International Typographical Union

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Typographical Union and Janice Churchill, Local 64, Office and Professional Em- ployees International Union , Charles A. Scheible, June Large, Frieda Clark , and Margaret Jones. Cases 27-CA-2695, 27 -CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, 27-CA-2764, 27-CA-2809-2, and 27-CA-2824 June 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On February 17, 1970, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed with respect to these allegations. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a sup- porting brief, and a brief in answer to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Decision, a supporting brief, and a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 these cases 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, the cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer, with the following modifications: 1. The Trial Examiner found that Supervisor Ona Roll Cloud did not create the impression of surveillance when she told the employees in her in- dustrial pension plan section, at a meeting of all the section's employees on March 22, 1969, that she had heard from three unnamed sources that em- ployee Willie Bruntzel had contacted the Union about the work problems in the section. We do not agree. ' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript so that the word "can" which appears as the second word on 114 of p 129 be corrected to read "can't," which the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to rule on, is hereby granted The Trial Examiner relied on the fact that Cloud did not initiate any action of surveillance. But how Cloud received the information is not determina- tive. Whether or not an employer in fact spies upon the employees' union meetings, if he creates the im- pression in their minds that he is keeping their union activities under surveillance, it is as in- timidating and as coercive as surveillance itself.2 Viewed in this light, we find that Cloud's statement that she knew of the complaints about her made to the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance. 2. The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner's recommendation, in paragraph 2 of "The Remedy," that Charles A. Scheible's estate be made whole only for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him . The General Counsel contends that the estate should also be compensated for any other losses suffered as a result of Scheible's discrimina- tory discharge, as, for example, the proceeds from life insurance or health benefits. We agree. The backpay award is designed to restore the dis- criminatee to the position he would have had but for his unlawful discharge. Where the discriminatee dies, as here, the Board has long held that the estate of the deceased discriminatee is entitled to receive a sum of money equivalent to the amount of bonuses, emoluments, insurance, or other death benefits which the estate would have received had the discriminatee been employed by the employer at the time of his death, less any similar benefits received by the estate as a result of employment by the discriminatee subsequent to his wrongful discharge, and less any insurance premiums the dis- criminatee would have paid his employer had he not been discharged.3 Accordingly, we hereby cor- rect The Remedy to award Charles A. Scheible's estate the proper amount due under established Board law, as described above. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Add the following as Conclusion of Law 6 to the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "By telling its employees that it heard that an employee had contacted the Union about work problems, Respondent has created the impression of surveillance and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." x Moore's Seafood Products, Inc , 152 NLRB 683 Raymond Pearson, Inc , 115 NLRB 190, Glen Raven Silk Mills, Inc , 101 NLRB 239 183 NLRB No. 60 INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 497 Delete Conclusion of Law 7 of the Trial Ex- aminer's Conclusions of Law and substitute the fol- lowing: "Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in paragraphs V(c), (e), and (h) through (n), paragraphs VI(a) and (e), and paragraph VII(d) in the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695, 27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764. Respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice by the discharge of Margaret Jones as alleged in the complaint in Case 27-CA-2824." 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 Respondent, Interna- tional Typographical Union, Colorado Springs, Colorado, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 1(d) and re- letter the present paragraph 1(d) as 1(e): "(d) Creating the impression of surveillance of union meetings by telling the employees that it had heard that complaints had been made to the Union about work problems." 2. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the fol- lowing: "(a) Offer to Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nel- son immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled `The Remedy.' "Pay to the estate of Charles A. Scheible a sum of money equal to the amount Scheible would have earned from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of his death, less net earnings, computed in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled `The Remedy.' Also, pay to Scheible's estate a sum of money equivalent to the amount of bonuses, emolu- ments, insurance, and other death benefits, to which such estate would have been entitled upon Scheible's death, had he not been wrongfully discharged, less the amount of similar benefits heretofore paid or now payable as a result of Scheible's employment elsewhere subsequent to his discharge, and also deducting therefrom the amount of premiums Scheible would have paid Respondent from the date of his discharge to the date of his death." 3. Delete the last paragraph of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, beginning "IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that ..." and substitute the following: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that paragraphs V(c), (e), and (h) through (n), VI(a) and (e), and VII(d) of the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695, 27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764, and that the allegations of an unfair labor practice as to Margaret Jones in Case 27-CA-2824, be dismissed." 4. Add the following as fourth indented para- graph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Ex- aminer 's Decision: WE WILL NOT create the impression of sur- veillance of your union meetings by informing you that we have heard that employees have contacted the Union about work problems. 5. Delete the last indented paragraph of the Ap- pendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and substitute the following: WE WILL offer Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer ex- ist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against them. WE WILL pay to Charles A. Scheible's estate a sum of money equivalent to the amount he would have earned from the date of his dis- criminatory discharge to the date of his death, less any net earnings, plus any money which Scheible's estate would have received had he not been wrongfully discharged, as insurance benefits, less any premiums Scheible would have paid. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard at Colorado Springs, Colorado, on September 23, 24, 25, and November 12, 13, and 14, 1969, on complaints of the General Counsel and answers of International Typographical Union, herein called Respondent. The complaints were issued on June 12, September 5, and October 29, 1969, on charges filed April 15, April 24, July 16, August 5, and October 9 and Oc- tober 23, 1969. The complaints allege that Respon- dent discriminatorily discharged employees, dis- criminatorily reduced an employee's position and 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rate of pay, interfered with the administration of the Union and contributed support to it, and in other ways interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent is an unincorporated association with its principal office located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where it is engaged in the ad- ministering, advising, and assisting of local labor or- ganizations located in various States of the United States, of which labor organizations Respondent is the international administrative body. The Respon- dent in the course and conduct of its business an- nually receives at its Colorado Springs, Colorado, offices dues and assessments in excess of $50,000 from its local unions located outside the State of Colorado, and Respondent in the maintenance of certain pension funds and health and welfare in- surance plans annually disburses moneys in excess of $500,000 to companies located outside the State of Colorado. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in an operation affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 64, Office and Professional Employees In- ternational Union , herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues and Prefactory Statement 1. Whether Respondent discharged Janice Churchill, Suzanne Nelson, Charles Scheible, June Large, and Margaret Jones because of their union activities or for cause, and further whether Jones was discharged for having given testimony under the Act. 2. Whether Respondent demoted and reduced the rate of pay of Frieda Clark because of her union activities or for other reasons. 3. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by the attendance and participation of supervisors in union meetings and by their circula- tion of petitions regarding union matters; whether Respondent required employees to join the Union; whether Respondent permitted circulation of union petitions by supervisors but prohibited like union activities by employees. 4. Whether a supervisor of Respondent told an employee she would be denied a promotion because of her union activities and told an em- ployee that she was aware that grievances against her were discussed at union meetings; and, if so, whether such conduct constituted interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent and the Union are and have been for many years parties to collective-bargaining agreements covering all office employees employed by Respondent at its offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado. On April 30, 1969, the contract which became effective on May 1, 1966, expired. Negotiations on a new contract commenced on March 27, 1969, and on July 17, 1969, a new con- tract was agreed on and signed following a strike by the Union from July 7 to 17. At all times material herein and until about June and July 1969, virtually all of Respondent's 10 to 12 intermediate super- visors were members of the Union and were represented by it. About August 1968, William Brandenburg was employed by the Union as business manager. Bran- denburg was a teacher in a local high school and this was the first time that he had been employed in the capacity of a business agent for a union. On Monday, March 24, Brandenburg met with the em- ployees at the noon hour in the library or lecture room in Respondent's training center, and on the next day he met at noon in the same place with Respondent's supervisors who were members of the Union. The purposes of the meetings were to let the persons meet him and for him to get acquainted with them and to find out their problems. Brandenburg advised the supervisors that accord- ing to the Union's constitution and bylaws a super- visor was not eligible to participate or have a vote in any of the Union's proceedings which affect the wages and conditions of employment in the establishment where he is employed as a supervisor. Supervisor Sandra Frazee asked whether or not he felt that supervisors should belong to the Union and he answered that he did not. But he told them that as they were members, he would represent them and that they were entitled to the benefits of the collective-bargaining contract. B. The Discharges of Churchill and Nelson on March 28, 1969 During the early part of 1969, Respondent made some rather significant changes in the operations of its offices, including the changeover from one type of computer to another. Also, its workload was in- creasing, particularly in the industrial pension plan section. To meet the demands made by the in- creased workload, overtime work was frequently necessary. New employees had to indicate on their applications for employment their willingness to INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION work overtime in order to secure employment. Janice Churchill was employed on January 31, 1969, and Suzanne Nelson was employed on February 3, 1969; both indicated a willingness to work overtime . All new employees are on proba- tion for a period of 90 days, and their probationary period would have ended about May 1, 1969. Apparently because of the increased workload and the pressure that it exerted on the employees and the supervisors, some of the employees became disgruntled. About March 21, 1969, employee Wil- lie Bruntzel called Union Steward Jessie Madison about the situation and on the morning of Saturday, March 22, 1969, she called several employees be- fore work by telephone and spoke to others when she arrived at Respondent's premises, and told them that she had contacted the Union on the matter of their problems in their section. At noon on that day, the employees in the section discussed this matter and agreed that they should meet with the Union about it. Shortly after the lunch hour, Supervisor Ona Roll Cloud, who supervised approximately 15 em- ployees, including Bruntzel, Churchill, and Nelson, in the industrial pension plan section, called the employees in her part of the section in to a meet- ing. She informed them that she had heard from three sources that Willie Bruntzel had contacted the Union about the problems in her section and that they were complaining about working too hard and too much overtime. She stated that one reason she was bringing the matter up at this meeting was that they were discussing it on company time and were wasting production hours. Cloud explained that some of the confusion in the department was because of the transition to the different type of computer, the changes in jobs that were occurring, and the employment of new people. She stated that she anticipated that there would be problems in the department because of the need to establish stricter production controls to enable them to get the work out. She stated that she wanted to analyze the problems of each of them and see how terrible the situation was. She then discussed each employee in- dividually. She stated that as to Gwen Guinnup, who has worked for her for 6 years, there was no problem. As to Clara Hunt, they had their differences but un- derstood them. As to Margaret Jones, she was a lit- tle problem child because she wanted to work on one specific job only. As to Willie Bruntzel, she stated: Girls, I want you to know what you already un- derstand, that both Willie and Clara [Hunt] were in training with special privileges and spe- cial responsibility, one later hopefully to become supervisor, and the other to become lead girl. In view of Willie's complaints, obvi- ously made during working hours, consumed production time, I am going to put her on a ' She received a $5 raise in wages when she was told that she would be training as a supervisor 499 straight journeyman's job. This won't affect her salary. I do wonder if all of you understand that if I have mistreated Willie, I have also given her some special considerations. She is making more money than many of you girls because she was raised to journeyman's scale.' I have reprimanded Willie publicly for running and walking too fast and explained to her that this was unnecessary. . . . I cannot do my job with conscience and promote anyone to a job over and above a regular journeyman who is using the time allocated for that job to repri- mand me and other management for the things we do, for the hours we work. These are all necessary. I expect a girl who is drawing over and above journeyman wages to be a leader and to be helping me. Therefore, Willie, you will sit at this desk from now on and do your regular journeyman work. None of you are to take your question to Willie. You take your questions to Clara. I want you to understand that just Thursday of last week I chose Clara as supervisor. Maybe this is why Willie is so un- happy. Cloud explained that she had chosen Clara Hunt to be supervisor because she had been asked by the secretary-treasurer of Respondent on the Thursday preceding that date to name a supervisor and she chose Clara Hunt. Cloud continued to comment about her relation- ship with, or the problems of, each of the other em- ployees who were present. As to Churchill and Nel- son, she stated, "I am concerned about your con- sistent refusal of overtime. Otherwise, your work appears to be okay. "2 Cloud continued as follows: O. K., girls, [ know this is rough. It's rough for you and it's rough for me. I am hiring [new] girls now, and I will continue until I hire about four girls. The reason I am hiring them is twofold. First, we have a big time-consuming job for the Union Printers Home. Next, some of you won't make it. Some of you can't take it. Some of you will get discharged and some of you will quit. Until the department stops this rapid rate of growth and until our systems are more stabilized, therefore, I will use the new girls or any of you that I can spare on the Union Printer Home work and cross train you. I do not mean to threaten any of you with discharge because attrition will take care of that. If I am overhired for girls, there will be enough normal quits or discharges for cause to take care of it, so none of you who are doing a job need worry about that. Getting back to your complaints to the Union, you must un- derstand that I don't fear the OPEIU. I can't. I am a part of it. You are free, and there will be no discriminations among you for attending 4I do not credit employee Bigelow's uncorroborated testimony that Cloud also said Churchill was real bright 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 33 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any meeting or saying anything you want to... . I have been in trouble only once in the 15 years I've worked here with the Union. I discharged a little girl in Indianapolis , Indiana. They followed the regular grievance procedure in that case , and to my knowledge , I was the only supervisor that was ever called upstairs before a joint meeting of OPEIU officials and the ITU Executive Council. I don't intend to fire any of you unless I can do that same thing . I would not want to embarrass the Executive Council , and I have no interest or personal antagonism towards any of you, so that would be futile. You can expect problems in a change like this. I remember back in Indi- anapolis, Indiana when my sister worked for me. She was made supervisor . Not by me. I think Mr. Talbott raised her . When we changed over from doing pre-list by the manuel [ sic] system to doing it by data processing equipment completely , she didn't speak to me for three months. On the job, yes, but not at home . We were very close and are today . She, like you , had to pay me the cour- tesy of answering my questions and cooperat- ing on the job, but it did affect our personal lives and yet I had to do that . I had to with her during the changeover, and I'll have to with you during this one. As previously mentioned , on Monday and Tuesday, March 24 and 25, 1969, Union Business Manager William Brandenburg met with employees and intermediate supervisors in a room at Respon- dent's offices to get acquainted and to find out their problems . Following the meeting with the em- ployees on Monday, March 24, five of the em- ployees in Ona Cloud 's section , Churchill, Nelson, Bigelow, Fence, and Trujillo , remained and spoke with Brandenburg about their complaints . During this time , Supervisor Clara Hunt and employee Guinnup came to the door and observed them talk- ing together . Brandenburg agreed to meet with them on the following Tuesday evening, March 25, to discuss and to write up their grievances; and on Tuesday night, they met at the carpenter's union hall and each of them signed papers setting forth their complaints. Very shortly thereafter and probably on the next day, Brandenburg met with Assistant Secretary- Treasurer F. E. McGlothlin regarding the contents of these statements or grievances . He read to him some of the statements that had been submitted. The complaints concerned such matters as the su- pervisor correcting an employee in front of other employees, abrupt changes in work assignments, working employees too hard, and generally Ona Cloud's method of supervision . The names of the employees making the complaint were not revealed . McGlothlin explained that the industrial pension plan section was at that time in a state of turmoil due to a tremendous growth, the institution of new systems, and the inexperience of some of the employees. Brandenburg suggested that Ona Cloud should find a more tender approach to the employees and that McGlothlin should discuss the matter with her. McGlothlin agreed to do so. Shortly thereafter, he told Ona Cloud about the complaints and that he thought there was perhaps a misunderstanding by some of the people and that they felt unappreciated and unloved. A few days later , Brandenburg told McGlothlin that evidently his talk with Cloud had done some good because things were better. Ona Roll Cloud was employed by Respondent in 1954 as a stenographer . Since October 1968 and until July 1969 she has been a supervisor in the data processing portion of the industrial pension section and has supervised approximately 12 to 15 employees . Her section handled computer cards or keypunch cards and the reports from employers itemizing the individual contributions to the pen- sion program. She is the wife of Respondent's secretary-treasurer, William R. Cloud , and has been for approximately 5 years. She had planned to retire in 1968 but due to personnel problems on the staff she postponed her retirement until July 1969. Churchill and Nelson were discharged by Cloud on Friday, March 28, 1969 , and the principal reason assigned was that during their probationary period , which would end on or about May 1, 1969, they had shown a strong disinclination to work overtime although they had expressed a willingness to do so in their applications for employment, and Cloud was fearful that after their probationary period they would be less inclined to work over- time. By this and the reports of supervisors and trainers about their work performance , Cloud con- cluded that they were disinterested in their work and their jobs . Both Supervisor Clara Hunt and em- ployee Gwen Guinnup, who was on the production desk , complained about their work. About 3 weeks prior to March 28 , 1969, Cloud terminated proba- tionary employee Debbie Griffin because of her re- peated refusal to work overtime. Shortly after their employment , Churchill and Nelson were asked to work overtime on a Friday evening and a Saturday but both indicated that they had made other plans . Cloud told them that she had plans too and that her plans were to get the work out and she asked them if they could not cancel their plans, and they stated that they could not. Churchill stated that she could work one day or one night but not both . As they could not work both days, they were excused from overtime work on this occasion. About 1 month before her discharge , Churchill was asked by Supervisor Clara Hunt to work over- time on a Saturday . She replied that she had a civil service examination scheduled for that day. Hunt took Churchill into Cloud 's office and told her that she had taken time to train Churchill and now she wants to take a civil service examination on Satur- day. Churchill explained that she had applied for the examination before she started working for INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Respondent. Cloud told Churchill that it cost money to hire her and to train her and that she could not train her for the Government; that she was going to fire her at that time. Churchill began to cry and stated that she needed her job badly and would not take the civil service examination and that if Cloud would give her one more chance-she would give no more trouble. Cloud then retracted the discharge and Churchill reported for overtime work on the following day. On another occasion in March 1969, Churchill wanted to be excused from overtime work on a Saturday to participate as a model in a fashion show scheduled for that day. She had been taking a modeling course and this was the occasion for her first fashion show. Cloud told her that if she wanted to work atjall she would have to work that Satur- day. Churchill worked overtime on that Saturday and did not model. On they morning of Friday, March 28, 1969, Churchill was called into the office of Cloud. Cloud told Churchill that she would have to let her go; that she was undependable and had made too many mistakes; that Churchill thought civil service and modeling were more important to her than her job. On Monday, March 24, after Cloud's meeting with the girls on Saturday, March 22, she told Su- pervisor Hunt and employee Guinnup, who operated the production desk, that unless they had reason to prove that she should not do so, she con- templated letting Churchill and Nelson go on Friday; that she planned to watch them and observe their work very closely and she asked Hunt and Guinnup to cooperate; she asked for any comments that they might have at that time or at any time during the following days of the week. Clara Hunt, who was a leadgirl prior to becoming a supervisor in March 1969 supervised and helped train Churchill. First, Churchill was placed on the contributions desk which job consisted mainly of filing. Hunt testified that her filing was very poor and she transferred Churchill to another job called "mailer six " at which six girls worked together. She testified that Churchill was not very fast and held the other girls up. Then she was placed on reports. On this job, Hunt testified that she made many mistakes. On Monday, March 24, 1969, Guinnup, who worked on the production desk, started keeping complete production records. The errors of an em- ployee are noted by the employee who does the fol- lowing operation. During the period from March 24 to March 27, Churchill made 97 errors. The records of several journeyman employees doing the same type of work showed that for approximately the same length of time, with each of the several employees contributing parts of the work and of the time, a total of nine errors were made . Guinnup testified that she had reported to Cloud several' times that she did not think the Company would af- ford Churchill. 501 Bruntzel testified she told Cloud sometime prior to March 22, 1969, that she thought Churchill was above average in intelligence and was doing a very fine job. As to Nelson, she told Cloud that some- times she did not pay attention but was doing good work and could learn. On Friday, March 28, Hunt reported to Cloud that Churchill's work had not improved during the week. Although Churchill's work was discussed with her by Hunt on occasions, neither Hunt nor any su- pervisor warned her that she would be discharged if her work did not improve-other than the general warning given by Cloud to all her employees on March 22. As to Nelson on the matter of overtime, and as previously mentioned, she, along with Churchill, declined to work overtime on a weekend when the employees were requested to work on a Friday evening and a Saturday. On another occasion, Cloud asked Nelson to work overtime one weekend and Nelson reported that she could not work over- time as she was going out of town. On the Saturday involved, Cloud observed Nelson in a drugstore in Colorado Springs. This incident occurred about 1 month before Nelson's discharge. On another occasion about 2 weeks prior to her discharge, Nelson asked Cloud if she could be ex- cused from working on a Saturday as she wanted to drive to Denver to pick up her boyfriend. Cloud told her that if she did not come to work on that Saturday, she could not come to work the following Monday. Nelson worked that Saturday. About 9:45 a.m. on March 28, 1969, Cloud called Nelson into her office. She told Nelson that she was going to have to let her go; that Nelson did not seem to like the way things were run around there and was not interested in her work; that Cloud needed a crew of girls who were going to be interested and willing to do the work. Cloud told her that she had asked her to work overtime on one occasion and Nelson told her she was going out of town and Cloud saw her downtown. Nelson ex- plained that her plans fell through. Cloud also told her that she had seen her staring off into space and to her this meant she was not interested in her work. As to overtime, Nelson stated that she had worked during the past 2 weeks when she had been asked. Cloud said she realized this. Nelson asked Cloud why she had not told her that this was going to happen 2 weeks ago when her boyfriend was in town and she really needed to be off, and Cloud replied that she did not know at that time that she was going to fire her. After talking with Churchill and Nelson on March 28, 1969, Cloud called employees Pam Dade and Judy Lopuh individually into her office. She told Lopuh that she had let Churchill and Nel- son go and that she knew Lopuh was against her for some reason . Cloud told Lopuh that she was talking about her behind her back and that if she had 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anything to say she should say it to her face. She stated that she knew that the girls in the section were complaining about her and that she was not afraid of anyone. Supervisor Clara Hunt told employee Mary Matthews sometime during the week of March 24, 1969, that Cloud had told her she was going to watch Churchill like a hawk all week as she was going to find an excuse to fire her; that Cloud had told Hunt that she was going to get rid of everyone except Gwen Guinnup, Clara Hunt, and Mary Matthews. 4 Guinnup, who worked on the production desk prior to the time she quit Respondent in April 1969, testified that because of her position, she was able to observe the type of work done by Nelson; that it was easy for anyone to see that she was a very disinterested worker; she would stare into space and not pay attention. She discussed Nelson with Cloud several times and recommended that she be discharged. The last time she made this recommendation was the day before she was discharged. C. Conclusions as to Discharges of Churchill and Nelson The issue is whether or not Ona Cloud ter- minated Churchill and Nelson because of their ac- tion in complaining about her to the Union, or because they displayed during their probationary period that they were disinterested employees. Ona Roll Cloud is a very conscientious , loyal, and dedicated worker and desires a high degree of loyalty and dedication from those under her super- vision . As manifested in her discourse to her em- ployees on Saturday, March 22, 1969, however, she strongly resents criticism of her actions and efforts motivated by the above-mentioned attributes. Among other things , she stated that because of Bruntzel's complaints to the Union she could not promote her or anyone to a job over and above a regular journeyman position .' She recounted a prior incident of a discharge and a grievance over the matter . As to Churchill and Nelson , she ex- pressed concern about their consistent refusal to work overtime , but stated that otherwise their work appeared to be satisfactory. On the following workday, Monday, March 24, at noon, Churchill, Nelson, and three journeymen, Bigelow , Fence, and Trujillo, of Cloud's section ' Cloud denied that she stated that she knew the girls were trying to get rid of her, as Lopuh testified She acknowledged in her testimony, however, that on March 22 she told her employees she knew they were making com- plaints about her to the Union, and I find that these are the words she used on this occasion ' Matthews was a reluctant witness and gave the above testimony only after being confronted with her affidavit given to a Board agent on April 23, 1969, Hunt denied making a statement to Matthews that Ona Cloud was going to discharge everyone except Matthews, Hunt, and one other Cloud denied stating to Hunt that she was going to get rid of everyone ex- cept the three named employees In view of the hearsay problem involved in this testimony , I do not find that Cloud made the statement attributed to met with Union Representative Brandenburg and were observed in this meeting by Hunt and Guin- nup. On the same day, Cloud informed Hunt and Guinnup that she planned to terminate Churchill and Nelson on Friday of that week and was going to watch them very closely. She asked for the assistance of Hunt and Guinnup. Guinnup that day started keeping complete production records, and both Hunt and Guinnup recommended their discharges during that week. If Churchill and Nelson were so close to discharge on Monday, March 24, they certainly should have been equally close on Saturday, March 22, when Cloud told them that except for their overtime problem, their work was otherwise satisfactory. Neither of them were warned by Cloud or any supervisor of any imminence of discharge because of work error or work habits, but had been warned of discharge in the event of a refusal to work overtime; and on the occasions where their personal interests conflicted with overtime, they abandoned their conflicting plans. Cloud acknowledged this distinction between them and Debbie Griffin who had been discharged in early March 1969 for refusal to work overtime. Of the five employees meeting privately with Union Representative Brandenburg, only Churchill and Nelson were in their probationary period, and thus more susceptible to discharge. But their proba- tionary period had another 30 days to run. The tim- ing of the discharges-the proximity to the meeting with Brandenburg and the complaints relayed to Cloud through McGlothlin; the lack of proximity to any overtime incident or other particular incident; and the lack of proximity to the expiration of the probationary period-is further indicia that Cloud was motivated by the fact that Churchill and Nel- son had utilized the Union to seek remedy for com- plaints against her.' Cloud told Nelson on March 28 that she did not seem to like the way things were run around there. On the same date, she also told job applicant Carolyn Coker (see paragraph G(5) ) that she had troublemakers and that if there was any trouble, her first loyalty was to her boss. I find that Respondent discharged Churchill and Nelson on March 28, 1969, because of their union activities. I also find that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees by Cloud's statement to employees on March 22, 1969, that Bruntzel would not be promoted and would have restricted duties because of her complaints to the her by Hunt, but, I do find that Hunt made the above statements to Mary Matthews predicated on statements made by Cloud to Hunt, as previously found , on Monday, March 24, 1969 Cloud told Hunt and Gumnup that she contemplated letting Churchill and Nelson go on Friday and planned to watch them and observe their work closely during that week ' She testified that the complaints were "obviously made during working hours," but the testimony shows that it occurred in the evening, before work , and during the lunch period ' Cloud testified that on April 7, 1969, she and her husband left on a trip to Arizona, but I cannot find that this had a significant influence on the tim- ing of the discharges, particularly since 10 days separated the two events INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Union about Cloud 's operation of the section. Also, I do not find that Cloud's statement to employees on March 22 , 1969, that she was aware of their complaints about her to the Union , constituted im- pression of surveillance . She stated she had heard from three sources that complaints were being made; thus, persons had informed her that day of these facts . There is no indication that she had in- itiated any action of surveillance. D. Discharge of June Large June Large was employed by Respondent in Oc- tober 1966, and left its employ on January 31, 1969, on a leave of absence . Large wanted the leave of absence to remarry her ex -husband and to establish a home , and she wanted an opportunity to return to work for Respondent in the event the remarrige did not work out. The terms of the leave of absence , as set forth in letter from Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Francis McGlothlin and acknowledged by Large in letter of January 31, 1969, were as follows: 1. Should you be desired to return to work on or after August 4 , 1969, and should there be a job opening on work you are competent to per- form, you will be rehired . Should there be no job openings you are competent to fill at that time you will be offered the first opportunity to fill a vacancy on work upon which you are competent . This is with the clear understand- ing in either case that your rehire will not necessitate the unnecessary reassignment of anyone employed at that time or a reduction in the force in order to make room for you. 2. That should you subsequently return to work under the conditions set forth above your attendance record must show considerable im- provement or the employer reserves the right to terminate your employment. On April 23 , 1969, Large returned to Respon- dent and talked with McGlothlin about returning to work. She told him that her marriage had not worked out and that she was giving notice that she definitely needed her job and was available for work . She handed him her letter dated April 21, 1969, which states as follows: As of the above shown date , I hereby notify both you and my employer, the International Typographical Union , that circumstances force my return to work . Therefore , according to the conditions set forth in my Leave of Absence, I will accept any job opening that I am qualified for which you have available for me in the fu- ture. You may contact me by mail at the new ad- dress shown below my name . I will not have a telephone immediately but I will let you know the number as soon as I get one. McGlothlin told her that there were no openings and that he would let her know. 503 The General Counsel contends that Large was denied reinstatement or reemployment thereafter because of union activities engaged in by her prior to her leave of absence when she was vice president of the local union and because of her participation in the strike in July 1969 . Respondent contends that the position she left was filled by another em- ployee who remains on that job and that there have been no job openings in any positions which she is qualified to perform as a journeyman; that although employees have been hired , they have been em- ployed as beginners and have been trained for the positions they were to fill and received beginner's wages rather than journeyman pay. Since Respon- dent was not and is not opposed to union member- ship by its employees, the issue is whether or not Large was denied employment because of her par- ticular activities on behalf of the Union. At the time June Large commenced her leave of absence , she was working on the applications desk. Employee Peggy Whittenbeck was assigned this job when Large left and is still on this desk. The em- ployee assigned to this desk takes applications that come from potential ITU members and processes them , making cards for the keypunching operation. There is only one employee assigned to this work. When Large was employed in October 1966, she was hired as a machine operator and worked on one of the computers , the collator . She remained on this assignment until September 1967, when she was placed on the applications desk. In March 1968 , Large became vice president of the local union . In May of that year, during the absence of Union Steward Jessie Madison , she han- dled a grievance for the Union which concerned the matter of an increase in wages for several new employees . McGlothlin was the representative of Respondent. Both Large and McGlothlin worked out what they considered to be the amounts due. Neither could convince the other of the correctness of his computations. McGlothlin testified that Large succeeded in exasperating him because of his apparent inability to explain the matter in such a fashion that she would understand it; that he finally gave up and asked the chief accountant to explain it to her. Large testified that he threw his pencil on the desk and made some remark to her about her thick skull. Further processing of the grievance was left until the return of Union Steward Madison. On Madison 's return , another meeting was held on the matter . During the meeting, Madison asked for a recess to make some computations . Large was working on the figures when McGlothlin came to her and said he had a complaint that she was taking too much time away from her desk . She then returned to her desk and her work , and did nothing further on the grievance at that time. On Friday , January 10 , 1969, during the noon lunch period , Large called Respondent 's offices and told an employee to tell her supervisor that she could not return to work that day, that something had come up and that she had to go out of town. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the following Monday morning, she called in again and told an employee to inform her super- visor that she was unable to return to work that morning but that she would be in at noon. She re- ported for work that afternoon and was called into McGlothlin's office. He stated that he had been checking her records and that she had a definite record of time lost from her job. He reprimanded her for being absent so much of the time. She replied that she realized this, but that most of her absences had been due to illnesses and surgery in both 1967 and 1968. He also reprimanded her for not talking with her supervisor when she called in on Friday and Monday. She tried to explain that that is the way she had done in the past when she had been absent. McGlothlin told her that he was not interested in her problems that brought about the absences. She then stated that in that case it would do her no good to ask for leave of absence. He replied that he would not give her a leave of absence under any circumstances. During her rest period that afternoon, she talked with Union Steward Jessie Madison and Union Pre- sident Paula LeBaron about her problem, and they agreed that she had sufficient reason to ask for a leave of absence. She typed up a request for leave of absence that evening and gave it to McGlothlin the next morning. The following day, she received a letter from him denying the request. She im- mediately took the letter to Union Steward Madis- on and they prepared a grievance on the matter. Shortly thereafter, Respondent and the Union had a meeting on the grievance. Union Representa- tive Brandenburg, June Large, and Union Stewards Madison and Shirley Avila were present for the Union and Assistant Secretary-Treasurer F. R. Norelius were present for Respondent. McGlothlin presented Large's record of absences and pointed out that she had been off sick 11 days during the past 2 years. Brandenburg explained that she had had considerable illness and surgery. McGlothlin stated that he did not feel Respondent could grant her a leave of absence because of her record; that Large did not have to take a leave of absence; that she could terminate her employment with Respon- dent and be hired back; that Respondent had rather pick someone with experience than to hire an em- ployee off the street and train him. Large con- tended that she wanted to have a job to come back to if the marriage failed and for this reason she wanted to take a leave of absence rather than a ter- mination . Large explained that she had used up her vacation time when she was in the hospital. Mc- Glothlin then stated that he could not run a place with the kind of record of absences that she had. Large contended that other employees had been granted leaves of absence; she asserted that one who had worked for the Company less than 3 months had been granted a leave of absence after an accident, and another leave of absence a short time later due to an injury; another employee whose husband was in the military service was given a 3-month leave of absence to stay home with her children during the summer months and later was granted a week off to go to Hawaii to be with her husband during a period of military rest and recuperation. McGlothlin and Norelius went outside the meet- ing room to discuss the matter in private. On their return, Norelius stated that they could give her a leave of absence, but that it would be on conditions that there was a job opening when she was ready to come back and that her record of absences would improve, and that she could not expect to come back to the same job as it would be filled. Bran- denburg asked if there had been any complaints about her work, and McGlothlin replied that on one occasion her supervisor had come to him and complained about her being away from her work. During the strike of July 1969, Large par- ticipated in the picket line activity. On one occa- sion on his way out, McGlothlin spoke to Large and stated, "What a way to spend a leave of absence." On another occasion during the strike, Norelius ap- proached her and asked if she were not the lady that he intervened for on a grievance. She stated that she was and then said, "Well, I guess I made a mistake." Following Large's notification to Respondent on April 23, 1969, of her availability for employment, and until about September 17, 1969, Respondent hired approximately 29 clerical employees in the classifications of keypunch operator, miscellaneous clerk, computer operator, and file clerk; 9 were started as keypunch operators, 18 as miscellaneous clerks, 1 as file clerk in archives, and 1 as a com- puter operator. Twenty-one were hired before the strike of July 7 and eight were hired thereafter. One of those employed as a keypunch operator, Je- anette Roberts, had previously worked for Respon- dent and was a rehire . Each of these employees, however, was employed at the beginning wage of $72.50 a week, and after the new wage rate became effective in July 1969, at $78.50 per week. June Large testified that she expected to return to work at a journeyman's rate of pay since she had been with Respondent for 2-1/2 years, but that the salary for her reemployment was not mentioned or discussed at any time. Prior to her employment with Respondent, she had worked as a keypunch operator with the treasury department, and her first period of employment with Respondent was in this capacity. She testified that she thought she was up to journeyman's pay when she transferred from that work to the applications desk. She testified that she also had some experience in some of the other posi- tions at Respondent, where she worked when she was not busy on the applications desk; this included the setup desk, the Alpha Codes desk, card-o-matic work, "non-match" work, and filing. Jeanette Jones, who was hired in May 1969, trained about 2 weeks for the work on the applica- INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION tions desk and then did this work while Peggy Whit- tenbeck was on vacation. After that Jones was placed on setup work. It is Respondent's practice to start employees as learners at a wage less than the journeyman's scale with the expectation that they will reach jour- neyman wages within 1 year. On rare occasions, Respondent has started an employee at a wage other than the beginner's starting wage and on oc- casions has advanced employees to journeyman status in less than 1 year, where it is quite apparent that they are qualified. A keypunch operator must be a competent keypunch operator at the time of employment; Respondent does not undertake to train a person to be a keypunch operator but to learn Respondent's procedure. Respondent employs approximately 110 clericals and approximately 40 are in the industrial pension plan section. E. Conclusions as to Large It is Respondent's contention that Respondent has no obligation to Large under the leave-of- absence agreement unless a job exists that she could walk into and perform as well as a jour- neyman performing that job, and apparently Mc- Glothlin has been of the opinion that the applica- tions desk is the only job in this category. A number of Respondent's supervisors testified that Large was not qualified to perform as a journeyman any of the jobs in their sections, but this, of course, is based on the facts that (1) one must become familiar with any job assignment at Respondent in order to do it properly and expeditiously, and that (2) they, the testifying supervisors, have not ob- served Large performing any of the positions in their sections. Such was also the testimony of Hilda Bauer, supervisor of the computer section. Large worked in her section in 1966 and until September 1967-almost 1 year. But, Bauer testified that Large operated the "collator," and at present, there is no collator machine in her section; that in Janua- ry 1969, there was a change in the work procedure from cards to tape; that she now employs two com- puter operators and two setup girls and that each of their jobs requires 2 to 3 months of training or familiarization. It is true that unless Large went back to a job identical to one that she had performed before, she would have to familiarize herself with a new routine or procedure. And it is apparent that on this basis McGlothlin is taking a position that Large is not "competent to perform" any of the positions that were filled. I find this to be an erroneous and discriminatory ' McGlothlin testified that he did not learn that Large claimed any com- petence as a keypunch operator until he was visited by a Board investigator in the investigation of the charge in her case He told the investigator that if Large wanted to claim competence as a journeyman keypunch operator, he would put her to work as she would then be qualified under the terms of the leave-of-absence agreement But there has been no communication between McGlothlin and Large on this point 505 interpretation of the leave-of-absence agreement. Large had worked in the computer section for al- most a year, and during the additional year and a half that she had worked at Respondent on the ap- plications desk, she had filled in from time to time on other jobs. She was certainly "competent to per- form" some of the positions for which approximate- ly 29 employees were hired. She would, of course, have to familiarize herself with changed procedures or different machines, but other employees had had to do this when changes occurred and also when they were reassigned to new positions. Large had had to do this when she was reassigned from the collator to the applications desk. As McGlothlin had said when trying to persuade Large to ter- minate rather than go on leave of absence, it would be more advantageous to Respondent to pick someone with experience than to hire an employee off the street and train him.7 But, of course, the paramount issue before me is whether McGlothlin's interpretation of the leave- of-absence agreement and failure to reemploy Large were motivated by Large's union activities or by her attendance record. The parties are in the wrong forum for any remedy on the matter of con- tractual obligation arising from the leave-of- absence agreement. Recourse before the National Labor Relations Board exists only if the discrimina- tion were motivated by the "union activities" of Large, and were calculated to discourage such ac- tivities by employees. Turning now to this point, I am not persuaded that Respondent through McGlothlin, who handled this matter, was so motivated. I find that his con- cern and motivation was her attendance record. He called her in for a reprimand about her attendance record before her first mention of a leave of absence and immediately after she had absented herself parts of 2 days with only indirect notice to her supervisor. At that time, McGlothlin expressed his opposition to a leave of absence under her cir- cumstances, but apparently was persuaded by Norelius to allow it when the matter was presented by the Union as a grievance. All of this occurred approximately 7 or 8 months after the "union activities" of Large, at which time McGlothlin had become exasperated at her inabili- ty to comprehend him. McGlothlin called Large in on January 13 for a verbal reprimand and warning only. She is the one who initiated the break in her employment. Also, Respondent's reluctance to reinstate or reemploy Large was clearly manifested before the strike in July 1969, as by that time 21 clerical positions were filled with new employees. I find that there is insufficient evidence to con- There is some confusion in the evidence as to whether or not Large set forth in her application for employment her prior experience and abilities as a keypunch operator , but, irrespective of this, her record of employment with Respondent in this capacity would certainly speak louder than a work history on an application form 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clude ' that Respondent refused to reinstate or reem- ploy Large because of union activities. F. The Discharge of Charles A. Scheible Scheible was first employed by Respondent in March 1951 , as an accountant . Prior to that time, he had been employed by an accounting firm that did some work for Respondent. He was discharged in August 1957, because of his absence from duty during a convention in New York City. He was reemployed by Respondent in June 1963 , after it moved its offices to Colorado Springs , Colorado. He was employed by Secretary -Treasurer William Cloud, who had known Scheible since 1949. In September 1963, Scheible was advanced to the position of chief accountant but was demoted in September 1964, to a junior accountant because of his failure to be on duty at a critical time during a .convention held by Respondent in Honolulu, Hawaii . Because of his absence at this time, Cloud summoned Roger Martwick , an accountant in Respondent 's offices in Colorado Springs, and returned Scheible to these offices . Cloud permitted Scheible to remain with Respondent as a junior ac- countant. In February 1967, Dale Wilmeth became Respondent's chief accountant. Under him were two accountants , Scheible and Martwick and four clerks . The accountants are salaried personnel; they are not paid for overtime hours nor is their pay af- fected by time off for illness ; that is, they receive a set salary irrespective of the need for overtime hours or for time off due to illness . When Wilmeth became chief accountant , he started keeping at- tendance records on his employees. Scheible had an extremely poor attendance record . In 1967, the occasions on which he was late at least a half hour or more totaled 21; on 8 occasions, he was absent the entire day. In 1968 , there were 11 occasions where he was absent as much as 45 minutes or more and on 5 of these occasions , he missed the en- tire day . In 1969, there were nine occasions when he was absent for half an hour or more or missed the entire day, up to and not including the incident in July for which he was terminated . Most of the times, Scheible would call in with an explanation, but on some occasions, there is no record that he called the office . The excuses ranged from personal illness, appointments with a doctor , overslept, per- sonal business , and on a few occasions no reason was given. In spite of this record, on only one occasion did Chief Accountant Wilmeth complain to Cloud about the matter . In April 1969, about 2 p.m., Scheible told Chief Accountant Wilmeth that he had to go to the dentist but would make up the time . Wilmeth asked if he had an appointment and Scheible replied that he did not . Wilmeth suggested that he call and make an appointment and then go to the dentist and come back to work. Scheible became upset at this and Wilmeth suggested that they talk with Secretary-Treasurer Cloud. But Cloud was absent that day and on the next day Wil- meth mentioned the incident to him and recom- mended that some action be taken. Cloud took no action on the recommendation. The union strike of Respondent began on Mon- day, July 7, 1969. Scheible arrived for work that morning at or about 8:55, approximately 5 minutes before his starting time. He observed the presence of the picket line and then parked his car and joined the picketers. Also, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of that week, he joined the picketers at Respondent's premises, but did not himself carry a picket sign. About 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 10, he left the picket line area to get a jug of coffee. In his mailbox, he found a note from Respondent, dated Tuesday, July 8, 1969, and signed by William R. Cloud as follows: If you should desire to return to Indianapolis or move to another location not in excess of that distance, you will be entitled to transportation and the cost of moving your household goods. Should you desire to do this, I would suggest that you get in touch with my office in advance in order to allow sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. Shortly thereafter, Scheible called Cloud and told him that he would take the offer and asked that ar- rangements for first-class passage be made as soon as it could be done. Cloud agreed; transportation was arranged, and a ticket was furnished to Schei- ble. At no time was Scheible told nor did he ask for the reason for his termination. It is Respondent's practice when a salaried person is employed from another city to pay that person's transportation back to that city or an equivalent distance upon his termination. On Monday morning, July 7, Wilmeth reported to Cloud that he had no one in his section because of the strike. Cloud checked around and a few clerks were furnished to Wilmeth to help out with his work. Accountant Martwick was on vacation. On that day or the next day, Wilmeth called Mart- wick and told him that he was shorthanded and asked him if he could come to work and take his vacation at a later date. Martwick reported to work on Wednesday, July 9, 1969. Wilmeth was told by other employees that Scheible was at the picket line, although Wilmeth did not see him there him- self when he reported for work or left work. How- ever, Secretary-Treasurer Cloud did observe him there. On Tuesday evening, July 8, 1969, Cloud made the decision to terminate Scheible for the reason that he did not report for work.' Cloud testified that he expected his salaried employees to report for work in the event of a strike. Cloud 8 Respondent 's personnel records on Scheible show a termination date of July 7, 1969 INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION testified that Scheible was a very talented accoun- tant but had "an irresponsible streak." Apparently, Cloud tolerated Scheible's poor attendance record generally until the absence was caused by his par- ticipation in the strike of the Union against Respon- dent. Although Scheible, as a salaried employee, was not subject to the overtime and sick leave benefits provided for in the Union's contract with Respon- dent, nevertheless as an office employee and one without supervisory authorities, he was in the ap- propriate bargaining unit recognized by Respon- dent.9 It seems clear that Scheible was terminated because he chose to participate in the strike and not to report for work during the week of July 7, 1969. Although Cloud had tolerated "an irresponsi- ble streak" on the part of Scheible and for this reason may have felt justified in expecting a higher degree of gratitude and loyalty in return, and although Respondent had sufficient cause to ter- minate Scheible because of his attendance record and neglected to do so until his participation on the strike, nevertheless by discharging him because of his union activity, Respondent has discriminated against him within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Scheible died on October 27, 1969, while the hearing herein was in recess. G. Respondent's Alleged Interference with the Union 1. Petition of April 15, 1969 At all times material herein and until June or July 1969, all of Respondent's intermediate supervisors, being about 12 in number, were members of the Union and paid union dues. Apparently, most of them were members of the Union prior to their ap- pointment as supervisors. There is no dispute as to the fact that each possessed at least some of the authorities of a supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. Section 14(a) of the Act sets forth that nothing in the Act shall prohibit any supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor or- ganization. The question is whether his attendance at union meetings and/or participation in the nor- mal activities or privileges of membership con- stitute interference by Respondent with the ad- ministration of the Union. At his first meeting with the supervisors who were members of the Union, Union Representative Brandenburg told them that although they should not be members of the Union, he would represent them since they were and that they were entitled to the benefits of the collective-bargaining contract. A collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union expired on April 30, " It is difficult to see a distinction between him and Roger Martwick, the other accountant in the section , yet the General Counsel has alleged and Respondent admitted that Martwick is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act Martwick testified that he was classified as a supervisory employee 507 1969, and bargaining sessions commenced on March 27. Other bargaining sessions were held on April 17, 23, and 29, May 1, 20, 21, and 27, and July 9, 11, 15, 16, and 17, 1969. At the first bar- gaining session, a representative of Respondent ob- jected to some of the language Brandenburg used in his proposals. Brandenburg acknowledged that he was not familiar with ITU terminology. On April 15, 1969, following Brandenburg's meeting with the supervisors on March 25 and fol- lowing the first bargaining conference on March 27, and following a discussion of the matter with other employees and supervisors, Supervisor San- dra Frazee, who had been a member of the Union since she started working for Respondent in 1963, prepared a petition as follows: We, the undersigned members of OPEIU # 64, hereby petition and request that a special Order of Business be called at the next meeting of the Union, on April 22, 1969, at 7.45 p.m. for the express purpose of rescinding previous action of the Union in engaging the services of a Business Agent, namely one William Bran- denburg. Our petition and motion to dismiss the services of Mr. Brandenburg is based upon our knowledge that Mr. Brandenburg has failed to fully advise our members of current collective bargaining procedures and because of his known incompetence in faithful collective bar- gaining practice. She solicited the signatures of employees and su- pervisors to the petition contending that Bran- denburg was an amateur dealing with professionals; that he was not a lawyer and did not know what he was doing. Some of the solicited employees signed the petition and some did not. Some of the solicita- tion was done during working hours at Respon- dent's offices and some of it was done after hours. Employees participated in the idea of having such a petition and also in the solicitation of signatures. On the second day of the solicitation, Frazee, Su- pervisor Charlotte Andersen, and two employees were called into the office of Assistant Secretary- Treasurer F. R. Norelius and he made it clear to them that there would be no union business on company time. Frazee then took the petition to her residence. On April 11, 1969, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer McGlothlin had sent a memorandum to Union Steward Jessie Madison in which he advised her that far too much office time was being spent on union matters. He asked that such conferences, meetings, discussions, etc., be confined to non- working periods of the day. At the union meeting held on April 14, the Union's president advised the members of the contents of this memorandum. I by Cloud after the convention of Respondent in 1964 Nevertheless, he remained a member of the Union until June 30, 1969, when he was granted an honorary withdrawal because of his supervisory capacity 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that there was no disparate treatment by Respondent on this matter of union business on company time. Frazee's union activities were also ,not permitted. During the solicitation of signatures, Frazee sol- icited the signature of employee Judy Lopuh, who was a personal friend. She told Lopuh in words to the effect that by keeping Brandenburg they seemed to be going in the wrong direction, that it was senseless to threaten a strike before you went into negotiations, and that if they did not sign it they might not have jobs.10 However, I find that this was not a threat of discharge but her surmise as to a likely consequence of their continued employment of Brandenburg. This petition was also signed by Supervisors Clara Hunt, Joan Walls, Charlotte Andersen, Phyl- lis Moreland, and Chief Accountant Dale Wilmeth. Walls passed it on to one of the employees under her supervision. 2. Supervisors at union meetings Supervisors who were members of the Union frequently attended union meetings, and on May 22, 1969, the meeting at which Respondent's con- tract proposals were voted on, Supervisors Ona Cloud, Charlotte Andersen, Joan Walls, Clara Hunt, Phyllis Moreland, Sandra Frazee, and Rose Lee Bulman were in attendance. At this meeting, the membership voted to reject Respondent's con- tract proposals by a vote of 38 to 36. The super- visors participated in the vote on this proposal. Supervisor Andersen attempted to speak on the floor at one of the union meetings at which con- tract proposals were being considered, presumably this meeting, and she was refused by the chairman and Union President LeBaron on grounds that she was a supervisor. Prior to this occasion, she had been able to participate at the union meetings, but on the prior occasion, contract proposals were not being considered. Section 5(b) of the Union's constitution and bylaws specifies that, "in the event any member becomes a supervisor within the meaning of exist- ing applicable legislation in the United States and does not make application for and receive a withdrawal card, such member shall not be eligible to participate or have a vote in any of this Union's proceedings which affect the wages and conditions of employment in the establishment where he is employed as supervisor." In view of the past practice of participation by supervisors in union meetings and the concern of the supervisors as to the contract provisions, An- dersen sought and obtained a clarification of their role from the Union's International president, and was advised that the supervisors who were members of the Union were entitled to a voice and a vote in contract proposals. 10 Frazee denied using the language about loss of job, but 1 find that words to that effect were used As found hereinafter, she stated at a union At the union meeting held on June 9, 1969, a strike vote was taken. This meeting was attended by Supervisors Moreland, Walls, Andersen, Bulman, and Sandra Frazee, and supervisors were permitted to express themselves. Supervisor Bulman spoke about their responsibilities and the consequences if they went on strike and told them in words to the effect that they would lose themselves personally if they went on strike as to benefits, wages, and so forth. Supervisor Sandra Frazee also spoke at this meeting and told the employees that it would do them no good if they went on strike because Respondent would bring in ITU men to do their jobs. Also at this meeting, she voted on union con- tract proposals for submission to Respondent. 3. Petition of May 1969 Following the union meeting of May 22, 1969, a petition was prepared by someone with the follow- ing caption: We, the undersigned, members of OPEIU Local 64, meeting the requirements as stipu- lated by the laws of our International Union, hereby petition that a special meeting be granted on Wednesday, June 4, 1969, to reconsider the contract proposals submitted by the employer, the International Typographical Union. This petition was signed by the following super- visors: Phyllis Moreland, Charlotte Andersen, Joan Walls, and Sandra Frazee. Andersen testified that she does not recall who gave her the document nor to whom she gave the document. Walls received the petition from an employee in her section one morning before work; she signed it and passed it on to one of the employees in her section. 4. Petition of July 9, 1969 On July 9, 1969, after the strike had begun, a petition to the Union was prepared by someone and circulated for signatures. The petition had the fol- lowing caption: We, the undersigned employees of the Interna- tional Typographical Union, do hereby request that the original proposal made by the Interna- tional Typographical Union to OPEIU # 64 be presented again for the purpose of voting on this proposal. This petition was signed by the following super- visors: Sandra Frazee, Ona Roll Cloud, Joan Walls, Phyllis Moreland, Clara Hunt, Rose Lee Bulman, Charlotte Andersen, Roger Martwick, and Chief Accountant Dale Wilmeth. After being signed by Martwick, he passed the document to employee Joanne Perue. After being signed by Walls in the coffeeroom, she passed it to one of the employees from her section who was standing beside her. meeting in June 1969 that, in the event of a strike, Respondent would bring in ITU men to do their jobs INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 509 5. Employees required to join the Union The General Counsel offered evidence of one in- cident within the limitation period of 6 months prior to the filing of the initial charge, on the point as to whether or not employees were informed that Respondent required its employees to join the Union. Carolyn Coker testified that when she was interviewed for employment by Ona Cloud on the afternoon of March 28, 1969, she was told that she would have to join the Union. This is the date of the termination of Churchill and Nelson. She testified that Cloud told her she had several troublemakers and asked if Coker were a troublemaker; that if there were any trouble, her first loyalty was to her boss. Cloud denies making a statement about any requirement to join the Union to Coker or to any- one. She testified that she has told new employees that they would be approached by the office work- ers union to join and that membership in it is voluntary as far as Respondent is concerned. There is no union-security clause in the Union's contract with Respondent, and not all employees are members of the Union. Coker testified that she had already been told by someone before she went for the interview that she would have to join the Union, and apparently she assumed that Cloud's reference to union membership was the same. I find that Cloud did not tell Coker she would have to join the Union." 6. Conclusions I find that Cloud's statement to Coker did not constitute illegal support to the Union or inter- ference with union activities. As to the participation of intermediate super- visors in union matters, this is not per se a violation of the Act. It is a violation only where the employer thereby interferes with the administration of a union. Precedent divides cases with this issue into two broad categories-where the supervisor is in- cluded in the bargaining unit, and where he is not. Generally, in situations where the supervisor is not in the bargaining unit, even attendance at union meetings, if uninvited, constitutes interference. But in some bargaining relationships, and it is a practice in certain industries such as the building and con- struction industry, intermediate supervisors are recognized as being in and are included in the bar- gaining unit; that is, the union involved bargains for them and contract terms are applicable to them. In this category, it has been held that attendance at union meetings, participating and voting on internal union affairs, and holding of union offices, where not instigated or ratified in fact or in appearance by the employer, is not interference by the employer. " In resolving credibility on this point, I have also considered the testimony of witnesses about such remarks having been made to them by supervisors, other than Ona Cloud, when they were employed at times more than 6 months before the initial charge herein " Allied Chemical Corporation, Wdputte Coke Oven Division, 175 NLRB 974, National Gypsum Company, 139 NLRB 916, Banner Yarn Dyeing Cor- On the other hand , participation as a union representative at the bargaining table with the em- ployer has been held to constitute interference. 12 Supervisors of managerial level, such as job su- perintendents , are in the category of supervisors not in the bargaining unit and may not participate in union matters with impunity." In the instant case , the supervisors attended union meetings , participated in and voted on in- traunion matters and also on contract proposals. The issues then are whether or not they are or were in the bargaining unit, and if they were, then whether or not their conduct was instigated or ratified by Respondent The facts are not sufficiently clear to fit the su- pervisors neatly in one or the other category, but from the preponderance of the evidence I find that the intermediate supervisors were in the bargaining unit and that Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wilmeth were managerial level supervisors and were not. There is no indication in the collective -bargaining agreement itself that any supervisors were included in the bargaining unit or covered by its terms. It specified the bargaining unit as "all office em- ployees engaged at [Respondent 's] International of- fice in Colorado Springs, Colorado." The only reference to supervisors in the agreement was that they were exempt from the provision allowing em- ployees with more seniority to claim jobs in the event of a reduction in force . However , as set forth in the testimony of Supervisor Charlotte Andersen, the supervisors received the same benefits that the employees did, such as sick leave , insurance, vaca- tions, and holidays. The contract contained no wage scale ; it merely provided that "there shall be a $3.50 weekly increase retroactive to May 1, 1966, to employees still employed at the ITU." Ap- parently the intermediate supervisors were hourly paid; I base this on the testimony of Supervisor San- dra Frazee that she was hourly paid. In the negotia- tions for a new contract , Union Representative Brandenburg proposed that all supervisors be placed on a salary rather than hourly pay. He was told on this occasion by Respondent 's representa- tive, Lee, that he was not to worry about the super- visors; that Respondent took care of its own people. Brandenburg confessed that he really did not know what to do with the supervisors . However, he had a special meeting with them prior to contract negotiations to get acquainted with them and to find out their problems. He told them that he thought they should not be in the Union, but as they were, they were "entitled to all of the provi- sions of the contract that have been negotiated and all of the things provided in the constitution and bylaws," and that he would represent them. poration , 139 NLRB 1018, Nassau and Suffolk Contractors ' Association, Inc , and its members , 118 NLRB 174 " Anchorage Businessmen 's Association , Drugstore Unit, 124 NLRB 662, enfd 289 F 2d 619 (C A 9), Bottfield-Refactorte% Co, 127 NLRB 188, enfd 292 F 2d 627 (C A 3), Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors, 126 NLRB 1381, enfd in part 287 F 2d 354 (C A D C ) 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Based on these considerations I find that the in- termediate supervisors were in the bargaining unit. This was a condition that had existed for a long time, and I find that it was not instigated or ratified by Respondent. Although the supervisors' par- ticipation ( 1) in the intraunion petition seeking dismissal of a business agent, (2) in the matter of the acceptance or rejection of contract proposals, and (3) in the matter of a strike vote, were calcu- lated to exert an influence on the course of action taken by the Union, nevertheless, under the cir- cumstances that existed here, it was not conduct engaged in by the Employer. And, it falls short of the bargaining table confrontation held to be illegal in the Nassau & Suffolk case. I find that by the con- duct of intermediate supervisors as described herein Respondent has not interfered with the ad- ministration of the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act and has not engaged in surveillance or interference within the ' meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Also, I find that the re- marks of Supervisors Bulman and Frazee at the June 9 meeting constituted expressions of personal opinion and were not attributable to Respondent. As to Supervisors Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wil- meth, the facts are not the same. From a preponder- ance of the evidence, I find that they were not in the bargaining unit, although they were members of the Union. Cloud attended the union meeting of May 22 and voted on Respondent's contract proposals under consideration , she and Wilmeth participated in the signing of a union petition dated July 9, 1969, regarding the reconsideration of con- tract proposals and Wilmeth also signed another petition seeking the dismissal of Union Representa- tive Brandenburg dated April 15, 1969,. 1 find that they were both staff members of Respondent. Staff members may be employed only by Respon- dent's president or secretary-treasurer , whereas in- termediate supervisors may be employed by a staff member . Staff members are all salaried and have more responsibility than hourly people , including supervisors , and they are not subject to the terms and conditions of the collective -bargaining agree- ment . Their salary is predicated on the pay that is allowed the elected officers of Respondent and has no relationship to the union contract. Although Cloud's status as a staff member is not as clear as that of Wilmeth, she was salaried ; her wage was not negotiated by the Union; at least one supervisor, Clara Hunt, was selected by her to be a supervisor and was under her supervision, Cloud's duties were taken over by Staff Member Walter Meneilly when she resigned; and she referred to herself in her testimony as being in the category of staff mem- bers. I find that Ona Roll Cloud and Dale Wilmeth were not in the bargaining unit and by their con- duct described above, Respondent has interfered with the administration of the Union in violation of Section 8 (a)(2) of the Act. H. The Demotion of Frieda Clark Frieda Clark was employed by Respondent in August 1964, as a dictaphone typist in the steno- graphic pool in the president's department In June 1967, she was notified by memorandum from Harry Reifin, an assistant to the president and director of personnel, that she would be the assistant to Pool Supervisor Betty Cahill. The pool has four to six employees; in this capacity, Clark's duties were to direct the work of the pool during the vacation, ill- ness, or other absence of Cahill. She had no authority to hire or fire or effectively recommend such action. She received a $6 raise in recognition of her added responsibilities. On July 25, 1969, Reifin called Clark and two other employees into his office and advised them that while Cahill and others were away at a conven- tion, no girl would be in charge in the pool, but that an ITU staff member, N. D. Lee, an assistant to the president, would be in charge. On October 1, 1969, Clark was called into Reifin's office and informed that as she was no longer operating as substitute for Pool Supervisor Cahill, her pay was being reduced from $126 to $100 per week. The following memorandum was read to her: It is my duty to inform you that, effective with the week ending October 10, 1969, your salary will be adjusted to reflect the fact that we are no longer operating with a substitute for Mrs. Cahill when she is away from the office. It has been determined to be more practical to pro- vide such supervision, when needed, by ITU supervisory members of the staff. The highest rate currently provided under our OPEIU contract for Dictaphone Operators- Stenographers is $93.50 per week. This rate, plus the $6 general increase effectuated May 1, 1969, i.e., 99.50 per week, would be your rate of pay as above indicated. We are rounding it out to an even $100 per week. On October 3, 1969, Clark resigned her employ- ment with Respondent and did so by letter of that date to President John J. Pilch. The General Counsel contends that Clark was demoted because of her union activities and feelings. The Respondent contends that it was pur- suant to a reorganizational program instituted by President Pilch. In April 1969, Clark refused to sign the petition seeking the removal of Union Representative Bran- denburg . Her signature was solicited by Ellie Steiner, secretary to James Schell , an assistant to the president and director of the Bureau of Statistics . During this time, Clark also had a discus- sion with Supervisor Sandra Frazee about the matter. During the discussion , the possibility of a strike came up. Clark asked Frazee whether or not the people who crossed the picket line should be INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 511 considered rats and scabs by the Respondent. Clark could not recall Frazee's answer. A few days later, she had a conversation with Schell about this matter. He asked her who she thought she was by setting ITU policy; that in her position she did not have the right to expound on or determine ITU pol- icy. Clark asked what he meant and he referred to her statement about the employees being con- sidered rats and scabs by the ITU if they cross the picket line of the Union. They had a rather lengthy discussion, he inquired who was she to say that she was going to the convention in Seattle that year; he inquired why his secretary, Ellie Steiner, had not been invited to the meeting the girls had had to discuss the petition on Brandenburg. He also said he thought that the Union should get rid of Bran- denburg because he was not a union member and was not qualified to represent the employees. Sometime in May 1969, Schell told her he felt that she had a chip on her shoulder against him. Also in May, Cahill informed Clark that she (Cahill) would be going to the convention in Seat- tle, and it was indicated that Clark would not be going because she was supposed to be in charge of the pool during the absence of Cahill. As previously mentioned, the Union's strike at Respondent existed from July 7 to July 17, 1969, when contract terms were agreed to and signed. On July 25, Clark was notified by Reifin that during Cahill's absence while attending the convention, Assistant to the President Lee would be in charge of the stenographic pool. In August 1969, Clark took a vacation of 1 week. On her return, Cahill was absent and in the hospital. Reifin was supervising the pool in her absence, and did so until Cahill returned. Cahill returned from the hospital 2 days after Clark got back from her vacation. Some of the girls asked Reifin what was happening and he merely indicated that he was taking over Cahill's duties when she was gone.14 On October 1, 1969, Clark had a discussion with Cahill about a new employee. Cahill had given some copy work to the new employee and the work was proofread by Clark and the new employee. Clark questioned the right of the new employee to put the OPEIU emblem at the bottom of the page since she was not a member of the Union. It was customary for a person doing typing to put her ini- tial at the bottom of the page and "OPEIU No. 64." Cahill contended that she thought it was permissi- ble and Clark argued that conditions had changed. Then, Cahill cut the "OPEIU No. 64" off the bot- tom of the sheet. Also on that day, Reifin had a long-distance telephone conversation with President Pilch who was out of the State on ITU matters. In this conver- sation, President Pilch asked Reifin if he had reduced the salary of Clark. Reifin told him that he " I do not credit Reifin's testimony that in June 1969 he commenced sitting at Cahill's desk to carry out her duties when she was not there His testimony on this point is vague and general and is tied to no occasion that had not done it, and President Pilch told him to do it now. He testified that the reason he had delayed this matter to this late date was because he did not feel like reducing anyone's pay and was dragging his feet. Later that day, Clark was called into Reifin's of- fice, and he read to her a handwritten copy of a memorandum to the effect that she would be reduced in pay from $126 a week to $100 a week as she was no longer operating as a substitute for the pool supervisor. Reifin testified that in February 1968, Pilch became president of Respondent and immediately upon taking over these duties, he informed Reifin that he wanted changes made in the operations in the stenographic pools, that he did not want and did not like the supervision of stenographers by other stenographers. He also wanted individual stenographers assigned to the different staff mem- bers. 1. Conclusions as to Clark I find that Respondent demoted and reduced the pay of Clark because of union actions and expres- sions that she made while she occupied a position that placed her closer to management than a rank- and-file employee. Clark was relieved from these duties and her pay was reduced to that of regular journeyman in the stenographic pool. In April 1969, Clark had refused to go along with Frazee's petition seeking the dismissal of Bran- denburg; she made a sarcastic remark to Frazee about Respondent's attitude as a union toward those who crossed a picket line; she was repri- manded by Assistant to the President Reifin for try- ing to expound ITU policies on this matter; she joined with the rank-and-file employees during the strike in July 1969; and on October 1, 1969, she took Pool Supervisor Cahill to task on the matter of permitting a new employee and nonunion member to use the union emblem on a letter that she had copied or retyped. Reifin's explanation for the delay in carrying out President Pilch's changes are not tenable. The fact that Reifin did not take any steps to carry out Pre- sident Pilch's instruction on pool supervision given him in February 1968 until after Clark's participa- tion with the employees in the strike of July 1969 strongly demonstrates that it was her alignment with the Union rather than with Respondent on the strike issues that prompted the removal of her from the nonsupervisory position of assistant to pool su- pervisor And it appears to me that there might be an inconsistency with President Pilch's instruction in the retention of Betty Cahill as pool supervisor rather than an ITU staff member. Also, it seems an unusual coincidence that Clark was notified that her salary was being reduced on the same day that could have brought about his assumption of these duties, and there is no evidence of any notification to Clark at that time that she was being re- lieved of her position as assistant to Cahill 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she had a disagreement with Supervisor Cahill on the use of the union emblem. J. The Discharge of Margaret Jones Jones was employed in August 1968, and ter- minated on October 15, 1969 . During her entire employment with Respondent , she worked in the industrial pension plan section under the supervi- sion of Clara Hunt and Ona Cloud. She testified in this proceeding on September 23, 1969, as a witness for the General Counsel , and she also participated in the Union 's strike in July 1969. It is contended by the General Counsel that she was terminated because of these activities. Respondent contends that she was terminated because of her in- ability to get along with other employees and because of errors in her work. When Jones was first employed , she was placed on "look-up work." Because of crowded space, Jones and about six other girls were moved into a room on another floor . A short time later, three employees, Helen Fence , Patty Scruggs, and Sandy Bromer , complained to Hunt that Jones was caus- ing trouble and that they were having difficulty getting along with her. Then in the latter part of October or in November 1968, she was transferred to the position of a keypunch operator . She stayed on this type of work until March 1969, when Respondent changed to a different type of com- puter . From that time on , Jones worked as a setup girl on reports. As a keypunch operator, Jones did not work with other employees. Following the Union 's strike in July 1969, Jones was in the hospital and did not return to work until Monday, August 11, 1969. Jones had been absent from work for more than 1 month and, on her return , Supervisor Hunt told her that new instruc- tions had been written and there had been changes in the work . Jones stated that another employee had explained these to her . During that day, three employees, Sharon Ward, Mary Matthews, and Claudia Jackson, told Hunt that they were having difficulty getting along with Jones as Jones was try- ing to tell them what was what and was bossing them around. On the next day as Hunt was checking the production record of the employees in her section, she found that Jones had not correctly filled out the production forms that she had worked on the prior day. She proceeded to show her how to complete these forms. Also she told Jones that the girls did not have any harsh feelings toward her for her being on strike. Later that day, Jones then went to see Walter Meneilly, an assistant to the secretary -treasurer, and she reported to him about her conversation of that morning with Hunt . She complained to him that she did not think Hunt should have mentioned this matter to her and he replied that he would talk to Hunt but possibly she was trying to be helpful to Jones. Later , Hunt was called into Meneilly 's office and he told her that Jones had been in to see him. Meneilly told her that he could understand Jones' side as well as Hunt 's side because he had been on strike on occasions and on other occasions he had not been on strike when others had. He stated that they should bend over backward to get through to Jones and to help her with her problems. Hunt stated that she would try and would do everything that she could . Meneilly had been employed by Respondent in the latter part of July 1969, and one of his duties was to take over the work that previ- ously had been done by Ona Cloud as supervisor in the industrial pension plan section. On the occasions thereafter that Jones made er- rors, Hunt pointed them out to her, but Jones con- tended that they were caused by the computer or by another employee . For example , one employee brought back a report that had been prepared by Jones on which the total was incorrect . Jones con- tended that another employee had typed it for her. The other employee was confronted with the report and stated that she did not type it and that the re- port was in computer print; this employee also stated that if she had typed it, Jones would have proofread it before sending it out. On the first day of the hearing herein , on Sep- tember 23 , 1969, Jones was called as a witness by the General Counsel and testified about (I) a con- versation she had had with William Frazee, an assistant to the secretary-treasurer, when she was employed in August 1968, regarding her joining the Union , (2) the solicitation of her signature on the petition of April 15, 1969, by another employee and a conversation on the following day by Sandra Frazee soliciting her signature on the document, and she testified about ( 3) the fact that several named supervisors were present at the union meet- ing on May 22, 1969. She gave no testimony about Supervisor Clara Hunt other than that she was one of the several supervisors who was present at the union meeting on May 22. On September 24, 1969, the day after she had testified, Jones went into the office of Meneilly and asked to speak to him . She complained about the fact that Hunt had taken Barbara Bigelow off of the production table and had put Mary Matthews on this table and since certain employees were away from work because of the hearing and illness there was no one to train Matthews. Meneilly explained to Jones that he had instructed Hunt that he wanted at least three persons trained for each job. She then stated that she had some concern for her job at that time because she had testified at the hearing; that she was having trouble getting along with Hunt; and that Hunt seemed to be picking on her . Meneilly then stated that "You can't testify against a person one day and think they are going to love you the next day." Meneilly had not been at the hearing on the prior day and had assumed that some of the testimony of Jones had been a reflection upon Clara Hunt. Jones then told him that she had not INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION testified against Clara Hunt, that she had testified against "the whole stinking mess." He then told her that he knew of no plot to compile evidence to fire any of the employees and as far as he could see, she was doing a fine job. On the next day, September 25, Meneilly ob- served that there was a considerable amount of conversation going on in the work area and he asked Hunt what was going on. She replied that she assumed they were discussing the hearing. Meneilly then asked her to send three of the girls in, among them was Jones. Among other things, he asked Jones why she had such an apparent chip on her shoulder and why she did not appear to be able to get along with any supervisors. He told Jones that he wanted it to be unmistakably clear that her at- titude and overall approach to her work as well as the quality of her work had to improve or she could not continue in her employ with Respondent. In the early part of October 1969, Hunt showed to Meneilly some work that Jones had done incor- rectly. She also told him that she had bent over backwards and had tried to do the best she could with Jones; that Jones was receiving journeyman pay but some of the new girls were doing better work; that not only was she not doing her work cor- rectly and satisfactorily but she was causing tension in the office and causing the other girls not to func- tion at 100 percent. At this particular time, Respondent had a systems analyst checking their operations and these were reviewed with him. He asked Hunt if the quality of Jones' work had im- proved at all since his last conversation with her. She replied that it had not. Meneilly then asked her to compile a complete record so that he could determine how her work compared both in amount and quality with that of other employees doing the same type of work. Also, Hunt reported to him that Jones had made two girls cry. On one occasion, Jones was proofing some work that employee Beverly Eckles had set up . Eckles had made an error and did not have her "message cards." Jones asked her if she knew she was supposed to make them . Jones then left, went back to her desk and sat down. Eckles then came over and Jones told her not to worry about it, that she should look at her in- structions because they say that she was to make her message cards when she did the setup and lookup work. Hunt came over and asked what was going on. Eckles said that Hunt had not told her these instructions and then left crying. On another occasion , Jones and employee Sharon Ward had a conversation regarding some cards that caused Ward to cry. A few days later after discussing Jones and her performance further with Hunt, Meneilly decided to terminate Jones. Jones was not present for work on October 13 and 14, Monday and Tuesday, and on October 15, he had her sent in to his office. On her way, she asked Paula LeBaron, the union pre- sident, to accompany her. He discussed her errors with her and showed her and LeBaron some notes 513 that had been made on the matter. Jones asked him about some of these errors and asked him if per- haps some of them could not be blamed upon the machines . He told her that in view of her bel- ligerence and her errors he could see no other course but to terminate her. Besides alleged discriminatees, aproximately 13 employees were called as witnesses by the General Counsel during the first 2 days of hearing. The testimony of Jones was corroborative of other wit- nesses and was not sifnificant in General Counsel's case . On March 22, 1969, when Ona Cloud spoke to all of the girls in her section about her relations with them, she referred to Jones as "our little problem child." Meneilly's handling of the Jones matter was patient and considerate. I find that the termination of Jones on October 15, 1969, was not because of her testimony in the hearing herein on September 23 nor because of her participation in the strike in July 1969. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The International Typographical Union is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 64, Office and Professional Employees International Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the discharges of Janice Churchill, Su- zanne Nelson, and Charles Scheible and by the demotion and reduction in pay of Frieda Clark because of their union activities, Respondent has discriminated against them to discourage member- ship in the Union and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By the participation in union meetings and in union matters by management representatives, Respondent has interfered with the administration of the Union and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 5. By threatening an employee that she would not be promoted and would have restricted duties because of her union activities, Respondent has in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and has thereby engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in paragraph V(a), (c), (e), and (h ) through ( n), paragraph VI(a) and ( e), and paragraph VII(d) in the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695 , 27-CA-2702 , 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764. Respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice by the discharge of Margaret Jones as alleged in the complaint in Case 27-CA-2824. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent offer to Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Charles Scheible whole for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by paying each a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the dis- crimination to the date of reinstatement, or date of death in the case of Scheible, less net earnings dur- ing such period in accordance with the Board's for- mula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As Frieda Clark has resigned her employment with Respon- dent and did so prior to the effectuation of her reduction in pay, no reinstatement or backpay will be included in the recommended Order as to her. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record herein, I recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board issue the following: ORDER International Typographical Union, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 64, Of- fice and Professional Employees International Union, or any other labor organization of its em- " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- ployees , by discharging or demoting or reducing the pay of employees because of their union activities, or in any other manner discriminating against em- ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. (b) Threatening any employee that she would be denied a promotion and would be given restricted duties because of her union activities. (c) Interfering with the administration of the Union by participating through management representatives in voting at union meetings or sign- ing union petitions or by participating otherwise in the activities of said Union. (d) In any like or related 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: (a) Offer to Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nel- son immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them and the estate of Charles Scheible whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 11 15 Copies of said notice , on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in- cluding 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that paragraphs V(a), (c), (e), and (h ) through ( n), VI(a) and (e), and VII( d) of the complaint in Cases 27-CA-2695, 27-CA-2702, 27-CA-2754, and 27-CA-2764, and tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 1e 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 27, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION that the allegations of unfair labor practice as to Margaret Jones in Case 27-CA-2824 be dismissed. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 64, Office and Professional Employees Internationed Union, or any other labor or- ganization, by discharging employees or demoting or reducing the pay of employees because of their activities on behalf of the Union, or by discriminating against employees in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any. terms or conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with demotion or restricted duties because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT interfere with the administra- tion of Local 64, Office and Professional Em- ployees International Union, by the participa- tion by management representatives in union meetings or in any other types of activities of said Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-or- ganization, to form, join, or assist labor or- ganizations, to bargain collectively through 515 representatives of their own choosing, or to en- gage in other concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Janice Churchill and Suzanne Nelson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them and the estate of Charles Scheible whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discriminations against them. Dated By INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 260, New Custom House, 721 19th Street, Room 260, Denver, Colorado 80202, Telephone 303-837-355 1. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 34