Rubber Teck, Inc.

RUBBER TECK, INC. 605 Rubber Teck, Inc. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, District No. 5. Case 31-CA-3664 March 12, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On October 25, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Irving Rogosin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a brief in support of the Decision. 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 and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the complaint -herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRVING RoGOSIN, Administrative Law Judge: The complaint, issued May 11, 1973, alleges that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' Specifically, the complaint alleges that (1) on or about January 24, 1973, Supervisor Lorraine Gilbraith attempted to induce an employee to refrain from joining or assisting Local 839; and (2) on or about March 9, 1973, Respondent discharged, and has since failed and refused to reinstate, Sophie Solomon because she joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other protected concerted activities, thereby discriminating in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, and discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent's answer, duly filed on May 22, 1973, generally admits the procedural and jurisdictional allega- tions of the complaint; the supervisory status of the 1 Designations herein are as follows: The General Counsel, unless otherwise specified or required by the context , his representative at the hearing : Rubber Teck, Inc, Respondent, the Company, or the Employer, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, District No 5, the Charging Party, and Local 839 thereof, persons named as its agents; and the discharge of the alleged discriminatee; but denies generally the substantive allegations of the complaint. Hearing was held from July 9 to 12, 1973, both inclusive, at Los Angeles, California. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce oral and documenta- ry evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties waived oral argument but, pursuant to an extension duly granted, filed briefs on August 15, 1973. No proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law have been filed by any of the parties. Upon the entire record in the case and, based upon the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs, which have been carefully considered, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, Respondent has been a California corporation, with its principal office and plant located at Gardena, California, where it has been engaged in the business of manufactur- ing aircraft and space component parts. During the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent received gross annual revenues from its business operations in excess of $100,000, of which in excess of $50,000 was derived from the shipment of goods from its Gardena plant directly to points outside the State of California. On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, including the admissions in Respondent 's answer, it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 839, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called Local 839, and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, District No. 5, herein jointly referred to as the Union, are, and at all times material herein, have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of rubber products, consisting of groove seals, duct conductors, and jointly, the Union, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), the Act; the National Labor Relations Board, the Board The charge was filed and served on March 27, 1973. Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in 1973. 209 NLRB No. 100 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD molded rubber products. Among these products is an aircraft wing fuel tank access door, commonly designated merely as a door. Since 1968, when Local 839 was certified by the Board, Respondent and the local have been parties to a collective- bargaining agreement, containing maintenance-of-mem- bership and voluntary checkoff provisions. The latest agreement, negotiated in 1972, for a term of 3 years, eliminated the escape clause under the maintenance-of- membership provision, and permitted a wage increase during the first year at Respondent's discretion. Although the Union requested a wage increase under this provision, Respondent's president, Paul Karres, notified the Union that Respondent would be unable to comply with its request. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion On January 24, 1973, Lomita Green was hired as an assembly employee. About 3 o'clock that afternoon, according to Green, Supervisor of Assembly Lorraine Gilbraith asked her whether she had been told about the Union. Green acknowledged that Richard Amante, sales and personnel manager, had told her that there was a union in the plant but that membership was optional. Gilbraith then told Green that if she Joined the Union, the Company would not hold it against her but that she, Gilbraith, was not in the Union, adding that she did not have "$6 to throw away every month," and that it was "a waste of time." Gilbraith testified that, during some questions about the job, Green asked her about the Union. When Green asked Gilbraith whether she belonged, Gilbraith told her that she was part of management and was not required to join. Gilbraith denied the remarks attributed to her by Green to the effect that Gilbraith did not have "$6 to throw away." 2 Amante testified that he interviews all newly hired employees, explains the union contract to them, tells them that membership is entirely optional, and that they are covered by the contract whether or not they join the Union. Green conceded that Amante told her that her job would not be Jeopardized if she joined the Union. Under these circumstances, assuming that Gilbraith did, in fact, tell Green that she did not have $6 a month to "throw away," and that joining the Union was a "waste of time," such statements, unaccompanied by promises of benefit or threats of reprisal, are protected as free expression of opinion under Section 8(c) of the Act, and are insufficient to constitute interference, restraint, or coercion. C. Discrimination in Regard To Hire and Tenure of Employment Sophie Solomon had been employed by Respondent for 2 Although this was the only incident of its kind alleged in the complaint, evidence was introduced, without objection, that when Cassandra Zimmer- man was hired as an assembler on March 21, 1973, Gilbraith asked her whether she had been told about the Union. Zimmerman acknowledged that Amante had told her there was a union in the plant, that she was not required to join, and that it was entirely her decision. Gilbraith confirmed to Zimmerman that there was a union in the plant but said she saw no reason for anyone to join, and that it was nothing but "a waste of time" 15 years at the time of her discharge on March 9, 1973. She was then working in the assembly area, "building doors" primarily, but also "flashing" or "deflashing" parts, which entailed removing excess rubber from the parts. The building of doors is performed at the rear of the assembly room where the operator works alone at a table .3 In 1968, shortly after the Union was organized, Solomon was elected president of the local and became its chief shop steward and member of the negotiating committee. Karres, Respondent's president for 26 years, took no active part in the management of the business, except for the 1968 union contract negotiations, until the latter part of 1970. During these negotiations, according to Solomon, Karres threat- ened to close the plant rather than deal with the Union. The union representatives left, refusing to return until they received a letter of apology from Karres' attorney for his behavior. During the organizational activity, according to Solomon, Karres had threatened to fire her if he ever caught her "talking union." 4 After serving as union president and chief shop steward for about 3 years, Solomon became inactive in the Union and apparently dropped her membership. In the summer of 1972, she discussed with employees, including Violet Cheney, Norma Steiner, Gladys Knott, Louise Gilmore, and Martha Barker, the prospect of a raise. On a number of occasions during this period, Solomon approached Gilbraith on the subject. The group of women designated Solomon to speak to President Karres. Late in September Solomon asked Gilbraith to arrange for a meeting with Karres. When Solomon finally asked Karres for a raise for herself and those in her group, he told her that he would think about it. Solomon related the substance of her conversation with Karres to the women in her group and, as she was on the verge of an extended sick leave of absence, asked Steiner to follow the matter up with Karres. During October, Steiner spoke to Karres but he told her that he could not afford to grant a wage increase. Solomon was on vacation during the month of October. She was granted a leave of absence from November to February 19, during which she underwent surgery. On Tuesday, February 6, Gilbraith telephoned Solomon and asked her to procure a letter from her physician indicating when she could return to work. The following day, on an office visit to her physician, she obtained a release from him stating that she was able to return to work. Solomon sent the letter to the plant. On Thursday, February 8, the company bookkeeper, Helen Mitchell, telephoned Solomon, and notified her that Amante wanted her to report for work. Solomon asked to speak to Amante, and reminded him that she had been granted a leave of absence until February 19. Amante told her that the Company needed her "desperately," that the help they were getting wasn't worth having. Finally, Amante told her that if she did not return to work, he 1 The term, building doors, is somewhat misleading. The operation actually requires the application of an "anti-chafing strip" on the aircraft wing fuel tank access doors The doors are first heated, adhesive is applied to the edge, and clean phenolic, a synthetic resin, is pressed into position over the adhesive. Since no unfair labor practice is alleged or based on either of these events, which occurred well beyond the Section 10(b) period, they are mentioned only as background RUBBER TECK, INC. would have to replace her. Solomon called Karres, related what Amante had told her, and said that she needed the remainder of her leave of absence to February 19 because she was still under postoperative care and required some eye treatment. Karres repeated what Amante had told her-that they needed her desperately. Next day, Friday, February 9, Solomon reported for work. Soon afterward, Solomon revived interest in the Union, and discussed with other employees the prospect of joining as a means of obtaining a wage increase. She successfully recruited Lomita Green as a union member. On Wednes- day, March 7, Solomon, accompanied by Violet Cheney and Norma Steiner, attended a union meeting at the home of one of the employees, and all three joined the Union. Solomon was elected chief union steward and member of the negotiating committee for the forthcoming wage reopening in April. The following morning, March 8, Jane Camp, secretary- treasurer of the Union, delivered a letter to Gilbraith, notifying the Company of Solomon's appointment as chief shop steward. Gilbraith turned the letter into the office. When Camp told Solomon during the morning rest period that she had delivered the letter, Solomon donned her steward's badge. Later that day, Lomita Green asked Gilbraith for a chance to perform other types of work than she had been doing. Gilbraith told her that she had been hired to do cleaning. When Green complained to Solomon that she was being denied the opportunity to gain experience in other types of jobs, Solomon told her that since she was now chief steward, she would take the matter up with Gilbraith. Solomon did so, and when she received no satisfaction, told Green, in Gilbraith's presence, to file a grievance. Solomon testified that the same day, almost continuously between 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., President Karres remained in the assembly department, where she was building doors, and kept her under constant observation throughout that interval. Karres conceded that he observed Solomon from behind a glass partition but did so to check on her behavior. He testified also that he made routine tours of the assembly department in an effort to expedite pro- duction. The following day, Friday, March 9, about 11 a.m., according to Solomon, she was sitting at her work station, wearing her steward's badge and cleaning parts, when Lomita Green, whom Gilbraith had assigned a job of deburnng to do, asked Solomon- what to do with the part. Solomon told her to put it in a corner. With that, Karres came storming toward Solomon, shouting, "You're here to work, not talk," and ordered her to clock out, adding, "and I mean for good." According to Karres, he had been in the shipping department, about 20 feet from Solomon, when he observed her standing several feet from her work station, talking to Green. As soon as Karres entered the assembly department. Karres testified, Solomon returned to her seat. Karres told Solomon that this had happened so often, that he had "had it" with her, and ordered her to punch out. 5 According to Galbraith, employees would be required to leave their station as often as I I times a day, 8 to procure parts and 3 to obtain 607 Solomon retorted, according to him, "Well, you go to hell, you punch me out." Karres ordered Gilbraith to punch Solomon out, and she complied. On March 13, at 10 a.m., a meeting was held in the office at the plant to discuss Solomon's grievance. At the outset, Karres, Amante, Union International Representative Albert G. "Cy" Blanton, and Martha Barker, president of the local, were present. According to Karres, Blanton remarked that Karres' "timing" in discharging Solomon was "bad," particularly as she was chief steward. Karres replied that that made no difference to him. Blanton said that Karres would have been better advised to delay firing her, adding that he, Blanton, had had experience in these matters and that Karres did not "have a chance ." Blanton observed that it appeared to him that Solomon had been discharged because of her union activity . Karres denied it. Blanton asked Karres whether Solomon had been dis- charged for discussing the Union on working time. Karres could not recall his reply but Amante quoted Karres as saying that that had had nothing to do with it. Karres stated that employees had been complaining that they were being harrassed to join the Union, and Amante referred to a letter in which an employee had registered a complaint to that effect, although the letter did not mention Solomon by name . Karres also told Blanton that five employees, including Solomon, had been absent from work on February 21, in what had been reported to him as a "quickie" strike. Solomon, however, testified that her absence had been due to a medical appointment , and that she had notified Amante , when she returned to work from her leave of absence, that she would have to take time off for that purpose, and that Amante had consented. In any event, none of the women were disciplined, and Respon- dent does not rely on Solomon's absence that day as a ground for discharge. Otto Grass, Respondent's vice president, joined the meeting, and Solomon and Gilbraith were summoned after the meeting had been in progress for about 20 minutes. Karres and Amante stated their reasons for Solomon's discharge, asserting that she had interfered with production by excessive talking, which prevented employees from doing their work, leaving her work station to engage in conversations with other employees , and contributing to "delinquencies" in deliveries, which had plagued the Company for some time. Solomon retorted that it was necessary for her to leave her work station 10 or 15 times a day to procure parts and cleaning supplies,. which Gilbraith, in effect, at least partially corroborated.5 According to Solomon , occasions on which she left her work station to talk to other employees were to assist and instruct employees as, it might be noted, she had been doing in the case of Green at the time Solomon was terminated. Although this did not comprise part of her duties and, according to Gilbraith, she had told new employees not to ask anyone but Gilbraith for help, it was common practice for more experienced employees to help others with less experience, and Gilbraith was aware of the practice and encouraged new employees, as in the case of Lomita Green , to seek advice cleaning supplies. 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the older employees for shorter or more effective methods in performing their tasks. Moreover, according to Martha Barker, she told Karres at this meeting that employees frequently went to Solomon's work station to seek her advice. Barker, as well as Blanton, testified that Karres admitted at the meeting that Solomon had been at her work station at the time she was discharged. Gilbraith stated at the meeting that she had reprimanded Solomon twice for talking in the entire 15 years of Solomon's employment. The last time occurred on March 8, the day before her discharge, when an employee, Ida Mae Richards, called to Soloman while the latter was waiting to apply phenolic to a door which was being heated. Gilbraith told Solomon that Karres wanted her to get back to work. Gilbraith acknowledged at the meeting that Solomon was a good worker, and, Solomon, denying the conduct jniputed to her, told Karres that she was the best worker he had. Her statement that she had built 107 doors the day before she was discharged was not refuted.6 Solomon's grievance was not sustained and, by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, the grievance was not subject to arbitration.? Respondent's Contentions Respondent does not rely solely on the incident which occurred on March 9 as grounds for Solomon's discharge. It contends, in effect, that the incident was merely the culmination of a series of incidents of misconduct commencing almost immediately upon her return from her sick leave of absence on February 9. Respondent's complaints consisted of her excessive talking to other employees, thereby disrupting her own work as well as theirs; leaving her work station frequently; engaging in loud, boisterous, belligerent conduct, and displaying a "chip on her shoulder" attitude, resulting in interference with and decline in production; and using loud, offensive, and vulgar language. Although conceding that Solomon had engaged in similar conduct before going on leave of absence, Respondent contends that since her return, this conduct became more aggravated, possibly because of her reluctance to return ahead of time. Respondent conceded, however, that when she applied herself to her work and abstained from talking to other employees, she performed her work well. It should be noted that there was no rule or policy against talking among employees, provided it did not interfere with production. There was evidence that conver- sation among employees was quite common, and that even members of management occasionally stopped to engage employees in pleasantries and matters unrelated to their 6 Steiner, who built doors almost daily while Solomon was on leave of absence, produced no more than 50 or 60 doors in an 8-hour period. According to Gilbraith , while no employee had built more doors than Solomon until the time of her discharge, one employee, Darlene Kelly, had produced as many as Solomon. On the day before the hearing in this proceeding, Karres learned that a newly hired employee had produced 110 doors in a day There was no showing as to the previous experience of this employee or the number of hours she worked that day. In any event, it is undisputed that Solomon's output of doors for the day before her discharge was outstanding work. In fact, it may be said that, if anything, an atmosphere of permissiveness prevailed in the plant, which included wagering on horses (in particular, a racehorse owned by Karres' daughter, with wagers being placed from Karres' own telephone), and lotteries. Gilbraith herself was not above indulging in pranks, which admittedly included barking like a dog, inserting foam rubber in her bosom, and pasting duo seals on her face. In Gilbraith's words, that "doesn't mean that I'm not working . . . after all, they've proven already they don't expect you to be behind prison bars . . . you can have a little fun there." According to Karres, after Solomon returned from her leave of absence, she frequently left her station to talk to employees for from 3 to 10 minutes at a time. She also summoned employees to her work station when they were in the vicinity or on their way to the restroom and engaged them in conversation for as long as 10 minutes at a time. She was critical of Gilbraith, gesticulated and shouted at her so that she could be heard 70 feet away over the din of plant noises. On one such occasion, she allegedly shouted at Gilbraith, "You are nothing but a bitch and we don't respect you in this place." During such encounters, according to Karres, employees stopped their work to observe what was going on. Employees complained about Solomon's conduct to management. According to some, Solomon engaged in arguments with Gilbraith on an almost daily basis, becoming so enraged as to shout so that she could be heard throughout the assembly department. One assembly employee, Juanita Rollins, testified that because of the noise, she was obliged to take refuge in the shipping department, and could even hear Solomon's voice through closed doors. Since her job entailed counting parts, Rollins claimed she was unable to concentrate on her work, and told Karres that she would have to punch out because of the commotion Solomon generated, though there was no showing that Rollins ever did so. According to Gilbraith, Solomon became excited four or five times a day, and threw temper tantrums. When Solomon returned from her leave of absence, apparently resentful at having been ordered to return early, according to Gilbraith, she went about exclaiming, "What did they think [I ] was doing, going to Las Vegas?", sometimes venting her anger at her fellow employees. Solomon was also accused by some employees of "cussing everybody out," and resorting to profanity or other vulgar epithets. Gilbraith admitted, however, that she had not been shocked by Solomon's language, and that Solomon had not indulged in name calling since returning from sick leave. Moreover, according to Gilbraith, she knew of at least one other employee who had used a vulgar sexual epithet, one Art. IV, sec. 4,-of the agreement provides, in pertinent part: .. no alleged grievance shall be arbitrable which:... (iii) involves any claim which, if true, would constitute a violation of any federal or state legislation concerning discrimination and/or of the National Labor Relations Act, or which, in any case, would be within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board " Moreover, Respondent stated its unwillingness to submit the matter to arbitration, and the parties agree that the Collyer policy (Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837) is not involved. RUBBER TECK, INC. never used by Solomon, and who had, nevertheless, not been disciplined. No useful purpose would be served by further detailing Respondent's reasons for discharging Solomon. They are of the same general character as those already described.8 It should be noted, however, that Solomon was not without her staunch defenders, though principally union adherents or sympathizers. It need hardly be said that, if Solomon had engaged in all or any of the acts of which Respondent complains, her misconduct would have furnished ample grounds for discharge. Indeed, as has repeatedly been held, Respon- dent would have been entitled to discharge her, with or without cause, provided only it did not do so for reasons proscribed by the Act. Nor need it be added that the fact that she may have been an active union protagonist did not absolve her of the consequences of her misdeeds. It is, of course, also true that valid grounds for discharge will not preclude a finding of discrimination if the employer was actually motivated, in whole or material part, by a purpose to discourage membership in a labor organization, and the employer merely utilizes the asserted reason as a pretext. On the other hand, where an employee is actually discharged or otherwise disciplined for valid or legitimate reasons, untainted by motives proscribed by the Act, an employer does not violate the Act merely because the employee was engaged in protected concerted activities and the employer parts company with the employee without regret. The question, then, is whether, in discharging Solomon, Respondent was motivated, in whole or material part, by a purpose to discourage membership in the Union. Solomon had been active in organizing the Union, had held the office of president, and had been chief shop steward and a member of the negotiating committee which arrived at the initial contract with Respondent. She became mactive in the Union after 1971 until the summer months of 1972. Then, as has been seen, she sought a merit wage increase for herself and the group named elsewhere. The denial of the raise obviously prompted her renewed interest in the Union and, after she returned from her extended sick leave, she rejoined the Union and recruited others. On March 7, 1973, she formally joined the Union, together with Cheney and Steiner. She was appointed chief union steward and a member of the negotiating committee in connection with the wage reopening scheduled in April 1973. The following day, she wore her steward's badge in the plant, and almost immediately became embroiled in an argument with Supervisor Gilbraith regarding Lomita Green's complaint. Within 2 days, she was discharged, ostensibly for talking to Green, whom she had advised to file a grievance. All indications are that the conversation between Solomon and Green was work related. While the 8 Mention should be made, however, of an alleged claim that Solomon was responsible for damage to rubber seals, referred to as Part No 4109, on which she had admittedly worked, and which were discovered to contain cuts The incident occurred on March 1 but was not discovered until after her discharge. Thus, it could have played no part in Respondent's decision In its brief, Respondent conceded that it did not discover the damage until its investigation m preparation for the hearing in this proceeding incident itself was trivial and insignificant, scarcely warranting the precipitate action of discharge, without any attempt at investigation, Respondent treated the incident as the culmination of a long, and what Respondent obviously regarded as a trying and intolerable, series of incidents in which Solomon had allegedly been singlehand- edly responsible for disruption in production and impair- ment of morale among employees. Respondent conceded that Solomon's work performance and deportment, at least, for the last several years prior to her leave of absence, had differed only in degree from that which followed her return to the plant. It may be assumed, not only from the testimony of witnesses at the hearing but also from observation of her own general attitude and demeanor, that Solomon was vocal in statements of position which she asserted at the plant; she may have indulged in colorful language, which probably did not go beyond shoptalk; she was independent, quick to assert her rights; and, due no doubt, to her long tenure, she was inclined to take liberties in her relations with her peers and superiors. This was obviously well known to management when they importuned her to return to work before she was scheduled to do so, asserting that she was needed desperately because of lack of qualified help, and because of the drastic delinquency it was encountering in making shipments to its customers, including the Government and aerospace contractors. As desperate as its plight may have been, it does not seem probable that Respondent would have disregarded Solomon's previously known antics and temperament. To conclude that Solomon's work habits, attitude, and temperament deteriorated to the extent claimed by Respondent, on her return from her 4 months' leave of absence, flies in the face of uncontroverted evidence regarding her output of 107 doors on the very day before her discharge, in addition to her other work tasks in deflashing rubber seals. While Respondent had no records available (since they had been destroyed) regarding Solomon's (or, for that matter, that of other employees') production on other days during the month of her last employment, it seems all but inconceivable that Solomon would have been able to achieve the production admittedly performed if she spent so much time indulging in extensive and nonwork related conversations with employees, repeatedly left her work station, and engaged in the vituperative, boisterous, belligerent conduct in which Solomon was alleged to have engaged. Relying on what it characterizes as an amicable and harmonious relationship with the Union, as exemplified by successive collective-bargaining agreements and the satis- factory disposition of grievances, Respondent contends, in effect, that it would have had no purpose in attempting to discourage membership in the Union. Moreover, it had dealt with Solomon herself, as president and shop steward of the local during the original organizational campaign, Respondent states that it "has never contended that this incident was a basis for her discharge." It contends, however, that the evidence supports a finding that Solomon was deliberately attempting to cause damage, and should, therefore, be denied reinstatement even if otherwise entitled to that remedy. The record is insufficient to warrant a finding that Solomon was personally responsible for the damage to the parts involved. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and afterward during negotiations culminating in the initial contract. By implication, if it had wanted to undermine the Union, it would have attempted to do so before the Union gained a foothold. During the following 3-year period, while Solomon was in office, it made no effort to eliminate her. Why then, so the argument runs, would Respondent seek to discourage membership in the Union by attempting to eliminate an active union adherent after the Union had become reasonably well-entrenched. The reason may he found in the fact that, until Solomon had revived interest in the Union in 1972, it had been relatively dormant. Membership had obviously declined. After Solomon attempted unsuccessfully to secure a merit increase for herself and other employees and, following her return from her leave of absence, she rejoined the Union and enlisted others to do so. When she appeared at the plant wearing a steward's badge, Respondent undoubtedly realized that Solomon's interest in the Union had been reawakened. In February, the Union notified Respondent of its intention to reopen wage negotiations in April. Whether Respondent was aware that Solomon was a member of the negotiating committee, it is reasonable to assume that in view of her membership on the committee which negotiated the initial contract, and her renewed status as shop steward, Respondent considered it a distinct possibility that Solomon would be a member of the negotiating committee, and that she might prove an aggressive and energetic negotiator.9 This hypothesis, however, is necessarily based on surmise and conjecture. The timing of Solomon's discharge, within 48 hours of her reaffiliation with the Union, and 24 hours after she donned her steward's badge, of course, creates the suspicion that her discharge was causally related to her renewed union activity, especially when viewed in the light of the relatively trivial incident which allegedly precipitat- ed her discharge. So, too, does the fact that Solomon was summarily discharged in the midst of a pay period, although she had previously provided grounds for dis- charge. The absence of any union animus or acts of interference with the self-organizational rights of its employees over nearly 4 years of bargaining relationship, 9 The fact that Respondent subsequently agreed to a wage increase in these negotiations , retroactive to May (and after Solomon was discharged), does not detract from the likelihood that Respondent aught have preferred not to deal with Solomon on the bargaining committee. 10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the however, is a persuasive factor in any determination regarding Respondent's motivation in discharging Solo- mon. Nor does the evidence warrant a finding that Respondent was so concerned about Solomon's role in any upcoming negotiations as to have resorted to the drastic action of discharging her under the pretext that she had proved to be a disruptive influence in the plant. While the circumstances of Solomon's discharge are not altogether free from suspicion, the preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding that Respondent discharged Solomon because of her union or protected concerted activity to discourage membership in the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and, upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Rubber Teck, Inc., Respondent herein, is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, District No. 5, and Local 839, jointly referred to as the Union herein, are, and at all times material herein, have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended: ORDER 10 The complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.