Syncro Corp.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Syncro Corporation and International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 1 0- CA-12660 and 10-CA-12728 January 30. 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND TRUESDALE On September 26, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respon- dent filed a reply brief. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threaten- ing its employees that it would close the plant if the employees supported the Union, by soliciting em- ployees to oppose the Union and to assist Respon- dent in its antiunion campaign, and by creating the impression that its employees' union activities were under surveillance. We agree with these findings. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint to the extent it alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employees Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill on March 9, 1977, and Michelle Hill on April 5, 1977. The General Counsel has excepted to the Adminis- trative Law Judge's findings and conclusions as to the discharges of Hornsby, Massengill, and Hill. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Horns- by and Massengill were discharged for economic and not for discriminatory reasons, and thus we affirm his dismissal of those aspects of the complaint.' However, we find merit in the General Counsel's exception as to the discharge of Hill, for the reasons discussed below. IThe General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the General Counsel failed to establish that Bill Replogle was a supervisor, as the testimony of Respondent's own witness, Ed Schilling, revealed that Replogle was in charge of the tool and maintenance department. In addition, Replogle identified himself as a supervisor in charge of maintenance, and employees Hornsby and Massengill identified Replogle as their supervisor. The General Counsel asserts that, based on this testimony. Replogle should be found a supervisor, and thus Replogle's knowledge of Hornsby's and Massengill's union activities should be 234 NLRB No. 73 The underlying facts, as found by the Administra- tive Law Judge and more fully set out in his Decision, are as follows: Respondent operates a plant in Arab, Alabama, which manufactures electrical and mechanical prod- ucts such as alternator systems and brake controllers. The Union began its campaign among Respondent's employees in February 1977. Michelle Hill was the first employee to actually begin soliciting on behalf of the Union, and she remained the leading union activist in the plant throughout the organizing campaign. Following a series of speeches by Plant Manager Blair Stentz on February 21 and 22, Stentz called Hill to his office and accused her of question- ing his honesty and of misjudging him. 2 Stentz became angry, and stated that he had "had enough," and "did she understand." Thereafter, on several occasions, Stentz asked Hill if she would come to his office to talk with him because he felt they had a lot of differences to iron out, but Hill never reported to Stentz' office. Stentz also confronted Hill in the process of her compiling a list of names from timecards for use by the Union, and he told her she was not to do it anymore. The Administrative Law Judge concluded, and we agree, that Respondent was aware that Hill was aggressively pursing the cause of the Union. On April 5, 1977, Hill was discharged for the stated reason that she threatened employees for not doing her "will." Hill demanded an opportunity to confront the employees who had accused her of this conduct, but this request was denied. Stentz testified that Hill was discharged based solely upon the complaints of employees Marilyn Walker and Patsy Hayes. Walker testified that on a Thursday in April, Hill asked her, in the ladies' bathroom, to sign a union card. According to Walker, Hill said that if Walker did not join the Union she would get her tires slashed. Walker reported the incident to her supervisor shortly after it occurred. Hayes testified that on the Friday before Hill's discharge she was in the ladies' bathroom when Hill asked her to sign a union card. When Hayes ignored her, Hill persisted in asking her to sign a card. Hayes then told Hill to shut up, and that she had heard her the first time. According to Hayes, Hill then threatened that if Hayes did not sign a union card she would get her tires slashed. Hayes did imputed to Respondent. Since we find that Hornsby and Massengill were discharged for economic and not for discriminatory reasons, we find it unnecessary to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding concerning Replogle's supervisory status, or to resolve that status. 2 Stentz was apparently referring to a meeting which Hill had with an outside consultant who had been called in to evaluate personnel problems in the plant, in which Hill had demanded to see a copy of Respondent's financial statement. 550 SYNCRO CORP. not report the incident to anyone. On the following Monday, however, she observed Hill copying the names of employees off the employee timecards. At that time, according to Hayes, she became frightened and reported both incidents to her supervisor. Hill denied having threatened Walker and Hayes, al- though she admitted that she solicited card signa- tures from them in the ladies' bathroom and that she had "cut up with them." Hill also admitted to pushing Walker into a bathroom stall in order to get her to sign a union card. Based upon the above testimony, the Administra- tive Law Judge concluded that Hill was discharged for cause and not because of her advocacy of the Union. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge relied upon Hill's admission that she had solicited card signatures from Walker and Hayes in the ladies' bathroom, and discredited Hill's denial that she had threatened to slash the tires of Hayes and Walker. The Administrative Law Judge also noted Hill's admission that she had pushed Walker into a bathroom stall in an effort to get her to sign a union card. In addition to the testimony relied upon by the Administrative Law Judge, the record further reveals the following information concerning the discharge of Hill. Walker testified that Hill had "kind of a grin" on her face when she allegedly threatened to slash Walker's tires. Walker also admitted that several weeks before the hearing in this case she told fellow employee Patsy Jolly that "Michelle had just been kidding" when she allegedly threatened to slash her tires. Hayes testified that she (Hayes) is always laughing and "cutting up" with the other employees in the plant. Hayes also testified that there were six or eight other employees in the ladies' bathroom at the time that Hill allegedly threatened to slash her tires, yet none of those employees were brought forward to testify in this case. Finally, Hill testified that, at the time she pushed Walker into the bathroom stall, they were both laughing.3 The record further reveals that Stentz made a number of speeches to groups of employees on February 21 and 22, 1977, during which he referred to union representatives as gun-toting thugs who engaged in such things as shooting people and slashing tires. Hill testified that following these speeches, jokes about tire slashing circulated around the plant. Sara Garrett, who is still employed by Respondent, also testified that jokes about tire slashing were common around the plant following Stentz' speeches. Viewing the record as a whole, we are unable to conclude that Hill was discharged for threatening s Walker never testified as to this event. It was raised for the first time by Hill when she returned to the witness stand to deny that she had ever threatened to slash Hayes' tires. employees rather than for her union activities. Stentz was fully aware of Hill's union activity and displayed hostile feelings against her because of that activity. Stentz even warned Hill that "he had had enough," and "did she understand." In the light of such statements, the stated reason for Hill's subsequent discharge smacks strongly of pretext. The only evidence against Hill was given by the employees allegedly threatened, namely Hayes and Walker. As to Walker, although she was sure that Hill threatened to slash her tires, she also stated that Hill was grinning when she made the threat, and she admitted to another employee that Hill was only kidding when the threat was made. Thus, it appears that, if in fact the threat was made by Hill, Walker did not consider it serious. As to Hayes, who admitted to always laughing and cutting up with other employees in the plant, she did not even report the incident to Stentz after it had occurred, but reported it later when she saw Hill copying names off the employee timecards. The attitude of Hayes and Walker towards the threats made by Hill are consis- tent with the atmosphere in the plant following Stentz' speeches, in which jokes about tire slashing were common. However, when Stentz received the complaints from Walker and Hayes concerning the threats by Hill, he discharged Hill almost immediate- ly. Stentz never investigated the charges against Hill, despite the fact that there were six or eight other employees in the ladies' bathroom when Hill alleged- ly threatened Hayes. Nor did Stentz seek an explana- tion from Hill as to the incidents prior to her discharge. Rather, Hill was discharged without any knowledge as to who her accusers were or the specific offense which she had committed. Therefore, we find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent seized upon the allega- tions by Hayes and Walker that Hill had threatened to slash their tires as a pretext to discharge Hill. As the motivating factor behind the discharge of Hill was her union activity, her discharge was in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law are hereby amended by inserting the following as paragraph 4, and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "4. By discharging Michelle Hill for engaging in union-related, protected, concerted activities, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act." 551 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY We have found, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Michelle Hill on April 5, 1977, for engaging in union-related, protect- ed, concerted activities. In order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, Respondent will be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices and to reinstate Michelle Hill to her former position, or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without loss of seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment of a sum equal to what she normally would have earned from the date of the discriminato- ry discharge to the date Respondent offers her reinstatement, less her net earnings, if any, during that period. Backpay and interest thereon shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).4 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Syncro Corporation, Arab, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with closure of the Arab, Alabama, plant if the employees select the International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other union, as their collec- tive-bargaining representative. (b) Soliciting employees to oppose the Union and to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign by dissuading fellow employees from joining or assisting the Union. (c) Threatening employees in a manner creating the impression that the employees' union activities are under surveillance. (d) Discriminating against employees in regard to hire, tenure, and other terms and conditions of employment by discharging employees because they engaged in union-related, protected, concerted activi- ties. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing its employees because they engage in protected concerted activities guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Offer Michelle Hill immediate and full rein- statement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner described in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Arab, Alabama, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten employees with closure of our Arab, Alabama, plant if our employees select the International Molders & Allied Work- ers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization, as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to assist the Company in its antiunion campaign by using their influence to dissuade fellow employees from joining or assisting the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by creating the impression that their union activities are under surveillance. 552 SYNCRO CORP. WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees by discharging them for engaging in protected concerted activities on behalf of any labor organi- zation. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Michelle Hill immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equiv- alent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge, plus interest. SYNCRO CORPORATION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Guntersville, Alabama, on June 7 and 8, 1977, based on charges filed by the International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, in Case 10- CA-12660 on March 14, 1977, and in Case 10-CA-12728 on April 8, 1977.1 The complaints, issued on April 13 and May 12, respectively, allege that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill on March 9 and Michelle Hill on April 5. It is also alleged that Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that Respondent's executive vice president and general manager, Blair E. Stentz, allegedly threatened employees to close the plant and solicited employees to oppose the Union on or about March 5, and on or about February 21 told employees that Respondent knew who was engaging in union activities, thus creating the impression that employees' union activi- ties were under surveillance. Respondent's answers deny the allegations of unfair labor practice alleged in the complaints, but admit that the three employees named therein were discharged on the dates alleged. Respondent contends that Hornsby and Massengill were terminated because of a change in work procedures, and that Hill was discharged for threatening employees. Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The jurisdictional allegations of the complaints are admitted in the answers. I find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an Alabama corporation, with an office and place of business located at Arab, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of vehicular electric brake components and small engine parts. During the past calendar year, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. Therefore I find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 1. LABOR ORGANIZATION As alleged in the complaints and admitted in the answers, I find that the International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union or the Charging Party, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. nlI. SUPERVISORY STATUS As alleged in the complaints and admitted in the answers, I find that at all times material herein Blair E. Stentz is and has been executive vice president and general manager of Respondent, acting on its behalf, and is therefore an agent of Respondent, and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. I also find that the evidence in the record establishes that Plant Superinten- dent Mickey Tidmore and Manager of Manufacturing Ed Schilling are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The status of other titled individuals referred to in the record was neither alleged, nor fully litigated, nor does the record reflect that any other persons mentioned in the record possessed Section 2(11) authority. IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The History of the Respondent's Tool and Die Operations Based on undisputed and credited testimony by Ed Schilling, manager of manufacturing, Jim O'Keefe, project industrial engineer, and Blair Stentz, Respondent's vice president and general manager, the following history of Respondent's toolroom and die maintenance and repair operation is established. Respondent is a manufacturer of electric and mechanical products including alternator systems, electrical brake controllers for recreational vehi- cles, component assemblies for alternator systems, and various types of tools. One phase of the alternator manu- facturing process involves the stamping of laminations using a 65-ton and a 100-ton stamping press utilizing complex carbide and high carbon, high chrome steel dies. Over a period of time the many repetitions of the stamping process causes wear on the dies, and necessitates their being serviced from time to time, including sharpening and realignment. Since this servicing is delicate, it requires considerable skill, and consequently is expensive. Thus, when Schilling initiated training and production at Re- spondent's Arab, Alabama, plant in 1973, laminations were I All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise specified. 553 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shipped from Respondent's Ohio plant in order that the servicing of the dies could be performed by the die manufacturer, in accordance with the practice at the Ohio plant. This practice continued into mid-1976, although in the interim the Arab plant had begun stamping operations and a limited amount of servicing and grinding of dies in their maintenance department. All complex die servicing was still performed by the die manufacturer. On August 2, 1976, Blair Stentz arrived and took over as general manager of the Arab plant. At or about this same time new dies began arriving at the plant. Since they required a considerable amount of servicing, Stentz was of the opinion that the Arab plant should develop the capability of servicing their own dies at Arab. In late August it was decided to start an "in-house tooling program" which, it was hoped, would greatly shorten the length of time during which the dies were out of service by eliminating the time involved in shipping dies to and from the manufacturer and which, it was hoped, would also reduce labor costs. As a result of this decision the maintenance and toolroom department headed by Bill Replogle was divided into two separate operations. Replogle remained the leadman over the maintenance operations, which had previously done some minor die repair and servicing. William Carmack, a tool-and-die maker, was hired to take charge of the tool- and-die program. Jim O'Keefe, an industrial engineer, was hired as project industrial engineer at the Arab plant since Stentz felt that the plant needed someone responsible for a cost control program. One of O'Keefe's first assignments was to monitor and make regular periodic reports of the costs involving both the maintenance and tooling opera- tions. Beginning in October, at the request of Stentz, a series of monthly reports was initiated. Immediately following the arrival of Carmack during the third week in September 1976, the new tooling department consisted of Carmack and one apprentice. In October the apprentice left. Thereafter in October and early November 1976, respectively, Schilling hired Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill following Carmack's appeal for addi- tional help. In the meantime Respondent's costs continued to rise, not only because of the additional personnel hired, but also as a result of overtime work performed in an effort to get the new operation on its feet. In November O'Keefe reported that Respondent was still farming out 40 to 50 percent of its tooling and maintenance repair work. Thereafter Respondent's costs continued to increase steadi- ly. Further increased costs were brought about by tool- and-die problems arising from both breakdowns in the presses and increasing overtime in the tool operation. In his January 6 report, covering the month of December 1976, O'Keefe recommended that discussions be held with the tooling department about stabilizing and reducing labor costs, and indicated that the plant could not afford to continue the operation under these circumstances. During the month of January, due to steadily increasing costs, Respondent found it necessary to curtail all overtime in the tooling department, except for emergencies. This resulted in the resignation of Carmack who protested that he was not being permitted to run the toolroom as he wanted to run it, and was unable to do so with restrictions on overtime. In the meantime Respondent found it increasing- ly necessary to farm out much of the tooling maintenance repair. Following Carmack's departure the maintenance and tooling departments were once again combined with Replogle in charge. In the meantime Respondent contin- ued to search for an expert tool-and-die maker to replace Carmack, but was unable to locate a replacement at a salary cost which Respondent could afford. Thus, during the month of January Respondent began a reconsideration of the tooling and die program, and even began to search for purchasers for what would be surplus equipment in the event the tooling and die operation was phased out. During February Stentz traveled to Nashville, Tennessee, to confer with John D. Swartzbaugh, president of Massey Seating Co. concerning a possible sale of Syncro's surface grinder, vertical mill, horizontal mill, and lathe.2 Thus, on February 21 Stentz requested a special analysis on in-house tooling maintenance from O'Keefe. Stentz emphasized that in his view they had a big problem concerning the tooling operation and stated that he desired recommendations on what should be done about the situation. On February 25 O'Keefe submitted his report recommending as follows: 1. That source selected vendors be contacted for feasibility of handling all our die and tool fixture maintenance support and some kind of working contracted agreement to be entered into. 2. Since we have only Junior Machinists on board, with limited tooling expertise in die maintenance and repair, our die life is diminishing too rapidly due to over grinding of die working surfaces. Steps should be taken to eliminate the require- ment of these Junior Machinists at the earliest possible date. 3. That an additional analysis be made for disposition (sale) of equipment in the present tooling area, except for those pieces of equipment that can be incorporated for usage in our Manufacturing and Facility Maintenance Area. 4. It should be noted that our present tooling effort in-house is costly at this time and definite action should be taken at the earliest possible date to bring our tooling costs back in line. On March 7 O'Keefe submitted his regular monthly report on the tooling and maintenance departments' operations during the month of February. The report revealed continued increased costs. In addition O'Keefe reported that the tooling area did not have sufficient expertise to accomplish the Company's immediate needs even when backed up by farming out portions of the tooling work, as needed. He recommended that they had reached "a critical position where production cannot abide with 'hit or miss' situations of half-completed maintenance and repair of our high production, high cost dies." He urged "the need for competency in our tooling area, bj hiring an expert, or go to outside vendors for 100 percent of Stentz' testimony is supported by a March 14 letter from Swartzbaugh. 554 SYNCRO CORP. our tooling needs." As a result of these recommendations, Respondent decided to terminate the in-house tooling program. On March 9 Junior Machinist Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill were terminated. Thereafter Re- spondent reverted to its previous practice of farming out the greatest majority of the tooling work. The maintenance department still utilizes the remaining tooling machinery and does a limited amount of servicing work on some of the less complicated dies, just as they had done before the advent of the in-house tooling program. Thereafter, the life of Respondent's dies increased and there were fewer breakdowns resulting in decreased costs. B. The Commencement of the Union Campaign and General Manager Stentz' Reaction--The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations The Union began its campaign among Syncro's employ- ees during the month of February, when Union Represen- tative Gerald Park approached Junior Machinist Ralph Hornsby on the grounds of the Arab primary school and asked how the employees felt about the Union. Hornsby referred Park to Michelle Hill who agreed to assist Park in the Union's effort to organize the plant. The first employee union meeting was held in late February, and was attended by Hill, Dorothy Tidmore, and Allison Fielding. Three or four other union meetings were held during February and March. Hill attended these meetings and passed out handbills for the Union at various times during this period. Ralph Hornsby attended union meetings on March I and 8, at which time he signed a union card. Homer Massen- gill's only union activity was that he signed a union card before work on March 9, the day of his discharge. According to Blair Stentz, he discovered that the Union was attempting to organize the Company through an anonymous phone call he received in mid-February in which a female voice said that 12 or 13 of his employees were meeting with a union organizer in an effort to organize the plant. After consulting with his labor attorney, Stentz called the employees together in the plant cafeteria on February 21 and 22 in groups of 50 or 60 to hear his views about the Union's organizational efforts.3 Hornsby and Massengill attended the same group meeting. Accord- ing to Hornsby, Stentz began his talk by discussing the financial condition of the plant. After stating that the Company had lost money, and had been operating in the red during the previous year but was now in the black and beginning to make a little money, he turned to the subject of the Union. Stentz said that he had about 15 employees that had gone to Anniston to talk to the Union about representation, and that he was shocked that he had employees who did not have faith in him and did not trust him. He said that a union was like a cancer, and that he had known of people getting shot because of union trouble. Stentz made other remarks which Hornsby could not remember, but recalled Stentz concluding his talk by saying that he knew about the Union because he had been a member for a number of years, and if the employees did not believe him they could attend the union meeting which 3 Neither Stentz nor any of the witnesses who testified concerning Stentz' speeches mentioned any use of notes by Stentz in making these talks. was to be held the following night and find out for themselves. Massengill's memory was somewhat different concerning Stentz' remarks. He recalled Stentz discussing the progress of the Company, and that he said the Company was doing better but that they were not in the clear yet. Stentz said that the Company was improving over what they had been doing. Then he mentioned that 12 or 15 people, whom he did not name, had sought out union assistance in orga- nizing the plant, and that it hurt his feelings that the employees did not have any more faith in him than that. The only other thing that Massengill remembered about the 45-minute long speech was that Stentz "painted a picture of union people as gun toting thugs, like something to be feared; it's something nasty, you know." However, Massengill did not specify what Stentz actually said on this subject. Michelle Hill attended a different group meeting. Ac- cording to Hill, after talking about the financial situation of the Company, Stentz said he was going to fight the Union in any way he could, and that he did not want a union in there. Hill claimed that Stentz discussed one of his friends who was in jail, and about people getting shot and tires being slashed and things of that nature. Hill could not remember anything else about Stentz' speech until prodded by leading questions by the General Counsel. Thereafter she testified that Stentz stated he knew that Gerald Park was the union representative, and he knew what kind of car he was driving, the license number, and where he was from. She then testified that Stentz said he had a list of names of 13 to 15 people who were interested in the Union. No other employee witness testified about the speech. The General Counsel alleges that Stentz violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act in his talk by threatening employees in such a manner as to create an impression that their union activities were under surveillance in telling employees that he "knew which employees were engaging in activities on behalf of the Union." In his testimony, Stentz denied this allegation. According to Stentz, he told the employees that there were 12 or 13 of Syncro's employees meeting with the union organizer, who was in the area, and whose name and address he knew. He then discussed the financial condition of the Company, explaining their losses of the previous year, and stating that with a lot of help and work on their part the Company had been able to come from a position extremely in the red to at least a profitable condition, which he appreciated. He continued, "that it was a pretty direct slap in the face for me to find out that there were a number among them who did not have faith in me as the manager of the Company, that I felt that I had tried to level with them and be honest with them and try to give them a better place to work than they had had." He said that with the serious losses the Company had experienced in 1976, and with the present cash flow condition of the Company, there was a great question in his mind as to whether the financial structure of the Company could withstand the economic onslaught of the Union; and that because of the cash flow condition, which would be aggravated under those circumstances, it was quite possible that their major 555 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suppliers of critical materials might hold up shipment of those materials because of nonpayment, thereby forcing the closing of the plant. Therefore, he said it was necessary that they continue to work to keep the Company in line and working. Stentz' version of his remarks compares favorably with the testimony of Massengill and Hornsby, except for the employees' somewhat vague reference to a portion of Stentz' speech which allegedly related to guns and shoot- ing, which was not placed in issue by the complaint and was not fully litigated. I credit Stentz' more detailed version of his remarks; I do not credit Michelle Hill's testimony which differs considerably from both that of Stentz and the accounts given by Hornsby and Massengill, especially her claim that Stentz said he had a list of names of 13 to 15 people who were interested in the Union.4 Nevertheless, based on Stentz' own testimony, I find that his remarks describing the number of people interested in the Union, the identity and other details concerning the union representative, and his invitation for them to attend a union meeting which he knew was being held the following evening, were calculated to convey to the employees the impression that their union activities were under surveillance. Thus, Stentz violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5 C. The Events Leading up to The Termination of Hornsby and Massengill on March 9 On March 5 Blair Stentz approached Hornsby and Massengill in the toolroom and talked with them about the Union. 6 According to Hornsby and Massengill, Stentz began by saying that he wanted to talk to them because they were two of the more intelligent employees he had in the plant. Then he said that he had two bit- on the line that were causing trouble. Stentz then proceeded to graphically describe the nature of one of the unnamed female's alleged involvement with the union representative. Then, according to Hornsby, he said "she's got another thing coming," and that he wanted their help to get the word out to the people about the Company's condition. According to both men, Stentz then said that if the Company were organized they would get a raise, but it would be short-lived because the creditors controlled everything that went on. He then said that if the Company should close his contract was guaranteed and that all he had to do was produce a voucher and he would be paid regardless, and his family could live right on. He said that he and his wife would like a trip around the world, and that he would come back and start a business of his own. Hornsby's only response was that he felt the same way, and if the plant should close he would go somewhere else and get a job. Massengill's only answer was that people could not hide behind an organization if they were nonproducers, 4 Hill displayed a poor memory in testifying and was vague and incomplete in her answers. 5 The remarks in Stentz' speech concerning plant closure are not alleged to be violative of the Act, nor does the General Counsel claim them to be violative in his brief. In any event, I find that Stentz did not violate the Act by the remarks he made in this portion of the speech, which were cast in terms of the Company's economic posture. 6 In the meantime, about a week after Stentz' speech to groups of employees in the cafeteria, outside consultants came into the plant and held they would go out the door anyway. Aside from these answers, neither man made any further expression of their sympathies or indicated one way or another whether they would or would not assist Stentz as he requested. Stentz admitted talking to the two men together in the plant on March 5. He agreed that he referred to the two women on the production line, and that he characterized their activities in the terms described by Hornsby and Massengill in their testimony. He also agreed that he requested their help to convince the employees that what he was telling them was the truth about the financial condition of the Company. In his testimony Stentz general- ly denied that he ever threatened employees that the plant would close if the Union came in, but did not elaborate further on the details of this conversation. I credit Hornsby and Massengill and find that Stentz' remarks on March 5 contained both a threat to close the plant if the employees selected the Union, and solicited Hornsby and Massengill to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign, which conduct violates Section 8(aX I) of the Act. On Monday, March 7, Stentz approached Hornsby at his work station and asked where Massengill was. After Hornsby replied that Massengill had not come to work that day, Stentz asked Hornsby if he knew where he could find a good tool-and-die man. He said he hated to replace a man but it looked like he was going to have to. Stentz did not say anything about who he was considering replacing. At that time it is undisputed that Respondent had been seeking a replacement for Carmack. On the morning of March 9 in the cafeteria, before work, Massengill signed a union card for Michelle Hill. Later Hornsby and Bobby Seay, a maintenance mechanic, discussed the Union during lunch in the plant cafeteria. Hornsby asked how Seay felt about the Union and Seay responded that he didn't feel the Union would be much good at Syncro. Hornsby ended the conversation by saying "I don't guess you'd be interested in signing a union card then," and Seay replied, "No." Bill Replogle and another mechanic named John Harris were seated at a table adjacent to theirs.7 That afternoon around 2 or 2:30 p.m. a lead girl named Sue Wright came to the toolroom and asked if Hornsby wanted the Union. He asked her who wanted to know. She responded that she was just wonder- ing, but she did not think the Union would be good for the Company. Hornsby answered that the Union was not designed for the Company, but for the employees. Wright repeated that she did not think it would do the Company any good, and left. Hornsby then observed Wright speak- ing with Massengill. According to Massengill, she asked how he felt about the Union, and he responded that he was for it and was planning on attending the union meeting that night. Massengill asked Wright to go, and she refused stating that the Union did not have anything for her. He discussions with groups of employees concerning what it was they did not like about the Company. This phase of the Respondent's antiunion campaign, based on the uncontradicted testimony of Hill, was not placed in issue by the complaint and was not fully litigated. I Although Hornsby voiced the opinion that these men had overheard the conversation, he did not describe any action by Replogle and Harris which confirmed this opinion, which he based entirely on the short distance between the tables. 556 SYNCRO CORP. testified that when she left his presence she went to speak to Ralph Hornsby.8 At or about 3 p.m. that afternoon, following a conversa- tion between Stentz and Hornsby, in which Hornsby advised Stentz to send a certain die out for outside servicing, Hornsby and Massengill were called to the office and terminated during a joint conference with Plant Superintendent Mickey Tidmore and Project Industrial Engineer O'Keefe. Tidmore said that they had run a cost survey, and had come to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to send out the dies than it would be to keep their own tool-and-die man in the shop. Hornsby remarked that it seemed rather sudden, and Tidmore answered that he had only learned of the decision 10 or 15 minutes before. O'Keefe remarked that he would not have replaced Massengill's micrometers a few days before, if he had known. Then Tidmore continued, saying that both men had real good work and attendance records, and that the Company would send them a letter of recommendation. Then Hornsby said that they did not have any way of getting their toolboxes home, and asked if they could return the next day in a truck to pick them up. Tidmore agreed. The conference lasted about 10 minutes. The Union was not discussed.9 On the morning of March 10 the two men returned to the plant to pick up their tools. While at the plant, they went to the lobby and requested to talk with Blair Stentz. Stentz received them in his office and talked with them for about an hour with Tidmore present. They asked Stentz why they had been discharged. He explained the Company's finan- cial condition and produced financial statements from previous months. He said that the Company had decided it would be cheaper to send out the die work, and Hornsby agreed. Then Tidmore, who was also present, spoke up and said that it was cheaper to send the work out than it was to keep it there. Then Hornsby asked why they were dis- charged the day after a union meeting, and after they had signed union cards. They asked if that had anything to do with their termination, and Stentz responded that it did not. Hornsby said that he had heard rumors through the plant that he and Massengill were leading the Union, and that this was not true. Stentz answered that he had no idea they were involved in the Union, and the conference ended. The two men went to the toolroom, picked up their toolboxes, and left. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent utilized the condition of its tool-and-die operation as a pretext to terminate Hornsby and Massengill because they sympathized with and supported the Union. Counsel for the General Counsel urges that the timing of the dis- charges, which occurred on the same day that Massengill signed a union card, supports this theory of the case. Respondent argues that Hornsby and Massengill were discharged for economic reasons only, and that although I do not credit the testimony of Hornsby and Massengill concerning this incident since their versions contradict one another. Massengill testified that the alleged conversation took place on Tuesday, March 8, while Hornsby insisted it occurred on Monday, March 7. More significantly, Hornsby testified that Wright first spoke to him and then spoke to Massengill, while Massengill testified that the two conversations occurred in exactly the opposite order. In any event, the incident is of no significance since Wright was not alleged or proved to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. the terminations may have seemed sudden to the employ- ees, the timing of the decision falls within a logical sequence when considered in the light of Stentz' unrefuted testimony that he based his decision on O'Keefe's Febru- ary 25 and March 7 reports. Furthermore, Respondent argues that it had no knowledge of Hornsby's and Massengill's union sympathies until they revealed them to Stentz in their postdischarge conversation on March 10. I am persuaded that Hornsby and Massengill were terminated for economic considerations and not because of their union activities. The problems which Respondent experienced with respect to the costs of its tool-and-die operations and its unsuccessful effort to reach the goal of performing a large majority of the repairs on dies in the plant, are well documented and virtually undisputed. The uncontradicted testimony of Stentz concerning the timing of his decision to phase out the tool-and die-operation is supported by O'Keefe's February 25 and March 7 reports. Against this background, the General Counsel's timing argument fails. It might be considered equally conceivable that Hornsby's and Massengill's interest in the Union, especially Massengill's signing of a union card on the morning of March 9, may have been prompted by a concern over the security of their jobs because of the deteriorating condition of the tool-and-die operation. This also is not clearly revealed by the record, however. What is firmly established in the record is that Respondent was faced with a steadily increasing cost picture, aggravated by the resignation of Carmack and their inability to find another tool-and-die expert. Finally, the General Counsel's argument, based on credible testimony by employees Betty Lou Hyde and Sarah Garrett that following the discharges of Hornsby and Massengill they continued to see some dies being worked on in the toolroom, that Hornsby's and Massengill's jobs were not actually eliminated, is neutral- ized, in the absence of more detailed testimony, by undisputed testimony from Respondent's witnesses to the effect that the maintenance department had always in the past performed a certain amount of the less complex die work and was continuing to do so. I therefore find that the General Counsel has not proved that Respondent seized upon the adverse economic circumstances involving its tool-and-die operation as a pretext for eliminating Hornsby and Massengill because of their union sympathies. I likewise find that the General Counsel has not proved that Respondent knew that Hornsby and Massengill sympathized with and assisted the Union. I disagree with the General Counsel's argument that Stentz discerned their sympathies about the Union from the March 5 conversa- tion in which he solicited their assistance in countering falsehoods being spread about the Company. Nowhere in this conversation did either Hornsby or Massengill reject Stentz' request. Not only did they rather artfully evade making a negative response, but in addition made remarks 9 O'Keefe testified that when Hornsby questioned him about the suddenness of the decision to terminate them, he said that he had just found out about it at 10 minutes after 3, and that although be had recommended the decision he had not been informed that the decision had been made. I credit Hornsby's version which is consistent with O'Keefe's February 25 and March 7 reports. 557 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in connection with Stentz' statements about the possibility of the plant closing, which could well have led him to believe that they agreed with him. For example, Hornsby answered that he "felt the same way, if the plant should close, he'd go somewhere else and get a job." Massengill stated that people could not hide behind an organization if they were nonproducers, they would go out the door anyway. Under these circumstances I find that the March 5 conversation does not establish company knowledge of Hornsby's and Massengill's union sympathies and activi- ties. Neither do I find that the General Counsel has established the Employer's knowledge of Hornsby's and Massengill's sympathies through the evidence of other incidents concerning Hornsby's and Massengill's conversa- tions with other persons neither alleged nor proven to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Board has long held that the title "supervisor" standing alone does not prove supervisory status. The only person alleged to be a supervisor in paragraph 6 of the complaint, and so admitted in the answer, is Vice President and General Manager Stentz. No other individual's status as a supervi- sor was litigated and there is no evidence in the record that any individual other than Stentz, Mickey Tidmore, and Schilling possessed any Section 2(11) duties. Thus, the testimony of Replogle, referred to in the record as both a supervisor and a leadman, that on the afternoon of Stentz' cafeteria talk Hornsby stated to him that a union had come in at Automatic in Huntsville and that he thought it was a pretty good thing, is of no value to the General Counsel in binding Respondent with knowledge of Hornsby's sympa- thies. Finally, the evidence concerning Hornsby's conver- sation with Seay and Massengill's signing a card for Hill in the cafeteria, with the obvious suggestion that someone from the Company must have seen or heard these inci- dents; and the evidence concerning Sue Wright's alleged discussion of the Union with Hornsby and Massengill shortly before their discharges, clearly intended to suggest that she then reported these discussions to management, constitutes mere speculation. Although it is understand- able, from the standpoint of the Charging Party, that the discharges of union sympathizers and activists close on the heels of their becoming active in the Union's organization- al drive, would raise a suspicion that the terminations were motivated by their activities; these suspicions cannot be utilized as a substitute for proof of actual unlawful discrimination stemming from proven knowledge of the employees' union activities.1 0 I find that the General Counsel has not proven that Respondent knew prior to their discharges that Hornsby and Massengill were union adherents. I therefore find that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill on March 9. 10 Nor do I find persuasive the argument that Hornsby and Massengill were not offered an opportunity to transfer elsewhere. There is no evidence in the record that any other work for them in the plant existed, let alone work commensurate with their skills and pay. t" The General Counsel asserts in his brief that Stentz' March 5 remarks D. The Circumstances Leading to The Discharge of Michelle Hill Michelle Hill had worked for Respondent approximately 22 months as of the time of her discharge on April 5. She was the first employee to actually begin working with the Union in its organizational drive, and thereafter remained the leading union activist in the plant. She compiled lists of people in different departments who might be interested in the Union, attended union meetings, obtained union card signatures from employees, and passed out handbills outside the plant entrance. In many of these activities she was assisted by Dorothy Tidmore.1' Following Stentz' February 21 and 22 series of speeches in the plant cafeteria, and during the period of time when outside consultants were holding group discussions with employees, Stentz called Hill to the office and accused her of questioning his honesty or misjudging him. He said that she had asked for a financial statement at one of the meetings (with the consultants). Stentz became angry and said that he had had enough, and did she understand. Then Stentz went down the line and talked to others. Hill heard him saying that if permitted he would come up with a financial statement for them. Thereafter, on several occasions, Stentz asked Hill if she would come to his office to talk with him because he felt they had a lot of differences that needed to be ironed out. The last one of these requests came a few days before Hill was terminated. Nevertheless, Hill never reported to the office to discuss the matter. Hill's testimony concerning these incidents is undenied and credited. Consequently, it is clear that before her termination the Employer was aware that she was aggressively pursuing the cause of the Union. In addition, at some unspecified point during the last 2 weeks of her employment, Stentz confronted Hill in the process of compiling a list of names from timecards, for use in contacting employees concerning the Union, and told her that he had received complaints in the office about this activity and that she was not to do that any more. On April 5 Hill was called to Mickey Tidmore's office at or about 3:25 p.m. and discharged. Tidmore said that he had statements from employees saying that she had threatened them for not doing her "will." Hill demanded an opportunity to confront the employees who had accused her of this conduct, but this request was refused. Tidmore said he had the statements if they were needed and that he would use them later, if necessary. Then Tidmore escorted Hill to her work station to pick up her belongings and then to the door where two policemen conducted her off the property. She did not return thereafter. General Manager Stentz testified that Hill was dis- charged based upon the complaints of employees Marilyn Walker and Patsy Hayes that Hill had threatened them. Marilyn Walker testified that on a Thursday in April Hill asked her to sign a union card in the women's bathroom. When Walker declined, Hill said that if she did not join the Union she would get her tires slashed. According to Walker this frightened her and she reported the incident. to Hornsby and Massengill concerning two women on the production line, itself establishes the Employer's knowledge of Hill's activities. Although the record shows that Stentz did not mention any names, his later conversations with Hill show that one of those to whom he referred was Hill. 558 SYNCRO CORP. Patsy Hayes testified concerning a similar exchange with Hill in the restroom at or about 3 o'clock on the Friday before Hill was fired. Later, when she observed Hill listing employees' names from their timecards, she became fright- ened and reported the matter. Both employees then talked to Mr. Stentz and gave statements to the Company concerning the incidents. Michelle Hill denied having threatened Walker or Hayes. However, she admitted soliciting card signatures from Walker or Hayes in the bathroom and that she had "cut up with them." She also admitted, concerning Walker, that she had pushed Walker into a bathroom stall in an effort to try to get her to sign a union card. Under these circumstances, I do not credit Hill's denial and am persuaded and find that she did engage in the conduct which Walker and Hayes described in their testimony. I therefore find that although Respon- dent clearly knew of Hill's union sympathies and activities, she was discharged for cause and not because of her advocacy of the Union. I find incredible the testimony adduced by the General Counsel from Sarah Garrett to the effect that remarks about rock throwing and tire slashing, which circulated around the plant during this period, were considered jokes by the employees. Nor do I find that Hill was treated disparately, based upon the cross-examination testimony of Stentz concerning an incident involving employee Jackie York's complaint that employee Sue Ivy had threatened her following an automobile accident in the company parking lot, since York declined to pursue the matter. Finally, I do not draw any adverse inference from Respondent's choosing not to confront Hill with Walker and Hayes, prior to the hearing, or not to reveal their names in the context of a situation involving threats of misconduct. I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(aX)(1) and (3) of the Act in discharging Michelle Hill on April 5. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening employees that Respondent's Arab, Alabama, plant would close if its employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative, by soliciting employees to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign, by dissuading fellow employees from joining or assisting the Union, and by threatening employees in such a manner as to create an impression that their union activities were under surveillance, Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects other than those specifically found. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 559