Ampex Corp.

742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ampex Corporation and District No. 8, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and The Communications Committee, Party in Interest. Case 13-CA-7526 December 7, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On July 20, 1967, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saun- ders issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged 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 de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He further found that Respondent had not en- gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allega- tions be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby i The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record, including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Tnal Ex- aminer's dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegations concerning the discharges of Bailey, Liggens, Reid, and Taylor. We note that the record contains undisputed evidence, not discussed by the Trial Examiner, of a speech and a letter, addressed to the employees by high management officials, reflecting Respondent's opposition to the union organization of its employees as well as, in the case of the letter, its view that the Committee, by providing employees with an effective means of obtaining redress of grievances about working conditions and similar matters, in effect served the purpose of a labor organization and thus eliminated the need for an outside union In our opinion, this evidence provides further support for the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(2) and (3) findings, which we herein affirm, with one modification. Our finding of an 8(a)(2) violation is limited to the Respondent's unlawful domination of, support of, and interference with the administration of the Committee, and does not extend also to Respondent's conduct in regard to its formation, since the latter took place in February 1966, more than 6 months prior to the fil- ing of the related unfair labor practice charge, and is therefore time barred under Sec. 10(b). We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. (a) The Trial Examiner characterized Riccardo, an ad- mitted supervisor, as assistant industrial relations manager; the record, however, does not disclose what position Riccardo held with Respondent, (b) the record reveals that Earnest testified that at the machine shop meet- ing, Fulrath asked Magnusson and not Riccardo, as the Trial Examiner found, about the work performance records of Earnest and Ebel, (c) the adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We adopt the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law 1, 4, and 5, and we delete his Conclusions of Law 2 and 3, substituting therefor the following Conclusions of Law 2 and 3: "2. By discharging Helen Earnest, Virginia Ebel, and Donald Betten, Respondent dis- criminated against employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, and, in the case of employees Earnest and Ebel, also to discourage participation in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, and thereby has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act." "3. By dominating and interfering with the ad- ministration of the Committee and contributing sup- port thereto, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act." 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, Ampex Corporation, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, division, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order,3 as so modified: record shows that Betten's mid-June conversation with Foreman Ruben- stein concerned the higher wage rates at Respondent's California plant and not, as the Trial Examiner found, the Union as well. But we note that Rubenstein must have known that Betten had obtained his information about the wage rates in California from the recently distributed union pamphlets. 3 During the first 2 days of the hearing, in mid-January 1967, Respond- ent repeatedly offered to settle that part of the case involving the al- legedly unlawful discharges of Earnest, Ebel, and Betten, and indicated its willingness to reinstate the employees in question, with full backpay, as part of such a settlement agreement. The General Counsel refused to en- tertain any settlement agreement which did not include all seven alleged 8(a)(3) dischargees. On February 9, when the hearing resumed after a 3- week lapse, Respondent offered to prove that it had sent unconditional of- fers of reinstatement to Earnest, Ebel, and Betten on January 25, 1967, requesting them to report for work on January 30 The Trial Examiner re- jected the offer of proof, and the record does not otherwise reveal the em- ployees' response, if any, to the reinstatement offers or whether, if the of- fers were accepted, Respondent in fact implemented its promise of uncon- ditional reinstatement In view of the incomplete state of the record on this aspect of the case, we are adopting the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order that the named employees be offered reinstatement by Respondent, with backpay to run from the dates of their discharges to such time as proper offers of reinstatement have been made If, at the compliance stage of this proceeding, it should be determined that, on January 25, Respondent did offer unconditional reinstatement to the named employees, and that the employees declined the offers, we would modify our Order herein by having backpay run from the date of the (Footnotes continued on following page) 168 NLRB No. 96 AMPEX CORPORATION 743 1. Delete from paragraph 1(b) the words "forma- tion or." 2. Delete from the second indented paragraph of the notice the words "formation or." (Footnotes continued from preceding page) discharges until January 30, 1967, and from a date 5 days after the date of the Board's Order to the date on which Respondent unconditionally offers the named employees reinstatement. We would not follow our usual procedure in such cases of also denying the employees reinstatement rights , because, in our opinion, the discussions mentioned above between the General Counsel and Respondent may have given the employees the impression that they were not at liberty to accept Respondent's January 25 offers of reinstatement without compromising, in some manner, the fu- ture conduct of the General Counsel's case. Cf. National Screen Products, 147 NLRB 746. $100,000, which products were shipped in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State of their origin. Respondent is now and at all times material herein has been an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District No. 8, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein, has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Company denies that the Communications Committee, herein called The Committee, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISIOON STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner : The unfair labor practice charges on which the complaint of November 17, 1966, is based - were filed by District No. 8, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, on July 15 , August 4, 11, 17, and 25, and September 16, 1966, against Ampex Corporation , hereinafter referred to as Ampex Company , or the Respondent. The issues litigated were whether or not the Company violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . The Company denied the unfair labor practice allegations . A hearing was held before me and all parties were represented, and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence, and to argue orally. The General Counsel and the Company filed briefs. i Upon the entire record and from my observation and demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of California. At all times materi- al herein, the Respondent has maintained its principal of- fices at Redwood City, California, and maintains and operates places of business in various other States of the United States, including, but not limited to, the States of Illinois and California, where it is engaged in the business of the manufacture of audio-video equipment. The Respondent's plant at 2200 Arthur Avenue, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is the only place of business involved in this case. During the past year, in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent has manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of ' Respondent offered documents into evidence concerning its attempt to obtain preheanng discovery. In essence , Respondent first issued notices of depositions, and then requested the issuance of subpenas for the purpose of directing witnesses to appear at the Board 's Regional Office on December 28, 1966, in accordance with a notice of depositions. Respond- ent's request for subpenas was denied by the Regional Director, and the National Labor Relations Board The Respondent claims that it was de- med due process because it was denied preheating discovery. This claim III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues and Events The complaint alleges that from on or about November 1965, the Respondent did initiate, form, sponsor, and promote The Committee, and at all times since November 1965, continuing to the present, Respondent has assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration of The Committee. It is further alleged that the Company discriminatorily discharged the following employees working at its Arthur Avenue plant on or about the dates set opposite their names : Helen Earnest July 12, 1966 Virginia Ebel July 12, 1966 Donald Betten July 15, 1966 Evelyn Bailey August 19, 1966 Mildred Liggens August 19, 1966 Birdie Reid August 19, 1966 Alma Taylor August 19, 1966 It appears that the Union started its organizational ef- forts at the Respondent's Arthur Avenue plant in early May 1966.2 On May 9 the Union held a meeting with seven or eight employees at the home of Evelyn Pulliam, and at this time authorization cards were distributed to each employee in attendance at the meeting with the request that they attempt to get other employees to sign them. On June 17 the Union also distributed handbills at the plant. B. The Testimony As to Earnest, Ebel, and Betten: Alleged discriminatee, Helen Earnest, started working for the Company on March 1 as a class B mill and lathe operator. Earnest testified that she attended the organizational meeting in early May and that from May until her discharge on July 12, passed out around the plant about 50 to 60 authoriza- tion cards to other employees. Earnest stated that in the latter part of June, she and alleged discriminatee, Virginia is immediately rebutted by my granting of a continuance immediately after General Counsel rested his case-in-chief Moreover , a party is not denied due process when it fails to receive that which it is not entitled to Board and court decisions are clear that a Respondent in an unfair labor practice proceeding is not entitled to prehearing discovery . To hold otherwise would seriously hamper the Board's function of carrying out the policies of the Act. 2 All dates are 1966 unless specifically stated otherwise. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ebel, talked to their foreman , Charles Magnussen, and asked him if they could be classified as class A operators. Earnest testified that Magnussen agreed with them that they were doing class A work, and that he would make a request for such a reclassification. Earnest stated that around July 4, Magnussen then informed them that Respondent's assistant industrial relations manager, Ric- cardo, had denied the request on the grounds that the de- partment did not have any class A work, but if they did receive such they would be reclassified. Earnest and Ebel then immediately talked to Supervisor Riccardo and were again told that the department did not have any such work. About a week later a meeting was arranged by Eve- lyn Pulliam with Riccardo , and with Respondent's Indus- trial Relations Manager Thomas Fulrath . Earnest testified that this meeting lasted 2 days with Fulrath first inquiring of each employee (about 14 of them in this de- partment) as to their difficulties and problems. At this meeting Earnest and Ebel asked why they could not be classified as class A operators, and were again told that there was no such work available. Fulrath then informed Earnest and Ebel that he would have a consultant come in to study the matter, and to ascertain whether or not they were doing class A work. Earnest stated that Fulrath also asked Riccardo if they were good workers and if they - Earnest and Ebel - were presently doing class A work, and that Riccardo replied in the affirmative. Earnest testified that on July 12, she and Ebel were called into the office, and Fulrath then asked them, "Well, how do you girls feel today?" Earnest replied that they still had not been reclassified, and then Fulrath stated, "You girls are not happy with anything. We have tried to do everything to please you. If we can't do anything to please you, we want you out of here, and we want you out of here now." Earnest testified that Fulrath did not even want them to go back into the machine shop department to get their personal belongings, and that Fulrath had a guard follow them like they were "some kind of criminals." Earnest stated that she only performed a particular kind of work in the machine shop , and that she did not operate the grinder of the Pratt and Whitney machine and that employee James Terry ran this machine. Earnest testified that employees Doris Holmes and a "fellow named Bob" had class A ratings in the machine shop while she was working there, and that Holmes did not perform any work that she herself did not do. Virginia Ebel started working at the Respondent's plant here in question on April 11, and was also em- ployed in the machine shop with a class B classification. Ebel testified that starting in June, and for 5 to 7 weeks thereafter, she passed out about 50 authorization cards for the Union. In most other respects the testimony given by Ebel substantiates and corrobrates that given by Ear- nest, as aforestated. The General Counsel also produced testimony through Evelyn Pulliam to the effect that employees Robert Bo- land and James Terry were class A operators in the machine shop department, and that they did the same work as Earnest and Ebel. However, Pulliam then stated that Holmes operated a tracer mill and that Terry ran the Pratt and Whitney machine. Pulliam testified that in the early July meeting of machine shop employees with Ful- rath and Riccardo, as aforestated, Fulrath initially stated that he wanted to get to the bottom "of what all the dis- sension was in the machine shop ," that Earnest and Ebel told Fulrath that they were performing the same type of work as the rest of the employees, and that Foreman Magnussen stated that Earnest and Ebel were qualified to be class A operators. Pulliam further related that on the day Earnest and Ebel were terminated - Supervisor Ric- cardo told Pulliam, "he felt that things would go smooth now in the machine shop, that he had gotten rid of the troublemakers." Alleged discriminatee, Donald Betten, started working for the Company as an inspector in January 1966 and was discharged on July 15. Betten testified that he received union authorization cards from Evelyn Pulliam , and that he passed out eight or nine of them about 10 days prior to his termination. Betten also stated that during the middle of June he had a talk with his foreman, Harold Ruben- stein, about the Union and wages at the Company 's plant in California, that there were several employees present, and the conversation arose when the union pamphlets had been passed out. On July 15, Betten started to set up a job when Foreman Rubenstein told him that it was the wrong way to do it, and as a consequence an argument resulted between the two of them . At quitting time Ru- benstein informed Betten that he was going to let him go. Betten then talked to Fulrath, and according to Betten he was then told, "Shut up. You are a troublemaker. -3 Betten testified that Fulrath never gave him any reason for his discharge. As to activity on behalf of the Union - Evelyn Pulliam stated that Ebel, Earnest, and Betten had passed out authorization cards, and that the day Betten was discharged she and Betten were engaged in a conversa- tion about the Union when she observed Foreman Ru- benstein sitting at his desk watching them. The General Counsel produced testimony through Doris Holmes to the effect that Earnest and Ebel ran the lathes, mills, and drill presses, but that they did not work on the Pratt and Whitney machine nor did they operate the tracer machine. As to Bailey, Liggens, Reid, and Taylor: The above al- leged discriminatees all worked in department 775 at the Respondent's plant, and their foreman was Henry Neu- man. Bailey started working the latter part of June doing wir- ing and soldering and was discharged on August 19. Bailey testified that she signed several cards for the Union, and on August 12 passed out authorization cards to an employee by the name of Roman. Bailey stated that after the lunch break on August 12, Roman gave the union cards back to her unsigned , and at this time she and employees Roman and Jeano , along with Liggens, Reid, and Taylor, engaged in a conversation in which the above four alleged discriminatees attempted to inform Roman and Jeano of the advantages for the Union. Bailey related that later the same day she heard employee Jeano tell Foreman Neuman that Bailey was the one who had given union cards to Roman, and that Neuman was also ex- plaining to Roman and Jeano his thinking as to why the employees did not need a union. Bailey testified that on August 19 - Neuman sent for her and Reid and then in- formed them of their terminations on the grounds their 3 At this talk with Fulrath - Betten was with Kenneth Seyller and Dorothea Jergens who had also indicated that they were quitting because of Betten's termination AMPEX CORPORATION work was not satisfactory, and that they were 60-day probationary employees. Reid started working for the Company on July 5 and also did wiring and soldering. Reid corroborated the testimony of Bailey as to their conversations about the Union with Roman and Jeano, as aforestated. Reid testified that prior to her discharge on August 19 - Foreman Neuman had never discussed her work, but that on her termination Neuman told her that her work was poor and that she was getting to many rejects. Reid further related that she signed two cards for the Union, and that she discussed her card signing with Bailey, Lig- gens, and Taylor. Alma Taylor started working at the plant on June 21, and was also discharged on August 19. She too did wiring and soldering in department 775, and signed a card for the Union on August 18. Taylor's testimony also substan- tiated the conversation about the Union between Bailey, Roman, and Jeano.4 Foreman Neuman testified that each day he constantly observed the work of Liggens, Taylor, Bailey, and Reid. Neuman stated that Liggens' work was poor - that she would wire cables wrong, burn up wires, that her work was a "constant mess," and that Liggens was terminated because of her poor work and that she was a probationary employee. Neuman also testified that his repair girl, Martha Strobel, and an analyzer, Gordon Scherer, con- stantly complained to him about how many errors Lig- gens was making, and he would then tell Liggens that she would have to improve her work. Neuman stated that the original work on filter boxes was done by these four alleged discriminatees, and that after they completed their work on them the filter boxes went to the inspection department. Neuman related that he then started getting numerous rejections, and the matter became serious enough so that he asked each of the four alleged discriminatees to put tags with their initials on their work, and starting in August records were made on the performance of their work (Resp. Exh. 14). Neuman testified that almost every day he had talks with Bailey, Reid, and Taylor and told them to watch their work because of the rejects and complaints he was receiving from his repair girl and the inspection department. Neu- man stated that he did not issue any written reprimands as all four of alleged discriminatees here involved were probationary employees. He further testified that on Au- gust 19, he terminated all four of them because of the poor work they were doing, but that he first discussed his decision with his boss, Carl Claris, because at the time there was a serious labor shortage and the plant was un- derstaffed. Neuman testified that he never talked to these four alleged discriminatees about the Union and never heard them talk about the Union, but that he though em- ployees Martha Strobel and Jacques Ascar had signed cards. Penny Spokes testified that while she worked in depart- ment 775 she was required to repair the preliminary work done on the filter boxes by the four employees here in question. Spokes stated that the work was identified by the yellow tags which were attached to each piece of work, and that considerable repairs were necessary because it was "carelessly" done. Spokes stated: "[M]ost of the time the sodder was lumpy and dull, A Alleged discnminatee Liggens did not testify 5 Fulrath explained that the Arthur Avenue plant was opened in November 1965 and immediately a Communications Committee was 745 which meant it was cold, and we would melt it down, like I said before, and a lot of times the wires weren't there, or the capacitors or the resistors would be in the wrong places. And a lot of times the bare wires would touch. We would have to fix that, and also the capacitors would be crushed. The plastic or the coating on the outside would be crushed, and we would have to replace those." Spokes further testified that in conversations with Neuman he told her that Taylor was doing bad work and that several cartons of filter boxes had been rejected due to poor workmanship. As to the Communications Committee: Fulrath testified that The Committee started in September 1964, at the Respondent's Audio plant on Landmeier Road (such plant is not involved in this proceeding), and that The Committee started at the Arthur Avenue plant in February or March 1966.5 The purpose behind the Com- munications Committee was expressed by Fulrath as fol- lows: Well, we are a profit-sharing company, Ampex has had a profit-sharing program for a number of years. And we thought that the Communications Commit- tee would provide a means for people to exchange and make suggestions about how to improve efficien- cy in ways that would affect all and improve our profit-sharing. It included, of course, the betterment of employee relations. This is related to the improve- ment of efficiency. And also the committee was designed to be a safety committee. Our insurance carrier requires that we have an employee safety committee, and the insurance carrier recognizes this committee as a safety committee. Fulrath testified that the initiative in the formation of The Committee came from management; he was the first chairman; The Committee does not have a constitution or bylaws; meetings are held on a monthly basis with minutes being kept; Fulrath picks the dates of the meetings; the employees who attend are picked at ran- dom off the employees' roster; Fulrath attends all meetings along with senior engineers and supervisors (the plant manager) in particular; and if the chosen employee is absent then the supervisor of the department picks some other employee out of his department. Fulrath also stated that employees are paid for the time spent at the meetings; the Company bears the cost of clerical help; the employees' representatives are paid for the time spent in attandance at Committee meetings; meetings are held in the plant conference room; and there are no officers for The Committee. Fulrath explained the general procedures which are followed at The Committee meetings. He stated that he conducts the meetings as chairman, he takes the notes for the minutes which he dic- tates later to a secretary, and that the selected employees at the meetings are asked to present suggestions of other employees who work with them. Fulrath went on to ex- plain that when The Committee was first established there was no union activity, and that the possibility of such never entered into the Respondent's decision in going forward with The Committee. He also testified that individual employees complaints or grievances are referred back to the departments, and that The Commit- tee attempts to discuss matters of a broader interest. Employees Ebel and Holmes also gave some testimony formed and met with the Landmeier Road plant committee until February or March 1966, after which time the Arthur Avenue Committee met at its own plant. 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the General Counsel relating to The Committee. Holmes testified as follows: He [Fulrath] said that this was the way that the company and the employees had of getting together and starting their problems and their needs and that. That's what the Communications meeting was for. C. Final Conclusions The Act defines a labor organization as: ... any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the pur- pose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. The Respondent argues that The Committee lacks the structural characteristics requisite to the notion of an or- ganization, that The Committee is synonomous with all personnel at the plant since every individual participates - and, therefore, the concept of an employee committee on one side and management representatives on the other side is absent. The Company further maintains that in- dividual complaints or grievances are not discussed, but referred back to department supervisors and handled under the Respondent's grievance procedure, that The Committee does not deal with the Company concerning any conditions of employment, that there is no agenda at the meetings of The Committee and each participant is permitted to talk or to say nothing as he so desires, and that the Company has not recognized The Committee as a representative of its employees - it is merely a forum to express views. This record makes it clear that the real purpose of The Committee is to present suggestions to the Company on behalf of all the employees upon subjects pertaining to conditions of work. Thus, Fulrath stated and conceded that The Committee would make suggestions to how to improve efficiency in ways that would effect everyone, and which included the "betterment of employee rela- tions." Furthermore, the testimony and exhibits show that The Committee carried out the above purposes as members presented complaints and inquiries regarding the Company's wage policies as it related to machine operators, automatic increases that were not being paid on time, and night-shift rates. Complaints and inquiries were also made from time to time on transfers, seniority, on hours of work, timeclocks, lightening, meals, parking, supplies, chairs, floors, along with several other matters.6 As pointed out these are but a few of the many instances where The Committee and the Company discussed mat- ters traditionally raised at bargaining sessions between labor and management. It is clear that the meetings of The Committee are not merely a forum for a mutual ex- 6 A few random entries of the minutes by The Committee from February through December 1966, evidenced by General Counsel's Exhibit 5, shows the following: Questions/or Suggestions Shouldn't a machine operator get more money for set up and operation. There are a number of pay shortages and some automatic increases are not coming through on time. There are some girls on the night shift who 'went on days to get more training. They had the idea they would get 10 cents an hour more after they got this training. There are some people on the night shift who do testing but are paid assembler rates. TRANSFERS AND SENIORITY: Does seniority of a girl transferred from the audio products plant entitle her to bump out a girl who is already on the job at the time of the transfer. Are girls promoted to utility operator on the basis of seniority. Can the front door by open until 5:00 for the convenience of people leaving later? When the people work more than two hours overtime at night could they have a coffee break at 6:189 Answer There is a certain amount of set up provided in the present machine operation job descripption. However, the machine operators job will be re- viewed by the Industrial Relations Department. We are investigating the pay shortages. Any em- ployees who have questions should contact the Industrial Relations Department immediately. Mr. Dye will check into this situation. Mr. Dye and Mr. Fabel of the Industrial Relations Department will check into this. (We pay the rate of the job classification which the people have and the job classifications are based on duties of that person). No. However the girl who transferred keeps her seniority. Layoffs and recalls will be made by seniority and seniority is also a factor in profit sharing and bidding. Promotions are based on seniority and qualifi- cations. A girl must have the knowledge and versatility to be a Utility Operator. Yes, the guard will lock the door after this time. Yes. Referred to Chuck Wheeler. AMPEX CORPORATION 747 pression of views, but, to the contrary, The Committee does deal in complaints from individual employees. While it may be true that some complaints or inquiries were made spontaneously, still Fulrath apparently made no at- tempts to cut off discussions of these matters or to even caution the members that they were not proper subjects for consideration. Indeed, Fulrath accepted these com- plaints, and as a consequence, some of them were disposed of at the meetings while others were referred to appropriate officials, departments, or supervisors for determinations. There is no doubt that the Company created the Com- munications Committee. It is also equally clear that the Company's initial action in so doing was not prompted by any desire to thwart organization of its employees in the Union for the reason that the Union was not engaging in any organizational activities at that time - nor was the Union so engaged in February or March 1966, when The Committee was instituted or started on its own at the Respondent's Arthur Avenue plant, as aforestated. Nor did The Committee perform the normal functions of a union in obtaining recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, and there is no evidence that the representatives of the employees on The Com- mittee ever engaged in bargaining negotiations with Ful- rath. Nevertheless, I am convinced that The Committee meets the broad technical requirements of a labor or- ganization since it was formed and maintained by the Company, at least in part, for the purpose of dealing with it concerning conditions of employment, and the Com- pany thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.7 While it is sufficiently clear that the Respondent has contributed financial and other unlawful support and assistance to The Committee, there remains for con- sideration here, the question of whether the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation or ad- ministration of The Committee. Section 8(a)(2) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an em- ployer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or ad- ministration of any labor organization or contribute finan- cial or other support to it...." There is no dispute that The Committee was formed by the Company. This record shows that the Respondent determines the method of selection of representatives, and even at times supervisors select particular represent- atives. Respondent, through Fulrath, determines dates of meetings, and Respondent pays all financial support necessary to the Committee's continued existence. Em- ployees are paid for all time they devote to Committee af- fairs, including the time they confer with each other on Committee business. The Board has consistently declared committees and plans of the type here involved as assisted, supported, interfered with, and dominated by the employer with whom they deal. The Company argues that Earnest and Ebel were discharged because of their dissatisfaction with the Respondent's willingness and attempts to reclassify them in class A work. The Company points out they explained to them that when enough class A work became available to warrant their reclassification, Earnest and Ebel would be reclassified upon their proving class A work ability. The General Counsel on the other hand, states that whether or not they were entitled to be class A operators, or entitled to do class A work is not material, but that the important point is that their discharges resulted from their concerted efforts to obtain a raise. As aforestated earlier herein - both Earnest and Ebel worked as class B operators. Both openly distributed authorization cards for the Union prior to their termina- tions, and it appears that the Union's June 17 handbill (G.C. Exh. 3) motivated them to ask for reclassification. During the latter part of June they then asked Foreman Magnussen for a class A rating, and Magnussen told them he would so recommend. In early July they were then in- formed by Magnussen that Supervisor Riccardo had de- nied their requests.8 The same day they talked to Riccar- do, and he also told them that there was no class A work available. Ebel and Earnest, along with Evelyn Pulliam, then requested a meeting, and, as pointed out earlier herein, such a meeting was held with all the machine shop employees present along with Fulrath, Riccardo, and Magnussen. Fulrath then asked each employee what their problems were, and when he came to Earnest and Ebel he treated their problem as an upgrading to class A opera- tor's status. As pointed out the same go-around between Ebel, Earnest, and Riccardo was reenacted or restated. Fulrath then broke the argument by offering to have an outside consultant study their jobs, and to which Ebel and Earnest agreed. This record also shows that during this discussion Ebel raised the fact of higher wage rates at the Respondent's California plant, and when Fulrath asked how she knew, Ebel answered she had one of the Union's handbills (G.C. Exh. 3). During Fulrath's discussion with Ebel and Earnest, Magnussen's recommendation was again solicited, and he stated they were good workers or otherwise he would not have sought reclassification for them. At the time of their discharge on July 12, Earnest told Fulrath that she and Ebel were not unhappy with fel- low employees nor with the Company, and that the only thing they wanted was a reclassification. I find that the concerted union activity by Earnest and Ebel to obtain reclassifications was the immediate motivating factor in their terminations. The Company contends that it had no knowledge of any union activity of these two employees. However, there is well- established Board and court precedent that such 7 The charge with respect to The Committee was filed in September so the cutoff date under Sec. 10(b) of the Act is March 1966. The Company argues that there were certain allegations in the complaint involving the operations of The Committee that occurred prior to March, and that, therefore, no unfair labor practice findings can be based upon them. The Company points to the allegations setting forth the initial forming and sponsoring of The Comnuttee , determining its structure , the number and tenure of committeemen, the eligibility requirements for committeemen, and the method of selecting committeemen The General Counsel in- troduced testimony relating to events which occurred prior to March only as background evidence. While the initial formation, sponsoring, and structure of The Committee took place in 1964, Fulrath admitted that The Committee started to meet on its own at the Arthur Avenue plant in February or March. Accepting the latter the allegations in the complaint pertaining to The Committee came within the 6-month period If February be deemed controlling then background evidence can be used to explain any ambiguous or equivocal conduct. Subheadings (c) through (n) in para- graph VI of the complaint all transpired on an independent and continuing basis at the Arthur Avenue plant within the 6-month period, and the testimony as to the original formation and organization of The Committee elsewhere in 1964, as aforestated, merely provides background to supply clarifications that the same procedures were followed when The Commit- tee started to function on its own at the plant here in question. 8 Neither Magnussen nor Riccardo testified before me. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knowledge maybe inferred from the record as a whole. Wiese Plow Welding Co., 123 NLRB 616; Radio Of- ficers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17 (1954); and Pyne Mould- ing Corporation, 110 NLRB 1700. Moreover, both of these employees were active in and around the plant in the circulation of many union authorization cards, and at the meeting in July, Ebel specifically informed Fulrath that employees in the Respondent's California plant were receiving higher wages, and that she had obtained such knowledge from the Union's handbill. From that time on it can reasonably be assumed that the Company had at least inferable knowledge of their union interests and ac- tivities. There was no specific denial by Fulrath of the above, and, therefore, it remains in this record as evidence that a supervisor of the Respondent was aware of their union interests prior to the discharges. This record also reveals that the Company had a small work force of about 14 employees in its machine shop, and that Earnest and Ebel were machine operators and the Union involved is the Machinists Union. Moreover, this record further shows that in a weekly production meeting of management people at the time the Union started to or- ganize, supervisors were told that the employees "have started union activity." I have also attributed union knowledge to the Company on the basis of additional testimony by Foreman Neuman who admitted that at least five or six employees in his department had directly talked to him about the Union, and that when union hand- bills, folders, or pamphlets were distributed there was then "a general discussion" about the Union. There is no evidence in this record that such discussions were in any way limited to only Neuman's department, and the record as a whole shows the opposite.9 At the meeting in early July, Fulrath told the machine shop employees that he wanted to get to the "dissension" in the department. It is noted that the Company must have assumed that Earnest and Ebel were mainly respon- sible for the supposedly dissentious conditions in the machine shop because the entire shop was called into the meeting lasting 2 days on Earnest' s and Ebel's request to meet only with Fulrath or Manager Narma. As pointed out, the Company thought that they had located the cause of the Union's organizing efforts when they received the complaints from these two employees, and this fact is further borne out on the day of their terminations when Earnest replied to Fulrath that they still had not been reclassified. Their efforts at reclassification had been started or stimulated as a result of union activity, and when their desire in this respect remained unsatisfied and at odds with Fulrath, they were discharged. There is no contention or argument that Fulrath found any fault what- soever with the work they were doing or with their work habits in the actual performance of their jobs. Also, the unusual circumstances of using a guard as a private escort to see that they immediately left the plant further in- dicates something other than discharge for valid cause, and Supervisor Riccardo's undenied statement to em- ployee Pulliam on the day of their discharges that the machine shop would now go "smooth" since the Com- pany "had gotten rid of the troublemakers" puts at rest any doubt but that the terminations resulted from Ear- 8 Both Earnest and Ebel acted in concert to obtain reclassification. Each knew that one was as qualified for a class A rating as the other, and nest's and Ebel's concerted efforts to obtain wage in- creases through union backing and support. Section 7 of the Act grants to employees the right ".. . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining. .. " Collective bargaining is defined in Section 8(d) of the Act as pertaining to, among other things, wages. The Board has repeatedly found that discharges motivated because of a concerted effort for higher wages is violative of the Act, and the fact that these two employees acted concertedly is consistently revealed in this record as their "problem" at the July meeting was handled as a single matter, as aforestated, and they were further terminated as a pair with the only assigned reason to both of them that they were not happy and that the Company could not please them. The Respondent argues that the General Counsel failed to show that the Company had knowledge of Donald Betten's activity for the Union, that there was no showing of union animus, and that the evidence clearly demonstrates that Foreman Rubenstein discharged Betten for his insubordination. As described herein, Betten was discharged by Foreman Rubenstein soon after their argument concern- ing each other's competence. According to Betten's testimony the argument started after Rubenstein told Betten that he was doing a particular job incorrectly. Betten admittedly became irritated with words then exchanged between them, and the argument apparently reached its peak when Betten told Rubenstein that he was not qualified as a foreman. From this record it appears clear to me that the Respondent had knowledge of Betten's activity for the Union. It is undenied that when Betten learned of Ebel's discharge on July 12, he did not hide his feelings about it when they met in the plant personnel office, and he then characterized her dismissal as "a dirty deal." Virginia Strand, a secretary in the personnel office, was only "a few feet away." A month prior to his termination and at a time when union pamphlets were distributed, Betten and Foreman Rubenstein also had a discussion, as aforestated, on the wages being paid at the Respondent's California plant. There was a sufficient inference from this conversation to at least put Rubenstein on notice that Betten was engag- ing in union activity. This record also shows that Betten circulated union authorization cards before his discharge, and that he then asked Evelyn Pulliam what should be done with them. At this time Rubenstein was sitting at his desk approximately 10 to 15 feet away from them, and Pulliam testified that Rubenstein was watching them. Based upon the above, and for several other reasons previously detailed in the initial discussion on Earnest and Ebel - I find that the Company had knowledge of Betten's union activity prior to his discharge. It was alleged in the complaint that Kenneth Seyller was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and the General Counsel introduced considerable testimony in efforts to prove the same in further substantiation that the Company had knowledge of Betten's union activity. In this respect the Respondent states as follows: The uncontradicted evidence shows that Seyller, as all of Respondent's leadmen, had no authority to the best way to obtain the rating was to act together. As both testified, neither ever sought reclassification without the other AMPEX CORPORATION 749 hire, fire, transfer, discipline , suspend , layoff, recall, promote, reward or discipline employees , nor did he have authority effectively to recommend any of these actions. Furthermore , the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that with respect to wages, benefits and conditions of employment leadmen such as Seyller are treated the same as all hourly-paid em- ployees whereas all supervisory personnel are treated differently . This in itself suggests a non-su- pervisory status. As described in the statement of facts above, Seyller was nothing more than a conduit through which work orders moved from the top of a pile of orders in a production control box to an available inspector. When not handing out these work orders , he performed the same layout inspec- tion work as that performed by his fellow inspectors. At best when pulling work orders from the top of the pile, Seyller was engaged in a routine assignment of work requiring no independent judgment . Seyller stated that he spent six hours per day assigning work, however he admitted on cross-examination that a good portion of this time includes helping other in- spectors and setting up machines. To be a supervisor under the Act the individual in- volved must consistently display true independence of judgment in implementing this authority . The exercise of some supervisory tasks in a merely "routine," "clerical," "perfunctory," or "sporadic" manner does not elevate a rank-and-file employee into the supervisory ranks. Poultry Enterprises , Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 216 F.2d 798, 801-802 (C.A. 5). Nor will the existence of independent judgment alone suffice; for "the decisive question is whether [the individuals involved] have been found to possess authority to use their independent judgment with respect to the exercise by them of some one or more of the specific authorities listed in Section 2(11) of the Act." N.L.R.B. v. Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, 169 F.2d 331, 334 (C.A. 1). I find that on the record before me the job of leadman lacks the required combination of independent judgment in the performance of the supervisory powers listed in Section 2(11). No additional discussions or ramifications of this issue need be set forth as I have found sufficient evidence in other respects to substantiate the overall position of the General Counsel that the Company had prior knowledge of Betten's union activities , and, in the final analysis, the General Counsel does not even rely on Seyller's testimony . The position of the General Counsel in his brief is stated thus: "This issue appears moot in view of Seyller's testimony that he did not communicate to Rubenstein his direct observation of Betten's card dis- tributing activities." On the morning of Betten's discharge Foreman Ruben- stein called Seyller aside and informed Seyller that he was going to let Betten go. That same afternoon fellow em- ployee, Bessinger, came to Betten and asked him to set up a job claiming such instructions from Rubenstein. A short while later Rubenstein then appeared and told Betten he was not setting up the job properly , and an argument then ensued between them , as aforestated. At 4 p.m. Ruben- stein informed Betten that he was going to let him go and that he did not believe Betten was "happy here." Betten replied that he was "happy ," and also asked Rubenstein for the reason for his discharge . By this time Betten was joined by Seyller and Jergens in the plant personnel office in protest of his discharge , but the only thing Betten heard in the personnel office was that he should "shut up," and that he was a "troublemaker." This record is devoid of any contention or testimony that Betten was a poor worker or that he took part in any misconduct except in respect to the one incident in question here. Betten asked the reason for his discharge on two specific occasions , and in reply was merely in- formed that he was "unhappy" and a "troublemaker." On the basis of all the evidence I find that the Com- pany, through Rubenstein , conducted a campaign of harassment on July 15 against Betten because of his ad- herence to the Union ; that this was undertaken to provoke Betten into providing the Company with a reason to discharge him; and that this violative conduct was culminated after Betten was detected by Rubenstein as a union supporter. As pointed out, the events on July 15 reveal that in the morning Rubenstein told Seyller that he had to let Betten go - this was before the argument between Betten and Rubenstein on the setup job Betten was doing - then that afternoon Rubenstein started imple- menting his plan to get rid of Betten. While a surface view of the events on July 15 indicate conduct which may be characterized as insubordination , a closer look at the facts clearly shows that Betten's actions were precipitated by the Respondent's harassing tactics and provided , as planned , a convenient pretext for discharg- ing a union supporter. Accordingly, I reject the Respond- ent's reliance on a naked right to discharge for alleged insubordination, as it was not the real reason for the discharge , and find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging Betten. I am fully aware , in making my findings as to Betten, Ebel, and Earnest, that there is lacking in this case the usual independent 8(a)(1) allegations , and which, if found, would normally support a showing of union animus and thereby lend some additional weight or light to the discharges of these three employees. However, the viola- tive conduct by the Company is adequately substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence without such inde- pendent 8(a)(1) findings , and upon the circumstances and reasons given herein the discriminatory discharges can and do stand on their own.' ° 10 Throughout the hearing in this case the Company made several offers on the record to reinstate Earnest, Ebel, and Betten with full backpay. The Company argues that in view of the full remedy offered, the General Counsel had a duty to consider Respondent's offer on its merits rather than considering what effect this settlement would have on his entire case. As pointed out by the General Counsel, there is no rigid legal basis nor custom that directs or commands the General Counsel to settle part of a case where, as in this proceeding, a basic issue is Respondent's proclivity or propensity to violate the Act. In view of the serious and repeated con- tentions made by the Company that they were being denied pretrial and other aspects of due process, as duly reflected in the formal exhibits and then argued in the initial and later stages of this proceeding, the Company was given every opportunity under these particular circumstances to fully amplify and state on the record its positions in all such respects. However, in relation to the above, I have obviously given no considerations what- soever to the Respondent's offers to settle or reinstate the above-named employees, and my findings herein are based solely on the merits of the testimony given before me Earnest, Ebel, and Betten were named as al- leged discriminatees in the complaint; in the final analysis they steadfastly remained in the complaint; and the Respondent had every opportunity and right to defend the same by either presenting testimony, or, as the Re- spondent did here, to refrain from introducing evidence in defense of these charges. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I turn now to the allegations and testimony in relation- ship to alleged discriminatees Bailey, Liggens, Reid, and Taylor. The General Counsel argues that Evelyn Bailey, in par- ticular, attempted to influence other employees to sup- port the Union, and that Bailey's attention was aroused when she heard her name mentioned in a conversation between Roman, Jeano, and Neuman, as aforestated. The General Counsel further maintains that Neuman knew all there was to know about his employees' union desires, yet claimed to know nothing about the union activities of the alleged discriminatees here in question. It is also ar- gued that the Company seized upon the happenstance of the probationary period to rid itself of Bailey because of her attempts to influence other employees, that Liggens, Taylor, and Reid were discharged to make Bailey's ter- mination appear lawful or to dispose of employees whom Bailey had influenced,' that at the time of the discharges Neuman had evaluation forms for only Taylor and Reid, that if the work by these four was so inferior Neuman would have discharged them immediately, and that Neu- man's total testimony must be viewed warily in view of his false testimony regarding Liggens' work ability.12 It appears clear to me that the four employees here in question were terminated because of the extremely poor quality in their work and, whereas, the nature of the Respondent's products necessarily requires or demands efficient and quality workmanship. There is more than ample evidence in this record to conclusively show that the wiring and soldering work they performed was generally faulty and as a result Neuman had a considera- ble number of rejects in his department. There is also evidence in this record that from time to time Neuman made efforts to help these four employees here in question to improve their work, but that such attempts or efforts were unsuccessful. The Respondent's quality con- trol records are further indicative of their poor work, and upon their discharges on August 19, none of them refuted their foreman's reason and statement that they were being terminated due to poor workmanship.13 I also agree that Neuman's own observation of their poor workmanship was supplemented by the complaints he received from repair workers, and that Neuman then found it necessary to use additional employees on repairs. These factors are all further substantiated by the uncontradicted evidence that the poor work performances of these four alleged dis- criminatees reached such serious conditions that Neuman was then required to have them place their initials and tags on each unit or piece they worked on. There is no contention or testimony that such a practice was in any way a common procedure at other times. Starting on Au- gust 8 inspection records were also kept, and I point out that all such procedures occurred prior to the time when Bailey overheard Jeano tell Neuman that she was the one who gave Roman a union card, as set forth previously herein. Neuman's testimony as to the poor work of these four employees in question was also corroborated by Penny Spokes. She stated, that Neuman had several con- versations with her concerning the poor work performed by the four, and one occasion Neuman remarked that he was upset about several cartons of filter boxes that were rejected because of the poor workmanship of the four girls. On another occasion Neuman informed Spokes that he had to dismiss these four because of the poor work which they had done. Foreman Neuman stated that the work of these four al- leged discriminatees was of a poor quality from the very beginning of their employment. The General Counsel therefore argues that they should have been discharged immediately. However, this record clearly reveals that these four employees in question were probationary em- ployees for the first 60 days of their employment, and the purpose of conferring probationary status on a new em- ployee is to afford him or her an opportunity to show that such an employee can properly perform the tasks as- signed to him. As pointed out, if such employee is not per- forming to the satisfaction of management during this period, he or she can be discharged without resort to the detailed warning procedures afforded to nonprobationary employees. I agree that in accordance with the purposes of the above probationary system, Neuman gave these four ample opportunity to demonstrate that they could perform quality work, and were then discharged when it became obvious that they could not achieve the quality of workmanship required. Turning to the General Counsel's argument and theory that the Company discharged the other three employees with Bailey either because Bailey could influence them to sign a union card and vote for the Union, or because discharging all of them would hide Bailey's discharge.'4 Therefore, in the final analysis here, the General Coun- sel's case must ride on the Bailey theory as there is no re- liable evidence whatsoever that the Company had any prior union knowledge as to Liggens, Reid, or Taylor. The final theory of the General Counsel is clearly stated, but in my opinion this record does not support it. The overwhelming evidence in this record shows that each one of the four alleged discriminatees involved in this phase of the case were discharged for cause because of their individual poor workmanship, and about the only in- ference remaining to the General Counsel is the testimony by Foreman Neuman that Bailey, Reid, and Taylor were a close threesome and always together. However, to deduce from this shred of testimony a con- clusion or finding that the Company discharged all four here involved so that Bailey could not influence the other three, or hide Bailey's termination, is carrying unsup- portable inferences from mere mutual associations to the ultimate extreme and beyond. Respondent's Exhibits 16 and 17 are performance ap- praisals of Reid and Taylor. In August, Neuman discussed these appraisals with these two alleged dis- criminatees, and informed them as to the poor work they were doing. Neuman explained that he had not received 11 Neuman admitted the closeness of these employees when he stated that Bailey, Taylor, and Reid "were like triplets , always together." 12 Liggens' personnel card indicates she was hired on April 26, volun- tarily quit on June 8 and was rehired on July 19 . Neuman testified that Liggens worked for him prior to her quit and her work was then poor, but on her termination form which Neuman completed, Liggens was rated by Neuman as average and eligible for rehire. 13 Plant inspection reports on filter boxes for August 8 show that there were 63 units worked on - 35 were accepted and 28 rejected. On August 9, out of 21 filter boxes, 9 were accepted and 12 were rejected On August 10 and 11, four were rejected See Resp Exhs. 14-A through D Resp. Exhs. 15-A through J cover the period of October and November - after the discharges of the four here involved - and show that a significant change occurred in the number of filter box rejects 14 The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged these four em- ployees because each of the employees engaged in union or concerted ac- tivities (Emphasis supplied.) AMPEX CORPORATION the performance appraisals from the Industrial Relations Department for Bailey and Liggens because they had not been employees long enough and that it takes about 45 days and sometimes longer for such forms to reach him. Although Neuman did not have the performance ap- prisal on Bailey at the time of her discharge - as argued by the General Counsel - it appears to me that Neuman gave credited and reasonable testimony in explaining the reason for its absence and, furthermore, this circum- stance can in no way subtract from the facts that Neuman had constantly observed Bailey at her job, informed Bailey at numerous times of her bad work, and had also received complaints from his repair people. The General Counsel also makes references in his ar- guments to the effect that these four alleged dis- criminatees were discharged at a time when Neuman ad- mittedly stated that the Company had a serious labor shortage. Neuman testified that the day before their discharges he discussed the matter with his boss - Carl Claris. Neuman related that he told Claris that he was going "to let some girls go" because of their poor work and that he was getting a high rejection ratio. When asked why he discussed this matter with Claris - Neuman re- lied, "Well, I was afraid that - if I terminated the girls without telling him, I would be in trouble for letting four girls go, because at that time we had a terrible labor shortage over there, and we were trying to get any kind of labor in. Well, that was one of the bad parts. They would take anybody in the plant just to get bodies in the place." It is obvious from the above that the plant personnel of- fice - in disagreement with Neuman - was hiring inex- perienced help and even placed newspaper advertise- ments for such employees, but this in no way casts any serious reflections upon the rights of the Company or their individual foremen to subsequently make full evaluations of such an employee's work performance, and especially so within the probationary period. Neu- man also explained that the Company has a 1-week train- ing program, and from then it is up to the individual. Neu- man stated, "There is some employees you will have 6 months on the job and they will never be wirers and sol- derers." There is sufficient evidence here to show that Neuman gave serious consideration to the plant policy of hiring inexperienced help, and also recognized that there existed a general labor shortage, and hence, his discus- sion of the same with Claris. After so considering he con- cluded, however, that it was requiring too many of his people to repair the rejects he was receiving in filter boxes, that these four alleged discriminatees were not im- proving in their work, had no interest in their jobs, and that this department could not continue to function in this manner. Neuman also testified as to the circumstances sur- rounding the personnel card of Liggens - another argu- ment made by the General Counsel, as aforestated. When Liggens initially quit on June 8, Neuman placed the check on her card indicating she was eligible for rehiring and had average work ability (G.C. Exh. 13). Neuman was then asked to explain her rehire on July 19, and he replied as follows: "Well, when she left I made out this here evaluation form, and I handed it in, but I never dreamed I would be getting her back again, because I wouldn't have her in my department. She even called me up and asked me if she could come back to the plant. I said, `I don't do hiring. I guess so,' so the next thing I knew, she was back." As far as I can ascertain from this testimony and my observation of his demeanor while on 751 the witness stand, Neuman is a very frank and outspoken person who is not in the habit , so to speak, of beating around the bush about anything . His explanation as to reasons on the above has a reasonable ring or basis, and the charitable manner in which Neuman acted when Lig- gens quit cannot and should not be used here to discredit his subsequent valid reasons for her discharge on August 19. Neuman had nothing to do with her rehire, and never requested that Liggens be assigned to his department. If I were to find for the General Counsel in this phase of the case, I would have to hold that an employee (Bailey) who passed out authorization cards, thereby gained immunity from discharge even though she and the three others here involved were constantly ignoring the high standards of work performance demanded by Foreman Neuman. Such is not the law. Under the Act employees can be discharged for any reason whatsoever so long as union considerations are not the moving cause. It has also long been recognized by the Board and the courts that under the Act it takes more than suspicion and inferences to prove a wrongful discharge . In the final analysis here the question for determination is whether Neuman was motivated by the alleged discriminatees' poor work habits, and I find that Neuman was so motivated. In making my findings as to Bailey, Liggens, Reid, and Taylor I have specifically and carefully evaluated the Respondent's animus' as demonstrated in the preceding sections of this Decision. I have further considered the fact that Bailey was known to Neuman as having circu- lated cards for the Union, and that Bailey and the other three here involved were frequently together. Neverthe- less, on the basis of this record, the demeanor of the wit- nesses, and upon the reasons given above, I must con- clude and have concluded that the General Counsel has failed to produce a preponderance of substantial evidence in proving that the four employees here in question were discriminatorily discharged. For these reasons it will be recommended that the allegations in respect to their dis- criminatory discharges 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 the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and 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 the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of The Committee and has contributed support thereto, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and that it withdraw recognition from and completely dis- establish The Committee as the representative of any of the Respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions of work. I shall also recommend, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in said section. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). It will also be recommended that the Company offer Helen Earnest, Virginia Ebel, and Donald Betten im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions , without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against them to the date of offer of reinstatement less in- terim earnings , and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 per- cent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumb- ing & 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 Union and The Committee are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Helen Earnest , Virginia Ebel, and Donald Betten, thereby discouraging membership in a labor or- ganization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of The Committee , and contributing support thereto, the Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(2) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Ampex Corporation , Elk Grove Village Division, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in District No. 8, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees because of their concerted or union activi- 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 Ap- ties, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi- tion of employment. (b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of The Committee or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and con- tributing support to The Committee or to any other labor organization of its employees. (c) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with The Committee, or any reorganization or successor thereof, as a representative of any of its employees for the pur- pose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights 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 all recognition from The Committee as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely disestablish The Committee as such representative. (b) Offer to Helen Earnest, Virginia Ebel, and Donald Betten immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recom- mended Order. (d) Notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (e) Post at its Elk Grove Village, Illinois, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Deci- sion, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16 (g) IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint in respect to Evelyn Bailey, Mildred Liggens, Birdie Reid, and Alma Taylor be dismissed. peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AMPEX CORPORATION 753 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: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in District No. 8, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees because of their concerted or union activities , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the ad- ministration of the Committee, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of our employees, nor will we contribute support to The Committee or to any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT recognize or in any manner deal with The Committee , or any reorganization or suc- cessor thereof, as a representative of any of our em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL withdraw all recognition from The Com- mittee as a representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of work, and completely disestablish The Committee as such representative. WE WILL offer Helen Earnest, Virginia Ebel, and Donald Betten immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WE WILL notify any of the above-named em- ployees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the union named herein or any other union. Dated By AMPEX CORPORATION (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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 828-7570.