LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc.

SYS-T-MATION, INC. 863 Sys-T-Mation, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc. and Forest L. Beebe. Case 7-CA-8846 August 11, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On March 1, 1972, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings at the hearing but, for the reasons set forth below, has decided to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's discharge of employee Forest Beebe violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We find merit in Respondent's exception to this finding. The Respondent hired Beebe, as a machinist, on February 2, 1970. Almost immediately, Beebe began complaining about the quality of blueprints he was given to work with. One of the Respondent's foremen reported this to Lamb, the Respondent's vice president, and suggested that Beebe, who was then in probationary status, be discharged, but Lamb de- clined to take any action. In September and October !970, Beebe complained to Lamb about delay in reimbursement for medical expenses from the Res- pondent's health insurance carrier. After investiga- tion, Lamb discovered the delay was caused by the fact that Beebe, holding dual coverage, had simulta- neously filed a claim with another insurance carrier. Lamb apprised Beebe of the results of his investiga- tion, but there is no evidence that Beebe was criticized either for complaining about the reim- bursement delay or filing a dual claim. In December 1970, Beebe approached a business agent for Local 614, International Brotherhood of i The circumstances under which Beebe left the office are somewhat in dispute According to Beebe, he told Lamb that he had a "hot" job on his machine that needed his immediate attention According to Lamb, Beebe slammed the chair under the table with his grease-laden hands and stalked out The Trial Examiner credited Beebe when the two witnesses' version conflicted Teamsters, to suggest that the Union organize the Respondent's plant. The organizational campaign began in early January 1971; an election was scheduled for March 16, 1971. Throughout the campaign, Beebe was the chief union adherent in the plant. He organized some of the meetings at which union officials talked to the employees, and he himself gave speeches on occasion. He also served as the union's observer at the polls. The election resulted in a vote of 16 to 10 against union representation. With a view toward revamping its entire personnel policy program, the Respondent, in the ensuing several weeks, conducted confidential interviews with each employee, including Beebe, in which employee criticisms and suggestions concerning the Respondent's personnel programs were solicited. The Respondent then drew up a comprehensive new personnel program, including new policies on wage increases and plant rules, which was explained at an employee meeting in early June 1971. That meeting was followed by more individual meetings between the Respondent and each employee, including Beebe, so that each employee would be informed of how the new wage scale would affect him and how large a raise he would receive. On the first payday after the raises went into effect, Beebe complained to his immediate supervisor, Russ Morgan, that his raise was less than what he had been led to believe he would get. The complaint was investigated. On July 19, 1971, Lamb invited Beebe to come to his office to talk about his problem. There Beebe reiterated his grievance concerning his pay- check. Lamb answered that Beebe had misunder- stood the extent of his raise and explained why the amount Beebe actually received in his paycheck was correct. In the midst of this explanation, Beebe abruptly arose, pushed his chair under the table, and left.' The next day, Lamb told Administrative Assistant Betke to terminate Beebe because of the attitude shown in the previous day's encounter. After Betke notified Beebe of his discharge, Beebe request- ed an audience with Lamb, which was granted. Upon asking the reasons for his termination, Beebe was told that Lamb had decided to discharge him because he could not tolerate his attitude toward the Company,2 because Beebe could not accept the wage rate that was given him, and because Beebe could not extend the courtesy of listening to their explana- tion of the wage rate. Beebe then filled out his severance forms and left the plant. 2 At the hearing, Lamb testified that there were attitude-related factors, not directly communicated to Beebe, which entered into his decision to discharge Beebe, namely, Beebe's vocally critical attitude when he was first employed, with respect to the quality of blueprints, and his conduct with respect to his medical compensation claim 198 NLRB No. 119 864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner found this discharge violative of Section 8(a)(3). His decision was based chiefly on the relative notoriety of Beebe as the prime union organizer employed at the plant and the seemingly insubstantial grounds given by Lamb for Beebe's discharge. The Trial Examiner noted that the prior expressions of discontent by Beebe were never the grounds for admonition or other disciplinary meas- ures, and that the discourteous refusal to listen to Lamb's explanation of his wage level would appear to have called for a lesser penalty than discharge under the established and published general plant rules. From all these circumstances, the Trial Examiner inferred that the reasons given for the discharge were pretexual and that the real cause of the discharge was his union activities. We disagree. We find the record evidence insuffi- cient to establish a causal relationship between Beebe's union activity and his discharge. The timing of the discharge gives us no firm basis for establish- ing this causal connecter. The discharge occurred over 6 months after the union activity began, and over 4 months after the election was over. This is not, then, a case in which an unexplained discharge occurs so soon after an employee's embarking on union activity as to clearly give rise to a reasonable inference of causal connection. Nor does the record contain any affirmative evidence of antiunion ani- mus on the part of Respondent. During the election campaign, there was no history of preelection interrogation, promise of benefits, threats of repris- als, or other indicia of unlawful hostility to the employees' organizational efforts. And after the election, the Respondent, after reviewing its person- nel policies, offered certain benefits of its new personnel program to all employees, with no dispa- rate treatment of union advocates. These increased benefits were, of course, made applicable to Beebe himself. Thus the burden of establishing that Beebe's discharge was discriminatorily motivated has not been met, and cannot be provided solely by drawing an inference from what seemed to the Trial Examin- er, and may seem to us, to have been a rather harsh penalty for Beebe's offense. Unless there is some evidence such as close coincidence in time between union activity and discharge, disparate discipline as between union and nonunion employees, statements or acts evidencing animus, or other evidence to link the discharge with the union activity, we cannot supply such linkage. Accordingly, we shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a charge filed on July 22, 1971, by Forest L. Beebe, a complaint issued on September 29, 1971, and was thereaf- ter amended. The amended complaint alleges that on various dates between February and May 1971, Respon- dent coercively interrogated employees concerning their union activities , created the impression of surveillance of their union activities, and threatened reprisals if they engaged in union activities or overtly expressed sympathy for the union. The complaint also alleged that on July 21, 1971, Respondent discharged Forest L. Beebe because of his union activities. In its answer, Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Detroit, Michigan, on January I 1 and 12, 1971. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument by counsel for the General Counsel was heard, and the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the Respondent.' Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, Sys-T-Mation, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of La Salle Machine Tool, Inc ., and maintained its principal office and place of business at Holly, Michigan, the only location involved in this proceeding. At the Holly plant, Respondent is engaged in the manufac- ture, sale, and distribution of machine tools and related products . During the calendar year 1970, a representative period, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to its plant from points outside the State of Michigan , and Respondent sold products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from its plant directly to points outside the State of Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, At the hearing, at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respondent's motion to dismiss was granted wi th respect to the allegation of the complaint that Respondent through its supervisor Hank Georges threatened employees with reprisals if they engaged in union activity or overtly expressed sympathies for the Union That allegation will not be considered further herein SYS-T-MATION, INC. hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 1. The union activity at the plant and the election In late 1971, Forest Beebe, an employee of Respondent, contacted the Union to suggest that the Union conduct an organizing campaign among Respondent's employees. In early January, the Union commenced its campaign. Union organizers distributed leaflets and authorization cards at the plant gates. From January to March, employees signed cards and attended several meetings for Respondent's employees. Forest Beebe and Paul Weaver were the most active employees in the plant in support of the Union. Most of the meetings for employees were arranged by Beebe with Union Business Agent John Walker, and Beebe took an active role at the meetings. Among the employees, Beebe was considered the leader of the union movement. Beebe's foreman, Russell Morgan, was aware that Beebe was reputed to be the leader. In due course, a representation petition was filed and an election was held on March 16, 1971.2 Beebe served as the union observer at the election, and particpated in a preelection conference and the count of the ballots. Beebe's capacity as union observer was known to Respon- dent's officials. The election resulted in a vote of 10 for the Union and 16 against. Following the election, Respondent posted notices thanking employees for their vote of confidence in management and urging that past differences in opinion be forgotten and that all join together to make Respondent productive and the best possible place to work. 2. The alleged interrogation and creation of impression of surveillance Shortly after the election, James Chapman, vice presi- dent of Respondent's parent corporation in charge of personnel policy, came to the plant on several days in March, April, and May to speak individually with employees in the plant conference room to learn their views as to their working conditions and Respondent's policies and to develop possible matters for inclusion in a contemplated employee handbook setting forth Respon- dent's personnel practices and policies. Chapman had conducted similar interviews at other plants of the parent corporation in the past. According to former employee Gerald McKay, during his interview Chapman asked him what his views were with respect to the Union, if he knew who had initially contacted the Union, if he knew an employee named Virgil, and what Virgil's views were towards the Union. According to McKay, he told Chapman that he knew who contacted the Union, that everyone in the place knew, that 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates referred to herein occurred in 1971 3 Initially Beebe testified that when he asked Chapman what made him 865 as far as he knew Virgil was against the Union, and that he preferred the Union, but he could work with it or without it. According to Paul Weaver, during his interview with Chapman, he mentioned to Chapman that he and Beebe were two of the employees who were pushing the Union and Chapman replied, "We know that." According to Beebe, at the start of his interview Chapman asked him why he went to the union hall, and he replied by asking what made Chapman think that he was the one who went there. Beebe testified that Chapman replied that Beebe knew he was the one, and Beebe then said he would take credit for it. Beebe testified that in response to Chapman's initial question he voiced a number of complaints that he had about compensation and working conditions.3 Chapman testified that to his knowledge he did not ask any employee about his sympathies for the Union and that he was certain that he did not ask any employee to name any other employee who had engaged in union activity. With respect to his interview with Beebe, Chapman testified that it was possible that some conversation developed as a result of the fact that he had seen Beebe as an observer of the election, but that he did not recall any direct conversation. He testified that they talked about situations that affected Beebe and what Beebe felt was wrong and could be done to improve the company. He testified that he did not recall asking Beebe why he wanted the Union or telling Beebe that he knew that he was the one who went to the Union or Beebe's response to that remark. He testified that he did not recall any conversation about the Union with Weaver or telling Weaver that he knew who was pushing for the Union, because he did not know who it was. I have credited Weaver and Beebe in their versions of their interviews with Chapman. While Chapman was certain that he did not ask the questions attributed to him by McKay, his denials of the testimony of Weaver and Beebe were less assured. Moreover, I am inclined to doubt his asserted reason for his denial that he told Weaver they knew he and Beebe were pushing the Union in view of Foreman Morgan's testimony that he was aware that Beebe was the reputed leader of the union activity and Morgan's statements to Weaver described below. However, I do not credit McKay that Chapman went beyond what Beebe and Weaver attributed to him and asked McKay if he knew who contacted the Union or the views of Virgil towards the Union. Although all employees were inter- viewed, McKay was the only one to testify to such questions, and there is reason to believe that Chapman already knew who the union leaders were. In sum, I credit Weaver and Beebe, but not McKay, as to what was said about the Union during Chapman's interviews with employees following the election. Following the election on two occasions, Weaver asked Foreman Morgan what was going to happen and suggested that he might have to look for a job. Morgan replied that he would not need to look for ajob and that to the best of think that Beebe was the one who went to the Union, Chapman replied, We know you are" He testified later that his affidavit showed that Chapman stated, "You know you are " 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his knowledge Respondent would take no reprisals against the employees. In one of their conversations, Morgan also said that Respondent knew who was behind the union organizing attempt. Morgan mentioned no names? 3. The wage increases and Beebe's complaint about his wage increase In early June, Respondent held a meeting of all its employees at which the employees were given a new employee handbook and its contents were described. At the same time, employees were told that Respondent was establishing a new classification and rate system, which was described to them in general terms. The employees were also told that individual conferences would be held shortly at which each employee's skills would be evaluated relative to his classification and he would be told his individual rate. Following the general meeting, Chapman and Donald Lamb, who was then a vice president and general manager of Respondent, held individual meetings with employees at which they were told their classifications and new wage rates. Beebe was told that he was classified as a machinist and would receive an increase consisting of three parts. Eight cents an hour, which was to be retroactive to February, was a cost of living increase. The remainder, to become effective July 5, consisted of a 15-cent-an-hour general increase and an additional 13-cent-an-hour merit increase. Chapman and Lamb also told Beebe that he would receive merit increases in addition. Beebe was not told that there was a ceiling on what was to be paid in his classification as of July 5, that he was being paid the ceiling, or that his pay would thereafter be the same as the other machinists. Beebe apparently understood Chapman and Lamb to tell him that he was to receive a 15-cent hourly merit increase at that time and left the meeting with that impression. Beebe was one of three machinists employed by Respondent and was the first of them hired after Respondent commenced operations. Prior to July 5, Griffin was paid $4.47 an hour, and the other two machinists, Griffin and Neely, were paid respectively 2 cents and 9 cents an hour less than Beebe. At the time of the evaluation, Griffin and Neely were given larger merit increases than Beebe so as to put all of them at the same $4.83 rate Following the evaluation meetings, Beebe told Griffin that he was getting a 15-cent-an-hour increase and Griffin said that he was getting the same. On July 15, when Beebe received his first paycheck reflecting the raise, he discovered that his rate was $4.83 an hour rather than $4.85 an hour as he had expected. Beebe commented to Griffin that he had been "screwed" out of 2 cents an hour by Respondent and that he was going to get the 2 cents back. He went to his Foreman Morgan, told Morgan that he expected to receive 15 cents an hour rather than 13 cents as a merit increase, and showed Morgan his paystub. Morgan took the paystub and said he would inquire about it. The next day, Betke , assistant plant manager, came to his machine and told Beebe that he had checked the records and confirmed that he had been paid at the proper rate. Beebe told Betke that he did not feel it was right, that he had been cut 2 cents an hour , and that he had understood on the date that he was evaluated that he would receive a 15-cent raise . Betke said he would check into it further . Later Betke told Beebe that Lamb would speak to him about it the following Monday. On Monday, July 19, Lamb went to Beebe's machine and said he understood that Beebe wanted to talk to him. Beebe told Lamb he felt he was being shortchanged 2 cents an hour and showed Lamb his paystubs . Lamb said he would check his records and left . He returned, told Beebe that his records showed Beebe was being properly paid, and invited Beebe into his office to talk about it. In his office, Lamb told Beebe that he had misunder- stood and that he had been given only 13 cents an hour as a merit increase. Beebe said he did not think he had misunderstood and explained why he believed he had correctly understood Lamb and Chapman at the evalua- tion meeting. Lamb sought to explain further why Beebe was wrong. Beebe, who was then working on what he described as a "hot" job, told Lamb he had a hot job on his machine and was going back to work . He rose, pushed his chair under the table, and left.5 4. Beebe's discharge On the next day, July 20, Beebe reported for work as usual. During the morning, Morgan came to his machine and told him he was wanted in Betke's office. Morgan accompanied him and, before entering Betke's office, Morgan told Beebe that he wanted Beebe to know that he had nothing to do with it and that it was not his idea. In Betke's office, Betke told Beebe that he was discharged as of 10:30 that morning for insubordination. Beebe asked Morgan if he had ever refused to do anything that he was asked. Morgan said no, and Beebe said he was being discriminated against. Beebe asked who had decided to fire him, and Betke replied that it was Lamb. Beebe then asked if he could talk to Lamb; Betke checked and said that Lamb would see him. Beebe and Morgan went to Lamb's office. Lamb told Beebe that he had decided to fire him because he could not tolerate his attitude towards the Company, because Beebe could not accept the wage rate that was given him, and because Beebe could not extend the courtesy of listening to their explanation. Lamb told Beebe that if he could not be satisfied they would terminate him. Beebe asked if it were not a person's right to voice his opinion, and Lamb said that it was. Beebe left Lamb's office, filled out a severance form, and left the plant. B. Concluding Findings The complaint alleges that the statements of Chapman and Morgan to employees after the election constituted 4 Weaver's testimony as to these conversations in uncontradicted and is job" he was working on before he left, but Lamb testified that he did not credited recall whether Beebe said anything when he got up and left because he was 5 Both Beebe and Lamb testified to this conversation and their testimony somewhat upset at Beebe's reaction to the wage increase and what he was is no essential dispute Only Beebe mentioned that he referred to the "hot told I have credited Beebe SYS-T-MATION, INC. 867 unlawful interrogation and creation of impression of surveillance. I have found that both Chapman and Morgan indicated to Weaver that Respondent was aware of the identity of the leaders in the union campaign. Morgan at the same time assured Weaver that he did not need to look for a job and that there would be no reprisals and indeed, in each instance involving Weaver, it appears that it was Weaver who first raised the subject of the Union, after which Chapman and Morgan made their remarks. As the work force was small, the identity of the leaders was common knowledge in the plant, and the election was over when these remarks were made, I find that the remarks of Chapman and Morgan to Weaver did not create the impression of unlawful surveillance of his union activities. I have also found that Chapman took the initiative of raising the matter of the Union in his interview of Beebe and sought to ascertain why Beebe had contacted the Union. When Beebe asked what made Chapman think he was the one, Chapman simply asserted that Beebe knew that he was, conveying that Chapman entertained no doubt. Chapman was an official of Respondent's parent corporation, and the interview was not a routine occur- rence in the plant. Had the interview occurred before the election, the conclusion would follow that Chapman's questioning of Beebe was coercive. But as the election was over, as Beebe had served as the Union's observer, as his union activities were widely known, and as no threats of reprisal were made at any time during the interview, I find that Chapman's questioning of Beebe was not unlawful interrogation and did not create the impression of unlawful surveillance. At the same time, it is also apparent that in interviewing Beebe and other employees to acquire material for use in developing future personnel policies, Chapman sought to learn what had been the causes of the union activity in the plant so as to develop policies which would take past causes of employee dissatisfaction into account. The remaining issue is whether Beebe's discharge in July, 4 months after the election, was caused by his union activities. The reason stated by Lamb to Beebe for his discharge was his attitude, and Lamb testified that it was Beebe's attitude toward the wage increase and reflections of his attitude in earlier incidents which caused him to decide to terminate Beebe. With respect to the wage increase, Lamb testified that it was Beebe's reluctance to accept company policy and to listen with reason to their explanation of the raise which was objectionable. With respect to the earlier indications of Beebe's attitude, Lamb testified that throughout Beebe's employment he was dissatisfied with his tools, with the drawings he was given, and with the manner in which the work he was assigned was processed. As a further indication of Beebe's attitude, Lamb mentioned a complaint by Beebe about the processing of a medical insurance claim before the election. I am persuaded that a significant aspect of Beebe's attitude which caused Lamb to discharge Beebe was Beebe's role in the union activity. There is little question that after the election, Respondent made a concentrated effort by adopting a system of job classifications, granting wage increases, and compiling a manual of personnel policies to eliminate past sources of dissatisfaction and to improve working conditions for the employees. As stated in its March 18 and 19 notices to employees , Respondent sought to have past differences over the merits of representation forgotten , and it aimed to work even closer together with the employees in the future. Beebe's complaint over his increase was a discordant note in the attempt to eliminate differences in the plant. Taken by itself, Beebe's complaint over his wage increase would seem almost too trivial , even if unreasonable, to warrant serious retribution. Indeed Lamb himself seems to have recognized this, for he testified that he relied not only on the complaint about the wage increase, but on Beebe's past complaints about working conditions and about the processing of his insurance claim as well. While Lamb asserted that these past complaints entered into his assessment of Beebe's attitude , he denied that Beebe's more recent union activities entered into his determination. Yet Lamb testified that he viewed Beebe's complaint over the increase as a refusal to accept company policy, and there is no more certain indication of a refusal to accept company policy than an attempt to bring in a union to represent the employees in bargaining over company policy. I cannot believe that in reviewing Beebe's attitudi- nal history, Lamb ignored the single clearest indication in Beebe's recent past that he was not disposed to accept Respondent's policies as handed down by management but reached back to rely on claimed earlier manifestations of that attitude. Rather the inference is strong that Lamb regarded Beebe's complaint about the wage increase as signaling that Respondent's recent changes in wages and working conditions had not succeeded in changing the attitude Beebe manifested in leading the attempt to organize the plant. To be sure, Lamb denied that he knew of Beebe's union activity other than that he served as union observer at the election. Serving as an observer in itself is usually an indication of strong union support, but, in any event, I do not credit Lamb's denial in the light of Morgan's testimony, Morgan's statement to Weaver , and my findings above as to Chapman's interviews with Beebe and Weaver. I find that Lamb was aware of Beebe's leadership role in the organizing effort. There is little in Beebe's work-related complaints or his complaint about his insurance claim to support Lamb's claimed reliance upon them. According to Lamb, shortly after Beebe started work, his then supervisor, Hank Georges, told Lamb of Beebe's work-related dissatisfac- tions and recommended that Beebe not be permitted to complete his probationary period. Lamb believed that Georges spoke to Beebe about his dissatisfaction with Beebe at that time. Georges did not testify, and Beebe denied that he had ever been warned about his work or how he got along with other employees or management. In any event, although Lamb testified that Beebe's work- related complaints continued throughout Beebe's employ- ment, there is no evidence that Lamb or Georges ever spoke to Beebe about them after the end of Beebe's probationary period, and indeed, Morgan, who became Beebe's supervisor after Georges, testified that he got along all right with Beebe, that Beebe was a good worker, and 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he had no problems with Beebe after the time that Beebe complained about the processing of his insurance claim.6 It follows that if Beebe's conduct continued unchanged after his probationary period, Respondent considered it unexceptional and no basis for discipline until the date of his discharge. It is significant in this regard that Lamb did not consult Morgan, Beebe's immediate foreman, before deciding to terminate Beebe. Although Lamb testified that he called both Betke and Morgan in on the morning of July 20, after Beebe's visit to his office, told them of his intention to discharge Beebe, and asked for their comments, Morgan denied that he was consulted. A memorandum to Chap- man produced by Lamb which purportedly confirmed the consultation failed to do so. The memorandum, dated July 19 in two places, reported the incident with Beebe to Chapman. Although it stated that the incident had been reviewed with Morgan and Betke, it did not state that there had been any discussion of Beebe's planned discharge with them. In fact it said nothing whatsoever about plans to discharge Beebe and indicated that the report was submitted to Chapman for his information only. I credit Morgan that he was not consulted as to the decision to discharge Beebe. In the light of Lamb's failure to consult Morgan about Beebe's discharge, Morgan's testimony that he had no problems with Beebe in the last several months of his employment, and the absence of any evidence that anyone spoke to Beebe about his complaints after the early days of his employment, there is substantial reason to conclude that Beebe's alleged continuing work-related complaints were makeweights added by Lamb tojustify his decision and not substantial reasons for it. Turning to Beebe's complaint about his insurance claim, Lamb's testimony clearly exaggerated the gravity of that incident as an indication of Beebe's attitude. Beebe's complaint stemmed from delay by Respondent's insurance carrier in satisfying a claim Beebe had filed. Beebe, who had dual coverage, had filed claims with two insurance companies. Lamb discovered that the reason for the delay was that Beebe had filed two claims and the companies involved were checking on liability. Lamb testified that he objected not only to the fact that Beebe was voicing the opinion that Respondent was "screwing" him out of his insurance claim, but that he was concerned because of the possibility that it might have been dishonest for Beebe to have made two claims and that he thought it was improper. Yet nothing in Respondent's insurance plan prohibited such claims. The claim form provided by Respondent's carrier had a blank for disclosing dual coverage, and Beebe disclosed his dual coverage on the claim. The only basis for concern of Respondent in this incident would appear to be that then, as in July, Beebe was outspoken in criticizing Respondent's administration of employee benefits. While Lamb testified that he spoke to Beebe at the time of 6 There is in fact no evidence that Morgan had problems with Beebe at any time 7 In addition to the procedure set forth for discipline in its work rules, Respondent's employee handbook states "The involuntary termination of an employee is the most drastic action a Company can take In view of the seriousness of involuntary terminations, the Company will exercise the utmost care and will consider all available facts should such action be required " The handbook and rules together set forth a clear policy against Beebe's complaint over the insurance claim, his testimony indicates that he sought only to explain the situation to Beebe and did not criticize Beebe's conduct. At that time before the election, even in the light of his knowledge of Beebe's work-related complaints, Lamb did not deem Beebe's conduct as even the occasion for oral reprimand. Yet, after the election, despite the recent adoption of plant rules which set forth a procedure for progressive disciplinary actions,7 Lamb concededly did not follow that procedure and immediately discharged Beebe for com- plaining about the wage increase. Lamb sought to explain his departure from the rules as a conscious decision based upon his belief that the rules applied only to conduct and not to attitude. However, attitude is reflected only by conduct and, when Betke originally informed Beebe of his discharge, he told Beebe he was discharged for insubordi- nation, as offense covered by the rules and one which usually reflects the kind of offensive attitude described by Lamb. Although Lamb referred to two other discharges in which the procedure set forth in the rules was not followed, one discharge was of McKay, a probationary employee, and the other was of Strauser, an engineer in a managerial capacity a Neither situation was comparable to that of Beebe. Lamb's explanation for his departure from the procedure set forth in the rules has more the sound of rationalization than of rationale. Beebe's work was good. There was no reason why Beebe's complaint about his wages could not have been dealt with through usual disciplinary procedures unless there were overriding reasons why in July the demonstration of an attitude of refusal to accept company policy made undesirable any efforts to correct and retain an otherwise satisfactory employee after claimed demonstrations of that attitude in the past had been ignored. I find that overriding reason in Beebe's role in the organizing campaign which intervened between Beebe's earlier and latest manifestations of attitude. In sum, I do not credit Lamb's explanation of Beebe's discharge and find that the manifestation of Beebe's attitude in his complaint about his pay would not have resulted in Beebe's discharge but for the fact that he had previously reflected an attitude of refusing to accept company policy by instigating and leading the union activities in the plant .9 Accordingly, I find that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Beebe. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations 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 discharge except as a last resort and in favor of lesser forms of discipline in the attempt to correct employee faults R Although the exact nature of Strauser's duties was not developed, he was not in the unit in which the election was held and, after he was discharged, his job was filled by Georges. who had been a foreman, in what was described as a lateral transfer 9 See Shattuck-Denn Mining Corp, v. N L R B 362 F 2d, 466 (C A 9), Virginia Meialcrafiers, Inc, 158 NLRB 958, enfd 387 F 2d 379 (C A 4) SYS-T-MATION, INC. 869 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY ment, less net earnings , to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent discriminatonly discharged Forest L. Beebe on July 20, 1971, 1 shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists , to a substantially' equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by payment to him of the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of an offer of reinstate- 1. Sys-T-Mation, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Machine Tool, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Forest L. Beebe on July 20, 1971, because of his union activities , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.)