Electromec Design and Development Co., Inc.

ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. 763 Electromec Design and Development Company, Inc. and Robert G. Saxer. Case 20-CA-4268 December 8, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On July 24, 1967, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified. The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging employees Robert G. Saxer, Davy J. Mooney, Charles C. Pickelman, Jr., and Wilfred F. Gilbert for having engaged in a protected walkout to protest Respond- ent's failure to grant employee requests for im- proved terms and conditions of employment. The Trial Examiner concluded that the walkout was concerted activity, that the alleged discriminatees participated therein, and that their participation in the stoppage was the cause of their discharge, but recommended dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the evidence failed to disclose that the stoppage was a protected effort to obtain improved terms of employment. We agree with and adopt the Trial Examiner's subsidiary findings, but we also find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the record is ample to establish that the walkout was protected and'that the discharges violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The facts, as found by the Trial Examiner, show that, during 1966, Respondent's tool-and-die makers made a variety of demands for improved terms and conditions of employment. Thus, shortly after a Board-conducted election in February of that year, in which the employees rejected union representation, the tool-and-die makers requested an additional paid holiday which Respondent granted. Thereafter, in July 1966,1 Saxer, the most vocal of the tool-and-die makers, requested a wage increase, and, when given a five-cent raise, in- dicated his dissatisfaction therewith to manage- ment. About a month later, Saxer asked for an addi- tional increase, and, when his request was denied, Saxer encouraged other employees to ask for a raise. Shortly after Labor Day, Saxer inquired of Porschien, Respondent's plant manager, if an em- ployee who had not worked the day after Labor Day because of illness would be paid for that holiday. In responding to the inquiry, Porschien, asked Saxer, "What are you, some sort of commit- teeman or something for the group?" Saxer replied that he wanted to know the policy because what happened to one man could happen to all. Also, in September, employees in the machine shop, including the tool-and-die makers, discussed among themselves their dissatisfaction with existing working conditions and formulated a list of changes they desired. The list was presented to Porschien by Saxer. Specifically, the employees requested: (1) a 2-week paid vacation after 1 year of employment; (2) improved hospitalization; (3) sick leave; (4) modification of the rule requiring employees to work the day before and after a holiday to be eligi- ble for holiday pay; and (5) overtime pay for Satur- day work. On receiving the demands, Porschien advised that he had no authority to do anything about them. Saxer asked for a meeting with higher management. When Porschien failed to schedule a meeting, Davy Mooney also asked Porschien for such a meeting, and requested Porschien to invite employees from other departments to attend. A meeting was finally arranged and, on September 21, Saxer, Davy Mo- oney, Gilbert, and Pickelman and three other tool- and-die makers met with Padgett, Respondent's president, Vasta, Respondent's vice president, and Fred Starr, a supervisor. Saxer was spokesman for the employees. At the meeting, none of the em- ployee requests was granted, although Padgett did promise to investigate possible improvements in in- surance benefits and spoke of certain exceptions that could be made to the holiday pay policy. How- ever, the request for Saturday overtime was flatly rejected. The walkout occurred on Saturday, October 8. Prior thereto, on the morning of October 8, Saxer again asked Porschien for a raise, and was informed that his pay would remain the same for some time. Saxer then indicated he was resigning, effective the following Friday, October 14. Following his en- ' All dates refer to 1966. 168 NLRB No. 107 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD counter with Porschien, Saxer returned to work and informed the other employees that he was resigning because of Respondent's failure to give him a pay raise. A few hours later, at about 11:20 a.m., all of the machine shop employees lined up to punch out. When Supervisor Starr asked what was going on, the employees stated that they were going home. Porschien also asked an employee what was going on and was told, "I can't talk to you."2 Padgett, Respondent's president, learned of the walkout on Saturday evening and, on Sunday morn- ing, October 9, called Vasta, telling him to try to determine the reason for the walkout. Vasta called Saxer and asked "What happened yesterday, Bob?" Saxer merely replied he had felt like taking the af- ternoon off. When contacted by Vasta, Gilbert gave his reason as dissatisfaction with his current wages. Vasta suggested that Gilbert come in and talk about it, but Gilbert replied he would perfer talking to Vasta along with the other employees on Monday. Employee Bates, however, initially indicated his unhappiness with conditions in the shop, but sub- sequently met with Vasta at the office and told him that, since he did not attend the September 21 meeting, his fellow employees had been giving him a "hard" time and that he just left with them because he had to work and live with them. Em- ployee Will Mooney was called by Personnel Manager Bunker and gave as his reason for leaving his dissatisfaction with working overtime. In meeting with President Padgett on Sunday, Vasta stated that all the employees should be fired. The decision to fire all employees, however, was overruled by Padgett. On Monday morning, Vasta selected five tool-and-die makers for discharge; namely, Saxer, Davy Mooney, Pickelman, Gilbert, and Will Mooney. At the suggestion of Porschien, however, that Will Mooney did not really dislike his job but had merely been "caught up" in the wal- kout, Vasta consented to retain him. Upon arriving at work on Monday morning, Saxer, Pickelman, and Gilbert found their timecards were missing and were told not to punch in until they had attended a meeting with manage- ment in the conference room. The card of Davy Mooney had also been removed, but, as he had been injured in an accident over the weekend, he did not come in at the time the shift started. When he phoned in to report his accident and was told of the early morning meeting, he decided to report to the plant. Saxer, Pickelman, and Gilbert testified that the termination interview opened with Porschien, at Padgett's direction, telling them their services as tool-and-die makers were no longer needed. Padgett testified he asked Saxer if he had resigned and, upon Saxer's affirmative answer, told Saxer his resignation would be accepted immediately.3 Padgett testified that Gilbert told him he had left early the previous Saturday to check on his wife's high blood pressure, and that Pickelman said he was tired. Padgett testified that the reasons given for walking out did "not hold water" as far as he was concerned and that this triggered his decision to fire them at once. Davy Mooney was not at the meeting and arrived just as Pickelman was leaving. Pickel- man informed him of what had happened. Davy Mooney then went to Porschien and asked him if it were true that he and the others were discharged. Porschien replied it was true, saying "Well, Dave, we can't have everyone going home at noon everytime somebody quits." In finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the walkout was protected, the Trial Examiner concluded that it would be "sheer speculation" to consider the September 21 denial of employee de- mands as the cause of the strike, and also found that the strike was not a protest against the Respond- ent's failure to grant Saxer an increase on October 8. In disagreeing with the Trial Examiner, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the walkout was a manifestation of the general dissatisfaction among machine shop personnel as to the failure of management to accede to their demands. Thus, the walkout was supported by all machine shop personnel. The record plainly establishes the continuing unrest among employees within this group and their repeated demands for improved working conditions. These demands were presented to management both on an individual and concerted basis. Only about 3 weeks prior to the walkout, the employees presented their grievances to management, and at no time thereafter received a positive response indicating that any of their major demands would be accepted. On October 8, when the futility of their efforts was again demon- strated by the denial of a wage increase to their spokesman, Saxer, they elected to walk out. Signifi- cantly, the walkout occurred on a Saturday; Respondent's failure to provide overtime for Satur- day work had been one of the major complaints pressed, without success, by the employees. While it may be true that the record fails to dis- close that machine shop personnel renewed the requests made at the September 21 meeting prior to the walkout, the major demands made at that meet- ing remained unresolved and were not so remote in point of time as to warrant their exclusion from our consideration in determining the cause for the walk- out. "The language of § 7 is broad enough to pro- 2 We attach no significance to the Tnal Examiner's finding that all four of the alleged discriminatees sought and obtained permission to leave early on October 8 As the walkout occurred before the grant of permis- sion was to be effective, these employees, as found by the Trial Examiner, joined the other employees in the concerted refusal to work. 3 Although Saxer had resigned as of October 14, his accelerated ter- mination, if motivated by Saxer's having engaged in concerted protected activity, was in effect an unlawful discharge. ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. 765 tect concerted activities whether they take place be- fore, after, or at the same time [the] demand is made."4 Moreover, upon realistic evaluation of the total circumstances preceding the walkout, we are satisfied that the reason for the walkout cannot fairly be assessed by considering in isolation each of the various employee requests and denials thereof by management. The general unrest ex- hibited by tool-and-die makers and other machine shop personnel concerning wage rates and over- time, as well as Respondent's denial of the benefits specifically requested on September 21, when con- rsidered against other possible motivations for the stoppage, in our opinion, render the conclusion in- escapable, on the basis of objective evidence, that the walkout was in furtherance of the employees' efforts to make management more responsive to their demands for various improvements in existing employment conditions. Accordingly, we find that the walkout, being in quest of improved terms and conditions of employment, was protected concerted activity within the intendment of Section 7 of the Act. In so finding, we reject as without merit Respond- ent's contention that it had no knowledge that the walkout was protected. Respondent at all times was fully aware of the continuing unsatisfied demands emanating from workers in the machine shop. In ad- dition, immediately after the work stoppage, but be- fore the discharges, Respondent interviewed several employees as to the reasons for their par- ticipation therein. As a result of such interviews, Respondent was advised by employee Gilbert that he was dissatisfied with his wages. Employee Bates told Respondent that he was dissatisfied with condi- tions in the shop, and that he had joined the others because he had been ostracized as a result of his failure to attend the September 21 meeting. Will Mooney stated that he walked out because he was tired of working overtime. The fact that Respond- ent retained Will Mooney because Porschien stated that Mooney "was primarily happy at Elec- tromec, and he had no particular beef," but was merely caught up in the walkout, further demon- strates Respondent's knowledge that the walkout was caused by what it regarded as a discontent with working conditions. In these circumstances, we are satisifed and find that Respondent actually knew or had reasonable basis for inferring that the walkout was but a further step by machine shop personnel to improve their employment terms. For the above reasons, and as we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent discharged em- ployees Saxer, Davy Mooney, Charles Pickelman, and Wilfred Gilbert for their part in the walkout,6 we find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Davy Mooney, Charles Pickelman, Wilfred Gilbert, and Robert Saxer because they had engaged in concerted ac- tivities for purposes of mutual aid or protection. We shall therefore order that Respondent offer to em- ployees Mooney, Pickelman, and Gilbert reinstate- ment to their same or substantially equivalent posi- tions with full restoration of seniority or other benefits they would have enjoyed had they not been discriminated against. We shall also order that Respondent make Mooney, Gilbert, Pickleman, and Saxer whole for any wages lost because of the discrimination, with backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, plus interest at 6 percent per annum as prescribed 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 hereby orders that the Respond- ent, Electromec Design and Development Com- pany, Inc., Santa Clara, California , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging concerted activities of its em- ployees within the protection of Section 7 of the Act by discharging, or in any other manner dis- criminating against, an employee or employees for engaging in such activity. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right under Section 7 of the Act to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid 4 N.L.R B v Washin ton Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 14 Indiana Gear Works , 156 NLRB 397 , 400, enforcement denied 371 F.2d 273 (C A 7, 1967), Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1317, 1318; West Coast Casket Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 820, 824, enfd 205 F 2d 902 (C.A. 9). In finding that Respondent knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the employees were engaged in a pro- tected work stoppage , we do not mean to imply that such a finding is in- dispensable to the violation found herein See, e.g , N.L R B v Burnup & Sims, Inc , 379 U S 21 ` At the hearing, the Respondent adduced evidence that it no longer needed employees possessing the higher skills of tool -and-die makers, and that this was a factor considered in discharging the four employees How- ever, the Respondent admitted that it had previously decided to retain those occupying this position, replacing them with less skilled workers through normal attrition only. Accordingly, and as the record fails to reveal any intervening justification, other than the walkout itself, for Respondent's change in position and decision to discharge the tool-and- die makers, we find no merit in this contention See, a g., Coast Radio Broadcasting Corporation d/bla Radio Station KPOL, 166 NLRB 359. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL and protection or to refrain from such activities, ex- cept to the extent that such right might be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo- sure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effec- tuate the policies and remedial purposes of the Act: (a) Offer Charles Pickelman, Wilfred Gilbert, and Davy Mooney full and immediate reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions. (b) Notify 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. (c) Make the three above-named employees and Robert Saxer whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner described in the section of this Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy." (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 data necessary to analyze and compute the backpay required by this Order. (e) Post at its office and place of business in Santa Clara, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En- forcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against our employees for engaging in concerted protected activities for the pur- pose of mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right under Sec- tion 7 of the Act to engage in concerted activi- ties for their mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to^ the extent that such right might be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Charles Pickelman, Wilfred Gilbert, and Davy Mooney immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed. WE WILL make the above-named employees and Robert Saxer whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. ELECTROMEC DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify employees Wilfred Gilbert, Davy Mooney, and Charles Pickelman, 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. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Telephone 556-3197. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOM- MENDED ORDER JAMES R. HEMINGWAY, Trial Examiner: This case stems from a charge filed on October 10, 1966, and an ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. amended charge filed on February 13, 1967,' by Robert G. Saxer, against his former Employer, Electromec Design and Development Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The complaint herein was issued on February 16, 1967. It alleges in substance that the Respondent discharged four employees2 because they had engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Respondent's answer, filed on February 28, 1967, denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in San Jose, California, on April 4 and 5, 1967.3 At the opening of the hearing, the (.eneral Counsel's unopposed motion to amend the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested time in which to file briefs, and such time was granted. Briefs have been received from both the General Counsel and the Respondent. From my observation of the witnesses and upon the en- tire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a California corporation with its of- fice and place of business in Santa Clara,4 California, where it is engaged in the servicing of electrical equip- ment. In the course of its operations, Respondent an- nually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Califor- nia and annually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers which meet one of the Board's jurisdictional standards excepting the indirect outflow or indirect inflow standards. No issue is raised over jurisdiction. I find that the Board has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate the poli- cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. II. THE ISSUE The question for decision is whether or not four em- ployees were discharged in violation of the Act after they had led a half day's walkout without explanation to management of the reason therefor and later gave no reason or gave reasons which were strictly personal, although the circumstances attending the walkout sug- gested that concerted action was the basis therefor. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent was organized as a partnership in 1956, but later it was incorporated. It gives technical services to industry, does data processing, and develops products. ' The only difference between the original and the amended charge is that the original charge alleged a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, whereas the amended charge alleged a violation only of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 2 Wilfred F Gilbert, David J. Mooney, Charles C. Pickelman, Jr, and Robert G. Saxer. ' The transcript of testimony contains numerous errors which have been noted and corrected 4 The place is taken from the allegations of the complaint admitted by the answer. Some evidence indicates that the Respondent has a plant in 767 Since July 1956, Respondent has had a contract with IBM for performance of services. In 1964, Respondent opened a metal shop, the employees at which are the ones involved in the events herein related. The metal shop is divided by a partition, with sheet metal workers on one side and machine shop workers on the other side. In this shop, the Respondent constructed test equipment for IBM, using IBM tools and equipment. An IBM super- visor of the managerial level worked closely with Respondent's supervisors on the project and initially requested Respondent to hire tool-and-die makers to perform some of the work. The Respondent did hire such men, and the four alleged discriminatees, all tool- and-die makers, were hired on various dates in 1965. B. The Discriminatees Davy Mooney was hired on March 1, 1965, at a rate of $3.25, but within a year was given successive raises that brought him to $4.25. Charles Pickelman was hired on April 12, 1965, at a rate of $3.75 an hour and was raised to $4.25 in about a year's time. However, in September 1966, he was raised to $4.40, the only one of the four to receive that high a rate. Wilfred Gilbert was hired on May 4, 1965, at a rate of $3.80 an hour, and, by January 1966, he was receiving $4.25. Robert Saxer was hired in Sep- tember 1965, at a rate of $3.75 an hour. He received 15- cent increases in December 1965, January 1966, and in March 1966, and a 5-cent increase in July 1966, which brought him to $4.25. The competency of all four men was conceded by the Respondent. The Respondent gave evidence to the effect that, at some stage of the work for IBM, the Respondent began to feel that the IBM work did not require employees of the grade of tool-and-die makers, because the work was simpler and more repetitive in nature than the work for which a tool-and-die maker was customarily employed, and it felt that the work could be performed by a good prototype machinist at a lower rate of pays At whatever time the Respondent reached the opinion that tool-and- die makers were not necessary, it decided, according to President Joseph Padgett, not to terminate the tool-and- die makers but to let attrition take care of the situation through normal turnover and to hire machinists to replace the tool-and-die makers who might quit. C. Employee Activities In February 1966, a union election was held to deter- mine whether or not the employees wished to be represented by a certain craft union.6 The record does not indicate the scope of the proposed unit, but I conclude that it would have embraced at least the tool-and-die makers. The employees voted against the Union. Thereafter some of the tool-and-die makers (including one or more of the alleged discriminatees) approached San Jose, California, adjacent to Santa Clara. Manager Carl Porschien testified that he had reached this conclusion in the summer of 1965. However, the testimony of Vice President Fred Vasta put the time when the Respondent felt that tool- and-die makers were not necessary for the kind of work being performed as in midsummer of 1966. Other evidence leads me to conclude that no fixed conclusion had been reached before Pickleman received his last wage increase in Sep- tember 1966. F Independent Craftsmen, Tool & Die Makers. 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD President Padgett to request a holiday on Good Friday. Padgett granted the request. In mid-July 1966, Saxer asked Manager Porschien for a raise in pay. At that time Saxer's rate was $4.20 an hour. Porschien said that he would check it out with his superiors, and later he returned to say that Saxer would get a 5-cent raise. However, Saxer soon thereafter asked Porschien if there was any chance of getting more than 5 cents. Porschien told him that there was no chance then, but, according to Saxer, said that he would see what came up in 4 to 6 weeks. At the end of that time, Saxer again asked Porschien for a raise, saying that his rate was not enough for a toolmaker. Porschien disputed this, and Saxer received no increase. Saxer testified that he then got others in the shop to go to Porschien to ask for a raise. No one else testified to this, however. Shortly after Labor Day in 1966, Saxer went to Porschien to ask if an employee named Al Ford, who, because of illness, had not worked the day after Labor Day, would be paid for the holiday. Porschien asked, ac- cording to Saxer, "What are you, some sort of commit- teeman or something for the group?" Saxer answered that this could happen to others and that they wanted to know what the policy was.7 Saxer did not testify to any reply by Porschien. About mid-September 1966, the men in the machine shop discussed working conditions and made up a list of five subjects that they wished to discuss with manage- ment. These were requests for (1) a 2 weeks' vacation after 1 year of employment, (2) an improved hospitaliza- tion plan, (3) sick leave, (4) a modification of the rule requiring an employee to work both the day before and the day after a holiday in order to be entitled to pay for the holiday, and (5) overtime pay for Saturday work, as such. Saxer took these demands to Manager Porschien to discuss. Porschien looked them over and said that there was nothing that he could do about them. Saxer then asked Porschien to set up a meeting with management so that the several things could be discussed. Porschien agreed to do so. There was some delay in setting up this meeting and, during this period, Mooney, too, spoke with Porschien about setting up the meeting. A meeting was finally scheduled for September 21, 1966, at 4:15 p.m., after work. Saxer and Mooney sought to have employees from other departments attend this meeting also. At 4 p.m. on September 21, Porschien asked Saxer and Mo- oney who had told the electronics employees about the meeting, and Mooney replied that he had. Mooney testified that Porschien walked off mad. Because of the small size of the conference room, the meeting was limited to the men in the machine shop. At the appointed time, Saxer, Mooney, Pickleman, Gil- bert, and three more tool-and-die makers met with Pre- sident Padgett, Vice President Vasta, and Leadman Fred Starr. (Porschien testified that this meeting was for the first- and second-shift top-level people, meaning the highest paid men, or, as I find, the tool-and-die makers, and that a second meeting was held the next day for the rest of the men in the metal shop. Porschien attended only the second meeting.) At the opening of the meeting, ° An employee named Russell had been denied pay for July 4 because he had not worked the full day on the day after the holiday, presumably because of illness " Saxer testified that he had not asked permission to leave early, Padgett asked who would be the spokesman for the em- ployees. Saxer replied that he would. He then outlined the five points previously mentioned. As to the first, a 2 weeks' vacation after 1 year (existing policy being 2 weeks' vacation after 3 years), Padgett declined to change the current plan but said that, if prior arrangements were made with supervisors, it would be permissible for a man to take additional time off, presumably without pay. As to hospitalization, Padgett said that the Respondent was in- vestigating this and that the insurance carrier had already furnished literature on a plan which would include dental care, but that this plan would more than double the cost of insurance and it had been ruled out. However, Padgett promised some improvement in the hospitalization in- surance. Padgett said that the Respondent could not, at present, afford to give sick leave, but, as the Company grew, he hoped eventually to have paid sick leave. Re- garding the requirement for working the day before and the day after a holiday, Padgett said that this was necessa- ry to keep the men from leaving at noon on the day before a holiday or returning at noon on the day after. However he agreed that an exception might be made when an em- ployee was sick and brought in a doctor's certificate. The Respondent's workweek started on Saturday, and, there- fore, no overtime was paid for that day as such. Time over 40 hours a week was paid for work on Friday, as well as time in excess of 8 hours in a day. The employees asked for a change to make Monday the first day of the week and Saturday the last day so that the men would get overtime pay for Saturday work. Padgett refused to make this change, explaining that the Respondent's workweek had to conform to that of IBM, which was set up that way. Saxer testified that between September 21 and Oc- tober 8, 1966, "1 got the guys in kind of an uproar and talking to people to go hit up people for money and this is what we did ...." If this were true, management was unaware of any turmoil. No one other than Saxer testified that he had talked to management about a wage increase in this period of time. Porschien did testify that he was aware of no labor problems during that period. However, Vice President Vasta testified that, when he would be in the metal shop during that period, he would notice people standing around talking and that they would break up the group when they would notice that he was there. Vasta spoke to Porschien about this and Porschien thereafter had occasion to break up such groups at times himself. At about 8 a.m. on Saturday, October 8, 1966, Saxer approached Porschien and asked for a raise in pay. Porschien told him that he had talked to Saxer about a raise 3 or 4 weeks before that and that the Respondent was going to keep the rate as it was for a while. Saxer replied that, this being the case, he was turning in his resignation as of the end of the week (that is, the following Friday). Porschien said, "All right, fine, Bob." At about 9 a.m. that morning, according to Porschien, Saxer asked Porschien if he might go home early that day. Porschien testified that he had granted Saxer permission to do so.K Saxer testified that, after he had told Porschien that he was resigning, he had gone back to work and had told the other men that he had quit, that word got around, although he conceded that he had had a second conversation with Porschien about an hour after the first one He did not testify as to the subject of his second conversation with Porschien. ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. and that an employee by the name of Bradley had come to him and said that he had heard that Saxer had quit because he did not get a raise and that this would be a good time to wake up management. (One employee quoted this as "shake up" rather than "wake up.") Saxer further testified that Bradley had suggested that they all go home at noon and that he (Saxer) had replied, "If you guys go home, I will go home," and, "so we went around to each person." Saxer continued: We all decided-we all went up individually and told management we were going home at 11:24 a.m. I did not go ahead and I wasn't - I was asked - I wasn't told-be-Carl [Porschien] said, "Are you going home too?" I said, "I am going home too." I am unable to give this garbled testimony full credit. Bradley was not called as a witness, and I find it difficult to dovetail Saxer's testimony with the testimony of other witnesses, and I am not disposed to credit Saxer's testimony as to Bradley's alleged statement to him, ab- sent corroborative evidence. I not only find that Saxer, himself, did ask permission to leave early, but I also find that Saxer was the first of the group to ask permission to leave early. It seems likely, therefore, that any decision by the other employees to go home early was made after Saxer had already received permission to leave early since notification to the Respondent of intent' to leave early was made by Pickelman, Mooney, and Gilbert anywhere from 1 hour to an hour and a half after Saxer had received permission from Porschien to leave early. According to Mooney, at about 10 or 11 a.m. that day, Porschien not being in the metal shop at the time, Mo- oney went to Leadman Starr,'' and asked Starr if it was all right to go home after 5 hours of work, and that Starr had said, "Yes." Starr, however, testified that Mooney had come to him and said, "It's a nice day," and that he was going to take the afternoon off, and that he (Starr) had replied, "It is a nice day. .. I might take it off myself. ..." Starr did not quote Mooney as making any reference to "5 hours of work."r"The next to speak of leaving early was Gilbert. Gilbert told Starr that he was going home to check on his wife to see if she was doing what the doctor had ordered for her high blood pressure. Gilbert testified that Starr had answered, "Sure. Go ahead." Starr con- ceded that he had not refused permission to Gilbert. Fol- lowing Gilbert's notification to Starr, Pickelman ap- proached Starr. Pickelman testified that he had asked, `Bud, is it all right if I go home?" And that Starr had an- swered, "Yes. Why don't you all go home and then we can go too."" Starr testified that he had not objected to Pickelman's leaving. Apparently Starr did not know that Saxer had already received permission from Porschien to leave early. The evidence indicates that Saturday work was more or less optional, although the Respondent did not like to have everyone take that day off. It is also ap- parent that the Respondent probably would not have found fault if only three of the employees had gone home early. At 11:22 am., a group of men, about 10 in number, in- cluding all those in the machine shop, plus I from the " Some witnesses called Starr a foreman. I find that he was a supervisor and that he had authority to approve requests to leave early. "' Gilbert, at one point, testified ". . word got around to me that Robert Saxer had given his termination because of not having received a raise A little later someone told me that it had been decided to try to shake up management, that we would all go home after five hours' work 769 sheet metal shop (Will Mooney, brother of Davy Mo- oney, the tool-and-die maker), lined up at the timeclock intending to punch out at 11:24 a.m., which was just 5 hours after starting time, 6:24 a.m. At this point, Starr went to them and asked, "What's going on here?" They replied that they were all going home. Starr, who had not seen Porschien around, then went in search of him and found him in the engineering department. Porschien returned with Starr immediately and asked the men what was going on. Mooney or one of the other men said that they were going home. Porschien's testimony at this point became difficult to understand, but I deduce from all the evidence that Porschien told Saxer that he had un- derstood he was going to leave at noon and that Porschien questioned why he was punching out at 11:24 a.m. in- stead of 11:48 a.m., which was lunchtime. Mooney spoke up to say, in effect, that it would be easier to compute the pay for 5 hours' work. At 11:24 a.m., therefore, the group punched out and left. Porschien and Starr remained until the end of the shift. President Padgett was out of town that day, and ap- parently Vice President Vasta was not at the office D. The Discharges Porschien informed an IBM manager (Walsh) on Satur- day of the walkout and the latter undertook to notify Respondent's officials. Walsh attempted to reach Vasta by telephone, but Vasta was not at home and did not return home until that evening. Then, returning Walsh's call, Vasta learned of the walkout and attempted to reach Padgett but was unsuccessful until Sunday, October 9. When Vasta, on Sunday, did tell Padgett about the walk- out, Padgett told Vasta to go to the office with the men in the personnel department and to try to reach by telephone each employee who had walked out to deter- mine the reason for the walkout. Vasta went to the office with two personnel men and they divided the list of names. Vasta, himself, telephoned Saxer, Gilbert, and an employee named Jinn, Bates. When Vasta spoke with Saxer on the telephone, ac- cording to Vasta, he asked, "What happened yesterday, Bob?" Saxer said, "What do you mean?" Vasta said, "Well, apparently you had left early." Saxer replied, "Yes, that's right." Vasta asked, "Why?" Saxer an- swered, "I felt like taking the afternoon off." Apparently, Saxer, at this time, did not say that Porschien had given him permission to leave early. Vasta asked, "Did everybody in the shop feel like taking the day off? You realize everybody walked off the job." Saxer said that he did not know why the others had gone home, that Vasta would have to ask them. Vasta asked Saxer to come to the office to talk to him about the matter. Saxer refused, saying that there was nothing to talk about. When Vasta telephoned Gilbert, he asked him why he had walked off the job. According to Vasta, Gilbert an- swered that he was not happy with a 15-cent differential between his rate and the top rate in the shop at the time (Pickelman's rate). Vasta asked if that was the only . " Apparently, the 5-hour figure was set by the men, but I find that Starr was not apprised thereof. I I If Starr made such a statement (and I question the accuracy of the quoted words), I find that Starr was using sarcasm and did not mean what the words suggest. 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reason he had walked out and, according to Vasta, Gil- bert answered, "Yes."12 Vasta asked Gilbert to come to the office to talk to him about it personally, but Gilbert said that he did not want to do that but that he would see V asta the next day as a group. When Vasta reached Bates on the telephone and asked why Bates had left work the day before, Bates said that the situation at the shop was a mess, that he was unhappy with the whole situation, and that he did not know what he was going to do. When Vasta invited Bates to come to the office to talk with him, Bates did so, and Vasta again asked why he had left early on Saturday. Bates, according to Vasta, answered that ever since the meeting of Sep- tember 21, which he had not attended, the other men in the shop had given him a hard time, refusing to talk to him or have lunch with him, and that the only reason he had left early on Saturday was that he had not only to work with these men but to live with them. Vasta and the personnel men were unable to reach Pickelman or Mooney on Sunday, but Assistant Person- nel Director Larry Bunker reached two other employees who had walked off the job-Jim McKenna and Will Mo- oney. McKenna, when asked, told Bunker that he had an appointment and had taken off. He admitted that he had not asked or told anyone representing management about it. Will Mooney's reply to Bunker's question was that he was tired of working overtime. Bunker reported McKen- na's and Will Mooney's answers to Vasta. That Sunday evening, Vasta met with President Padgett and expressed the opinion that all the men who had walked off the job should be discharged. Padgett, for practical reasons, apparently was inclined to be selective. On arrival at the plant on Monday morning, Vasta told Porschien to pull the cards of the men to be discharged. Vasta had selected for discharge the two Mooneys, Gil- bert, Pickelman, and Saxer, but, when Porschien told Vasta that he thought Will Mooney liked his job and was just "caught up" in the walkout, Vasta omitted him from the list. Porschien pulled the cards of Dave Mooney, Gil- bert. Pickelman, and Saxer before the men arrived for work on Monday, October 10. A few minutes later Porschien told Vasta everything he knew about the walk- out, including the fact that Saxer had asked to leave early. 1 3 Mooney, having received an injury in a boating ac- cident over the weekend, telephoned Starr on Monday morning to say that he would not be in. Starr told Mooney to telephone again later because the tool-and-die men were having a meeting with management. When Saxer, Pickelman, and Gilbert arrived for work on Monday, their timecards were missing from the rack. Porschien told them their cards had been pulled and to wait at the bench The three had coffee until starting time (6.24 a.m.); then Starr came to tell them not to put on their aprons or open their toolboxes until they found out what was going on. At about 7 30 or 7:45 a.m., Porschien told the three men to go upstairs to the conference room because Padgett wanted to talk to them. In the con- ference room, Padgett, Vasta, and Bunker were present when Porschien and the three employees joined them. The accounts of the three employees differed from that given by witnesses for the Respondent in that each of the 1' 1 consider it likely that Gilbert also told Vasta tnat he went home early to check on his wife as he had told Starr because Padgett, who learned the facts from Vasta, knew of that excuse three testified that they were not asked their reasons for the walkout on Saturday but that Padgett had looked through some papers he had and then had called upon Porschien to speak and that Porschien had told them that the Respondent no longer needed their services as tool- and-die makers. Padgett testified that, after Porschien had made his statement, Padgett had remarked that he would like to have the men give their reasons for walking off the job, but that he first turned to Saxer and asked if it was true that he had tendered his resignation as of the fol- lowing Friday, and, when Saxer had said it was true, Padgett said that the Respondent was accepting his resignation at once and that he would be paid to noon that day. Padgett testified that he then asked Gilbert why he had left the job and that Gilbert had replied that his wife had high blood pressure and that he felt he should go home and check on her, that he had asked Pickelman why he left the job on Saturday, and that Pickelman had an- swered that he was tired and wanted the day off. Padgett testified that he told Pickelman that he was giving the men a chance to give an honest reason for leaving and that the reasons given did "not hold water" as far as he was concerned and that it was his decision to terminate them at once. Vasta testified that Padgett told Pickelman and Gilbert that they, too, would be paid to noon. The dif- ference in testimony could be accounted for by dif- ferences in memory. It is possible that the papers which Padgett was examining were management's accounts of what had been said and done by the four men and that, in retrospect, he remembered these and confused them with such statements of the men as were made at the meeting. But on the other hand, I am not satisfied that the dischar- gees were able to remember everything that occurred at this meeting. Pickelman was unable to remember, and therefore could not deny, that Padgett had asked him his reason for leaving on Saturday, but he was sure that he did not open his own mouth at all at this meeting. The resolution of the credibility issue is not vital because I find that Padgett apparently had the right information, whether he received it from the men themselves at that meeting or from reports of supervisors. When Porschien said that the Respondent no longer needed their services as tool-and-die makers, Saxer asked if that meant they were being discharged. Saxer quoted Padgett as answering, "In a sense." Saxer asked Padgett if they were going to be blackballed. Padgett replied, "Absolutely not," that they were all family men, that they all had to make a living as he did, and that he had no desire to blackball them. The men were then sent to the office for their termination slips. The slips read that the services of tool-and-die makers were no longer required. According to Padgett. the slips also stated that the men would be rehired but not as tool-and-die makers. After the three men had picked up their termination slips, they checked out their toolboxes and left. After Starr had told Mooney on the telephone (when the latter called in to say that he would not be in) that a meeting of the tool-and-die makers was being held, Mo- oney got in his car and went to the plant. When he arrived at the parking lot, Pickelman, who was on his way out after having been terminated, told Mooney that they had been discharged Mooney went to Porschien, who was in 11 Porschien had been away from home and had not communicated these facts to Vasta before Monday ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. the parking lot, and asked Porschien if he, too, had been discharged. Po, schien answered, "Yes." Mooney asked Porschien for the reason and Porschien replied, according to Mooney, "Well, Dave, we can't have everyone going home at noon every time somebody quits." Mooney asked if that was the reason they had been terminated, and Porschien then said that the reason was that their ser- vices as tool-and-die makers were no longer needed. E. Analysis and Conclusions At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that the "four men were discharged because of the fact that they were overqualified for the work and because they had walked off the job without notice." Lack of notice, alone, would not be cause for reprisal against protected concerted activity.'4 However, from counsel's statement immediately preceding the quoted one (that at no time was management told the reason for the walkout), I find it likely that the Respondent was combining lack of notice with failure to state any reason and that Respondent was, in effect, saying that it did not know of any labor dispute and so did not know that the employees were engaged in protected concerted activity. This is substantiated by Respondent's brief to the Trial Examiner, in which Respondent argues that the dischargees did not engage in concerted activities; that the concerted activity, if found, was not protected concerted activity; and that Respond- ent did not know that its employees were engaged in protected concerted activity. The theory of Respondent that the four dischargees did not engage in concerted activity is predicated on the fact that Saxer had quit and that the others had asked permis- sion to leave and were not, therefore, leaving for the same reason as the rest of the men, even if the action of the rest was concerted. This argument does not, I believe, withstand scrutiny, because, if the four could be severed from the concerted action of the others, the Respondent would, illogically, be punishing the only four men who had received approval to leave early, since Saxer also had received permission to be off. If, therefore, the case of the dischargees was severable, the Respondent would be say- ing that its permission to them to leave early should not have been relied on by the dischargees. I doubt that the Respondent intends to justify the discharges on the ground that it deceived the four men and led them to leave early so that it could discharge them for leaving early. That the walkout was the result of concerted action is not seriously disputed. The very fact that the men all gathered at the timeclock at exactly 11:22 a.m. and waited until exactly 11:24 a.m. in order to punch out ex- actly 5 hours from the beginning of the shift was enough, without more, to establish the fact that the action was concerted. The Respondent's remaining contentions, that the ac- tivity was not protected concerted activity and that Respondent did not know the activity was protected con- certed activity, furnish the real issues in the case. I do not separate the ultimate fact of the existence of protected "N L R B. v Pioneer Plastics Corp , 379 F 2d 301 (C A. 1), N.L.R B. v. Washington Aluminum Co , Inc, 370 U S 9; West Coast Casket Com- pany, Inc., 97 NLRB 820, enfd 205 F 2d 902 (C A 9), Seyfert Foods Co, 109 N LRB 800. "N L R B v Phaostron Instrument and Electronic Co , 344 F 2d 855 (C A 9); Indiana Gear Works, 156 NLRB 397; Walls Manufacturing 771 concerted activity from the Respondent's alleged lack of knowledge thereof because, if the facts are such that a reasonable person could infer that the activity was for a purpose which is protected by the Act, the Employer's asserted ignorance thereof could not be seriously be- lieved.15 I am assuming, of course, that the cause for the discharge is not clearly separable from the activity found to be protected concerted activity. Conceivably an em- ployer might discharge an employee for a cause clearly not related to concerted activity although at a time when the employees had engaged in concerted activity. This is not such a case, however. Here, the men discharged were discharged for their part in what may be conceded to be concerted activity. Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether or not the concerted activity was protected con- certed activity. The General Counsel argues: It is evident that the purpose of the strike was to protest Respondent's refusal to grant the employees certain benefits. Should Respondent contest this, it is clear that Respondent was aware that the strike was precipitated by its refusal to grant Saxer a wage increase. I do not find the evidence so clear that the purpose of the strike was to protest the refusal of the Respondent to grant "certain benefits." The allusion presumably is to the five improvements proposed by the employees to the Respondent at the meeting of September 21, 1966. To me, it would appear to be sheer speculation to say that the walkout had for its purpose the enforcement of the five- point demands made on September 21, 1966. Following that date, nothing further appears to have been said about any of those demands. On the other hand, if Saxer's testimony were to be accepted, he was concerned, after that date, with "stirring employees up to hit manage- ment" for an increase in pay. This may or may not have been the case, but if it is, the scope of Saxer's activity is not revealed. Pickelman, who had already received a raise at some time in September 1966, did not testify to having made any further request for a raise. In fact, the only one who testified that he had done so was Saxer, who did so on the day of the walkout.'6 Was it clear, then, as the General Counsel secondly postulates, that the walkout was caused by Respondent's refusal to grant Saxer's request for a wage increase? In my opinion, a difference should be drawn between a strike caused by Respondent's refusal to grant Saxer a wage increase and a strike to support Saxer's demand for a wage increase, because the former furnishes an impetus for the strike but does not necessarily furnish the purpose of the strike. The distinction is not a mere quibble. It is, in essence, the one which the court made in Joanna Cot- ton Mills Co. v. N.L.R.B.,17 where the court declined to enforce the Board's Decision and Order, finding that the "purpose" of the concerted activity was to be distin- guished from the "motive" of participants. It maybe con- ceded that a strike to support a wage demand, even though of only one employee, would be concerted activity protected by the Act, because it is established law that Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1317, West Coast Casket Company, Inc , 97 NLRB 820, 824, enfd 205 F 2d 902 (C.A 9) 'fi 1 am not disposed to credit Saxer's uncorroborated testimony if he was implying that all the others had actually followed his prompting to ask for wage increases. 17 176 F 2d 749 (C A 4). 336-845 0 - 70 - 50 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees may make common cause to support the grievance of one employee.' 8 Although Saxer's request for a pay increase and the walkout are brought into juxtaposition by their occur- rence on the same day, no affirmative evidence requires the inference that the walkout had, for its purpose, the en- forcement of a demand for a wage increase for Saxer, and some evidence repels such an inference. When Vasta and the Respondent's personnel man telephoned employees to learn the cause of the walkout, not one employee gave Respondent the denial of a wage increase to Saxer as a reason for the walkout After the refusal to increase Saxer's wages, Saxer resigned. The men all knew of Saxer's resignation; so it would have appeared to them to be too late to support a demand for a wage increase for Saxer in the very week he was terminating. Nor did any- one claim that wages generally should be increased or that general dissatisfaction with, wages was the cause of the walkout. Only one employee-Gilbert-said anything about wages at all, and he expressed dissatisfaction between his own rate and that of Pickelman, but, when asked at the hearing for his reason for going home early, he testified that the only reason he gave was that he was going home to check on his wife who had high blood pres- sure. Tending to support a conclusion that the reason for the walkout was not dissatisfaction with wages is the fact that, when the employees were about to clock out on Oc- tober 8, 1966, and were asked by Porschien why they were leaving, no one said anything about wage rates or other grievances. In fact there was mostly silence. All ap- peared inclined not to reveal any reason for the walkout. As the court said in N.L.R.B. v. Ford Radio & Mica Cor- poration, 258 F.2d 457 (C.A. 2) at page 465: However, where the employer from the facts in its possession could reasonably infer that the employees in question are engaging in unprotected activity, justice and equity require that the employees, if they chose [sic] to remain silent, bear the risk of being discharged. It is true that Porschien surmised that his conversation with Saxer on the morning of October 8, when he declined to give Saxer an increase and accepted Saxer's resignation, had something to do with the reason for the walkout, but this surmise does not mean that he had reason to believe that the walkout was to compel the Respondent to give a wage increase to Saxer or to make any other demand in view of Saxer's resignation. As Porschien told Mooney in the parking lot when the latter asked why they were discharged, "Well, Dave, we can't have everyone going home at noon every time somebody quits." From Respondent's point of view, Saxer might have brought about the walkout in retaliation for Porschien's failure to urge Saxer not to tender his resigna- tion or perhaps Porschien's failure to say even a kind word of regret that Saxer should choose to resign. Con- certed activity which is motivated by the desire of one man to retaliate against a supervisor or to embarrass his employer is certainly not the type of activity that deserves the protection of the Act.'" 18 Carter Carburetor Corp. v N L R B, 140 F 2d 714, 718 (C A. 8), N L R B v Solo Cup Company, 237 F 2d 521 (C A. 8), Seyfeit Foods Co, 109 NLRB 800 " Joanna Cotton Mills Co v N L R.B, supra. And See N L R B v Marshall Car Wheel and Foundry Co., 218 F 2d 409 (C A 5). I find it difficult to believe that the walkout was an ex- pression of interest in mutual aid or protection. Never be- fore had any of the dischargees failed to speak up for changes in working conditions when they felt it in the in- terests of the employees to do so, least of all Saxer. Saxer's reply to Vasta's inquiry as to the reason for the walkout-that he could answer only for himself (who had gone home because he felt like it) and that Vasta would have to get the reasons of others from them-certainly was not consistent with concerted activity, much less with protected concerted activity. Saxer's professed claim to ignorance of the reason of the others in walking out suggests an intentional deceit, supporting an inference of malice. The evidence indicates that when Saxer ten- dered his resignation and Porschien accepted it, Saxer returned to his bench and informed at least two of the dischargees thereof and that the word spread As Saxer testified, after Pickelman had heard the news: "So they got together, and finally ... Bradley came over to me ... Bradley said ... this would be a good time to wake up management. Let's all go home at 11:20-let's all go home at noon-so we went around and I said, `If you guys go home, I will go home,' so we went around to each person." It is a reasonable inference that the dischargees went to other employees to induce them to leave work early. Starr saw Mooney that morning on the sheet metal side of the department conversing with his brother, and his brother was the only one from that side to walk off with the employees from the machine shop side at 11:24 a.m. on October 8, 1966. Although Saxer attributed the suggestion that "this would be a good time to wake up the company" (or "shake up the company" as Gilbert put it) to Bradley, I find the evidence fairly convincing that Saxer and the other dischargees were the ones who urged others to leave early. Presumably expecting that they might be suspected of leading a walkout, each of the four dischargees sought to protect himself by getting permission to leave early. They were the only ones who did. I observe, however, that none of them later sought to argue his case by protesting that he had been given permission to leave early. This suggests to me that the four had good reason (despite Respondent's surface explanation that it no longer needed tool-and-die makers) to believe that the Respond- ent had learned that they were the ones who had caused the walkout and that this was the real reason for their discharge. Saxer's question put to Padgett, as to whether or not the Respondent intended to blackball them, suffi- ciently demonstrates that Saxer knew the real reason for the discharge and that he realized that, that being the case, the permission granted to him by Porschien to leave early would not be a justification for his actions. If the Respondent discharged the four men for engaging in unprotected concerted activity, it is immaterial that the Respondent did not discharge others similarly engaged or that it gave a reason for the discharge which was not the basic reason. On all the evidence, I find that Respondent discharged Mooney, Pickelman, Gilbert, and Saxer"0 for causing an unprotected walkout. The Respondent gave other reasons at the hearing for selecting only four of the 20 The Respondent's acceptance of Saxer's resignation as of Monday, October 10, 1966, rather than as of Friday, October 14, was, in effect, a discharge, but, absent protected concerted activity, the Respondent could lawfully discharge Saxer as well as the other three ELECTROMEC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CO. strikers for termination. These were, in my opinion, just additional considerations and were not the principal reason. Since I have found that the concerted walkout on October 8, 1966, was not a protected concerted activity, I conclude that the Respondent did not interfere with the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 773 2. The walkout on October 8, 1966, was not a con- certed activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. 3. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Wilfred F. Gilbert, Davy J. Mooney, Charles C. Pickelman,Jr., or Robert G. Saxer. RECOMMENDED ORDER I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its en- tirety.