before she transferred to department 8 ' i In his brief the General Counsel attacks this evidence as meaningless generalities which should be rejected among other things because of Respondent's failure to produce any records in support of the testimony of its witnesses I do not view Robertson ' s testimony as so general as to be meaningless Robertson was available for full cross-examination, and the General Counsel could have required Respondent to produce its records if he believed that they did not support Robertson's testimony I conclude that Respondent presented sufficient evidence of economic justification to require convincing demonstration by the General Counsel that the asserted economic reason for the change was not the true reason for it is The General Counsel introduced evidence to show that one employee was transferred from the night shift to the day shift at Accordingly, I conclude that the allegations of the complaint based on its elimination have not been sustained and should be dismissed. With respect to the allegation that Respondent's transfer of Helen Rule to the day shift at a decreased rate of pay was caused by her union activities, I similarly find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the General Counsel's burden of proof. Of the three employees in department 8 on the night shift, one had given notice of her intention to quit before the night shift was discontinued. This left two employees, Overbay and Rule, who were displaced. Overbay, the senior of the two, was given first choice of the open jobs in the plant, one of which was on the night shift and the other of which was in department 8 on the day shift. When Overbay exercised his seniority to claim the job on the night shift, Rule was given the day- shift job in department 8. Her only reduction in pay was attributable to loss of the differential ordinarily paid to employees on the night shift.14 It is true that there were other employees on the night shift with less seniority than Rule whose work Rule probably could have performed, although the record does not reveal what rate of pay any of these employees were receiving. It is also true that Rule, at the time of her employment, had indicated that she could work only on the night shift and that at the time Robertson told her of her transfer to the day shift, she informed Robertson of her inability to work days. Rule's history of union activities and Robertson's seeming unwillingness to try to work out a way for Rule to remain on the night shift in these circumstances cause doubts as to the cause of her transfer. However, there is no evidence that there were any job openings on the night shift at any rate of pay other than that filled by Overbay15 or that Respondent has any practice with respect to seniority which would permit a senior employee to displace a junior employee on a job on the night shift rather than transfer to the day shift. Moreover, although Robertson told Rule there was nothing then available on the night shift , he also told her that he anticipated that in 2 or 3 months Respondent would start a full night shift at which time there would be night work available for her. In these circumstances, I have concluded that the General Counsel has failed to establish that Rule was given treatment different from that any other employee who had not engaged in union activities would have received under circumstances otherwise similar. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint based on her transfer be dismissed. his own request in June 1966 without any loss in pay. However, the evidence also shows that he changed job classifications at the same time, and there is no evidence to show that his pay after the transfer did not conform with schedule of classifications and pay rates maintained by Respondent Apart from this single example, the evidence otherwise shows that when the entire night shift was abolished in September and the remaining night-shift employees transferred to the day shift, they lost their night differential payment i' Although Overbay testified that new employees were hired on the night shift after Rule's transfer , Overbay remained in Respondent's employ until September 1966 There is no evidence to show when other employees were hired on the night shift, what work they did, or what they were paid In these circumstances I find Overbay's testimony insufficient to establish that night work was available, apart from that which was later offered to Rule and which she rejected MEADE MFG. CO. 809 E. Rule Is Snubbed by Supervisors and Is Given a Merit Review 1. The facts On Monday, June 20, Rule reported to work on the day shift in department 8 at her old rate of pay less the 10-cent- an-hour night differential. She worked with two employees and a supervisor who had previously constituted the day shift in the department. No other employees were added to the department to replace Adolph and Overbay. During the next 10 days while she worked on the day shift , Rule testified that her treatment in the plant underwent a marked change. She recounted one specific incident on June 24, when something got in her eye while at work. She approached General Plant Manager Burkehouse who was standing at the door of the drafting department with Chief Draftsman Flinn. She asked Burkehouse if he would look to see if there was anything in her eye. According to Rule, he ignored her. She stood there, and Flinn asked Burkehouse if he would not help her. Burkehouse still did nothing, and Rule asked if there was some eyewash available. Burkehouse again did not reply, and Flinn asked Burkehouse if there was eyewash. Burkehouse then said that he thought there was. Rule then went to get it and tried to help herself. 16 Rule also testified without substantial contradiction that before the election and her transfer to the day shift, she was on friendly speaking terms with various members of supervision and management . 17 However, after Rule was transferred to the day shift, they started to pass her by without speaking and turned their heads away when they saw her.18 Derald Campbell, who transferred to the day shift around the same time as Rule, on one occasion shortly after his transfer went to borrow a pair of shears from Rule. When he returned to his work station, Plant Manager Burkehouse told him he would rather that Campbell not go over into Rule's department because she was causing the Company quite a bit of trouble and he preferred that Campbell not get involved. Burkehouse did not say what the trouble was. However, Campbell had heard at that time that there was some problem with respect to Rule's intimidation of employees. On two other occasions during coffeebreaks when Campbell was visiting with Burkehouse, Rule walked up. When Campbell started to include Rule in the conversation, Burkehouse turned and walked away, saying nothing.19 On Friday, July 1, the day before the plant vacation started, all the employees were given merit reviews in accordance with Respondent' s semiannual practice. Rule was called into the office for this purpose. Harms, Burkehouse, and Chief Modelmaker and Designer Bernard Koehn were present.20 Harms criticized her attitude21 and told her that if he felt as she did and could not get along, he would quit and find another job. Harms also said that things had happened in the past that George and Clarence Isaac could forgive and forget. Rule asked if by this he meant the Union. Harms replied that he was not going to mention it, but now that it had been mentioned he would say yes. During the review Rule was given a 5-cent hourly increase. 2. Concluding findings The complaint alleges that Personnel Manager Harms threatened employees with reprisal on July 1, and the General Counsel contends that the evidence concerning Rule's merit review supports this allegation. There can be little doubt that Harms' criticism of Rule's attitude as well as his reference to the things which George and Clarence Isaac could forgive and forget related to Rule's union activities. As set forth above, the record also makes it clear that for approximately 10 days before this interview, Rule had received the silent treatment from members of supervision and management , and at least one employee was advised that he should not associate with her. Although there is some evidence that Respondent attributed its treatment of Rule to alleged acts of intimidation of other employees by her, there is no evidence in the record that Rule had engaged in any improper conduct,22 and I find that Respondent's treatment of Rule during this period is attributable to her union activities. In light of the change in Rule's treatment in the plant during the preceding 10 days, I find that the only "' Flinn testified that he could not recall the incident but he did not testify that the incident did not take place Burkehouse was not called as a witness In these circumstances , I credit Rule as to this incident. 11 Rule testified in this connection that all the members of management and supervision knew her father George Isaac testified that he did not know her family, but her testimony in this respect is otherwise uncontradicted i" Although Rule was cross-examined at some length with respect to the nature of her relationship before the election with members of management , particularly with Clarence Isaac, no witnesses were called by Respondent to refute her testimony as to the change in her treatment after the election other than Dale Flinn who testified as described above with respect to the eye incident " I credit the testimony of Campbell as to the incidents he described Respondent presented no evidence to contradict his testimony, but called one witness, Betty Kinslow, who testified that even before the election, she had words with Rule over the Union, during which she accused Rule of having threatened to kick her daughter and told Rule to keep her feet off her daughter Her daughter was not called as a witness nor was any other witness called to testify to intimidation by Rule 2" Rule and Koehn were the only two witnesses who testified with respect to the merit review Koehn's testimony disclosed that lie had considerable difficulty recalling most of the interview, as lie conceded In view of the unconvincing nature of his testimony with respect to the bulk of the interview and in the absence of testimony by Burkehouse or Harms, both of whom were present at the interview, I have concluded that Rule's recollection of the interview is more accurate and should be credited except as otherwise specifically indicated d1 Rule testified that Harms also criticized her work. According to Koehn, Harms told Rule she was doing fine work and Respondent liked it In the statement which Rule gave to an agent of the General Counsel during the investigation of the charges she indicated only that Harms criticized her cooperation and attitude Although there is evidence that Harms had criticized her work to Overbay before the election, I have concluded that Harms made no serious criticism of Rule's work during the merit review in the light of the ommission of any mention of such criticism from her statement , the fact that she was given a merit increase, and Koehn's apparently valid recollection of this aspect of the review 22 Kinslow's uncorroborated hearsay testimony is not sufficient to establish that Rule had threatened to kick Kinslow's daughter, particularly in the absence of any showing that Kinslow's daughter was unavailable to testify 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reasonable inference to be drawn from Harms' statements to Rule was that unless she changed her attitude toward the Union, the treatment she had received for the past 10 days and the criticism of her attitude would continue. Accordingly, I conclude that Harms' remarks to Rule at the time of her merit review threatened reprisals for her union activities and violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged in the complaint. F. Rule Takes a Leave of Absence and Does Not Return 1. The facts The plant' vacation started on July 2. During the vacation Rule discovered that her working on the day shift was causing a problem with her children. She requested a 60-day leave of absence which was granted. She was not replaced in department 8 after going on leave. About a week after Rule went on leave, Robertson told Overbay that Rule had been intimidating people. Overbay asked in what way, and Robertson replied that she was intimidating people over the telephone and that if it did not stop he would have to take some legal action of his own independent of the Company. Overbay asked what the intimidation was, but Robertson did not specify.23 After going on leave, Rule went to Colorado Springs, Colorado, with her children and stayed with her brother who lived there. On July 30, she wrote Robertson to ask him to send her an application form to be signed for her leave of absence. On August 3 Robertson replied, enclosing the necessary form. In his letter he informed Rule that there was an opening on the night shift in the glass department, effective immediately, for a glass installer trainee at the rate of $1.35 an hour plus a 10-cent shift differential. He asked her to inform him no later than Monday, August 8, if she wished to take the job. On August 8, Rule replied by letter to George Isaac, Respondent's president. Rule asked to be advised of any job openings comparable to the position she held before she engaged in union activities. Her letter stated: Please advise me if you have any job openings comparable to the position I held before union activities in your company. As you know after the union election, I was transfered [sic] to the day shift and required to take a 10 cent an hour cut in wages. Due to job situation and conditions beyond my control I was forced to request a leave of absence. I am in dire need of employment but since I could barely able to support my family with a wage of $1.65 per hour on the night shift, I feel I must have a job comparable to such at this time. By letter dated August 19, 1966, Respondent Vice President Clarence Isaac replied indicating that both the job which she had left on the day shift and the job in the glass department, which was offered in Respondent's previous letter, were still open. He asked Rule to advise him by mail on or before August 26 whether she wished either of these jobs. By letter of August 24, 1966, Rule replied that she was not prepared to accept either of the jobs open to her, stating as her reason that neither was comparable in any way to the job she held before the union Z' Although Robertson testified with respect to other matters, he was not questioned about this conversation, and I credit Overbay's uncontradicted testimony There is no evidence to show what if anything Robertson was referring to or that activities started at the plant. Rule did not return to work at the end of her leave of absence. In September the entire night shift was discontinued, and all employees on the night shift were transferred to the day shift. The elimination of the remainder of the night shift was made necessary by changes in the Respondent's production methods following expansion of the plant facilities.24 2. Concluding findings The complaint alleges that Rule's departure from Respondent's employment was a constructive discharge attributable to Rule's union activities. The evidence set forth above with respect to Rule's treatment in the plant following her transfer to the day shift and Harms' threat of reprisal at the time of her merit review, accompanied by his statement that if he felt as she did, he would quit, support an inference that Respondent sought to induce Rule to quit her job by making life unpleasant for her in the plant. However, the evidence also shows that Rule quit because of her problem in arranging for the care of her children after her transfer to the day shift and not because of the treatment she received during the preceding 10 days. Thus, in explaining her reasons for seeking a leave of absence, Rule testified, "during vacation I found out I was having a real problem with my children, so I took a leave of absence." In the correspondence which followed between Rule and Respondent, when Respondent offered her a choice of the job she had left or a lesser paying job on the night shift, she rejected both as not comparable because they paid less than she had earned on the night shift and asked if any comparable jobs were available, indicating willingness to return to her old job on the night shift at $1.65 an hour. Moreover, although it appears that Respondent sought to chill Rule's relations with others in the plant, there is no evidence that her working conditions were otherwise affected. There is no indication that her duties were changed, made more onerous, or that she was in any affirmative way subjected to harassment in her work. Her working conditions were thus made less pleasant, but not impossible. Accordingly, I have concluded that whatever wishes Respondent may have harbored, Rule's action in taking leave and thereafter failing to return was caused not by discriminatory treatment she may have received from Respondent but by her problems away from work resulting from her transfer which I have found above not to be discriminatory. In these circumstances, I have concluded that Rule voluntarily quit and was not constructively discharge. Therefore I shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint based on her departure be dismissed. 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 its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and Robertson took any action after this conversation 24 It appears that Respondent's plans to operate on two shifts in its expanded facilities were abandoned because of a lack of available manpower MEADE MFG. CO. 811 substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Meade Manufacturing Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening reprisals for union activity and adherence, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not engaged in other unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Meade Manufacturing Company, Meade, Kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with reprisals as a consequence of their union activities or support. (b) In any like or related 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 Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Meade, Kansas, place of businegs, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."25 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.26 1 FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint otherwise be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not heretofore remedied by the Recommended Order. 15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 26 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 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 Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because they support a union or engage in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 29, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any other activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. MEADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY (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, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone FR 4-5181.