Geauga Plastics Co.

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Geauga Plastics Company and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO Geauga Plastics Company and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Plant Committee. Cases 8-CA-4189 and 8-CA-4210 June 30, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On September 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affir- mative actions , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. He also found that the Respond- ent had not engaged in other unfrai labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismis- sal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified below. The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's three layoffs and ul- timate discharge of employee Lorma Jean hams were motivated by an intent to discourage the pro- union sentiment of hams and other employees. We disagree. hams began working for Respondent in January 1963 and, prior to the Union's organizing campaign, had never been reprimanded by Respondent for poor work performance or for any other reason. In the summer of 1965, hams was contacted by the Union with reference to its desire to regain its representative status among Respondent's em- ployees. Thereafter, hams personally visited the homes of some 50 employees, over one-third of the employees in the unit being organized, and solicited their signatures on the Union's authorization cards. hams had worked in the molding department for about 2 years and was junior in seniority only to employee Majorie Sieb, with whom hams had worked regularly for over a year on the assembly of a Ford part. Sometime during the Union's organiz- ing campaign, Respondent became aware of Iiams' extensive union solicitation activities.' In August 1965, employee Trudy Forshaw was placed in Iiams' regular job and hams was transferred to vari- ous jobs in the same department. She first worked for about 2 months with two recently hired girls glu- ing a new Ford part. Then, according to Iiams' un- contradicted testimony, she was "switched around from molder to molder, from molder to molder." In late November 1965, and apparently for medical reasons, hams was transferred to lighter work in the finishing department, where she was again shifted frequently from one job to another.2 On the morning of December 27, hams was as- signed the job of trimming, inspecting, and packing vulcanized gaskets. About 10:30 Tillie Cibek, the quality control inspector, removed four or five gaskets from a box which hams had packed and showed them to Gordon Lilly, the foreman of the finishing department. Lilly checked a few more gaskets in the box and then showed hams about six gaskets which had excess flash on them. hams acknowledged that more flash could have been removed from the gaskets and Lilly admitted on the record that the gaskets could have been retnmmed. Instead of permitting hams to retrim the gaskets, Lilly gave the gaskets to Arbogast, and called hams into his office and told her she was being suspended for 3 days for packing faulty gaskets. Iiams testified that she was familiar with the work and that she had trimmed the gaskets on this date in the same manner as she had in the past. On January 13, 1966, hams was assigned the job of punching hard and soft gaskets. Lilly testified that after receiving another report from Cibek he went over and checked five or six gaskets which hams had punched and found them to be bad.3 hams testified that she had off-punched 35 of the last 50 gaskets which she had done that day, but ' James Bell, then foreman on the third shift in the finishing department, testified that employee Mary Carver told him Iiams was one of the girls who was passing out the cards. Thereafter, according to Bell's testimony, he asked General Foreman Basel Arbogast, "If they had gotten enough cards to hold a vote?" Arbogast replied, "Yes. He thought that they had." Bell asked, "If he knew who was passing the cards out?" Arbogast said, "Possibly Jean hams was one There were probably a lot more but he didn't know for sure." Herman Haygood, an assistant foreman and Iiams' immediate superior in the finishing department, testified also that everybody knew that hams was for the Union. 2 While it appears from the record that some of the employees in the finishing department, on occasion, were shifted from job to job because of Respondent's production requirements , Haygood testified that he "changed [Iiams] around more" than any of the other employees. 3 Employee Paulette Cozad testified without contradiction that she had already packed the gaskets and put her inspection slip in the box. 166 NLRB No. 69 GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY 487 that Cibek came over and inspected the gaskets be- fore she had a chance to inspect them herself.4 Hams testified further that she filled out a scrap sheet and placed it in a little box; and that, at the end of the day, Lilly called her into his office and said he was going to have to give her a week off "because I was costing"the Company money with bad scrap." It appears that Lilly had not seen the scrap sheet at the time he called her into the office and suspended her. Lilly testified that he took Iiams into his office after she had checked and reported to him the number of faulty gaskets, and told her she was being suspended for running bad parts the second time within 2 weeks.5 When asked on cross- examination if he had ever suspended an employee twice before, Lilly testified, "I don't remember whether I have or not. Usually when we give an em- ployee time off they don't return." Unlike previously suspended employees, Rams did not quit after her suspension, but returned to work, and, for the first time on March 8, was as- signed the job of cutting certain gaskets on a miter- ing machine. Rams operated the machine until about 10 or 10:30 that morning when both the trimmer and Haygood noticed that the gaskets were running short. Haygood checked the seven boxes which had been filled by this time and found that some of these pieces were short also. He then notified Arbogast who thereafter took Earns off the job. At the end of the day, Arbogast called hams into his office and placed the blame on her for cutting the gaskets short. He suspended her for a week. hams protested that it was not her fault and then said, "[Those] gaskets are hard, they had a hard time running them ever since they started them." Later in the conversation, Iiams told Ar- bogast, "Well, you are giving me the hardest jobs you can find," to which Arbogast replied, "Yes. Why don't you quit?"6 hams stated, "I am not quitting.'You will have to fire me first." Although Arbogast testified that the job last as- signed hams was easy, employee Laura Argo, the regular operator on that job, have the following description: "Well you have to miter. There are three pieces of gaskets. One is a center piece and there is a space in the center about that far (indicat- ing) and a little bit further (indicating) and you got to be very careful. It is a tedious job to get them in. You miter that in on one machine. Then you cut the other two ends off on another machine. You got to pull them back against the block, which can't be shoved in real hard, you have to come in or another cutter." She further testified, "Well, you just got to know how to put that gasket in there and do it. It is 4 The record shows that altogether hams punched about 300 gaskets, a total of 40 of which were off-punched The record also shows that approx- imately 40Q gaskets were punched on the three shifts, about 62 of which were off-punched. 5 On cross-examination, Lilly testified that he told Earns she was being suspended for "packing bad parts." It is clear that Cozad, and not hams a very tedious job putting it in there. It is not an easy job." Argo also testified, "We all made mistakes on it. All tricks made mistakes, the same mistakes on them.'' Following this suspension and a brief absence due to death in her family, hams refused to "quit" as urged by Arbogast, but returned to work and did trimming for the first 2 days. However, on the third day, March 23, she was again reassigned to work with employee Helen Clary in assembling- and finishing a gasket for an IBM machine. This gasket consists of a hollow piece of extruded rubber tubing into which is inserted a piece of magnetic material that is stapled into the ballon of the gasket. When properly assembled, the staples do not protrude through the outside of the ballon. It appears from the record that the two employees first work together measuring, trimming, and notching a supply of the tubing and magnetic material. Then, while one employee continues this operation and in- serts the magnetic material into the tubing, the other performs the stapling operation. Rams was assigned to work on this job in the absence of employee Lois Starcher, who, after the job was set up, normally continued with the first operation and Clary per- formed the stapling. Rams had not performed this job before. When hams was first assigned, Haygood showed her how to cut on two of the guil- lotine cutters, and Arbogast showed her how to notch on the notcher. After Clary and hams had spent about an hour getting the job set up, Arbogast came over and told Iiams that she would have to do the stapling. Arbogast adjusted the stapling gun and stapled a couple of the parts in order to show hams how the operation should be performed. He showed her one that was improperly stapled so that the sta- ple was piercing through the outside of the ballon and cautioned her against this procedure. He watched her staple several parts and then left the line. Arbogast testified that he checked Iiams' work once or twice during the morning and she seemed to be doing the work properly. Arbogast testified further that at the end of the shift, and after receiv- ing word from his second-shift foreman, he checked the last box of parts worked on by hams and found them to be bad. Whereupon, he directed the foreman to check her work and was advised that more than 50 out of 300 parts were improperly sta- pled. Arbogast pulled Iiams' timecard and discharged her the following day, allegedly for bad work. According to Arbogast, hams said, "I knew that you had wanted to fire me because of my union activity. You have not heard the last from me. I will get even with you. I will be back." Arbogast did not deny Iiams' charge. packed the gaskets. Elsewhere in Lilly's direct testimony, he testified that he told Dams to "make sure that she did not pack any bad parts," and that he inspected the pieces in the box rather than those on the table because "this is what she was supposed to have inspected." 6 hams' charge that she was being assigned hard jobs by Arbogast is corroborated, in part, by Haygood's testimony , as noted above. 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A careful analysis of the foregoing facts, and the record as a whole, convinces us that Respondent singled out hams because of her known union so- licitation activities and embarked on the foregoing course of conduct for the purpose of getting rid of hams in order to discourage the organizational ef- forts of its employees. Thus, in August 1965, hams was abruptly transferred, without explanation, from her regular job to various jobs in the molding de- partment, each of which changed with predictable frequency. In the absence of some plausible ex- planation by Respondent, we do not believe that this abrupt change in Iiams' job status can be iso- lated from Respondent's knowledge or suspicion of Iiams' activities on behalf of the Union.7 Indeed, it appears from Bell's conversation with Arbogast that Respondent became aware of Iiams' solicita- tion of union cards before or around the time the petition was filed in the representation proceeding, Case 8-RC-6039.8 Nor do we find any basis in the record for isolat- ing Respondent's sudden and frequent changes in Iiams' job status from its subsequent conduct in first suspending and finally discharging her. Respondent clearly demonstrated its union animus by the unfair labor practices which it committed during the Union's preelection campaign. Then, at the very time that Respondent professed a lack of antiunion motives in its postelection treatment of Earns, Respondent, in addition to committing other unfair labor practices, reactivated the plant commit- tee and embarked on a course of domination, assistance, and dealings with the committee in flagrant disregard of its employees' rights to select a bargaining representative of their own choosing, and attempted thereby to frustrate any future or- ganizational efforts of the emplc,yees.9 In the light of these unfair labor practices and the unrefuted testimony in the record that Arbogast admitted giv- ing hams the hardest jobs he could find and asking her to quit,10 we find that the reasons asserted by Respondent for Iiams' three disciplinary layoffs and discharge were pretexts used by Respondent to mask its unlawful plan to get rid of Iiams. Other evidence in the record supports the conclu- sions which we have reached. Thus, the record 9 We do not consider it material to our decision herein that Respondent may not have known the extensive nature of hams' solicitation on behalf of the Union. Respondent knew that some employees were soliciting cards for the Union, and Iiams' name stood out as the only one which had been positively identified to the Respondent. 8 We take official notice of the fact that the representation petition was filed on August 10, 1965 9 This conduct assumes even greater significance since the record shows that the illegal committee was first established by Respondent shortly after the Union had been ousted as the employees' collective-bar- gaining representative. io We do not consider Respondent's testimony as either contradicting or denying Iiams' testimony to this effect. shows that hams was suspended abruptly on December 27, without prior warning that her work was deficient in any manner, for what appears to have been a minor infraction, one which occurred at a time of day when it could have been corrected readily by Iiams herself. h1 While one of the reasons, if not the principal reason as it appears from the record, for Iiams' suspension on January 13 was that she "packed" bad parts, the record clearly shows that employee Cozad actually packed the gaskets and placed her inspection slip in the box, facts which the most casual investigation should have revealed to Respondent. As to Iiams' suspen- sion on March 8 for cutting gaskets short, the testimony of the regular operator, Laura Argo, makes short shrift of Respondent's attempt to belit- tle the difficulty involved in the operation. Indeed, Argo's testimony indicates that the operation required, over and above the exercise of extreme care, a certain degree of skill or dexterity which an employee, as in the case of Iiams, would not or- dinarily be expected to demonstrate without some previous experience on the operation. In addition to Arbogast's failure on March 24 to deny Iiams' charge that Respondent wanted to fire her because of her union activity, the record evidence of the events of the previous day discloses highly suspi- cious and unexplained circumstances surrounding Iiams' transfer to the stapling operation. Thus, as it appears in the record, hams was performing satisfactorily the operations normally performed by Starcher, the absent employee whom she replaced. However, Respondent unaccountably assigned hams to perform the stapling operation which em- ployee Clary, who was present, normally per- formed. When these circumstances are considered along with the other evidence detailed herein, we are persuaded, and find, that Arbogast assigned hams to the stapling operation in anticipation that she would make mistakes and spoil materials so that he could have a pretext for discharging her. Ac- cordingly, and contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent, by its conduct in assigning hams to "the hardest jobs [it could] find," then suspending and finally discharging her, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. "We find wholly unpersuasive Respondent's claim that Lilly did not know of hams' union activities when he suspended her. As noted above, both Lilly's immediate superior, Arbogast, and his assistant foreman, Haygood, knew of Hams' union activities. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not find that other employees had been suspended in circumstances similar to hams. Thus, the record shows that employee Judy Herrman, who was given a week's suspension for packing dirty gaskets, was given a prior warning for the same offense on the previous day. Penny Batton, who was suspended 3 days for packing improperly mitered parts, admitted that she did not pay attention to in- structions. Hazel Vaughn, who was given 2 days off for filling out her work tickets improperly, was instructed twice and warned once about the tickets before she was suspended. This was not true in Iiams' case. In- deed, the Respondent produced no evidence of another employee who was treated as severely as Iiams. THE REMEDY GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY 489 As we have found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall also amend the Trial Examiner 's Recom- mended Order to include a broad cease -and-desist order. As we have found that Respondent discrimina- torily suspended and discharged Lorma Jean Iiams, we shall order her reinstated, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed by her, to her former or substantially equivalent position , and make whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her dis- criminatory suspensions and discharge. Her backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Geauga Plastics Company, Crestline, Ohio, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, as herein modified: 1. Renumber the present paragraph 1(b) as 1(c) and add the following as paragraph 1(b) in the cease-and-desist portion of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order: "(b) Discharging or suspending its employees for having engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 2. Delete from the present paragraph 1(b) and the fourth indented paragraph of the Appendix at- tached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, the words "like or related" and substitute the word "other." 3. Renumber the present paragraphs 2(b) and (c) as 2(e) and (f), respectively, and add the following as paragraphs 2(b) and (c): "(b) Offer Lorma Jean hams immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in that portion of the Board's Decision entitled `The Remedy."' "(c) Notify Lorma Jean Iiams, if presently serv- ing in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." "(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security pay- ment records, timecards, personnel records and re- ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order." 4. Delete the last sentence in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order. 5. Insert immediately after the third indented paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision the following paragraphs) WE WILL NOT discharge or suspend our em- ployees for engaging in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL offer Lorma Jean hams immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substan- tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against her. 6. Add the following as the last indented para- graph: WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on July 8 and 29, 1966, at Galion, Ohio. The complaint in Case 8-CA-4189 charges the Geauga Plastics Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company, with il- legal conduct in restraining and coercing its employees with respect to their statutory right to self-organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and with unlaw- ful discharge of one employee; the complaint in Case 8-CA-4210 charges the Respondent with having illegally assisted, interfered with, and dominated the operation and administration of the plant committee, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. After the close of the hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses I make the following: 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Geauga Plastics Company is a wholly owned subsidia- ry of Geauga Industries Company, which in turn is wholly owned by Carlisle Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal office and place of busi- ness in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Only the Respondent's plant located at Crestline, Ohio, is involved in this proceeding. From this plant, the Respondent, which manufactures extruded molded plastic goods, annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000, to points located outside the State of Ohio. I find that the Respond- ent is now and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO , herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Plant Committee For the last 5 years, and perhaps longer, the Company has maintained in operation in its factory, a plant commit- tee established by the Company and existing pursuant to certain written rules promulgated by the Employer. There exists a printed booklet entitled "Employee Regula- tions," prepared by the Company and distributed to all its employees. It contains the following sections: PLANT COMMITTEE A -The plant committee was organized to meet with management at least once each month. This commit- tee discusses various suggestions, plans and ideas to both the plant employees and management. Also, grievances that could not be handled by the various foremen are discussed and settled B - The committee is formed as follows An election is held once each year and each of the following groups elect one representative. 1st shift- female employees 1st shift- male employees 2nd shift- female employees 2nd shift- male employees At the time of printing this policy book the 3rd shift is represented by the second shift committee, how- ever, the following schedule will apply. 3rd shift-when there are 25 regularly sched- uled employees-one representative. When there are 40 regularly scheduled employees- one male representative, one female representa- tive. GRIEVANCES A - Employees are requested to go to their foreman with any questions, problems or sug- gestions, but in event the employee has a matter that cannot be satisfactorily handled by the foreman, he (or she) may go to a member of the plant committee and explain the problem, etc. Thus determination will be made at the next committee meeting. If for any reason, the above-procedure does not suffice, with the Production Superintendent or the General Manager upon request for an appointment. The practice has been that whenever there is a vacancy on the committee a foreman or other management representative so advises the employees of a particular department and tells them to gather and select one of their members. The election takes place sometimes in the work area, sometimes in the foreman's office. Normally, com- mittee meetings with the Company take place once a month, but sometimes less frequently, or whenever there are questions to be considered. Again, it is the Company which decides when meetings are to be held, a supervisor tells a committee member or other, and conferences take place between the members and the representatives of the Company, always in the plant and sometimes in the su- perintendent's office The employees are always paid for time spent in these gatherings, be it to elect members or to discuss thew grievances and desires with the Em- ployer. There were received into evidence typewritten minutes of the meetings held on November 18 and December 13, 1965, January 7, February 23, March 29, April 28, May 31, and June 14, 1966. A great variety of subjects were discussed and decided at these conferences, including such things as picnic plans, the purchase of phonograph records to be played during work hours, parking facilities, courtesy towards supervisors, and matters of that type The following issues also are reported in writing as having been discussed: (1) Saturday being scheduled as a regular scheduled workday; (2) Seniority based on time worked; (3) Double shifts being counted in seniority;, (4) Why make 8-hour rate when only work 7-1/2 hours? (5) Will 3 days off for disciplinary action be counted for absentee- ism? (6) Will third-shift employees get paid for the auto accident on November 7 because they were unable to work? (7) Will the employees have Friday, November 26, off? (8) Will the employees get their raise and paid hospitalization this year? (9) Saturdays will count on seniority effective December 1, 1965; (10) New Ford cartons are too heavy to be moved by the women; (11) The rule for being off on leave for 3 months then being hired in as a new employee is under advisement; (12) Will the girls in the molding department be eligible for the 5- cent raise in April? (13) Will the plant shut down for va- cation? (14) Can something be set up whereby second- shift employees can attend high school graduation exer- cises the day after a holiday and still not lose their holiday pay? I find, contrary to the denial in the Respondent's answer, that the plant committee is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The minutes of the meeting show convincingly that it represents the employees vis-a-vis the employer o.I mat- ters relating to wages and other terms and conditions of employment I also find, as alleged in the complaint, that the Respondent has in the past and now continues to GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY render unlawful assistance and support to the committee. Its entire underlying authority stems from rules of em- ployment established unilaterally by the Company; the employees meet on rare occasion , without presence of management representatives, to vote upon and determine a consensus of opinion on any question which the com- mittee members and the "Company jointly decide should be submitted directly to the employees. There is no other activity of the committee apart from what has been detailed above; it is literally a creature of the Respondent, formed, controlled and dominated by the Company. I conclude that by maintaining the plant committee, by rendering it assistance and support, and by fully dominat- ing it, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. In its brief the Respondent, "offers no objection to the disestablishment" of the plant committee. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion An organizational campaign began among the em- ployees about July 1965. On petition filed by the Union (Case 8-RC-6039) the Board's Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election on September 9, 1965, and an election among the Respondent's approxi- mately 139 production and maintenance employees was held on October 6; the Union lost the election by 70 to 52. No objections were filed. There was much talk in the shop about the union cam- paign by both rank-and-file and supervisory personnel. The Union held meetings and word was passed about openly, both before and after the meetings . Anthony Tesso, an extrusion machine operator , testified that in August Aley Smith, then an assistant foreman, asked him how the Union was "going," and did Tesso think it was a "good thing." Tesso asked how Smith would vote, and the answer was "no." Smith became a foreman shortly after the election, and, as alleged in the complaint and as admitted in the answer, a supervisor as defined in the Act and an agent of the Respondent . In February he asked Tesso would the Union "come back," and when Tesso said he thought yes, the foreman told him : "If you want a chance out here again when the Union comes around you better talk him down, talk against it . . . that is how I got to my chance again . . . if I would not have talked against the Union and that Union would have got in .. . that he [Smith] would have been the first one out of the door." Smith did not testify, and I credit Tesso's uncon- tradicted testimony and find that Smith told the employee that he, Smith, was promoted because he spoke out against the Union, and that Tesso must do the same if he wished to advance in his employment . This illegal promise of advancement by the foreman as a reward for rejecting the Union constituted unlawful coercion upon the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Judy Volk testified that about a week before the start of October 1965, James Bell, the finishing department foreman, asked had she heard anything about the Union and had she signed a card. She said yes, and Bell then ex- plained he did not want a union in the plant because it would "take over" and preclude the Employer's freedom to give raises . On October 2, the day after a publicized union meeting, still according to Volk, Bell asked her "how the union meeting went." She said she had not yet 491 decided which way to go, and he then told her: "Well, I've got my little list of names ... that went to the union meeting." Foreman Bell also spoke to employee Kaye Bevins about the union meeting. She testified there was much talk between the two of them before the meeting, in which she made clear she favored the Union. Bell then asked her not to use her influence to prevail upon others to go her way, to let them decide for themselves. Bell also told Bevins, as she recalled , that he "knew ... who was going to vote for the Union and who wasn't." Bell admitted having discussed the union meeting with individual employees. He told one girl, Miss Markum, he knew she had gone to the meeting. He asked another, Kaye Bevins, whether she was going. He denied asking Judy Volk whether she had attended or telling her he had a list of any kind. Bell also testified , however, that he did tell Miss Markum he knew who was attending the meet- ing, and that "I had a list of all the people that had gone." On the basis of the demeanor of Foreman Bell at the hearing and of his own admissions, I credit the testimony of Volk and Bevins. Accordingly , I find that the foreman questioned employees concerning their attendance at union meetings and that he told Volk he had a list of those who had been present and Bevins that he knew exactly how the employees would vote in the coming election. Such statements constituted clear intimation to the em- ployees that the Respondent was surveying their union activities and, necessarily, as the Board has repeatedly found , coerced and restrained them in their right to decide the question of union representation free of employer interferences) In the light of such intimidating tactics, and of Foreman Smith's threat to Tesso that promotion with the Company was conditioned upon an antiunion at- titude, the interrogation must also be deemed as illegally coercive in itself.2 I find that by such statements of Foremen Smith and Bell the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. The Discharge of Lorma Iiams Lorma hams worked for the Company for about 3 years before her discharge on March 23, 1966 . She was active in the summer of 1965 in the union campaign , visit- ing upwards of 50 employees at their homes, soliciting signatures to union cards , and generally talking it up. She did all this, for the most part, before the election, and management knew she was among those who favored the Union, although she testified she limited her union activi- ties to off premise locations . To what extent others may also have campaigned on behalf of the Union the record does not show; it cannot be said, therefore, that hams was particularly outstanding among the moving spirits, or that the Respondent believed her to be a principal actor. She had been working 1 year or 2 in the molding de- partment, when, in late November 1965, she was trans- ferred to the finishing department, where a variety of functions are performed. In her direct testimony Iiams said she asked General Foreman Arbogast why the change, and that Arbogast answered : "None of the girls get along with me. I caused trouble." On cross-examina- tion she plainly stated a quite different reason. "Well, I hurt my back in Molding. They sent me to the Doctor. The Doctor said I pulled a muscle in my arm. I took a slip 1 Gal Tex Hotel Corporation, dlbla Admiral Semmes Hotel, 154 2 Blue Flash Express Co., 109 NLRB 591. NLRB 338. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back and I gave it to Basel [Arbogast]. That is when he pulled me out of Molding." "The Doctor told me not to do any more hard pulling or pushing." In the end there was no question but that the transfer was for the purpose of placing her on the lighter work for personal con- venience and comfort. In the finishing department Iiams made a number of mistakes in her work. That these errors in fact occurred, and that each indeed reflected carelessness on her part, she admitted. On December 27 she did not properly trim excess flash from certain vulcanized parts she was finish- ing; her foreman imposed a 3-day disciplinary measure. Early in January she off-punched about 40 parts- they became scrap- out of approximately 300 pieces she had made. This time she was laid off a whole week in repri- mand. On March 8 again she was suspended for a week, this time because she cut certain gaskets too short by mistake. Now the suspension was accompanied by writ- ten notice that another such offense would mean discharge. On the day of her discharge hams was working on cer- tain gaskets on which parts are stapled by machine. She stapled them in such a way that a necessary part was punctured where this was not supposed to happen. Of about 450 such gaskets she made 80 that could not be used. With this final error as the stated reason by her su- pervisor, she was released outright. The complaint alleges that all three of the short layoffs imposed upon Iiams, as well as her final discharge, were motivated by an intent to discourage hers, as well as the prounion sentiments of other employees. I do not think a preponderance of the substantial record evidence in its entirety suffices to prove this element of the complaint, and shall therefore recommend dismissal with respect to Lorma Iiams. The Respondent knew she favored the Union, but it has not been shown she was, or that the Company be- lieved her to be particularly outstanding in her activities. It is true the Respondent was opposed to collective bar- gaining, as evidenced by the coercive and illegal state- ments of its foremen. There is no significant indication, however, that its animus was directed against her in- dividually. In the light of her total testimony, I do not credit her statement that the general foreman told her the transfer 4 months before her discharge was decided upon because she "caused trouble." She was by no means the only employee to be disciplined in this fashion for errors of work or for other reasons. Record slips showing layoffs of four other employees for varying periods between July and March of 1966 were placed in evidence. Paulette Cozad, an employee witness for the General Counsel, called to testify that she had also made errors and had not been disciplined, also admitted "there was quite a few people given time off for bad work." When, to all this, is added the fact hams certainly gave cause for discharge, it cannot be said a prima facie case has been proved against the Respondent. After her third successive layoff, each directly associated with and following improper work performance, she complained, and the supervisor asked why did she not quit. In a matter of days she re- peated the same type of error. In the total circumstances, however suspect the supervisor's comment may have been, it cannot serve to obliterate the objective facts. 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 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 cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will 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 upon the entire record of the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Geauga Plastics Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization as detined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, by creating the impression that management is surveying their union activities, and by promising promotion in employment in return for rejec- tion of any union as collective-bargaining agent, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By initiating, forming, and dominating the plant committee the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent, Geauga Plastics Company, Crestline, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Dominating or interfering with the formation and administration of the plant committee or any other labor organization. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, conveying the impression to the em- ployees that their union activities are being surveyed by management, promising advancement in employment as a reward to employees for rejecting collective bargaining through any union, or in any like or related manner inter- fering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, the plant committee as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi- tions of employment. ((b) Post at its plant in Crestline, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished'by the Regional Director for Re- gion 8, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately 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. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.4 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges-illegal discrimination in the discharge of Lorma Iiams. ' 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 4In 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 Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer 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 em- ployees that: 493 WE HEREBY disestablish the plant committee as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor for any of the above purposes. WE WILL NOT initiate, dominate, or interfere with the administration of any labor organization or con- tribute support to it. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union activities, create the impression that their union activities are being sur- veyed by management, or promise advancement in employment on condition that employees reject col- lective bargaining through any union of their choice. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex- ercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to join United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. Dated By GEAUGA PLASTICS COM- PANY (Employer) (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, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Telephone 621-4465, Extension 42.