G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. W. Murphy Industries , Inc., Portable Electric
Tools Division and Dora C Ragsdale , Regina D.
Ellis, Mildred R. Elliott, Nellie P. Smith,
International Union , Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO; Cases 38-CA-601-1,
38-CA-601-2, 38- CA-601-3, 38-CA-601-4, and
38-C A-601-5
October 14, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner William F.
Scharnikow issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's 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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, G.
W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Warrensburg, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
-We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors appearing in the
Trial Examiner ' s Decision section 111, E, second paragraph , delete "1947
and 1948" and substitute " 1967 and 1968" therefor
'These findings and conclusions are based , in part , upon credibility
determinations of the Trial Examiner , to which the Respondent has
excepted Having carefully reviewed the record , we conclude that the Trial
Examiner 's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing
those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc . 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188
F 2d 362 (C A 2)
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
2. Add the following as the third indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F SCHARNIKOW, Trial Examiner The
complaint alleges, but the answer of the Respondent
denies, that the Respondent, G W Murphy Industries,
Inc , Portable Electric Tools Division, has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(l) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C.
Sec 151, et seq , by discharging employees Dora C.
Ragsdale, Regina D Ellis, Mildred R Elliott, and Nellie
P Smith on January 10, 1969, and by thereafter refusing
to reinstate them, because said employees joined and
assisted International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), and
engaged in other union activity and concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid and
protection
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Decatur,
Illinois on March 25, 26 and 27, 1969, before me. The
General Counsel and the Respondent appeared by counsel
and the Union by its representatives, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence upon
the issues Counsel for the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Union have submitted briefs which
have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Texas corporation with an office
and plant in Warrensburg, Illinois, is engaged in the
business of metal stamping and assembling electric garden
tools During a representative 12-month period, the
Respondent, in the course of its business operations, sold
and shipped from its Warrensburg, Illinois, plant, finished
products of a value exceeding $50,000 to points outside
the State of Illinois During the same 12-month period,
the Respondent purchased and caused to be transferred
and delivered to its Warrensburg, Illinois, plant, goods
and materials of a value exceeding $50,000 directly from
points in States other than the State of Illinois
179 NLRB No. 16
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 125
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to entertain jurisdiction of this
case.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
According to the General Counsel, the Respondent
discharged four women employees at its Warrensburg,
Illinois, plant on January 10, 1969, because of their
previous concerted activities including their organizational
activities on behalf of the Union which had lost a Board
representation election on September 6, 1968. The
Respondent denies this accusation and submits that the
evidence taken at the hearing shows that they were in fact
discharged by Plant Manager Roger Peterson, who had
come to the plant as its manager only in November 1968
and knew nothing of the women's Union or other
concerted activity, and that Peterson discharged the
women, because from the reports made to him by the
women's supervisors and his own observation of the
employees' conduct, he believed that they presented
"personality conflicts" in their relationships with their
supervisors and fellow employees and that they were
"insubordinate" within the meaning of plant rules which
he found it necessary to publish on January 6, 1969
B. The General Employment History of the Four
Dischargees
The four women employees, the propriety of whose
discharges is placed in issue, were Nellie Smith, who had
worked in the assembly department at the plant since
December 12, 1966, and three others, each of whom, in
two or more years of continuous employment at the plant,
had worked for the most part in its press department, I e ,
Dora Ragsdale (hired on February 6, 1966), Mildred
Elliott (hired on December 19, 1966), and Regina Ellis
(hired on January 18, 1967) When each of these women
was hired, the plant was operated by Drake Electric
Works as a division of Portable Electric Tools, but in a
merger which took place in October 1967, the plant was
taken over by the present Respondent which has since
operated it as well as another plant in Geneva, Illinois,
and continued to employ the same staff of employees
including the four women with whom we are now
concerned.
Only during the last months of their employment, was
there any change in the top local management of the
Warrensburg plant Edgar Keyl had been plant manager
since 1965 with no intermediate supervision, so far as the
record shows, between him and his departmental foremen
But in October 1968, Keyl became ill and in November
1968 was succeeded as plant manager by Roger Peterson
who, according to his testimony, had had no comparable
managing experience either at this or any other plant, his
previous work having been in farming, in "engineering"
and in a job at an electronics plant the details of which
were not disclosed. On December 2, 1968, Joseph Cuvallo,
who had been employed elsewhere by the Respondent and
its predecessors for 18 years, was also brought in as plant
superintendent in charge of all manufacturing personnel at
the Warrensburg plant On December 9, 1968, Keyl
returned from his sick leave as assistant plant manager
and thus as a subordinate to Plant Manager Peterson.
But the departmental supervision of the four women
during the last year or more of their employment in the
plant remained virtually unchanged. For the two years up
to December 31, 1968, Jerry O'Loughlin had been the
foreman of the assembly department in which Nellie
Smith worked, and was succeeded as assembly foreman by
James Stanford only for the last few days of Smith's
employment And, from August 14, 1967, Herschel
Wisnasky had been foreman of the press department in
which the other three discharged girls worked, although
after November 1968, Dora Ragsdale had been
transferred and had worked until her discharge on
January 10, 1969, at an inspector's job under Foreman
Robert York.
The only grounds asserted by the Respondent for the
discharge of the 4 women employees in this case on
January 10, 1969, were "personality conflicts" with their
supervisors and other employees and "insubordination" in
constantly complaining about conditions in the plant and
failing to follow routine procedures prescribed by the
supervisors The evidence as to these matters will later be
considered in detail. But no complaint is made by the
Respondent in the present case about the women's work
or their production On the contrary, it appears from the
credible evidence that during their several years of
employment the very supervisors who complained about
them in other respects during their testimony in the
present case had generally complimented them on their
work and had recommended and approved changes in
their work assignments reflecting their satisfaction with
the women's competency and their work performance.
In the case of Nellie Smith, who worked under
Foreman O'Loughlin in the assembly department for
more than 2 years following her hire on December 20,
1966, O'Loughlin had made her a repair girl correcting
the mistakes of other girls within 2 weeks after she was
hired, and had thereafter urged her to take a lead girl's
job until she finally did apply for and was given a lead
girl's job for the duration of a night shift operated by the
Respondent from April to August or September 1967
Reverting then to her original job as an assembler for
about a year, she was again urged by O'Loughlin to bid
for an assignment as a lead girl on a limited production
job in the latter part of October or beginning of
November 1968 But instead she asked for and was again
given the job of a repair girl on November 6, 1968, and
remained a repair girl until she was discharged on January
10, 1969. Despite Smith's difficulties with lead girl Donna
Mihal from time to time (which will be later discussed)
O'Loughlin had approved the assignments thus given to
Smith Moreover, although O'Loughlin testified at the
hearing merely that Smith's "work was up to the average
of anybody else," and that "the quality of her work .
was good," he did not deny Smith's specific testimony,
and therefore I find as Smith testified, that "on many
occasions," O'Loughlin told her he could not put her on a
job she could not do
Mildred Elliott, originally hired on December 19, 1966,
in the assembly department under Foreman O'Loughlin,
transferred to the press department as an operator under
Foreman Wisnasky on October 2, 1967, and stayed on the
latter job until her discharge on January 10, 1969. When
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she told O'Loughlin of her intention to apply for the
transfer, O'Loughlin told her, "Well, I like you and I hate
to lose you; you're a good worker." In November 1967,
shortly after her transfer to the press department,
Foreman Wisnasky told her she had not made "her rate"
for the first 30 days and he thought she could do better.
But, after she was in the department for 60 days, she
asked Wisnasky how she was doing and he said, "You're
doing fine Don't overdo it " Finally, Wisnasky paid
Elliott a more generous compliment in the first week in
December 1968, dust a month before her discharge At
that time, according to her testimony concerning the
incident which I credit, Elliott asked Wisnasky whether it
was true that he had mentioned her as being "a close
second" to a girl he had warned for a bad record of
absenteeism. Wisnasky denied having done so although he
said the girl to whom he had spoken might have seen
Elliott's name as well as other employees' names as he
flipped his record while he was talking Wisnasky then
said to Elliott, "In fact, I made a remark dust a few days
ago that I was going to congratulate you on your record
and your production, it's real high " He added, however,
that "there was a lot of discussion down there in the press
room", that Elliott "was part of it", and that "he was
getting tired of women jumping him when he went
through the press room " Elliott admitted to Wisnasky
that the girls "all discussed everything on breaks and
lunch hour," but said that "I wasn't jumping him, that I
just wanted to ask him a question and I didn't know who
else to ask "'
Dora Ragsdale, originally hired on February 6, 1966,
worked during almost the entire time of her employment
by the Respondent and its predecessor as an operator in
the press department She was on the night shift in August
1967 when Wisnasky became foreman in charge of both
shifts in the department When the night shift was
discontinued in January 1968, she transferred to the day
shift as a press operator. In November 1968, she was
made an inspector under Foreman Robert York and
served as an inspector the remaining weeks of her
employment Shortly after her transfer to the day shift in
the press department in January 1968, Foreman Wisnasky
had told her that her production "was running low" but,
in response to her question, said that it was not "drastic"
although "it would stand some jacking up " Before
Ragsdale transferred to inspection in November 1968, she
asked Wisnasky whether to apply for the transfer and
(according to her uncontradicted testimony) he told her
that he did not see why she should not become an
inspector; that she was a good worker and press operator
and knew the types of steel they were using, and that he
hated to lose her because she was a good operator
Consistently, when her application for the inspector's job
was approved, York, her new foreman in the inspection
'The findings in the text are made upon Elliott's credited testimony In
response to a question put to him by Respondent ' s counsel, Wisnasky
denied "that during the first week of December 1968 [he had]
congratulated [Elliott] on her work " In earlier questioning by
Respondent 's counsel, he had testified that it was "about March 28 of '68"
that he had denied an accusation by Elliott that he had been "showing
everybody [Elliott's] absentee record " He further testified that he had then
told Elliott that her absentee record was in fact "outlandish " and that
"something [had to be] done about it " because he did not know how to
plan work "with to many being off for different occasions " No attempt
was made by the Respondent through Wisnasky ' s testimony or the
production of any records to show what Elliott ' s attendance record was
Nor is it claimed by the Respondent that absenteeism was a reason for the
Respondent 's later discharging her
department, told Krapek an official from the
Respondent's Geneva plant in Ragsdale's presence, that
Foreman Wisnasky had highly recommended her, that she
was a good operator, and a conscientious worker.' Finally,
according to employee Regina Ellis' testimony which I
credit, Edgar Keyl (originally the Respondent's plant
manager during the greater portion of Ragsdale's
employment) expressed agreement with this appraisal of
Ragsdale's competence shortly after he returned to work
as assistant plant manager in December 1968. For when
Ellis went to the office to borrow money from the credit
union on December 10, 1968, she was asked by Keyl
whether Ragsdale liked her new job as an inspector. She
told Keyl that Ragsdale was "enthused," and Keyl said he
was glad Ragsdale had gotten the job "because she was a
very competent worker and he thought she would make a
very good inspector "'
Regina Ellis, the fourth employee discharged on
January 10, 1969, was hired on January 18, 1967, and
after briefly working in the assembly department worked
the rest of her 2 years of employment as an operator in
the press department where she was first on the night shift
for about a year, then on the day shift for about 10
months, and finally again on the night shift from
November 4, 1968, until she was discharged on January
10, 1969 For the most part, the evidence concerning her
employment related to her personality and attitude which
the Respondent asserts caused her discharge But as
noted, the Respondent does not otherwise criticize her
work record nor her competence. However, it should be
affirmatively noted that according to Ragsdale's
uncontradicted testimony which I credit, Foreman
Wisnasky although complaining to Ragsdale in November
or December 1968 about the night shift production being
so low, specifically exempted Ellis from his criticism,
saying that "her production is excellent. It's the rest of
them I wish they would send some operators out here
instead of waitresses and housewives."
C. The Concerted Activities of the Four Dischargees
During the two or more years of their employment by
the Respondent and its predecessor, each of these four
women who were discharged on January 10, 1969, had
become involved in activity which the General Counsel
contends was concerted activity protected by Section 7 of
the Act The first involvement in such activity was a 2- or
3-day strike by the women press department employees in
August 1967 Their second involvement in such activity
was in the organizational activity in support of the Union
which was eventually defeated in a Board representation
election on September 6, 1968. And the third was a brief
stoppage of work by the women press department
employees in November 1968 while they protested to their
foreman, Herschel Wisnasky, about a work assignment.
The Respondent not only contends that the 1967 and 1968
stoppages were unprotected activities but (as will be seen)
'This finding, too, is based upon Ragsdale's uncontradicted testimony
Neither York nor Krapek testified
'According to Ellis, upon whose testimony this finding is based, there
were two people in the office in addition to Keyl and herself, i e , the
receptionist and Plant Superintendent Cuvallo Neither the receptionist nor
Keyl testified at the hearing Cuvallo testified that Ellis came into the
office, spoke to the receptionist about the credit union and greeted Keyl
who was having coffee with Cuvallo, that he did not remember her having
any other conversation with Keyl, and that he did not hear Ellis say that
Ragsdale was enthusiastic about her job, nor did he hear Keyl say that
Ragsdale was a competent worker
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES
through the testimony of Foreman Wisnasky,
Superintendent Cuvallo, and Plant Manager Peterson
indicates that involvement of three of the women in these
stoppages was in part the basis for Peterson's conclusion
that they presented such "personality conflicts" as to
require their discharges on January 10, 1969
The 1967 work stoppage began on Friday, August I l
when the women employees in the press department quit
work in protest against the Respondent's discharge of
their foreman, Truman Myrah, and the hire of a new
foreman, Herschel Wisnasky, in his place. On the next
day, Saturday August 12, press operators Regina Ellis and
Dora Ragsdale (two of the four employees whose January
1969 discharges have given rise to the present case)
telephoned Sundberg, a higher official of the company at
its Geneva, Illinois plant Ellis spoke to Sundberg first
and told him in substance that the girls were protesting
the discharge of their foreman Myrah, who "was one of
the best foremen to work with because he knew how to
give us orders without being `pushy'," and that the girls
did not intend to go back to work until Sundberg "did
something about this matter" Ragsdale, who knew and
was known by Sundberg as a result of his visits to the
Warrensburg plant, then entered the telephone
conversation She told Sundberg that "everything had
been going real well" for the girls in the press room
because Myrah had taken "safety precautions" and
intended to fix two presses that still needed attention to
make their operation safe She also told Sundberg that the
girls wanted to know why Myrah had been fired and
whether there was any chance of his being taken back.
Sundberg asked Ragsdale whether the girls would go back
to work and Ragsdale said, "not until something is done."
She agreed, however, to Sundberg's request that she get
the girls together to see him at the Warrensburg plant at 2
p m. on the following Tuesday, August 15.
Accordingly, the press department girls including Ellis
and Ragsdale went to the Warrensburg plant on August
15, 1967 Manager Keyl came out of the office and asked
Ragsdale to come in to speak with Sundberg. When she
did, Sundberg asked her in the presence of Keyl and
Wayne, and company vice president in charge of
production, why the press department girls had walked
out. She replied that Myrah had corrected "the safety
hazards" which had existed when he became foreman but
that there were still presses that needed fixing and were
responsible for "rejects," that one of the presses had not
been fitted with a flywheel guard against the women's
catching their hair in it, and that other presses "double
tripped " Sundberg made notes as she talked. In spite of
Ragsdale's plea on behalf of Myrah, his discharge was not
revoked, and Wisnasky took charge of the department and
has since remained as press foreman After Ragsdale had
her conversation with Sundberg, she and the other girls
returned to work and the Respondent thereafter took steps
to eliminate the particular hazards she had pointed out to
him
The November 1968 work stoppage in which press
department women employees engaged more than a year
later, lasted only 15 or 20 minutes. With work running
low in the welding department, Foreman Wisnasky had
assigned two male spot welders to work at the lighter jobs
on presses in the press department Press Operator Helen
Rogers who had bid for the higher paying welding job,
spoke to the other women press operators including Linda
Cotton and Mildred Elliott about backing her up in a
protest against the welders' operating the presses
Although asked to be their spokeswomen Elliott refused,
127
saying that it was Roger's complaint and she should do
the talking In any event, all the press operators on the
shift, shut down their presses for 15 or 20 minutes while
they talked with Wisnasky in a group. Warren and Cotton
apparently did most of the talking. But the other women
operators including Elliott also joined in the argument
After 15 or 20 minutes they returned to their presses. On
the following day, Wisnasky shifted the spot welders from
the presses to material handling
Between these 1967 and 1968 work stoppages, Smith,
Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis, along with other employees,
also made an attempt to organize the Respondent's
employees and establish the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. But the Union lost
the Board election held on September 6, 1968, and its
objections to the conduct of the election submitted on
affidavits of various employees (including those of Smith,
Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis), were overruled by the
Regional Director. It is stipulated in the present
proceeding that although the Respondent opposed the
Union and campaigned against it in speeches made to the
employees and in literature delivered to them before the
election, its conduct was not violative of the Act.
Nevertheless, among the factors to be considered in the
present case in the light of the Respondent's conceded
opposition to the Union, are the extent of Smith's,
Ragsdale's, Elliott's, and Ellis' participation in the Union
organizational campaign and the Respondent's awareness
thereof through its own representatives.
Nellie Smith began the effort to organize the
Respondent's employees in February 1968 by telephoning
Boyd Shinn, the Union's Regional Director in Decatur,
and asking for his help At Shinn's suggestion, she
thereupon formed an organizing committee consisting of
herself, Mary Parrish, and Caroline Taylor (all three of
whom were assembly department employees), and also
Dora Ragsdale and Mildred Elliott (who were employed
in the press department). Shinn later met with this
committee at Smith's home, and gave them general
instructions and union cards which they signed and were
to get other employees to sign preparatory to the Union's
asking for a Board election In the following few months,
the committee, joined by about five other employees
including Regina Ellis, solicited card signatures from their
fellow employees. All four of the women employees whom
the Respondent later discharged on January 10, 1969, thus
took part in this union activity during work breaks at the
plant, and outside the plant in stores and homes, and over
the telephone. Smith spoke to roughly 20 other employees
and got about 15 card signatures, and Ragsdale secured
17 card signatures from the 30 to 40 employees whom she
solicited Elliott and Ellis, in addition to signing their own
cards and attending union committee and general
meetings during the organizational period also handed out
union cards to other employees and asked them to support
the Union. But, although it appears from their testimony
that Elliott thus spoke to 15 or 20 other employees and
handed out eight cards, and that Ellis spoke to 20 or 25
employees, it does not appear from the evidence that
either Elliott or Ellis actually procured any
employee-signatures on the union cards. Nor does it
appear that any of the union solicitation occurred in the
presence of the Respondent's supervisors or officials.
But from the credible evidence it does appear that the
Respondent's plant manager, the departmental foreman,
and the Respondent's attorney did eventually become
aware of the fact that Smith, Ragsdale, and Elliott, were
supporting the Union in the organizational campaign
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thus, on August 6, 1968, the Union sent Plant Manager
Keyl a telegram claiming that it represented a majority of
the Respondent's production and maintenance employees,
asking for recognition and a beginning of contract
negotiations, and "informing [Keyl] that along with other
employees . [the] Union organizing committee
includes Dora Ragsdale, Nellie Smith, and Carolyn
Taylor " There was also credible, and for the most part
uncontradicted evidence of conversations between the
employees and the Respondent's representatives which
clearly shows that the latter knew of the particular
employees' support of the Union in the election
Following Nellie Smith's questioning a statement made
by the Respondent's attorney to the employees over the
plant's "intercom" before the election, the attorney
engaged in three friendly conversations with Smith, during
the first two of which he answered Smith's question by
showing her a decision holding that a union's promise to
waive initiation fees would be ground for setting aside an
election if the union won Then in the third conversation
after the election (in which Smith had in the meantime
served as a union observer and had also submitted an
affidavit to the Regional Director in support of the
Union's objections to the election), the attorney told
Smith not to feel badly about the Union's loss, because
she had given the Respondent a good fight and it
"thought highly of [her] "
Similarly, the Respondent's attorney also had a friendly
conversation with Dora Ragsdale about the Union before
the election, and Ragsdale, like Smith, thereafter served
as a union observer at the election and (as the Respondent
knew) submitted an affidavit in support of the Union's
objection to the election. In addition, Ragsdale telephoned
Wisnasky, her press department foreman, at his home a
short time before the election and just after Wisnasky had
distributed a company letter to the employees informing
them of the Union's representation petition. In this
telephone conversation, Ragsdale told Wisnasky that,
although she was a union committeewoman, she felt like a
traitor to him but that the girls wanted a union, not
because of him, but because of the heat and the dangerous
condition of the machinery in the press room.4
Mildred Elliott, too, in a number of conversations with
the Respondent's supervisors just before and after the
election made clear her support of the Union. In one
conversation, Manager Keyl asked her why "there was a
lot of dissatisfaction downstairs" and whether the girls
liked Foreman Wisnasky, to which Elliott replied that
there was dissatisfaction not only downstairs but all over
the plant; that "there was too much partiality and we
wanted better working conditions [and] job security"; and
that although some of the girls did not like Wisnasky, this
would be so anywhere and she herself had personally
found Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin (for whom she
had first worked in the assembly department) to be fair to
her In another conversation just before the election,
Foreman Wisnasky while passing out company handbills
among the employees, told Elliott that signing a Union
card would not prevent her from voting against the Union
in the election, to which Elliott replied that she knew it,
because, as Wisnasky should remember, she had been a
member of a "real good" union on a previous job
Wisnasky thereupon said to her, "The way you talk,
This finding is made upon the testimony of Ragsdale which I credit
Wisnasky testified merely that Ragsdale told him in this telephone
conversation that she was sorry that he "looked like [he] was beat" but
that "she did not say she was working for or against the union "
maybe you're one of the [Union] representatives " Then,
just after the election, Elliott told Foreman O'Loughlin
she felt bad about the Union's loss because "we had
worked hard for it," to which O'Loughlin replied that he
had not wanted the Union to win because "it would have
made it look like Mr. Keyl and I wasn't managing the
[plant] right "
Of the four women who were later to be discharged by
the Respondent on January 10, 1969, only Regina Ellis
apparently had no conversations or contacts with any of
the Respondent's representatives which might have
revealed her participation in the Union's organizational
campaign However, she, like Smith, Ragsdale, and
Elliott, also submitted an affidavit to the Regional
Director in support of the Union's objections to the
conduct of the election
There is no dispute, of course, that the women's
participation in, and support of, the Union's preelection
organizational campaign was protected concerted activity
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act The
Respondent's contentions with respect to this activity are
that it ended with, and was not continued after, the Board
election on September 6, 1968, that the four women's past
connection with this union activity was not known to
Manager Peterson who became plant manager in
November 1968, and that it was therefore not a factor in
his decision to discharge the women on January 10, 1969
The Respondent, however, does dispute the General
Counsel's contention that both the August 1967 and the
November 1968 stoppages were concerted activities
protected by Section 7 of the Act In its brief, it argues in
substance that both stoppages were unprotected attempts
by the employees to interfere with the Respondent's
exercise of its "management prerogatives," since the 1967
stoppage was a protest against the Respondent's change of
its foreman (br , p 34) and the 1968 stoppage was a
protest against the Respondent's temporary assignment of
work in the press department to welders when they ran
out of their own work, in accordance with a "precedent
that had been [previously] established ..." (br pp 7 and
19 ) But, in making this argument, the Respondent ignores
the clear nature and purposes of the stoppages in the
present case, and the rights of its unrepresented employees
under Section 7 of the Act to engage in "concerted
activities" - including work stoppages - to persuade the
Respondent to change existing terms or conditions of
employment to which the employees objected and which
had not been the product of a collective-bargaining
agreement with their representatives
Although the 1967 stoppage took the initial form of a
protest by the press department employees against the
discharge of their foreman, Dora Ragsdale as the women's
spokesman made it clear to Sundberg who had come to
the plant from the Respondent's home office, that they
were objecting to the discharge because the foreman had
undertaken to eliminate dangerous machine conditions in
the department but had not yet fully accomplished this
undertaking That this was the purpose of the stoppage -
i e., to eliminate the dangerous conditions - and that the
Respondent understood this to be the purpose, was shown
by Sundberg's noting the conditions pointed out by
Ragsdale, by the girls' then returning to work although
the discharged foreman was not reinstated, and by the
Respondent's thereafter taking steps to eliminate the
hazards pointed out by Ragsdale
The 1968 stoppage, too, was a clear protest against a
term or condition of employment in which the women
press department employees were mutually concerned and
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 129
to which they understandably objected For the temporary
assignment of the two welders from a higher paying
classification to jobs on the presses deprived the women of
the work which they usually performed.
It is thus apparent from the evidence (and I therefore
agree with the General Counsel and disagree with the
Respondent) that both the 1967 and the 1968 stoppages
were protests by the Respondent's women press
department employees against specific terms or conditions
of employment in which they had a mutual, legitimate
interest and that, by their participation in these stoppages,
the employees engaged in protected "concerted activities
for the purpose of mutual aid or protection" within
the meaning of Section 7 of the Act That, in their initial
expression of purpose in the 1967 stoppage the women
may have appeared to be simply protesting the discharge
of their foreman, did not remove this stoppage from the
protection of the Act since they made it clear to the
Respondent that their actual concern was that, with his
discharge, further progress in eliminating dangerous
conditions in the department might be discontinued.'
D The Discharges on January 10, 1969, and the
Respondent's Evidence as to the Reasons Therefor
It was Roger Peterson, the new plant manager, who
shortly after his arrival in late November 1968, decided to
discharge the four women employees In his testimony,
which was consistent with that of Foreman O'Loughlin
and Wisnasky, he explained his reaching this decision as a
result of talking with them about their employees in a
series of conversations in November and December so
that he might familiarize himself with his plant staff, and
their reporting to him in full pertinent detail that each of
the four women was unable to get along with her fellow
employees and her supervisors; that each of them
presented "personality conflicts" and were disobedient in
that they constantly complained about conditions in the
plant and refused to follow routine instructions and orders
of their supervisor, and that, in their "troublemaking,"
Elliott and Ellis had engaged both in the August 1967 and
November 1968 "walkouts," and Ragsdale in the August
1967 walkout 6
In support of the details of Peterson's testimony to this
effect, O'Loughlin testified that he had been critical of
Nellie Smith's attitude and conduct during the 2-year
period of her employment, and so informed Peterson,
because "she was standoffish, she didn't intermingle with
too many of the employees She seemed to hold herself
apart [and] seemed to feel she was a little better than
the rest of the employees", because she was a "little
rebellious" and disobedient in that she not only insisted on
doing her work in her own way rather than in "the way
we laid it out" but, assuming a "lead girl's
responsibilities" even when she was only a repair girl, she
also "suggested different ways of doing things other than
what our standard procedure was", and because, in thus
assuming a lead girl's authority, she had arguments "on
several occasions" with Donna Mihal, her lead girl, which
so "upset Donna Mihal [that Mihal] broke down"
In similar support of Peterson's testimony, Foreman
Wisnasky testified concerning the attitude and conduct of
the three other girls from the press department and his
report thereof to Peterson He testified that, as he told
Peterson and had previously repeatedly told Manager
Keyl since October 1967, that there were about eight girls
in the press department who were "not right up- to
standard" in that they were "disobedient," were taking
irregular and excessive rest periods, and were shutting
down their machines and dressing early at the end of the
workday, that three of the eight girls (Dora Ragsdale,
Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis) were a "little bit
exceptional" in that when Wisnasky spoke to the others
about quitting early they merely asked "Why can't we
quit early if the others do?" whereas Ragsdale's answer,
for example, was that "We got to have time to clean up
our machines [and] make our time card out", that
Dora Ragsdale, was "obstinate," "aggressive," so
talkative that three of the other women employees did not
want to work near her, constantly complained about the
equipment, the steel, the dies, the "clamps, the bolts, the
guards, and so on," and, in her last few weeks of service
as an inspector in the press department, rejected a large
quantity of steel without reason and shut down machines
because of rejections without consulting the foreman as
she should have done, that Mildred Elliott, too, constantly
talked to other employees while they were working,
followed other employees to the restroom, was "a chronic
griper [about] most anything" (even about "cracks on the
walls"), and was one of the press department girls who
engaged in the work stoppage and protest in November
1968,' and finally that Regina Ellis, when asked to do
anything, "would kind of pout and balk at you," talked
and laughed with other employees while they were
supposed to be working, went frequently to the restroom,
overstayed her breaks, wandered into the toolroom where
she had no business to be, shut down her machines and
was ready to leave the plant before quitting time, and on
one occasion on July 29, 1968, after shutting down her
machine and sitting idly by it from 2 to 2 45 p.m ,
informed Wisnasky that she was resting and filling out her
production card although she actually left at 3.30 p.m
without having filled out the card.'
According to the testimony of Plant Manager Peterson
and Joseph Cuvallo, his recently arrived plant
superintendent, Peterson told Cuvallo in the beginning of
December 1968, of Foremen O'Loughlin's and Wisnasky's
unfavorable reports concerning the four women employees
and asked Cuvallo to check on their conduct and attitude.
At the same time, according to his testimony, Peterson
himself watched the four girls at work.
'See Dobbs Houses , Inc , 135 NLRB 885, 888, enforcement denied on
other grounds 325 F 2d 531 (C A 5), Plastdrte Corporation . 153 NLRB
180, 182-185, and cases therein cited in fns 3 and 4
'Peterson was in error as to Ellis ' participation in the November 1968
walkout or stoppage which occurred on the day shift at a time when Ellis
was on the night shift In addition, as has already been found , Ragsdale,
rather than Elliott, had played the leading role along with Ellis in
submitting the press department girl's protest underlying the August 1967
"walkout " But the significant aspect of Peterson ' s testimony concerning
the reports which he says he received from Wisnasky is that the reports
included the press department girls' walkouts both in August 1967 and
November 1968 and that these reports were admittedly a factor in his
decision to discharge the four girls on January 10, 1969
'According to Manager Peterson's testimony , Wisnasky told him that
Elliott had been one of the instigators of the August 1967 walkout and
"seemed to be the main spokesman of the group" in the November 1968
stoppage
'in his testimony , Wisnasky made no mention of Ellis' actual
involvement in the August 1967 walkout and specifically testified that she
was not involved in the November 1968 stoppage However, as I have
found , Peterson testified that in the course of his talks with Peterson,
Wisnasky told him of Ellis ' involvement in both stoppages and that this
was part of the information upon which Peterson relied in deciding that
Ellis as well as the other three girls were "troublemakers" and
"personality" problems and should be discharged
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Peterson testified that his own observations of Smith,
Elliott and Ragsdale tended to confirm the foremen's
criticisms. With respect to Smith, however, he testified
merely that he heard her "grumble" while she was
working, and from this he concluded that "she didn't seem
able to just take directions from the lead girls as they
gave them, and that she felt like doing it her own way"
although he admitted that he didn't hear what she was
"grumbling" about and that there was no lead girl in the
vicinity at the time With respect to Elliott, Peterson
testified that, in watching Elliott at work and in the
company of other employees during breaks, he "could not
find anything to disprove" Foreman Wisnasky's statement
that "she wasn't a friendly person to work with" and he
therefore concluded in agreement with Wisnasky that he
"just didn't observe her being a friendly or a fun-loving
gal " Finally, with respect to Ragsdale, Peterson testified
that his conversations with her confirmed Wisnasky's
statement to him that "Let [Ragsdale] alone for ten
minutes and she'll be running the department " For,
according to Peterson, when he talked with Ragsdale and
"led her in to . conversation dealing with the
equipment, with the steel," Ragsdale would complain
about the steel and the presses Peterson admitted,
however, that Ragsdale was at that time an inspector
whose job it was to inspect the parts turned out by the
presses and to inspect the steel for "dimensional
tolerances" and acceptable surfaces. But, according to
Peterson, although she had been working several years on
the presses, she had just been made an inspector and
"couldn't have acquired this knowledge in that short
time."
Peterson also testified generally that in the reports he
had requested from Cuvallo, Cuvallo also told him that
his investigation supported the criticisms made by the two
foremen of the four girls However, Peterson himself
testified only as to the reports made to him by Cuvallo
concerning Smith and Elliott. As to Smith, Peterson
testified merely that Cuvallo told him that "he would have
to agree that Nellie Smith was giving the lead girls a hard
time and was disobedient." As to Elliott, Peterson,
testified that Cuvallo also said "that he would have to
agree that [Wisnasky's] observations were entirely correct
He couldn't find anything to dispute them."
In describing his own investigation of the four women
employees and his reports to Peterson in greater detail,
Superintendent Cuvallo testified that, as he thereafter told
Peterson, both O'Loughlin and Wisnasky had repeated to
him the substance of their criticism of the women
including the facts that Mildred Elliott as the principal
leader and Dora Ragsdale and Regina Ellis in lesser roles,
had led the August 1967 "walkout" and that Mildred
Elliott also led the November 1968 stoppage, that Cuvallo
had seen Dora Ragsdale (then an inspector) continually
talking to other employees, holding them up in their work,
that, in confirmation of Wisnasky's criticism of Elliott for
her constant complaining and returning late from work
breaks, Cuvallo had once seen Elliott arguing with
Wisnasky (although he could not overhear the substance
of their conversation) and had once seen Elliott returning
to her press 5 minutes after a work break had ended, that,
on being questioned by Cuvallo, lead girls Donna Mihal
and Betty Craw said that Nellie Smith would do her work
her own way in spite of different instructions from
Foreman O'Loughlin; and that, consistent with one of
Wisnasky's criticisms of Regina Ellis, Cuvallo and
Peterson had once seen Ellis return 5 minutes late from a
work break.
According to Peterson's testimony, without any specific
recommendation from O'Loughlin, Wisnasky, or Cuvallo
(although he relied upon their reports to him as well as his
own observation of the four women), Peterson decided a
few days before January 10, 1969 to discharge the women
because of "personality conflicts" and "insubordination."
In any event, without first telling the foremen or Cuvallo
or giving any advance intimation to the women
themselves, Peterson did discharge the four women by
having their foremen give them their terminal paychecks
on January 10, 1969.
Foreman Wisnasky gave Ellis and Elliott their checks,
making no comments to Ellis except that he was sorry
and telling Elliott he did not know why she was being
discharged After receiving their checks from Assembly
Foreman Stanford (O'Loughlin's successor) and
Inspection Foreman York, respectively, Smith and
Ragsdale went separately to Manager Peterson for an
explanation of their discharges. Peterson told Smith she
was not being discharged because of her work but because
she had a "personality clash" and denied Smith's
suggestion that she was fired because of her Union
leadership, telling her "No, I asked them not to tell me
who was in on the union activities." Peterson told
Ragsdale, too, that there was nothing wrong with her
work but that she was terminated "because of a
personality clash " Ragsdale then told him, "By God, it's
only on account of the damned union that I got screwed
up on this. If you would dust understand why we went to
the union," and tried to explain the employees' enlistment
of union aid because of "the way [the presses] had been
messed up, the way people had gotten hurt on them." But
Peterson made no further answer or comment on her
statements.
The foregoing summary presents the full substance of
the Respondent's evidence in support of its reasons for
discharging the four women The women's testimony in
denial or explanation of the incidents or types of
"insubordination" with which they were charged in
Foreman O'Loughlin's and Wisnasky's basic testimony
has still to be considered But before turning to this, some
further comments and observations should be made about
Peterson's testimony concerning how he had reached a
decision a few days before January 10, 1969, to discharge
the four women because of "personality conflicts" and
"insubordination." For several elements in this testimony
as given by Peterson not only seem unnecessarily to
complicate and confuse, rather than to clarify, his
explanations but also to provide strong indication that,
both in laying the ground work for the discharges and in
his explanatory testimony, he was unreasonably straining
to justify his decision and his independence in making it
One of these elements in Peterson's testimony was his
insistence that, knowing nothing of the girls' previous
union or other concerted activities, he alone decided that
they should be discharged without any specific
recommendations to this effect from Foreman
O'Loughlin, Foreman Wisnasky, or Superintendent
Cuvallo although he relied upon their highly unfavorable'
reports to him about the women employees' conduct and
general attitude and although Wisnasky had actually told
him that with the elimination of Ragsdale, Elliott, and
Ellis (whom he referred to as "the troublemakers in his
department") Wisnasky felt that the press department
"operation would improve." Furthermore, from my
summary of Peterson's as well as Superintendent
Cuvallo's testimony and brief direct quotations excerpted
therefrom, it is apparent that neither of these two men
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 131
made any such observation of the conduct or attitudes of
any of the four women as could reasonably have
confirmed Foremen O'Loughlin's or Wisnasky's reports,
much less have given any independent basis for Peterson's
discharging the women Accordingly, adopting the most
favorable possible view of Peterson's testimony, I
conclude that his decision to discharge the four women
must be regarded as having been based upon information
given to him by the two foremen
Another confusing element in Peterson's explanation of
his discharges of the four women for "personality
conflicts" and "insubordination," was his reference to his
distribution among the employees on January 6, 1969, of
the Respondent's "Hourly Employee Handbook"
containing the first set of published Rules and Regulations
for the Warrensburg plant employees which, inter alia,
made "Insubordination" and "Handicapping or slowing
down production of a fellow worker or purposely limiting
the output of himself or fellow workers" grounds for
discharge. Of course, if any of the four women in the
present case had been insubordinate or had interfered with
the work of other employees, this would have been proper
grounds for her discharge even before the promulgation of
the Rules on January 6, 1969. Yet, in his testimony,
Peterson referred to these Rules, and the Respondent had
them introduced in evidence, as if their promulgation had
some significance in Peterson's decision to discharge the
four women for conduct which he testified had occurred
during the preceding 2 years or more of their employment
Finally, there was Peterson's confusing testimony, and
other related evidence, concerning a personnel
investigation which Peterson ordered through the
Respondent's Personnel Manager from Pinkerton's, Inc
and which covered only Smith, Ragsdale, Elliott, and
Ellis. Peterson at first testified that before January 10,
1969, the day these girls were discharged, he had
requested the Respondent's Personnel Department to hire
investigators "to check on different people employed by
our company"; that he believed that all four of these girls
in the present case as well as others, were on the list he
submitted; that the Personnel Department delayed in
making the request to Pinkerton's so that as a result,
Pinkerton's was retained, made the investigation, and
submitted its report to the Respondent only after the four
girls were discharged. On further examination, Peterson
stated that he could not recall the date he engaged
Pinkerton's for the personnel investigation but that it was
before January 22, 1969, the date shown on Pinkerton's
typewritten confirmation of the order After Peterson had
testified, Personnel Manager Martha Clifford testified
that the request for the investigation was made to her
department by Peterson 10 days after the discharges and
she thereupon ordered the investigation from Pinkerton's
about 2 days before January 22, 1969 Michael Mosey,
Pinkerton's Decatur manager then testified as a witness
for the Respondent. He generally confirmed Mrs.
Clifford's statement that she had telephoned a request for
a personnel investigation without naming the subjects, on
or about January 22 or 23, 1969 and he further testified
that on January 22 he visited the plant and saw Manager
Peterson who asked him to make a personnel investigation
of the 4 women involved in the present case, i.e , a court
check, a credit check, police record check, and a
neighborhood investigation; that, except for this
investigation of these four women, his Decatur office had
not made a personnel investigation for the Respondent
before or since January 23, 1969; but that he had first met
Peterson at the plant on or about January 10, 1969 (the
day of the discharges) when Pinkerton's supplied the plant
with a security guard and Mosey had explained to
Peterson the other services Pinkerton's renders for its
clients
Whether or not Peterson had asked his Personnel
Department for an investigative check before or after he
discharged the girls on January 10, 1969, he gave no
testimony as to why he ordered one either before or after
the discharges, except to say at one point in his testimony
that it was "because we have a full right to run an
employment check on any people we wish," and, at
another point in his testimony, when asked whether his
request was made before or after the discharges that
"there was no reason afterwards." Nor is there any other
evidence in the record to explain why the security check
was ordered at all, and why it covered only the four girls
in this case and has been the only one ever made of the
plant's employees, although Peterson testified he thought
it covered other employees as well and gave the
impression that it was routine in the changeover to a new
plant at the Warrensburg site and covered new hires as
well as continuing employees
E. Consideration of the Respondent's Asserted
Grounds for Discharging the Four Women in the
Light of the Evidence Generally
Against such general accusations of "personality
conflicts" and "insubordination" as are made by the
Respondent in the present case, it would ordinarily be
difficult for any employee to defend herself In the present
case, however, a number of factors militate against
acceptance of the Respondent's contention that there was
a substantial basis for such accusations and that they
constituted the actual reasons for the women's discharges
by Manager Peterson
One such factor is that, as already found, all four of the
women had been concededly capable workers whose
performances during their 2 years of employment had
been consistently praised and recognized by the two
foremen who now profess to be critical of their general
attitude and conduct Another such factor is that the
Respondent's annoyance with three of the women (which
in part admittedly prompted their discharges) stemmed
from their participation in the August 1967 and
November 1968 stoppages which I have already found
were concerted activities protected by the Act. A third
factor in the women's favor (which has just been
developed in detail) is the unsatisfactory, unconvincing
testimony given by Manager Peterson in explanation of
the discharges, from which it appears that, both in laying
the ground work for the discharges and in his testimony,
he was unreasonably straining to justify the discharges.
And a fourth factor in the women's favor, which will now
be considered, is that, aside from general criticisms of
their temperament, the Respondent's evidence as to each
of the specifically alleged incident or type of continuing
improper conduct and "insubordination" charged against
the four dischargees by their foremen, either (a) shows
that the Respondent's irritation with the four women
which prompted their discharges was caused, as in the
cases of the 1967 and 1968 stoppages, by their
complaining about conditions of work and employment in
the plant as obvious leaders of the women employees on
whose behalf they had just recently attempted to secure
Union representation, or (b) is convincingly refuted or
explained by the women in their testimony or by other
evidence in the case
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Smith's alleged "insubordination"
Reference has already been made to Foreman
O'Loughlin's testimony that Nellie Smith adopted a
superior attitude toward others in the plant, insisted on
doing her work in her own way rather than in "the way
we laid it out", and, in suggesting "different ways of
doing things," had arguments with Donna Mihal, her lead
girl, "on several occasions" which so "upset Donna Mihal
[that Mihall broke down "
Mrs Mihal, although a lead girl, was not a supervisor
and had voted in the representation election She testified
that her difficulties with Smith occurred during an 8-week
period ending in December 1967 while Smith was
substituting for Mihal's regular repair girl, that Smith,
although she did her work, would not follow routines laid
out for her, that, because this was "a year" ago, Mrs
Mihal could not remember exactly how Smith departed
from the prescribed routines, that Smith gave assemblers
on the day shift incorrect numbers for parts they were to
use, thus repeating an error she had made in compiling a
list of parts during her own immediately preceding service
as a lead girl on the night shift, that, before repairing a
motor, Smith would ask Mrs Mihal if she knew what was
wrong with it, indicating by her manner that she actually
knew what was wrong but was testing Mrs Mihal to see
whether Mihal knew, and that on two occasions Mrs
Mihal became so upset that she cried and reported the
incidents to Foreman O'Loughlin
In her testimony, Nellie Smith admitted that she once
had a disagreement with Mrs Mihal about her work But
she denied that she had a number of disagreements with
Mrs. Mihal about the latter's instructions, that she ever
told Mrs Mihal that she knew her rob better than Mihal,
or could do repair work in a better way than she had been
instructed by Mihal, or that she had given incorrect part
numbers to the assemblers She further testified that she
knew only one way to do the work in which she was
engaged, never varied from her instructions, and was
never told by Foreman O'Loughlin or Mrs Mihal that she
had departed from her instructions With respect to her
relationship to Mrs Mihal, Smith testified that she
followed Mihal's suggestions in her work, that her
arguments with Mrs Mihal were about the Union and not
about work, that she never caused Mrs. Mihal to cry and
that the only time she did see her cry was on a day when
she had had no conversation with Mihal and saw Mrs
Mihal talking with Foreman O'Loughlin and then
suddenly leave to go to the restroom
On consideration of this testimony in the context of the
general evidence in the case, I credit the testimony of
Mrs Smith rather than the testimony of either Foreman
O'Loughlin or Mrs Mihal For neither Foreman
O'Loughlin nor Mrs Mihal could be specific in their
testimony as to how much variation there actually could
be in the routine procedures of an assembler or a repair
girl Furthermore, even if Smith had frequently made
suggestions of "different ways of doing things," as
O'Loughlin testified, he also testified that, "Everybody is
free to make suggestions and we would study them to try
to determine which is the better " Finally, in view of the
undisputed evidence indicating O'Loughlin's otherwise
uniformly favorable regard for Smith's work during the 2
years she had worked in his department, it seems
incredible that he had been actually critical during this
time of Smith for making unwelcome suggestions as to
changes in routines, for insisting on doing her work in her
own way, or for any serious difficulties with a leadgirl in
an 8-week period in the fall of 1967 For, as I have found,
during this entire period of Smith's employment, he had
repeatedly complimented her on her work, had made her a
repair girl, then a leadgirl, and had even urged her to
become a leadgirl again shortly before her discharge For
these reasons, as well as my acceptance of Smith's
testimony, I find no credible support in the evidence for
the Respondent's contentions that Smith refused to follow
the instructions of her foreman or of her lead girl and was
therefore "insubordinate," and that her "insubordination"
and superior manner was actually the reason for her
discharge on January 10, 1969
2 Foreman Wisnasky's general criticisms of
Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis
With respect to the women employees in his press
department, Foreman Wisnasky testified that from the
time he became foreman in August 1967, he had trouble
with about eight of them, including Ragsdale, Elliott, and
Ellis in that all eight "were disobedient, they wasn't
taking their rest periods at a certain time, they was
quitting early; sometimes they were as high as ten minutes
till 3 00 making out their cards, they were fully dressed
sometimes at ten after, quarter after 3.00, [although]
their quitting time was at 3 30" According to Wisnasky,
he spoke to every one of the eight girls about these
matters, and, although the others simply asked, "Why
can't we quit early if the others do?" Ragsdale said,
"Well, we have got to have time to clean up our machine,
time to make our time [i e , production] card out "
According to Wisnasky's testimony, Ragsdale, Elliott,
and Ellis were the principal offenders in this and other
conduct interfering with their work and the work of other
employees Thus, he testified that they talked too much
during working time, with Ragsdale on occasions talking
and laughing with another employee for 15 or 20 minutes,
while her machine was running but not producing, and
ignoring him as if he were a mere "expediter", that all
three of these girls frequently went to the rest room; and
that they took 20 or 30 minutes instead of the 10 minutes
permitted on rest periods and would even return to the
restroom shortly after rest periods
But Wisnasky directed even more serious additional
criticism against Ellis He testified that Ellis left the
department during breaks to go to the toolroom where she
had no business, and at times returned to her press 6 to 10
minutes late, and that on one occasion while she was
sitting idly beside her press, he asked her what she was
doing and she replied, "Just resting." As the most
extreme example of Ellis' conduct, he testified that on
another occasion (July 29, 1968), he watched Ellis sitting
by her idle press from 2 to 2 45 p m., that when he asked
her what was the matter, she said that she was filling out
her production or timecard, that although he expressed
surprise that she was doing so "this early" since it should
have taken only 5 minutes, she told him when he later
asked her for the card at 3 30, "I didn't make out any
[card] because you didn't give me time."
Finally, Wisnasky testified that he repeatedly reported
the unsatisfactory attitude of the eight girls in his
department including this type of conduct, to Ed Keyl,
while Keyl was still plant manager and even suggested "a
couple of days lay off," but Keyl shrugged off his
complaints, saying "Well, we will see what we can work
out." Then, according to both Wisnasky's and Peterson's
testimony, Wisnasky reported the same facts to Peterson
when Peterson became plant manager in November 1968
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 133
including his dissatisfaction with all eight girls but his
particular difficulties with Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis
Against the avalanche of general accusations leveled
against them by Foreman Wisnasky in his testimony, the
three women replied in some detail All three of them
admitted talking while at work, but Elliott testified that
all the women employees talked and Ragsdale and Ellis
denied that they spoke any more than the rest of the
women and certainly not for 20 minutes at a time as
charged by Wisnasky Ragsdale and Elliott denied making
frequent trips to the rest room, and all three women
denied any practice of returning to the rest room
immediately after breaks, although Elliott admitted having
done so once or twice when necessary Only Ellis admitted
having overstayed her rest periods 5 or 6 times in a
3-month period and her testimony to this effect will be
considered below With respect to Wisnasky's charge that
they shut down their machines and dressed to go home
well before quitting time, all three women denied that they
had done so in disregard of Wisnasky's instructions.
Ragsdale testified that she had shut down her machine
only for the time that was necessary to permit a count of
her production and to clean up scrap before quitting time
Both Ellis and Elliott testified that Wisnasky had
tightened up on the time allowed for this purpose and had
spoken to all the girls in the department as a group and
not to them individually She testified that in the
beginning of Wisnasky's time as foreman, the girls had
shut down their machines usually from 3 15 to 3 20 p.m
but that Wisnasky had then insisted, in speaking to them
as a group, that they shut down their machines only at
3 25 p m., 5 minutes before quitting time
Ellis was equally specific in her testimony concerning
the charges made against her particularly She admitted
having told Wisnasky on one occasion that she was "just
resting" but testified that, whether Wisnasky realized it or
not, it was the end of her rest period which had not yet
expired With respect to her shutting down her press or
machine on the one occasion (which Wisnasky said was on
July 29, 1968), she testified that it was not as early in the
afternoon as he testified, and she was actually computing
her production on the time card, which would have
required from 10 to 15 minutes, but that, although she
told this to Wisnasky he insisted upon her starting her
machine again with the result that at the end of the day,
as she then told him, she had not had time to fill her card
out She testified that she did not refuse to fill it out but
did so at home that night and turned it in the next
morning Finally, with respect to her trips to the tool
room during breaks she admitted that in the last 3 months
of her employment she had made four or five such trips to
visit a male employee in the tool room and had been late
in returning to her press at the end of the break
The foregoing summary presents the substance of the
evidence relating to Wisnasky's general criticisms of the
conduct of Ragsdale, Elliott and Ellis Ex-manager Keyl
did not testify at the hearing in late March 1969, but I do
not regard it to be significant that the Respondent failed
to produce his testimony to substantiate Wisnasky
regarding to the foreman's repeated complaints about the
girls for a period of more than a year For counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent agreed
on the record at the hearing that Keyl had by that time
retired from the Respondent's employ and could not be
located by either of them But Keyl had been back at the
plant as assistant manager from December 9, 1968, until
after the girls were discharged on January 10, 1969, and,
although according to Peterson's testimony, Peterson had
conferred with Wisnasky and Superintendent Cuvallo
during this time about the conduct and attitude of the
girls before deciding to discharge them and had been told
by Wisnasky of his inability to get Keyl to do anything
about it for more than a year, it further appears from
Peterson's testimony that he did not consult Keyl at all
about the girls, an omission that is strange in view of
Peterson's attempt to create the impression that he had
been extremely careful to investigate and confirm
Wisnasky's charges Moreover, despite my recognition of
some possible handicap to the Respondent in not being
able to produce Keyl as a witness, I could not in any
event accept the intended import of Wisnasky's testimony
that, during their 2 years of employment in his
department, the general conduct of Ragsdale, Elliott, or
Ellis had actually provided a credibly substantial and
actual reason for their eventual discharge by Manager
Peterson in January 1969 My reasons for rejecting the
Respondent's contention to this effect are founded not
only upon what I regard to be the credible testimony of
the three women but upon my unfavorable appraisal of
Wisnasky's testimony on its face and in the light of the
general evidence in the record At the very least,
Wisnasky's testimony reveals a tendency to exaggerate,
and, whether or not he had in fact complained in vain to
Keyl about the girls for more than a year, the substance
of what he now says were his complaints, is certainly
inconsistent with the general evidence to the effect that he
had at the same time complimented them on their work
and shortly before they were discharged had even
encouraged and recommended Ragsdale's assignment to
an inspector ' s job For these reasons, I credit the women's
testimony rather than Wisnasky 's, and find that the
foreman ' s general criticisms had no substantial base nor
did they provide the actual reason for their discharges.
3. Ragsdale's and Elliott's "troublemaking"
According to Manager Peterson's testimony, in
Foreman Wisnasky's report to him about the women
employees in his department, Wisnasky referred to Dora
Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis as being
among those who were "continually troublemakers" and,
in this connection, Wisnasky told him that Elliott and
Ellis had engaged in the August 1967 and November 1968
stoppages and Ragsdale in the August 1967 stoppage, and
that Ragsdale "usurped authority" by "continually
complaining about the steel that was being used about
the equipment" and about "the condition of the
equipment" not only on her own behalf but on behalf of
the other employees in the press department.
In his testimony, Foreman Wisnasky gave a generally
similar account of his difficulties with the women in these
respects, and his report thereof to Peterson As already
noted, he testified that Ragsdale was "obstinate" and
"aggressive" and constantly complained about the
equipment, the steel, the dies, the "clamps, the bolts, the
guards and so on," and that in her last few weeks of
service as an inspector in the press department, she
rejected a large quantity of steel without reason and shut
down machines because of rejections without consulting
the foreman as she should have done With respect to
Elliott, he testified that she, too, was "a chronic griper
[about] most everything," even about "cracks on the
walls."
These criticisms by Foreman Wisnasky of Ragsdale and
Elliott must, of course, again be considered in the light of
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the rest of the evidence in the case Unlike Peterson,
Wisnasky himself testified that Ellis had not made
complaints and that Ragsdale's frequent complaints had
been supported while she was on the night shift by a set
up man and by a fellow employee, Sandra White, whom
he did not report to Peterson and who was not discharged.
With respect to Ragsdale's rejection of a large quantity of
steel, she testified (and I credit her testimony), that this
occurred on the day before her discharge (so that it could
not have been mentioned by Wisnasky in the reports
which he testified he had been making to Peterson leading
up to her discharge); that when she asked York, her
inspection foreman, why she was being discharged, York
told her that the incident had nothing to do with her
discharge; and that Peterson, too, told her that there was
nothing wrong with her work but that she was being
discharged "because of a personality clash " Furthermore,
with respect to the single specifically given example of an
assertedly unreasonable complaint made by Elliott - i.e ,
her complaint about "cracks in the walls" - she testified,
and I credit her testimony, that in the last few days of her
work during "zero weather" in January 1969, she was
wearing a heavy winter jacket while operating her press
alongside a wall where there was not merely a "crack" in
the wall but where "bricks [were] out of the wall", that
because she "was about froze," she asked Wisnasky to
have the maintenance man put up a cardboard shield; but
that Wisnasky said the maintenance man was too busy
Otherwise, according to Elliott's testimony, there were
only two specific instances in which she could recall
having made what could have been regarded as
complaints One was an instance (already noted) in which
dust before the Board election Manager Keyl had asked
her why "there was a lot of dissatisfaction downstairs"
and whether the girls liked Foreman Wisnasky, to which
Elliott had replied that there was dissatisfaction not only
downstairs but all over the plant, that "there was too
much partiality and we wanted better working conditions
[and] job security"; and that although some of the girls
did not like Wisnasky, such a dislike for a supervisor
might be found anywhere and she herself had found
Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin to be fair to her. The
other instance which she recalled was her reporting to
Wisnasky the fact that she and another employee had
noticed that one of the presses was dangerously "double
tripping," i.e , rapidly operating twice after each pressure
of the operator's foot upon its pedal
There are, however, broader reasons for questioning
both the factual bases for Wisnasky's criticisms of the
women and the Respondent's contention that they
provided legitimate, actual grounds for the discharges For
one thing, as I have already found upon what I regard to
be credible evidence, dust 2 months before Ragsdale's
discharge, she had been made an inspector of both
material and product on Wisnasky's urging and
recommendation and had thus been placed in a position
for which she would certainly not have been qualified had
there been any truth to Wisnasky's criticism of her for
displaying an annoying and disrupting penchant for
unreasonably complaining about material and equipment.
Finally, from both Peterson's and Wisnasky's testimony,
as well as the testimony of the women, it appears to me
that the "chronic complaining" of the three girls in the
press department, which Peterson asserts was a principal
reason for his discharging them as "troublemakers," not
only specifically included their participation in the August
1967 and November 1968 stoppages which have been
found to have been protected concerted activities, but also
their continuing engagement in such less dramatic, but
nonetheless similarly protected, concerted activities
through their annoying, repeated complaints to Wisnasky
on behalf of the women employees in the department
about their working conditions, including the condition
and safety of the equipment upon which they worked.
F Conclusions
As noted, the issue in the case is whether, as the
General Counsel and the Union contend, the Respondent
discharged Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott,
and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, because of their
participation in various concerted activities protected by
Section 7 of the Act, including their participation in a
Union organizational drive which ended in the Union's
loss of a Board representation election on September 6,
1968, or whether, as the Respondent contends, Manager
Peterson without any knowledge of the women's Union or
other concerted activity, discharged the women because,
from the reports made to him by the women's supervisors
and his own observation of the women's conduct, he
believed that they presented "personality conflicts" and
that they were "insubordinate "
The factual issue thus presented is the legality or
illegality of the Respondent's actual reasons or motivation
for the discharges. With due recognition of the General
Counsel's burden to show illegality, the decision of this
issue requires consideration not only of the sufficiency of
the evidence from which an inference of illegality might be
drawn, but also of the credibility of the evidence relied
upon by the Respondent to show an asserted legal reason
for the discharges. For if the Respondent's evidence to
support the legality of its action is incredible, it reinforces
rather than negates the affirmative evidence of illegality
The relevant evidence bearing on these matters has
already been discussed in detail and, for the most part, I
have made the observations and findings which control my
decision It remains necessary only to refer to these
findings and my pertinent observations, and to draw what
seems to me to be the proper ultimate conclusions.
The credible evidence, upon which the General Counsel
primarily relies to show that the discharges were
unlawfully motivated, has established, as I have found-
(1) The Respondent's continually demonstrated
satisfaction with the women's competence and work
performance during their more than 2 years of
employment, as shown by the repeated compliments paid
to them and the assignments given to them and
recommended for them by the Respondent's supervisors,
including their foremen, O'Loughlin and Wisnasky.
(2) The leadership and general participation of the four
women (known to their foremen and the Respondent's
plant manager at the time) in the Union's unsuccessful
organizational campaign which the Respondent opposed
without, however, at that time committing any unfair
labor practice or engaging in any other improper conduct
affecting the outcome of the Board representation election
which the Union lost.
(3) The participation of three of the four women in the
1967 and 1968 work stoppages which were concerted
activities protected by Section 7 of the Act
(4) The fact (if we adopt the most favorable view of
Peterson's confusing testimony) that Peterson's decision to
discharge the four women within the 6 or 8 weeks after he
became plant manager, was necessarily based upon critical
information about the women given to him by their two
foremen, O'Loughlin and Wisnasky, in spite of their
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 135
previously expressed general approval of the women's
work and conduct.
(5) The related facts that although Peterson made the
discharge decision and may not himself have known of the
women's union organizational activity, Foreman
O'Loughlin and Wisnasky knew that the girls had led the
Union movement; that the two foremen by their own acts
or statements during the organizational campaign, had
indicated their sympathy with, and support of, the
Respondent in its opposition to the Union; and finally
that the two foremen (for whose acts and motives the
Respondent was certainly responsible) actually and
consciously caused and procured the girls' discharges by
Peterson when they gave him the highly damaging reports
upon which the manager acted
(6) The undisputed further facts not only that, in
complaining to Peterson about the women, Foreman
Wisnasky reported their involvement and apparent
leadership in the 1967 and 1968 stoppages as examples of
their "troublemaking," but that Peterson admittedly relied
upon this report as a substantial factor in finally
concluding that the girls presented "personality conflicts,"
were "insubordinate," and should therefore be discharged
These facts alone would provide a strong basis for
finding that the four women were discharged by the
Respondent through the point action of its manager and
the two foremen because of the women's concerted
activities, including not only the participation in the 1967
and 1968 work stoppages by three of the women but also
the leadership and participation of all four of them in the
Union's recent organizational campaign That the Union
movement happened to be dormant at the time of the
discharges does not tend to rebut the inference that the
girls' past, but still recent, involvement in that activity
which the Respondent had opposed, still annoyed the
Respondent as did their participation in the nonunion
work stoppages. For, by their activity, the four women
must have been recognized as being the leaders of the
women employees in the plant and there was, of course,
always the possibility, if not the likelihood, that they
would renew their union activity. Nor would the
possibility that Manager Peterson himself did not know
of, or base his discharge decision, on their 1968 union
activities remove these activities as one of the actual
factors contributing to their discharges For, as I have
pointed out, Peterson's decision was the result of
complaints about the girls with respect to their other
concerted activities by O'Loughlin and Wisnasky who did
know of the women's union activities and had been
apparently displeased at the prospect of their being
successful. The Respondent cannot, therefore, claim that,
because Peterson did not know of the women's union
activities, these activities were not one of the reasons why
the foremen (for whose acts and motives the Respondent
was also responsible) were so apparently intent on getting
Peterson to discharge them.
Against this chain of credible evidence pointing to an
illegal, discriminatory base for discharging the four
women, the evidence given by the Respondent's witnesses
for the purpose of showing that Peterson's discharges of
the women were not in fact motivated by the women's
participation in any concerted activities protected by the
Act, is not persuasive. Indeed, in view of my holding upon
the evidence that the 1967 and 1968 stoppages were
protected concerted activities, and Peterson's as well as
Foreman Wisnasky's testimony that these activities were
important factors in Peterson's decision to discharge the
three women employed in the press department, it seems
clear, and I find, that the discharges of Ragsdale, Elliott,
and Ellis constituted such a reprisal for these activities as
to amount to an interference with the women's Section 7
right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection, and an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Furthermore, as I have already noted and found for
reasons fully set forth in the course of my detailed
discussion of the evidence, the testimony of Manager
Peterson, Foreman Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin as
to other asserted examples and types of all four women's
conduct to show that they were "personality" problems
and "insubordinate," was so confusing, strained and
incredible both internally and in the light of the evidence
generally and the testimony of the four women, that I
have concluded (as I have already indicated) that what
actually annoyed the Respondent and motivated its
discharges of the women by Peterson on the basis of the
foremen's reports was not simply "personality conflicts"
with their supervisors and other employees nor
"insubordination," but their involvement in the Union's
organizational campaign (known to both O'Loughlin and
Wisnasky), their involvement in the 1967 and 1968 work
stoppages, and their annoying, repeated complaints on
behalf of themselves and the other women employees
about their working conditions, including the condition
and safety of the equipment on which they worked
Accordingly, I conclude in agreement with the General
Counsel (1) that the Respondent discharged Nellie Smith,
Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on
January 10, 1969, in part because all 4 of them had
engaged in the union activity preceding the September
1968 election, and, in the cases of the last three
mentioned, also because they had engaged in the various
other protected concerted activities in the press
department; and (2) that in discharging these four women
for these reasons the Respondent committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of both Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act, in that it thereby discriminated against the
discharged employees in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment in order to discourage membership in the
Union, and generally interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to
engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the business
operations of the Respondent described in section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce between the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged employees Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale,
Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, I
will recommend that the Respondent offer each of them
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discharge by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which she normally would have earned from
the aforesaid date of her discharge to the date of the
Respondent's offer of reemployment, less her net earnings
during said period The backpay shall be computed in
accordance with the formula stated in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. Furthermore, it will be
recommended that the Respondent pay interest on the
backpay due to each of these employees, such interest to
be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum and,
using the Woolworth formula, to accrue commencing with
the last day of each calendar quarter of the backpay
period on the amount due and owing for each quarterly
period Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
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. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act
2. Respondent, G W. Murphy Industries, Inc ,
Portable Electric Tools Division, a Texas corporation, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
3. The Respondent discharged Nellie Smith, Dora
Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January
10, 1969, because of their organizational activity in
attempting to establish the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees,
and because of their participation in this and other
concerted activities of the Respondent's employees
protected by Section 7 of the Act
4 In thus discharging the aforesaid employees, the
Respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment in order to discourage membership
in the Union and thereby committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. In thus discharging the aforesaid employees because
of their concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act, the Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case,
it is recommended that the Respondent, G W. Murphy
Industries, Inc , Portable Electric Tools Division, Texas
corporation, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall-
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein
called the Union), or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discriminatorily discharging any of its
employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form or join labor organizations, and
to engage in any other concerted activity for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred
Elliott, and Regina Ellis immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss
of earnings suffered as a result of her discharge, in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all records necessary for the
determination of the amount of backpay due under the
Order herein
(c) Post at its place of business in Warrensburg,
Illinois, copies of the attached notice hereto and marked
"Appendix."9 Copies of said notice on forms provided by
the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, shall, after being
signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' °
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Officer-in-Charge for
Subregion 38, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization,
by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate
any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 137
WE WILL offer Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale,
Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis, reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and we will make them whole for any loss of
earnings suffered as a result of their discharges.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce any of our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the aforementioned union, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activites except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
G W. MURPHY
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
PORTABLE ELECTRIC
TOOLS DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Subregional Office, 225 Main
Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone No. 309-673-9061
(282).