The Veratex Corp.

600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Veratex Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7- CA-7760 February 22, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On June 30, 1970, Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De- cision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in certain of Respondent's exceptions. Accordingly, we hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consist- ent herewith. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent dis- charged employee Donna Doiron in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. We disagree for the following reasons. Doiron was hired in early September 1969' as a production worker in Respondent's medical and den- tal supplies manufacturing plant. When the Union's organizational campaign began a month later, Doiron joined 4 other prounion employees in soliciting signa- tures for union authorization cards from among the approximately 50 unit employees. Thereafter, on No- vember 20, Doiron together with employees Novak and Cauley attended a preelection conference with Respondent's representative in the Board's Region 7 offices. In two subsequent preelection speeches Respondent's officials referred to three "girls" who had attended the meeting, but they did not mention the employees' names. The five prounion employees all wore union buttons on election day, December 11. ' All dates are 1969 unless otherwise indicated We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent knew which of its employees actively supported the Union and that Doiron was one of them. After losing the election, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election on December 17. The objections document was signed by a union official, but it was prepared with the assist- ance of employees Novak, Doiron, and Cauley at the latter's home after the election on December 11. On December 19, Respondent held a meeting of its em- ployees at the plant during which its vice president, Trombly, mentioned, inter alia, that "charges" had been filed by a few of the "girls" who were unhappy about the outcome of the election. Shortly after Trombly's speech, employee Cecelia Alman, one of the five known prounion workers, went to Trombly and told him that she had had nothing to do with the "charges." The Trial Examiner, on the basis of Alman's credited testimony, found that Trombly answered that he knew that she had nothing to do with it, that he knew who the girls were, and that he would take care of them.2 The Union withdrew the objections on January 9, 1970. Doiron and employee Christine Alman, who was also active on behalf of the Union, were working to- gether packing rolls of paper used on medical exam- ination tables when they were discharged on January 29, 1970. The packing operation in which they were engaged at the time of their discharge, and in which they had been engaged for about 3 weeks prior there- to, consisted of the following: one girl would assemble a carton and insert a plastic bag which the other would then fill with six rolls of paper and close with a tie band or twister similar to that used to seal house- hold food storage bags; the girl who set up the carton would then seal the filled box with tape and place it on a skid for transport to the shipping department. Since Doiron and Alman alternated their duties ap- proximately hourly, Doiron knew that the twister had to be affixed to the plastic bag before the carton was sealed. A third employee, not involved herein, operat- ed the machine which produced the rolls which Doi- ron and Alman packed. Shortly after lunch on the day of her discharge, Doiron observed Plant Superintendent Bigsby re- move a carton which she had just sealed and take it into the plant office. Bigsby testified that he had de- cided to inspect the carton after seeing Alman place a roll in the plastic bag without first rolling up its loose ends. But upon discovering that the twister had not been affixed to the bag, Bigsby and Trombly decided to inspect several more cartons, and discovered other cartons whose plastic bags had not been tied with a 2 We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Trombly's statement to Cecelia Alman constituted a coercive threat of retaliation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 188 NLRB No. 82 THE VERATEX CORPORATION twister. At the same time that Bigsby removed the carton Doiron had just sealed, Doiron asked Alman if she had been putting the tie bands on the bags. Despite Alman's negative response, Doiron continued to seal cartons knowing that they contained improperly closed bags.' After ascertaining that many cartons contained bags without twisters, Trombly and Bigsby ap- proached the two employees and Trombly asked Al- man if she had been putting the twisters on the bags. When Alman replied that she had not been doing so, Trombly discharged her. It is not alleged that this discharge is unlawful. While the record is somewhat unclear as to the exact sequence of the following events, it is apparent that Trombly asked Doiron if she knew that Alman had not been tying the bags. Doiron admitted that she was aware of Alman's dere- liction. Trombly then asked Doiron why she had not told someone in management about the situation. Doiron answered that she did not know that she was supposed to do this as she was not a "boss" When Trombly inquired why Doiron had sealed cartons knowing that they contained improperly closed bags, he received no reply. He then discharged her. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's as- signed specific reason for Doiron's termination was her failure to report Alman's mistakes to management even though she knew that it was company policy to report such errors when a coworker failed to rectify them. The Trial Examiner found, in rejecting the testi- mony of Trombly and crediting that of the General Counsel's witnesses, that Trombly had not given such instructions to the employees or to Doiron subsequent to her hire. Discrediting Respondent's explanation for the discharge, he concluded that the real reason was Respondent's antipathy to one of the leading union supporters. We disagree. In his decision the Trial Examiner noted that Trom- bly testified that Doiron's knowingly sealing boxes containing untied bags was another basis for her dis- charge, but the Trial Examiner regarded this as just Trombly's way of expressing the consequence of Doiron's failure to report Alman's defective work and not an independent ground for her discharge. Howev- er, we perceive a distinction between failing to report on a fellow worker, assuming such a company policy existed, and continuing to produce a product knowing it to be defective. While Doiron might not have known that Respondent expected its employees to 3 The Trial Examiner found that shortly after being hired Doiron was critized by Trombly for operating a machine even though it was producing rolls of napkins with oil spots on them . The essence of Trombly's complaint on the two occasions involved therein was that Dosron failed to stop the machine immediately upon discovering that it was producing defective mate- nal 601 inform management about another worker's poor work performance,4 Doiron clearly knew that twisters were to be affixed to the plastic bags before the car- tons were sealed since she had done that very task the day of her discharge. In short, it was not unreasonable for Trombly to have expected that Doiron would have at least stopped sealing the defectively packed cartons when she learned that Alman was not putting the tie bands on the bags. This, in our opinion, was a sep- arate and valid independent basis for Doiron's dis- charge, especially since she had been warned previously by Trombly about continuing to produce known defective products. There is nothing in the record to indicate that similar derelictions by other employees have gone unpunished by Respondent or that Doiron's termination was, in some other manner, a pretext for Respondent to rid itself of an active union adherent. This is so notwithstanding Trombly's threat to "take care" of those employees who filed objections to Respondents's conduct during the elec- tion campaign. We find, therefore, from the above, that the Gener- al Counsel has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the assigned reasons for Doiron's dis- charge were pretexts and that the real reason was that she was active on behalf of the Union. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Respondent discharged employee Donna Doiron in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Veratex Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees that it will retaliate against them because of their union activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at both its plants in Detroit, Michigan, Cecelia Alman testified that Christine Alman , her stepdaughter, had been warned by her and another employee prior to Christine's discharge about not tying the plastic bags, Ceclia never informed management , however. This testimony corroborates Trombly insofar as it shows that coworkers corrected each other's work , but there is no evidence that management had ever been told by one employee about another worker's poor performance. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: The Trial Examiner found an 8(a)(3) violation in the discharge of Doiron on the basis of a credibility resolution rejecting Respondent's assertion, through Trombly, that Respondent discharged Doiron's part- ner, Alman, for failing to put a twister tie on a plastic bag containing six rolls of the product, which tie was required to be placed on the bag, and that Doiron was discharged for failing to inform management of Alman's dereliction, of which she was aware. Trombly also asserted that Doiron was discharged in part for performing defective work, i.e., sealing the shipping carton with the plastic bag inside minus the tie as well as for her failure to inform. The Trial Examiner re- gards these two reasons as essentially one since they in fact appear to be inseparable in operation, a con- clusion which appears to be reasonable. The Trial Examiner further found that Trombly admitted that the failure to put the ties on the bags was not the reason he discharged Alman, and that he had made up his mind to discharge Alman and had her check made out before the "no ties" incident. This conclusion is plainly supported by the record. Previ- ously, however, Trombly had based his explanation of Alman's discharge solely on the absence of the ties and had tied Doiron's discharge to this same absence. If the absence of the ties was not the reason for Alman's discharge, it is difficult to see how the failure to report this absence could be the cause for Doiron's discharge, since her responsibility, if any, was second- ary. The Trial Examiner discredited Trombly's expla- nation of the discharges, a resolution which hardly seems arbitary and capricious in these circumstances. Consequently, it appears to me that on the basis of the credibility resolutions, the Trial Examiner reached the correct result and I would affirm his decision on this issue. 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with re- taliation because of their activities on behalf of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organiza- tion. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement executed in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. THE VERATEX CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313- 226-3200. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LAURENCE A. KNAPP, Trial Examiner: I heard this case in Detroit, Michigan, on May 18-19, 1970, following pretrial proceedings in compliance with the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (herein called the "Act.") I Following the hearing, briefs were duly filed with me by counsel for 1 A charge and an amended charge were filed on February 13 and March 12, 1970, respectively, the complaint and an amendment thereto were issued on March 27 and April 7, 1970, respectively (the complaint was further THE VERATEX CORPORATION the General Counsel and for the Respondent. Questions Presented In October 1969, International Union, United Automo- bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), herein called the "Union," began an ef- fort to organize Respondent's 50-odd employees with the result that an election was held on December 11, 1969, at which the vote was 38 to 14 against the Union. The Union thereafter filed and then withdrew objections to the elec- tion, and the results were certified by the Board's Regional Director on January 12, 1970. As his complaint was rendered more specific at the hear- ing, the General Counsel contends, and Respondent denies, that on December 19, 1969, Respondent threatened to retal- iate against three employees, including Miss Donna Doi- ron,3 because they had participated in framing the Union's objections to the election; and that, on January 29, 1970, Respondent discharged Miss Doiron, because of her activi- ties on behalf of the Union. Upon the entire record of the hearing, and from my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged at places of business in Detroit, Michigan, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of disposable medical and dental supplies and related products ; and that in the course of this business in the calendar year 1969, Respondent received directly from points outside the State of Michigan goods and materials, and shipped directly to points outside the State of Michigan products, valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is en- gaged in commerce and in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Chargin& Party herein called the "Union," is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES After the Union's organizational campaign began, it was assisted at Respondent s plant by a small cotiene of proun- ion employees who solicited union card signatures from among their fellow employees. Principal members of this small group were Irene Novak, the "leader" of the grou , Rose Cauley, Donna Doiron (the alleged discnminatee Christine Alman, and Christine's stepmother, Cecelia Al- man. In addition to this solicitation activity, three of this group, Irene Novak, Rose Cauley, and Donna Doiron ap- peared along with representatives of Respondent at a pre- election conference held at the offices of the Board's Regional Director in Detroit on November 20, 1969. And as will appear below, in remarks later made to the whole amended at the outset of the hearing), and Respondent duly filed an answer to the complaint, dated March 30, 1970. 2 Most of Respondent's employees are females 3 Miss Doiron's last name is incorrectly spelled "Donan " in the complaint, an error corrected at the hearing. 603 body of employees at two preelection meetings, officials of Respondent clearly identified, albeit without use of their actual names, Miss Doiron and the two other prounion supporters who had attended the Regional Director's con- ference on November 20. Moreover, in his testimony, Vice President Trombly admitted that he was aware, although by hearsay, of the identity of employees who were active sup- porters of the Union; and on election day the group of five to whom I have referred (and perhaps a sixth unidentified supporter) wore union buttons. On the entire record it is abundantly clear that the group to whom I refer were the key prounion figures among the employees and that Re- spondent had knowledge of this fact. I turn now to other evidence bearing upon both unfair labor practices charged, and particularly on the question of Respondent's antiumon motivation. As previously stated, Irene Novak, Rose Cauley, and Donna Doiron each (falsely informing Respondent that their absence was due to illness) attended the Regional Director's preelection conference as representatives of the Union. It is undisputed that Respon- dent convened two assemblies of the employees at its plant thereafter (shortly before the election), and that at one of these meetings, Vice President Trombly, and at the other, President Cowan, made similar remarks concerning these three employees. Without specifically naming the three, these officials stated that three "girls" had been to the meet- ing; that each had hed in calling in sick the day of the meeting; that one (meaning Miss Donon) was a 21-year old employee of only 3 months tenure who did not know anything about the Company, and that if she would he about being sick she would lie to the employees about the Union; and as to Irene Novak, referred to as the "leader" or "organizer," rhetorically inquired of the employees what kind of leader she would be when she would lie concerning her absence from work. On December 17, objections to the election were filed with the Regional Director and served upon Respondent, containing various accusations of misconduct on Respondent's part. This document was signed by an official of the Union; however, Irene Novak, Rose Cauley, and Miss Donon had ( participated in its preparation at a meeting with an official r. Landmesser) of the Union on the eve- ning of election day. On December 19, Respondent con- vened a meeting of its employees at which Mr. Trombly spoke. On the basis of the testimony of witnesses Donon and Christine Alman I find that in substance Trombly, referring to the election and a letter Respondent had re- ceived, went on to say that a few of the girls were unhappy with its results and had filed these "charges" against the Company,4 as a consequence of which he was unable at that time to tell the employees about changes the Company had in mind for 1970. He further told the employees that he was not going to take these charges "lightly,' or "sitting down." A short while after this meeting broke up, Cecelia Alman, who testified that she was "scared," initiated a conversation with Trombly near her place of work. According to Mrs. Alman, "I told Mike [Mr. Trombly] I didn't have nothing to do with the letter. And he said he knew who the girls were and that he would take care of them. Those are his exact words." On cross-examination, she stated that the conversa- tion took "A couple of minutes. Just long enough for me to tell him that I didn't have anything to do with the letter. He said he knew it, and that he knew who they were, and he 4 While testifying that he did not know until he heard Miss Dorion's testimony at the hearing that she and the other two girls had anything to do with formulation of the objections, he did not specifically contradict the testimony of the General Counsel' s witnesses as to what he said at this meeting about the "girls" and the objections as summarized in this finding. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would take care of them." Trombly gave the following testi- mony concerning this incident: A. She called me over. She said, "I want you to know I had nothing to do with this," and I said, 'I know you didn't. Why worry about it? I will just take care of the matter." Q. Are those your exact words? A. Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: How did you know she had nothing to do with the charges? THE WITNESS. How did I know? TRIAL EXAMINER Yes. THE WITNESS I was under the assumption that the UAW was backing the charges. TRIAL EXAMINER Okay, go ahead, Mr. Townsend. Q. (By Mr. Townsend) Did you say to her, "I know who is behind it?" A. Not that I recall. Q. Well, did you or did you not make the statement? A. No. Q. And did you say, "I will take care of them?" A. No. Following the Union's withdrawal of its election objec- tions (on January 9, 1970), Trombly addressed another meeting of the employees at which he informed them that the objections had been dropped and went on to indicate to the employees company plans for expansion. At some time after this meeting,' Trombly told Mrs. Cecelia Alman and one or two other employees on the work floor that the "charges" had been dropped "because the girls knew that they weren't true."5 Returning now to the conversation between Mrs. Alman and Trombly on December 19, I credit the testimony of Mrs. Alman. Trombly and Alman agree on the first part of the conversation, that is, that when she said she had nothing to do with the objections he replied that he knew this. They also agree that he went on to use the words that he "would take care" of something. In the circumstances, I think it more logical that he said he knew that others than Mrs. Alman were involved and that he would take care of them than that he merely assured her that he would take care of the objections, which was not the point of her concern at all. Furthermore, I find hereinafter that Trombly was a witness of doubtful veracity on other points of fact, and was more favorably impressed by Mrs. Alman's demeanor while testi- fying than I was b that of Trombly. Accordingly, I find that when Trombly spoke to Mrs. Alman, he knew that Novak, Couley, and Doiron had had a hand in the preparation of the objections and that his statements to Mrs. Alman constituted a coercive threat of retaliation as charged in the complaint, violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. By the same token, his statements are cogent evidence bearing upon the issue of Miss Doiron's discharge, a matter to which I now turn .6 3 I base this finding on the testimony of Mrs . Alman, about which Trombly was not called upon to testify 6 As further evidence of a discriminatory motivation , the General Counsel relies on other testimony of Mrs. Alman . This is that during her employment interview with Trombly when she was hired in August 1969, Trombly told her that the plant "was a non-union ship and that it would stay that way." But under examination by the Trial Examiner, Mrs. Alman conceded that she could not testify that Trombly made the last half of this statement i e , the words that "it would stay that way," and testified only that what he said was something to the effect that he did not want a union . Such a statement is permissible and all the more insignificant at the plant at this time The Discharge of Donna Doiron Donna Doiron and her coworker Christine Alman were discharged simultaneously on January 29, 1970. At the time of their discharge they were working on the roll machine, which produces in roll form sheets of paper used on medical examination tables. Operation of this machine normally entails the work of three employees. The first of the packing operations involves picking up the rolls as they are emitted from the machine onto a table and inserting them, six in all, into a plastic bag contained in a box carton and tying the top of the bag with a paper covered wire called a "twistum," a device similar to those available in supermarkets to tie plastic vegetable bags. The second operation involves mak- ing the box ready for filling (in some fashion not described in the record), inserting the plastic bag into the carton and then, when the other operator has packed it with rolls as described above, sealing the packed carton and placing it on a movable "skid." For convenience, I will refer to these two operations as "packing" and "sealing." the two operators engaged in these operations rotate asbetween the two jobs as each large roll of paper run through the machine to produce the smaller rolls of sheets is exhausted, normally at intervals of something more than an hour. At the time of their discharge, Christine Alman was performing the pack- ing and Donna Doiron was performing the sealing opera- tion. At about 1 p.m., that is shortly after termination of the lunch period, Plant Superintendent Bigsby, who spends much time on the production floor watching operations, came over to the roll machine and picked up a carton which had dust been sealed and took it into the office where, in Trombly's presence, he opened it. Bigsby testified that he did this because he had noticed that Miss Alman had put a roll in the carton without rolling up the loose end of the roll. Upon opening the box in the office, he testified, he and Trombly saw that the bag containing the rolls had not been tied with the "twistum," so he and Trombly decided, as he and Trombly further testified, to determine whether there were more cartons containing bags not tied. They went to the roll machine area where they opened several more boxes and found more bags untied. Either Bigsby or Trombly then had the machine stopped and Trombly engaged in conversations with the two packers. While as is to be expected there are variations in the testimony of Trombly, Rigsby, Alman, and Doiron as to exactly what was said in these conversations, upon a study of all this testimony I find that the following is essentially what transpired. Trombly first spoke to Alman. He asked her if she had been putting the ties on and she said she had not. After, according to Trombly, some brief further ex- change,s Trombly told her she was through and could pick up her check at the office. Trombly then turned to Doiron and in the course of his conversation with her asked her whether she had been put- ting on the ties and she replied that she had. He also asked her if she had known that Alman had not been tying the bags and Doiron admitted that she had been aware of ' There is a variance in the testimony of Bigsby and Trombly as to the number of boxes they opened at this juncture, the number of skids from which they removed boxes for examination, and as to the number of bags not tied As to the latter, Trombly testified that none of the bags in the cartons they opened were tied, whereas Bigsby testified that the ties were missing on some of the bags 8 Trombly testified that after Alman admitted that she was not putting the ties on, he asked her why, she replied that she did not think it was necessary, and he then asked her when she had become the judge of quality. According to Alman's account, there was no such further interchange. THE VERATEX CORPORATION this.' Trombly then told Doiron that she had previously been told to inform him when she observed some worker not performing her work correctly.1° Following the discharges, Respondent's officials opened all the boxes which could be identified as having been prod- uced by Alman and Doiron that day and discovered that only in a small percentage of cases were the plastic bags tied. I think it quite clear from a study of all the pertinent testimony of Trombly and the other witnesses to the dis- charge events, and other evidence, that the specific basis upon which Trombly was purportedly acting in discharging Doiron was that, in contravention of previous instructions, she had failed to report Alman's failure to tie the bags. 11 I turn, therefore, to the evidence with respect to the existence of such instructions . Respondent's evidence on this subject is found in the testimony of Trombly. This testimony, which I examine in greater detail below, is to the effect that at periodic employee meetings 12 he had told the employees that if they saw another employee performing her work improperly they should remind that employee to do it cor- rectly, and if the improper work continued, to report it to him (or someone in management.) On his direct examina- tion Trombly testified as follows: Q. Mr. Trombly, had you yourself given employees instructions as to what they are supposed to do if they observe poor quality work being performed by another e71 oyee? Yes, sir. Q. When do you do this? A. I do that at pretty near all of our meetings. Q. You hold meetings, do you? A. Yes, sir. Q. How frequently do you hold meetings? Q. Oh, they must average out about every six weeks or so. Q. Where do you hold these meetings? A. In the cafeteria. Q. What employees attend? A. All of the employees. TRIAL EXAMINER What is the nature of these instruc- tions you give the employees with respect to the work of other employees? You were just asked that question and you said you gave such instructions. What are the instructions that you give? THE WITNESS The instructions I bring out is the weak points, say, in our progress, and if we get a case back of something that was improperly packed, that partic- ular product is discussed, and also bring out the fact to watch quality. TRIAL EXAMINER Wait a minute. Can you be more specific? You were asked the question whether employ- ees were instructed, were given some instructions of some kind relative to the work performance of other 9 In this connection, Doiron testified that when Bigsby took away the first box of rolls for examination she asked Alman whether she was tying the bags and Alman told her she had not been doing so Doiron further testified that Alman did not put on the ties when she became "backed up" in her packing work, and that this was the situation prevailing that day with Chris 10 Trombly also testified that he asked Doiron why she was sealing the boxes "knowing they were not right" and that it was when Doiron shrugged her shoulders at this question that he reminded her of the instructions con- cerning reporting improper work of other employees "According to Trombly, he discharged the two girls together after his conversation with Doiron and that he told them "they were through for poor quality and insubordination " But I prefer the accounts of the two girls, and that of Bigsby, that Trombly discharged each after his respective conversa- tion with her Doiron "thought" that Trombly told her she was discharged for "being incompetent." 12 Trombly testified that in the period in question such meetings had been held about every 6 weeks 605 employees, or the plant production. What are those instructions? THE WITNESS The instructions are to keep the quality up. TRIAL EXAMINER Their own work , sure. You instruct the employees to do good work. THE WITNESS We start up the unit, we go out and we work with these people and tell them how the situation is going to be packed , what they have to do to check it, and they are to pass this information on, and we frequently go back and forth and bring it up. TRIAL EXAMINER Those are the instructions given? THE WITNESS Yes. Q. (By Mr. Townsend) I don't think you really an- swered the Trial Examiner's question or mine. Have you given the employees instructions what they are to do when they observe other employees doing poor work? A. Yes, I have. Q. On what occasions-strike that. What are those instructions. A. I have asked everybody-told everybody if they are working with a crew and one member of that crew is not doing it properly to remind the person that wasn't the way it should be done and if they didn't correct it, to let us know about it. Nothing was to go out improp- er. Q. You say you gave those instructions? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you give them? A. I gave them quite a few times, at different meet- ings I have had. Q. Since the time that Donna Doiron has been em- ployed, have you given those instructions at employee meetings? A. Yes. This matter was taken up in Trombly's cross-examination where his further testimony is as follows: Q. (By Mr. Hayes) You testified that at various meet- ings you have told the employees to remind other em- ployees who weren't doing their work properly, to do it right, and if they didn't report to you, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you also testified that you made these re- marks at employee meetings since the hiring date of Donna Doiron, is that right? A. Since the hiring? Q. Yes. When were these meeting? At how many did you so instruct the employees? A. I couldn't say. I have meetings about every six weeks. Q. Do you have them on set days? Fridays, Mon- days? A. No, no set date. Q. Were these meetings the same meetings that you have referred to in your earlier testimony, prior to the election? A. I am referring to the ones previous to the election? Q. Do you recall specifically any meeting about which we know wherein you informed the employees of these instructions? A. Would you repeat that? TRIAL EXAMINER I don't understand your question. What meetings are you talking about? Q. (By Mr. Hayes) Any meetings about which there has been testimony here so far. A. The meetings you are referring to are the three meetings in December? 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Three meetings in December-the one subsequent to the withdrawal of the objections. A. I did not discuss it-I made a presentation the day before the election, and I had a meeting the 19th of December, and I did not discuss quality at that meet- ing. Q. When did you discuss quality? A. At meetings prior to that. The date I don't remem- ber. Q. And you have been holding these meetings ever since you became vice president? A. I have been holding these meetings since I have been with the Company. TRIAL EXAMINER You mean meetings devoted to qual- ity, or devoted to this and other subjects, or what? THE WITNESS I hold meetings pertaining to anything that we have problems with in the plant. TRIAL EXAMINER Well, maybe you do. So what? They might deal with other matters, so far as we know. THE WITNESS They do. They deal with other matters in the plant. They deal with changes we are to make. They deal with where we are and where we are going and also deal with complaints we have in the plant. Q. (By Mr. Hayes) Is it your testimony that at every meeting you instruct the employees to remind the other employee to do their work properly and otherwise re- port to you or Mr. Bigsby? A. I bring up complaints, and I bring up that we- Q. Just give me your answer yes or no. TRIAL EXAMINER Answer the question. THE WITNESS Will You repeat it? Q. (By Mr. Hayes) At every employee meeting, do you tell the employees to remind persons with whom they are working to properly do their work, and if they don't, to report to you or Mr. Bigsby? A. You want a yes or no on that? Q. That's what I want. A. I said no, because I just admitted three that I didn't discuss it. Q. Apart from those election meetings, do you? A. To my knowledge, I do, yes. Q. You do. TRIAL EXAMINER At every meeting of employees? THE WITNESS To my knowledge, r do. TRIAL EXAMINER What do you mean by to your knowledge? THE WITNESS That I can remember. TRIAL EXAMINER Insofar as you can recall. THE WITNESS Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER Or to put it another way, you think you have done so. THE WITNESS Yes. The General Counsel's witnesses on the other hand, Doi- ron, Christine Alman, and Mrs. Alman, each denied that they had been given such instructions as Trombly testified to; Doiron and Christine Alman testified that they had never been instructed to see that bags were tied by cowork- ers on the rolling machines; and there is no evidence of any instance in which Respondent discharged or disciplined any employee for violation of the alleged instructions. The un- persuasive character of Trombly's testimony on this subject, set forth above, is self-evident. Moreover, a method of in- suring quality control which depends on employees' moni- toring the work of each other would seem on its face most unrealistic and unlikely, in view of the natural tendency of employees to tend to their own jobs and of their natural reluctance to serve as informants against each other. In any case, such a system would depend on clear employee aware- ness of the requirements of jobs other than their own which their employer regarded as essential, of which there is no proof in this case. Indeed, even as to their own jobs the pertinent evidence of record shows that Respondent had no systematic method of imparting job instruction, leaving the task of breaking in new employees, at least in very consider- able part, to more experienced ones without any close con- trol or direction by Respondent over this type of instruction process. Doiron was instructed as to the packing operations on the roll machine by Rose Cauley, and while she was told to tie the bags she was not told to see that others did so. Accordingly, for the various reasons indicated, I reject Trombly's testimony,13 credit that of the employees, and find that instructions of the sort Trombly described had not been given to the employees or to Miss Doiron, at meetings or otherwise, in the period subsequent to her hire.14 Trombly also testified concerning two incidents when, as characterized by Respondent's counsel, he "discussed" with Miss Doiron "her poor work performance." One of these incidents occurred in October and another 2 weeks later (when Doiron was still a relatively new employee), when during a relatively brief period Doiron was operating the "Hudson" or "Bonnie" machine. In each instance, due to some faulty functioning of the machine, it began to produce rolls of napkins with oil spots on them. Respondent implies that Doiron was at fault in not shutting down the machine when these conditions arose, but on Doiron's account of the first incident (apparently the only one she recalled) and Trombly's own account of both, it is clear that Trombly did not consider Doiron derelict at all on the first occasion or significantly so on the second.'S For this reason, and be- cause the incidents were rather remote in time, because Doiron was not given a warning or reprimand on either occasion, and because Trombly's testimony concerning the actual discharge events strongly indicates that he did not have these incidents in mind in actually discharging Doiron, I regard Respondent's testimony on these matters as "make weight" evidence manifesting some lack of confidence on Trombly's part in the ground he advanced as the essential reason for Doiron's discharge.16 13 In rejecting Trombly's testimony I have also attached some weight to the fact that when Plant Superintendent Bigsby was asked on cross-examination whether there were any "quality control" personnel in the plant he first replied "Supervisory looks after quality control," and then added "Also, we try to get our people interested enough so that they will look after it too," without mentioning any instructions to employees at meetings concerning a duty to monitor the work of others. 1 According to Dovon and Mrs. Alman, the only instructions given at an employee meeting concerning quality were to the effect that on one occasion the employees were told to check on the rolls being produced on a different machine, called the "Hudson" or "Bonnie and Clyde" machine, because of some complaints Respondent had received 15 When, on the first occasion, Doiron's attention was called to the first batch of soiled rolls by the girl perfornung the packing operation (Doiron could not observe their faulty condition from her position on the other side and behind the machine) she told the packer to put them aside as "seconds," which in some instances Respondent markets A few moments later, coming around from behind the machine, Doiron noticed that soiled rolls were still being produced and as a result, as I find, notified Trombly of this fact, leaving the machine running. According to Trombly, he then "explained" to Doiron, whom he described as "new on the machine ," that "When she was in doubt to shut the machine down. This I wanted her to understand because she had never been on it before and I wanted her to understand rather then make seconds or waste, shut the machine down, and see one of the supervi- sors [himself or Bigsbyl This I explained " According to Trombly, the same problem of oily rolls was involved in the second incident 2 weeks later, and when Doiron and the packer started to approach him he motioned to Doiron to stop the machine and told her again "to shut the machine down, when she was in doubt" [Emphasis supplied] 16 Respondent also contends that in connection with a third incident in- THE VERATEX CORPORATION I come now to a final and disturbing aspect of Trombly's testimony. After he had completed his explanation on direct examination of the discharges of Christine Alman and Doi- ron, and, as he testified, he had told them the were through and to pick up their checks, Trombly, in explaining what he told Doiron outside his office about the preparation of her check, let drop the fact that he had decided earlier that day to discharge Alman and that Alman's check had, according- ly, previously been made out. Under which he previously described as causing the discharges of both Alman and Doiron did not, in fact, "have anything to do with [Alman's] discharge." In the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that the selfsame incident had anything to do with or was true cause of Doiron's discharge either. Considering all the foregoing factual and credibility find- ings I am unable to credit Respondent's explanations for Doiron's discharge and, accordingly, must look elsewhere in the record for Respondent's true reason and motive. On this record, I find that reason and motive to repose in Respondent's antipathy to the leading union spirits, includ- ing Doiron, and its purpose to retaliate against them, all as manifested particularly by Trombly, the official who dis- charged Doiron, as set forth and found earlier in this deci- sion. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Veratex Corporation is, and at all material times has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. volving Doiron (and Christine Alman), Trombly gave Doiron a final warning regarding her work performance. This is what I will call the "staring" inci- dent, which took place either shortly before the election (as Trombly testi- fied) or after it (as Alman and Doiron testified ) In the beginning there was misunderstanding on Trombly and Bigsby's part as to what the staring was about, but as the matter was clarified over a series of talks extending over a 2-day period and variously between one or another of the girls, Bigsby, and Trombly, the staring turned out, as Trombly testified, to involve antagonistic glaring between prounion Alman and Doiron, on the one hand, and antiun- ion Dolores Fisher on the other. It is unnecessary to dwell on the considera- ble evidence concerning this incident and the attendant discussions , in view of my conclusion, based on the entire record and others of my credibility and other findings herein, that on the question whether Trombly gave Doiron a 607 3. By discriminatonly discharging Donna J. Doiron on January 29, 1970, thereby discouraging membershi p in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent leas en- gaged in and is engagm in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the above-described conduct, and by threatening employees with reprisal because they engaged in union ac- tivities, thereby interfering, with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce and constitute unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Since the unfair labor practices found to have been com- mitted by the Respondent are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, the danger of their commission in the future may reasonably be anticipat- ed from the Respondent's past conduct." It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices found, but also from in any other manner infringing u on the rights of its employ- ees guaranteed by Section 7 oT the Act. I shall also recommend affirmatively that Respondent, in order to remedy its unlawful discrimination against Donna Doiron, offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights, privileges, or working conditions, and make her whole for all earnings lost by reason of the discrimination against her, by paying to her a sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned from the date of her dis- charge to the date of a proper offer interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] • final warning in his last talk with her, Doiron's testimony that he did not is more reliable than that of Trombly and Bigsby that he did 17 It is well established that a discriminatory discharge of an employee'__ because of his union activities goes to the very heart of the Act A X Krajewski Manufacturing Co, Inc, 180 NLRB No 173 /