Craftsman Electronic Products, Inc.

CRAFTSMAN ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, INC Craftsman Electronic Products , Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-3687 October 29, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in one of Respondent's exceptions. The Board agrees with the Trial Examiner's findings that foreman Hinman's interrogations of employee Richer constituted technical violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, we consider these events to be too isolated to warrant issuance of a remedial order since Hinman's actions were the only instance where a supervisor violated management's instructions not to discuss the Union with any employee and since Richer left Respondent's employ soon thereafter without having discussed these encounters with other employees We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed 'Omni Spectra , Inc, 176 NLRB No 24, Allied Chemical Corp, National Aniline Division, 143 NLRB 260, and cases cited at p 263 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E MULLIN, Trial Examiner. This case was heard in Syracuse, New York, on May 12, 1969, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued 419 on April 18, 1969 The complaint presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of the hearing and to file briefs Oral argument was waived by the parties On June 4, 1969, the Respondent submitted an able brief A motion to dismiss, made by the Respondent at the close of the hearing, was taken under advisement It is disposed of as appears hereinafter in this decision Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses when they appeared and testified, the Trial Examiner makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a New York corporation, with an office and place of business in Manlius, New York, is engaged at that location in the manufacture, sale and distribution of electronic equipment and related product.; During the 12-month period prior to issuance of the complaint, a representative period, it shipped manufactured products valued in excess of $50,000, from the aforesaid plant, directly to States of the United States other than the State of New York Upon the foregoing facts the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Craftsman Electronic Products, Inc , is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent concedes , and the Trial Examiner finds that Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO (herein called Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In November 1968, the Union began an organizational campaign among the employees of the Respondent. Edward A Sherman, Jr , an international representative for the Textile Workers, held several meetings with the employees during the months of November, December and January I Darlene K Richer was one of the employees who was active in assisting the Union at this time During the period in question, Richer worked in the small parts assembly section of the plant under the supervision of Foreman Robert O. Hinman. By the time of the hearing, she was no longer working for the Respondent having voluntarily terminated her employment in February 1969 Richer testified that on two occasions during January, Foreman Hinman questioned her about her union activities and/or those of her coworkers This was denied 'The charge was filed on January 28, 1969 'All events involved herein occurred during the period from November 1968 through January 1969 179 NLRB No. 68 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Hinman and by the Respondent According to Richer, on the first occasion, Hinman approached her shortly before she completed work on her shift and asked that she telephone him later in the day Richer testified that on returning to her home, she telephoned Hinman at the plant, as he had requested According to Richer, during the ensuing conversation Hinman questioned her as to whether she had attended a union meeting the night before' Richer testified that after she denied having attended the meeting, Hinman told her that he had information to the contrary According to Richer, when Hinman repeated this question, and, for a second time, she denied attendance at the meeting, the foreman told her that he understood that a number of the employees had been present. Richer testified that Hinman then questioned her as to one coworker in particular, namely, Beverly Coon, and asked whether the latter was associated with the Union According to Richer, at this point in the conversation, she was interrupted by her children and Hinman concluded the telephone call Richer testified that about a week later, while on duty at the plant, Hinman asked her if she was "still involved with the Union." According to Richer, after she answered this question in the negative, Hinman commented "that was good" and said nothing further. Foreman Hinman denied ever having questioned Richer about her organizational activities. Hinman conceded that he had had several telephone conversations with Richer during January, but denied that, on any of these occasions, he had discussed the Union According to the foreman, he telephoned, Mrs. Richer twice during this period to inquire about the availability of an apartment in the same building where she and her husband lived, and on a third occasion he telephoned to ask whether she and her husband would care to join him and his group on a social engagement When called back to the stand, in rebuttal, Mrs Richer conceded that during this period, while she was at the plant and on duty, Hinman had inquired about the availability of an apartment in the building where she lived and, on another occasion, the foreman had suggested that she and her husband join him and others in a social gathering. She firmly denied, however, that she ever discussed either of these matters with Hinman on the telephone., Alfonse Myrdek, plant manager for the Respondent, testified that in November and immediately after he learned that the Union had begun a campaign to organize the employees, he had a conference with Attorney Williams, in which Counsel for the Respondent advised him that the supervisory personnel would have to be instructed very thoroughly on the necessity for their complete neutrality as to any of the employees' organizational efforts According to Myrdek, shortly thereafter he met with the plant supervisors, including Hinman, and reviewed the advice he had received from Attorney Williams. Myrdek testified that at this time he instructed the supervisory staff that they were not to 'The Union held a meeting for the employees on January 20 'At one point during his interrogation of Mrs Richer, counsel for the General Counsel described a question directed to the witness on the subject of her first conversation with Hinman as "preliminary " From this characterization , the Respondent , in its brief, contends that the General Counsel, in effect, stipulated that the resultant answer and the entire subject matter thereafter covered were not material to the complaint A fair reading of the transcript, however, does not disclose any such sweeping concession as that which the Respondent now attributes to the General Counsel engage in any discussion of the union with the employees,, and on numerous occasions thereafter, , during the ensuing weeks, he checked as to their compliance with these orders According to Myrdek, at no time did he have any evidence that his instructions were not being obeyed Mr Myrdek was a thoroughly credible witness On the basis of his testimony, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent's plant manager issued the orders about which he testified and, further that he sought to insure that they were followed The conflict between the testimony of Foreman Hinman and Mrs Richer is more difficult of resolution However, after a consideration of their respective testimony and their demeanor while on the witness stand, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Mrs Richer was the more credible Hinman, of course, was not free to interrogate an employee as to her union activities and those of her coworkers. Moreover, the questions which he directed to Mrs. Richer, wherein he intimated that he knew the names of the employees who had attended a union meeting , tended to create the impression that he was engaged in surveillance of their union activities This constituted interference , restraint and coercion within the meaning of the Act Since Hinman was admittedly a supervisor at the time, his conduct was attributable to the Respondent. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must, and does, conclude that by this interrogation of Mrs. Richer, Hinman caused the Respondent to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed 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. 3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY In its brief, the Respondent urges that even if it be found that the Company , through Hinman , violated the Act, the violation is so isolated that the rule of de minimis should apply and no remedial order should be entered Whereas various citations in the Respondent 's brief tend to support this position (N L R B v 0 A Fuller Super Market, Inc, 374 F.2d 197, 203 (C.A 5); N L R B v. McCormick Steel Co, 381 F 2d 88, 91 (C.A. 5)), a somewhat recent decision held that where a right guaranteed by the Act has been violated a remedial order must issue International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO v NLRB , 380 F 2d 628, 630-631 (C A.D.C ) Consequently , the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the conduct found herein to have been violative of the Act 'However, he did not testify that the employees were informed that the supervisors had received such orders CRAFTSMAN ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, INC. 421 Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act , [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]