Hot Springs Aluminum Processors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1293 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

'HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS , INC. - 1293
Hot Springs Aluminum Processors, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Team-
sters and Helpers Local 878, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America . Case 26-CA-2328. January 30, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 28, 1966, Trial Examiner George Turitz issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of these allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief in support thereof.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case , and hereby adopts the findings," conclusions ,2 and recom-
mendations 3 of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner' s Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Amend paragraph 1(j) by substituting the phrase "In any
other manner" for "In any like or related manner."
1 These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon the credibility determinations of
the Trial Examiner , to which the Respondent excepts . On the basis of our own careful
review of 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, entd.
188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
3 The Trial Examiner , no doubt through inadvertence , found that the Union was not
certified as a result of an election held by the Board on March 25, 1966. The record
demonstrates that the. Union , at that time , was, in fact , designated by a majority of the
employees and.was subsequently certified as statutory bargaining representative.
In affirming the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent discriminated against em-
ployee Blevins in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1), we do not adopt his view that the
8(a) (3) allegations in the complaint were not broad enough to cover the salt -stacking
incident.
3 We agree with the Trial Examiner 's comments in The Remedy section of his Decision
that a broad cease-and-desist order is warranted in this case.
162 NLRB No. 121.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[2. Amend the eighth indented paragraph of the notice attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision marked "Appendix" by substituting
"in any other manner" for "in any like or related manner."]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On a charge filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 878, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, herein called the Union, and served on February 16, 1966, on Hot
Springs Aluminum Processors, Inc., herein called Respondent, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, through the
Regional Director for Region 26 on March 30, 1966, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing against Respondent. Respondent filed its answer in which it denied the
allegations of unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint. On May 18 and 19,
1966, a hearing on the complaint was held at Hot Springs, Arkansas, before Trial
Examiner George Turitz. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented
at the hearing by counsel and the Union by Kin Looper. At the conclusion of the
hearing counsel for the General Counsel argued orally, and, subsequent to the
hearing, counsel for Respondent filed a memorandum brief with proposed findings
of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are disposed of below in this
Decision.
The issues litigated at the hearing were various alleged acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion of employees by Respondent's agents with respect to union
activities, whether Respondent's assignment of duties to Johnny Mack Blevins was
normal or discriminatory, and whether his termination of employment was a quit
or a discriminatory discharge, and, if the former, whether it constituted a construc-
tive discriminatory discharge.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Hot Springs Aluminum Processors, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation having an
office and plant in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the production
and sale of aluminum. In the course and conduct of its operations Respondent annu-
ally sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Arkansas, and it purchases and causes to be transported from
points located outside Arkansas directly to its said plant goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 annually. Respondent admits, and it is found, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 878, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
About early January 1966 1 Respondent's plant manager, Tony Pultz, became
aware that the Union was conducting an organizational campaign among the
employees. He called a meeting of the employees and addressed them for half an
hour, advising them against having a union. One or two weeks later Pultz instructed
his three shift foremen 2 to find out whether their employees were for or against the
1 Unless otherwise specified, all dates are In 1966.
2 Smoke, Gray, and Parker.
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS , INC. 1295
Union. The foremen questioned all the employees and reported the results back
to Pultz within a very short time .3
A week or 10 days later Respondent prepared cards for the employees to sign
reading as follows:
I hereby revoke the Teamsters Local Union No. 878 membership
acceptance card which I signed on the ____ of January, 1966
and gave to ----- ---------------------- I sign this revocation
of my own free will and accord.
Date:
The blank following the words "gave to" was to be filled in by the employee with
the name of the person to whom he had given his union authorization card. On
January 28 Respondent posted a notice on the bulletin board informing the employ-
ees of the availability of the revocation cards. The foremen were very active in solic-
iting the revocation cards for some time following such posting, but the solicitation
started even before the posting .4
On February 4 the Union filed a petition in Case 26-RC-2589 for certification
as bargaining representative of employees of Respondent. An election was held on
March 25, 1966, which the Union lost by a vote of 28 to 30. Certification of results
issued in due course.
In late January or early February Sammy Burks had a conversation about the
revocation cards with Foreman Parker and his assistant, Reily, in the course of
which Reily repeated several times that every man who did not sign a revocation
card would be pushed out of the plant after the "union business" was over; and he
stated specifically that Burks would be replaced by Leslie Roach. Roach did sign a
revocation card. Parker did not disavow what his assistant said. Around the same
time Parker warned Burks that everyone else had signed a revocation card and that
Burks had better do so while he still had the chance .5
About the end of January Foreman Smoke, soliciting a revocation card from Wal-
lace Deason, told him that he did not know if Deason valued his job but that if he
did he would forget the union nonsense . When Deason refused, he told him he was
only hurting himself. During the same period Smoke, asking William Abbott to
sign a revocation card, pointed out that his union card would then mean nothing
and he said that Abbott would still always have a job. When Abbott refused, Smoke
said it would not hurt him since he could easily break in another man. Smoke denied
generally that he ever threatened to fire anyone for not signing a revocation card
but did not more specifically deny Deason's or Abbott's testimony, which I have
credited. On one occasion during the same period Smoke discussed the revocation
cards with H. J. Stone and Smoke' s assistant , Patrick. Smoke told Stone that he
would "hate to see all of you boys get hurt," but that if they kept on "pushing" the
Union, the Company would have to shut down since it had much unsold metal in
the warehouse. He told Stone that if he could sign a revocation, he could guarantee
48 hours of work a week within a month after the "union business" was over. Smoke
testified that the subject under discussion was overtime and that what he told Stone
was, "If we can all hold on for a month or so we will have longer hours as soon
as the slack period ends." He did not specifically deny that he was soliciting a revo-
cation card at the time, or that he said the Company would be compelled to shut
down if the men kept on "pushing" the Union. I have credited the version of the
conversation testified to by Stone , who impressed me as a credible witness.
3 Parker and Gray testified that they never asked employees whether they signed cards
for the Union, and Parker testified that Respondent never asked him to find out how his
men stood. Smoke testified that Gray, Parker, and he questioned practically every man in
the plant, got together and counted the results, and then reported them to Pultz. How-
ever, he was evasive as to Pultz' part in the poll, especially in its initiation, testifying
that the poll "was just among the foremen . . . [who] wanted to see how strong the
union was in the plant." Holyfield, foreman of the unloading crew, testified that he asked
each of his men how he stood.
A G. W. Abbott and Harold Stone credibly testified that they were solicited to sign
revocation cards during the week prior to the posting. As found below, Blevins was
solicited by Foreman Smoke on February 7 to sign a revocation card.
5 None of the foregoing was denied.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ronnie Burks testified that right after the notice was posted he had a conversa-
tion with Pultz and Schlesinger, a supervisor, in Pultz' office in the course of which
Pultz asked him to sign a revocation card, saying among other things that he knew
who had signed-union cards. Schlesinger-did not testify, but Pultz denied making
such a statement Pultz and all the employees knew about the poll which had been
taken. It seems unlikely that the alleged statement was 'a fiction invented by Burks.
Pultz' denial, on the other hand, was one of a series of denials of each allegation
of the complaint, and was less convincing-than Burks' testimony. It is found that
Pultz made the statement. _
Grover Abbott testified that about a week before the notice was posted he signed
a revocation card solicited by Foreman Gray, who told him that the Company had
half a million dollars' worth of unsold metal on hand and could not afford the
raise the Union wanted. Several days later Abbott appeared wearing a union button
and was questioned about it by Gray in Pultz' presence. Gray again urged that the
Company could not afford the Union, and he promised Abbott the next loading job.
During the conversation Pultz remarked that he had done Abbott a favor by signing
parole papers to keep him out of the penitentiary. Gray denied having promised
Abbott a loading job. Pultz did not deny the statement attributed to him by Abbott.
Abbott by his demeanor impressed me as truthful, and his testimony as to Pultz'
and Gray's statements is credited 6
A number of witnesses for the General Counsel quoted various supervisors as
making statements to the effect that if the Union was successful the plant would
operate with foremen, assistant foremen, and "scab" labor brought from Little
Rock. Sammy Burks testified that Foreman Parker told him that since the Union
was organizing, the plant would shut down and only foremen and assistant foremen
would work. Chambers testified that Foreman Holyfield told him, in response to
his question, that if the Union were successful "the plant would shut down unless
they had enough men to operate." Parker and Chambers testified that the only such
conversations they had with employees were with respect to eventuality of a strike,
and that they said the plant would be able to operate.
Burroughs testified that during the week after the revocation notice was posted
Smoke told him he had heard that Burroughs had been talking about the Union and
that if he did not quit it, he would be fired. Burroughs was corroborated by Naven,
who testified that he went into the lunchroom next to Smoke's office for the specific
purpose of listening in. Smoke denied threatening to fire Burroughs during the cam-
paign except for the reason that his work was getting worse daily and would have
to pick up. Ronnie Burks testified that Foreman Schlesinger, about the time the
revocation notice was posted, told him he had received two separate reports that
Burks was "pushing" the Union. Schlesinger warned that he could not do that
around the plant and that if more such reports were received he would be fired.
This testimony of Burks was undenied.
Further testimony as to alleged interference, restraint, and coercion is set forth
below in connection with the discussion of Blevins.
B. Johnny Mack Blevins
Blevins was hired in the last part of November 1965 and his employment ter-
minated on February 11, 1966. He was 18 years of age, weighed 130 pounds-less
than any of the other men-and had previously worked exclusively at hotels and
other places where work was not so strenuous as at Respondent's plant. During his
employment by Respondent he performed miscellaneous tasks, among them remov-
ing debris from furnaces being cleaned out, pulling aluminum blocks from furnaces
and stacking them, and operating a forklift truck. On one occasion, in late January,
he assisted others in the operation of a 90-pound pneumatic hammer, commonly
called a jackhammer, with which metallic residue was being removed from the sides
of a hopper. When assigned to removing debris from furnaces, Blevins would occa-
sionally operate the hammer for short periods of time. However, this was voluntary;
he was never assigned to operate the hammer on a furnace-cleaning job.7
As a parolee, or former parolee, Abbott would, of course, have been especially foolish
not to be truthful in the circumstances It will be recalled that Gray denied asking em-
ployees about their union sympathies, in which denial he was contradicted not only by
the employees, but by Smoke and, indirectly, Pultz
7 Blevins testified, referring to previous employment, that he had' never even seen a
jackhammer . He also testified credibly that he had operated the hammer previously at
Respondent 's plant only when one of the other men would leave the furnace to get a drink,
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC. 1297
About January 30 the union adherents wore union buttons for the first time Ble-
ins youthfully displayed some half dozen of them instead of the single button, or
at most two, which the others wore. Pultz reproached him, saying:
Blevins, I never thought you would go union on us. I gave you a job because
your mother asked us to. I did you a favor, and you do me one by signing a
union revocation card.
Pultz, spreading allegedly signed revocation cards on the desk, said that he would
get rid of all the men who did not leave the Union and would get a whole new
crew, and warned, "You better get out while you can.. . ." Blevins replied that he
would think about it. The foregoing was not denied by Pultz except as part of pio
forma general denials of each allegation of the complaint 8
Shortly thereafter Blevins asked Pultz for a $20 loan which he said he needed for
dental work Blevins testified that Pultz replied he would lend him the $20 if he
signed a revocation card, but that if Blevms could not help him, he could not help
Blevins He went on to say, according to Blevins, that Respondent could not afford
to operate if the Union came in and would have to shut down since Respondent
was already paying top wages; that the metal being produced was lying in the ware-
house, unsold ; that the plant would be expanded and wages increased ; but that if
the Union came in the plant would be closed
Two days later Foreman Smoke, in a conversation lasting some 2 hours, asked
Blevins to sign a revocation card When Blevins refused, he gave the same warning
of plant shutdown and the same promise of increased wages as Pultz had; told Ble-
vins the Union was only after money and would not help the employees; and he
also told Blevins of his own experience trying to get a union into a plant where, as
a result, the employees lost their cars, homes, and jobs. When Blevins persisted in
his refusal to sign a revocation card, he said:
Blevins, it would be better for you if you would because your job would be
here We are going to get rid of the old ones, and we are going to get a whole
new crew. You would still have your job ... .
The following Monday morning, which would be February 7, Smoke again solicited
a revocation card from Blevins, who refused to sign one.9 Smoke thereupon
instructed his assistant , Jesse Patrick, to go with Blevins and put him to work in
the salt bins taking sacks which were on or near the floor and restacking them on
top of the stacks in order to make room for a carload of salt which was expected.
The sacks weighed 100 pounds each and Blevins testified that Patrick kept him at
the task for 7 hours that day. He stated that Patrick stood around watching him,
and that when Blevins asked whether he had been given the assignment because he
would not sign the revocation card, Patrick told him not to ask so many questions
but just to keep moving the salt. Blevins testified that that was the first time he was
required to restack sacks of salt. Other employees testified that they had never
seen production employees stacking salt and that that work was done only by the
and that it was at most 10 minutes at a time He said that normally he would only shovel
dirt into cans, which he would remove with the forklift truck. While witnesses for Re-
spondent testified in general terms that "everybody " did all the unskilled jobs , there was
no specific testimony that Blevins was ever assigned to operate the hammer except on the
day of his discharge and on the occasion when he helped clean the hopper . Foreman Smoke
testified that Blevins operated the hammer on the hopper 5 or 10 minutes at a time, in
addition to helping Smoke work on the sides when two men had to hold the hammer. He
also testified that it is not the same kind of hammer operation as is used when cleaning
a furnace . Blevins testified that he only helped others hold the hammer on that occasion,
besides manipulating a crowbar . The difference is not material , since Blevins admitted
having operated the hammer to some extent previously.
8 Blevins testified that the bookkeeper and Schlesinger , a supervisor , were present The
bookkeeper denied hearing the statements ascribed by Blevins to Pultz about Blevins wear-
ing a union button or being a member , or about getting rid of the men who did not leave
the Union . Schlesinger did not testify . Bievins' testimony is credited by me
8 Smoke denied asking any employee to sign a revocation card. In this he was con-
tradicted by half a dozen employees who testified that he did ask them. In view of the
admitted fact that Respondent prepared the cards, gave then to the foremen, and posted
a notice about them, and of the further fact that the foremen , including Smoke , made an
actual complete count of the union adherents , the half dozen employees, including Blevins,
have been credited on this point and Smoke has not been credited
264-047-6T-vol. 162-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unloading crew. Holyfield, unloading crew foreman, testified that when he was
shorthanded for unloading or stacking salt, he procured additional help from the
unemployment office. He stated that production employees were at times sent to
help on unloading scrap aluminum, but not on unloading or restacking salt
The next day, Tuesday, February 8, Blevins resumed his work on the salt After
about 3 hours he was assigned to a furnace where aluminum was being poured
and where he was required to "pull" and stack the aluminum.lo
On Thursday, February 10, Blevins was assigned to help clean furnace 2, along
with Leslie Roach and William Abbott. Roach and Abbott took turns operating
the pneumatic hammer, while Blevins removed the debris from the furnace. Blevins
did this work 5 or 6 hours that day. He did not operate the hammer."
At a union meeting which probably took place on the evening of February 9 or
10, Blevins reported to the employees about his request to Pultz for a $20 advance
and Pultz' reply that he would give it to him if he would sign a revocation card.
Some employees understood that Pultz had offered him $20 outright rather than
as an advance. The record does not show directly what Blevins said at the meeting.
However, his testimony at the hearing that he asked Pultz for a $20 advance, which
Pultz said he would "give" if Blevins reciprocated the favor, indicates the ambiguity
which was the probable source of their misunderstanding It is found that Blevins
reported that Pultz offered an advance of $20 and not a gift.
On the morning of February 11 Pultz received a report that Blevins had accused
him of offering Blevins $20 to cooperate with Respondent.12 Pultz immediately
questioned Blevins, who had just punched in. Blevins denied having reported that
Pultz was going to give him money for signing a revocation card. When Pultz called
him a liar, he recalled the incident of his request for an advance to meet dental
expenses and Pultz' reply that if Blevins would not do him a favor by signing a
revocation card, he could not do Blevins a favor. Pultz said, "Do you think I am
crazy enough to give a man a knife to stab me in the back with?" 13 Pultz then
instructed Day-Shift Foreman Smoke "to put him to work the same as the rest
of the men." 14
About 8:20 a.m., Smoke led Blevins to furnace 2, which was in the process of
being cleaned in preparation for repairs and where Blevins had worked the previous
day shoveling. When they arrived, Leslie Roach was working alone, operating the
hammer. Smoke handed the hammer to Blevins and instructed him to get to work
on the floor of the furnace. He said that Blevins had to do the job himself and
moreover had only 8 hours to do it.
Blevins started operating the hammer. About 9 o'clock Patrick, the assistant
foreman, came in and took charge. He found Blevins operating the hammer and
doing so correctly; i.e., applying the required pressure. When Roach asked if he
could help operate the hammer, Patrick replied that Blevins had to do it alone.
Normally the employees operated the hammer for at most 20 minutes, after which
10 Counsel for the General Counsel contended that normally additional help would have
been provided for stacking However, the record shows that on some occasions, when help
was not available, one man did the pulling and stacking. The evidence is insufficient to
establish that this assignment was not made in the ordinary course of operations or was
discriminatory.
"Abbott corroborated Blevins' testimony to the above effect. Roach testified that lie
could not remember who the third man was who worked with him and Abbott in furnace
2 that day. Foreman Smoke testified that only two men had worked in the furnace on
February 10, Abbott and one other, whom he thought was Butler. The testimony of Abbott
and Blevins as to this point is credited.
11 Parker testified that the report he heard was also to the effect that Pultz offered
Blevins a loan of $50, of which he would have to repay only $40. However, no one at the
meeting testified that Blevins said anything like that, and Parker, in repeating the con-
versation on cross-examination, omitted reference to the $50 offer with $40 to be repaid.
It is found that Blevins did not make such a report
18 Pultz admitted making this remark but placed it during the conversation when Blevins
requested the loan. He explained that what he considered a knife to stab him with was the
fact that Blevins had been an unsatisfactory employee. This explanation has little logic.
Moreover, the remark was heard and testified to by Sammy Burks, who was present on
February 11 but not at the earlier conversation. On February 11 it was apparent that
Blevins could have used a $20 loan in the union campaign as a "knife" with which
to injure Respondent . For these reasons it is found that Pultz made the remark on
February 11.
11 Smoke testified that those were the words used by Pultz.
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC. 1299
someone else would take over. After some time Blevins, with Patrick's permission,
went for a drink of water.15 He resumed operation of the hammer and then asked
Patrick to fetch Smoke so that he could get help. When Blevins told Smoke that
the work was too hard and that he could not do it alone, Smoke replied that he
was not using the hammer right and had to use pressure. Blevins said that he saw
no right or wrong to it, that he had been running the hammer for 3 hours,is whereas
previously he had never done it for more than 10 minutes at a time, and he said,
as testified by Roach, that he had no more pressure to give. Blevins then asked for
Fultz, and Smoke started to accompany him to Pultz' office. On the way, however,
Blevins said that he would not go without a witness, and he requested that an
employee who had just left come along. He refused to go to the office without a
witness, saying, "You're taking me over there to fire [me]." Smoke said no wit-
ness was needed, adding, "We are not going to fire you today." Patrick got Pultz,
who told Blevins to show him what he had been doing in the furnace. Now Blevins
refused to enter the furnace without a witness, and he asked Smoke if Butler, an
employee working in the area, could be a witness. Smoke did not reply to Blevins,
who testified, "He just kept looking at me like I was crazy." Butler passed by and
said he would come back and be a witness, but Smoke ordered him to work. Blevins
then entered the furnace with Pultz, Smoke, and Patrick.
Pultz asked Blevins to demonstrate how he had worked and then told him he was
not doing it right since he did not lean on the hammer. Blevins leaned on the ham-
mer, but then told Pultz that he was not heavy enough and that it made his belly
sore. Smoke instructed Patrick to show how easy it was, and after Patrick tore out
a piece of residue the hammer was handed to Blevins. Smoke said, "See, you can do
it. Go to work and lean on it." Blevins said he could not and asked for help. Smoke
replied, "You just don't need any help . . . You have . . . 8 hours to do it. You
can get it cleaned out today." Blevins operated the hammer without applying weight
or pressure-in fact, holding it with only one hand.17 Finally Pultz said, "Blevins
it you can not do it you can come over to the office and pick up your time."
Blevins thereupon left the furnace for the office,18 where Pultz had his check made
out for him. The check was delivered to him at 10:30 or 11 o'clock and he left
the plant about noontime.
C. Concluding findings as to interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The revocation cards and notice
Respondent prepared the cards by which employees revoked their union member-
ship and solicited such revocations by posting the notice and through the diligent
efforts of its supervisors. An employer may argue his point of view as to unioniza-
tion with his employees, but promotional activity in that area is reserved to the
employees and their labor organizations. Actual solicitation by him of revocation
of union membership or designation cards interferes with the employees and
restrains and coerces them in the area of self-organization. To the extent that
Respondent solicited the revocations after the filing of the petition in Case
26-RC-2589, it was not merely coercive, but it also interfered with the Board's
processes. For these reasons Respondent's obtaining the revocations, even apart
from the manner in which it was accomplished, discussed below, was an 8(a)(1)
violation of the Act.19
16 Roach and Patrick testified that all three left for a drink together and returned to-
gether. Smoke, however, corroborated Blevins, stating that he saw only Blevins going
for the drink and that Roach was operating the hammer while Blevins was outside the
furnace on that occasion. It is found that Blevins was unaccompanied when he went for
the drink.
1s This was an exaggeration.
17 Blevins denied the testimony of Roach and Patrick that he had been operating the
hammer with one hand even before Pultz arrived The point is not material-he had
admittedly stopped applying pressure so that the hammer was in any event not being
operated effectively.
18 Smoke testified that Blevins told Pultz that if he did not like the way he was using
the hammer , Pultz could give him his check. Pultz testified that he told Blevins that he
would operate the hammer correctly or not at all, at which point Blevins asked for his
check.
18 N.L R B. v. United Biscuit Company of America, Union Biscuit Diiision, 208 F.2d 52
(C.A. 8), enfg. 101 NLRB 1552 ; Poultry Enterprises , Inc., 102 NLRB 211, 224, enfd. 207
522 (C.A. 5) ; Heaton Furniture Company, 111 NLRB 342.
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Threats of reprisal and promises of benefit
Respondent compounded its violation of the employees' rights by the manner in
which the revocations were sought. Reily's statement to Sammy Burks that everyone
who did not sign a revocation card would be pushed out of the plant and Burks
would be replaced by Roach, and his warning to Burks that he had better sign a
card while he still had a chance, constituted plain threats of discharge if Burks
persisted in his right to remain in or assist and support the Union. While Reily
was not a supervisor, he was Parker's assistant and the statements were made in
Parker's presence. As Parker, an acknowledged supervisor, did not correct Reily
or disavow the statements, they had the same impact as if made by Parker, and
Respondent is fully responsible for them.20 Smoke made similar threats when solicit-
ing the revocations. Telling Deason to forget the union nonsense if he valued his
job was plainly a warning that Deason was in danger of discharge, as Smoke empha-
sized when he told Deason he was hurting himself by refusing to sign a revocation.
Smoke used a similar approach with William Abbott, telling him, in effect, that his
refusal to sign a revocation would hurt only Abbott, since Smoke would have
little trouble training Abbott's successor. Smoke preceded his threat to Abbott with
a promise of benefit in that if he did sign a revocation, he "would still always have
a job." He used the same two-pronged approach with Stone and Blevins. He warned
Stone that the men would be hurt since the plant would be shut down if they per-
sisted in their adherence to the Union, but promised that if Stone signed the revoca-
tion card he could be guaranteed more hours in the form of overtime after "the
union business was over"; and he similarly warned Blevins of a shutdown, and
that the old employees would be got rid of, at the same time promising Blevins the
benefits of increased wages and security of job tenure if he opposed the Union.
Pultz himself told Ronnie Burks that he knew who had signed the union authori-
zation cards, thereby creating the impression of surveillance of the employees' union
activities and thus warning Burks that Respondent knew whom to reward and on
whom to visit reprisals if at any time it wished to do so. Pultz' comment to Grover
Abbott that he had made his parole possible served to remind Abbott of Pultz'
power over Abbott's job. As it was made in connection with the solicitation of a
revocation, it was a threat to Abbott that he might be discharged if he did not
comply with Respondent's wishes as to unionization. Moreover, Gray, in Pultz'
presence, had just told Abbott that he would get the next loading job, something
Abbott desired. Respondent was thus simultaneously making threats of reprisal and
promises of the benefit of a more desirable job classification in order to induce
Abbott to renounce the Union. Pultz' statements to Blevins that Respondent would
get a new crew and that Blevins had better get out of the Union while he could,
were plainly threatening of discharge; and Pultz further violated the Act when he
told Blevins that Respondent was then planning to expand the plant and increase
wages but that it would have to shut down if the Union came in , thus indicating
the futility of choosing the Union.
Schlesinger's warning to Burks not to "push" the Union under pain of discharge
was couched in the broadest terms so far as the plant was concerned. Burks was
thus forbidden to advocate unionization even on his own time and when the persons
he was talking to were not working. Such a prohibition violates the employees'
rights to self-organization and is a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 21 Smoke's
warning to Burroughs to stop talking about the Union was similarly coercive and
therefore violative of the Act. As Smoke was evasive in his testimony as to crucial
areas of the case, and as Burroughs was corroborated by Naven, I have credited
Burroughs and Naven. Smoke's warning was coercive not only in that he threatened
Burroughs with discharge but also in that by telling Burroughs of the reports he
had received he created the impression that Respondent was engaging in surveil-
lance of the employees' organizational activities.22
Holyfield's statement, testified to by Chambers, that if the Union was successful
the plant would shut down "unless they had enough men to operate," on its face
appears to refer to a strike situation, as testified by Holyfield, and, therefore, was
not coercive. Parker's alleged statement to Sammy Burks that since the Union was
organizing the plant would shut down and only foremen and assistant foremen
The Coachman's Inn, 147 NLRB 270, 278, 284, enfd. 357 F.2d 134 (C.A. 8).
21N.L.R.B. v. LeTourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U.S. 793, enfg. 54 NLRB 1253;
Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, 620; Willow Maintenance Corp., 143
NLRB 64, enfd. as modified 332 F.2d 367 (C.A. 2).
22 U.S. Rubber Company, 147 NLRB 619, 623.
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC. 1301
would work is self-contradictory The most reasonable explanation would be that
Parker was, as he testified, referring to a strike situation and that Burks' testimony
was not accurate. The finding that Respondent threatened plant shutdown is not
based on this testimony of Burks and Chambers or on testimony by various other
witnesses for the General Counsel which has not been set forth because it impliedly
referred to strike situations. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence that it was
Holyfield, Parker, or any other supervisor or agent of Respondent who introduced
among the employees the idea that unionization would result in a strike.
3. Interrogation
Although Respondent denied paragraph 7 of the complaint, alleging interrogation,
Smoke and Holyfield admitted that they questioned employees concerning their
union membership and desires and Pultz admitted that he instructed the shift fore-
men to conduct a poll. While Foremen Gray and Parker denied so questioning
employees, their denials have not been credited.
The questioning took place shortly after Pultz' speech in which he urged, the
employees so strongly not to bring the Union in. The employees were not informed
of the purpose of the poll. Neither were they in any way assured when questioned
that their answers would not affect their jobs, on the contrary every employee who
said he was for the Union knew from Pultz' still fresh speech that he was going
directly against Respondent's wishes. An employer who expresses strong feelings
against unionization and then, with no assurance to the employees that they are
free to take a different position, interrogates them on the subject, necessarily creates
fear among the employees of possible reprisal when they are required to admit to
participation in efforts toward the unionization he opposes. The Board has recog-
nized that in certain situations an employer may have need for the information
sought. Pultz testified that his purpose in having the poll was to ascertain whether
or not to bargain with the Union. Respondent's efforts to defeat the Union after the
poll by soliciting the revocations, threatening employees with reprisals, promising
them benefits, and discriminating against Blevins as discussed below, all negate the
idea that Pultz ever had any intention of recognizing the principle of collective
bargaining.23 It is found that Respondent's purpose in conducting the poll was not
to ascertain whether or not to bargain with the Union. It is further found that the
poll was coercive.
The revocation cards solicited by Respondent required the employees to disclose
various matters in the area of self-organization, namely, the fact that they had
signed cards, the dates, the names of the persons who had collected the cards, and
the employees' present positions with respect to unionization. The solicitation thus
constituted further interrogation by Respondent. No legitimate reason has been or
could be offered why Respondent needed this information at the time the revoca-
tions were sought, and, as already found, the mere solicitation was coercive.
It is found that by polling the employees and soliciting the revocations Respond-
ent engaged in interrogation which was coercive and was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act24
D. Concluding findings as to Blevins
The assignment of Blevins to stacking the salt bags was not alleged in the com-
plaint.25 Nevertheless the matter was fully litigated and Respondent went to great
lengths to establish that the salt bin assignment was normal. On the basis of the
testimony of the various employees and of Foreman Holyfield that only the loading
crew or outsiders stacked salt, it is found that stacking salt was not part of the
normal duties of Blevins or any other production employee. While Smoke testified
that the assignment was necessary because a carload of salt was expected and room
had to be made, no evidence was offered as to why it was necessary to assign
Blevins to the job alone. In view of these facts and of the further fact that Smoke
made the assignment in direct response to Blevins' refusal to sign a revocation card,
23 I concluded from the manner in which Pultz gave the testimony referred to that it
was definitely an afterthought, and it has not been credited.
24 N L R B v. United Biscuit Company of America, supra.
25 The allegation as to harassing Blevins and assigning him to a more arduous job dates
the action "on or about February 11, 1966," which is near enough to the salt pile incident
to cover it However, a fair reading of the paragraph in the light of the evidence is that
it refers only to the jackhammer incident on February 11.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it is further found that Smoke assigned Blevins to the salt bin to harass him in
reprisal for his having refused to sign the revocation card, as a warning that his
normal exemption from the heaviest work in the plant could be done away with,
and as a further warning that Respondent could make it impossible for Blevms to
hold his job. It is found that by assigning Blevins to stack salt Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Operation of the jackhammer in the cleaning of Respondent's furnaces was unusu-
ally strenuous labor. It was necessary to apply pressure and Smoke testified that
the more pressure one applied, the better. Witness after witness-some of them
powerful men able to lift a quarter of a ton of dead weight off the floor-testified
that they could not operate the hammer more than 20 minutes at a stretch, and
some had limits that were lower. The task was made more grueling by the heat in
the furnace Several witnesses testified that they wore unlaced boots in order to be
able to get them off quickly if a chip of the residue became lodged inside or in the
laces. Until February 11 Blevins had not done that work except for his own satis-
faction, when for short periods he relieved men who went for a drink. As late as
February 10 he wsa assigned to a furnace-cleaning job but was admittedly required
only to shovel the debris being removed. It is not material that his job category
called for operation of the hammer; in fact it had not been required of him, appar-
ently in recognition of his youth and small size. His testimony to this effect was
corroborated by Pultz' instruction to Smoke after he was through discussing Blevins'
accusation with respect to the $20 advance. Pultz told Smoke "to put him to work
the same as the rest of the men." The plain implication of the order was at least
that Respondent would no longer take into consideration Blevins' youth and not
fully developed physique and was changing the conditions of his employment by
assigning him more arduous duties. The order was carried out.
There is sharp conflict in the testimony as to whether Blevins was required to
do the jackhammer part of the job alone or in alternation with Patrick and Roach.
Resolution of this conflict would not affect the outcome of the case. Even if Blevins
had been assigned to share the work equally with Roach or with Roach and Patrick,
the assignment would have been violative of the Act since it was substantially more
onerous than his normal duties and was imposed upon him, as found below, with
a discriminatory motive 26
Blevins proceeded to try to do the job, as he previously had done when discrimi-
natorily assigned to stacking salt. The evidence as to his prior work does not show
him to have been a shirker, and his effort to carry out the jackhammer assignment
and his initially correct operation of the hammer are established by the uncontra-
dicted evidence. The fact that with experience men could get the knack of operating
the 90-pound hammer effectively without undue effort does not mean that young
Blevins, weighing 130 pounds and with a spotting of experience, was physically
able even to approach such performance. It is found that at the time of his termi-
nation Blevins was physically unable to operate the hammer effectively.
Respondent contends that Blevins was not discharged but quit 27 The testimony
of Roach and Patrick to the effect that Blevins demanded his check before Pultz or
Smoke arrived at the furnace is not credible. Blevins' later plea for a witness to
his discharge is inconsistent with his wanting to quit. More to the point, if that had
been his intention, all he had to do was walk to the office and ask for his check.
Smoke testified that Blevins told Pultz that he would continue to run the hammer
as he had been doing and that if Pultz did not like it, he could give him his check;
26 While Blevins was contradicted on the point by Roach, Patrick, and Smoke, I would
credit him because of the contradictions among those three on points bearing on the
division of work that morning and because Smoke's testimony on several other important
points in the case has been found to be materially inaccurate Blevins was not always
frank in his testimony, especially when questioned about the language he used on the day
of his discharge, at which point he became evasive and even invented avenues of escape
from his embarrassment, made the more acute by the presence of a female reporter. How-
ever, his account of the demands made on him on February 11 impressed me as truthful,
and there is corroboration in the established fact that a few days before Smoke had, for
discriminatory reasons, given him the arduous and unusual assignment of working alone
on the salt pile
21 If Blevins had refused to take the more arduous jackhammer assignment and had quit,
he would be found to have been constructively discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) of the Act. Gutlett Gin Company, Inc v. N L R B , 179 F 2d 499 (C A 5), enfg
as modified 83 NLRB 1 ; Schoenfeld Cordage Co., Inc , 143 NLRB 117.
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC. 1303
i.e., discharge him.26 That would not be a quitting . Pultz testified that at one point
he said to Blevins, "Either you operate it correctly , or you don't operate it at all,"
which is not very different from Blevins' testimony that Pultz told him to pick up
his time if he could not operate correctly . It is found that Pultz discharged Blevins.
Pultz' order to Smoke on February 11 to change the conditions of Blevins'
employment was foreshadowed by the discriminatory assignment to the salt bin.
Moreover, it followed so directly on the discussion of the $20 advance as to raise
the inference that Pultz was motivated not by operating needs but by Blevins ' report
about the $20. I have credited Blevins' testimony that Pultz offered to make the
advance on the condition that Blevins reciprocate the favor by signing a revocation
card . It may well be that some employees came away from the union meeting with
the impression that Blevins spoke of a $20 gift rather than an advance. However, it
has been found above that Blevins did not misreport what Pultz had said . Moreover,
only an intentional and malicious inaccuracy would remove Blevins' report from
the protection of the Act.29 As either a loan or a gift of $20 would have consti-
tuted an illegal benefit and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and as
Pultz did offer the loan, there is no basis for finding that Pultz in good faith
thought that Blevins had maliciously made a misstatement at the union meeting of
such proportions as to remove it from the protection of the Act 30
It has been found that Pultz' order changing Blevins' conditions of employment
was motivated by the report about the $20 advance. Plainly that report triggered
the order . However, Blevins' tattling to the employees about Pultz' offer was not
his only misstep . Pultz and Smoke for some time had been dissatisfied with his
persistent support of the Union and his refusal to sign a revocation card, and Pultz
was especially displeased by Blevins ' manifest failure to renounce the Union and
thus show appreciation for the favor Pultz had done him and his mother in giving
a 130-pound 18-year-old youth a job in a foundry . Thus it was not only the $20
incident , but Blevins ' entire prounion course of conduct, that motivated Pultz. Even
assuming , therefore , that Blevins' report about the $20 was unprotected by the Act,
his protected concerted activities were also a substantial contributing factor to Pultz'
motivation , and the action Respondent took against Blevins was therefore in any
event violative of the Act31
It is found that Respondent , by assigning Blevins to the jackhammer and by dis-
charging him, violated Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occur-
ring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that the Board issue the Recommended Order set forth
below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices
and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
The breadth of Respondent's attack on the employees ' rights of self-organization-
its coercive interrogation , its campaign for revocations , the numerous threats of
reprisal and promises of benefit , and its discrimination against Blevins-indicates
a disposition on Respondent 's part to interfere with the employees in the exercise
h It may be inferred that Blevins made similar remarks to Patrick before Smoke arrived
and that Patrick and Roach distorted them into requests for his check equivalent to
quitting.
El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation , 108 NLRB 1270, 1279.
30 Assuming , arguendo , that an intentional labeling of the offer as a gift rather than as
a loan would have removed it from the protection of the Act, Pultz' good-faith but mis-
taken belief that Blevins ' report had been intentionally false would not make his action
in changing Blevins ' conditions of employment lawful. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc.,
379 U.S. 21.
31N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing Co., 328 F.2d 835 (C.A. 7), enfg. 141 NLRB 558.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. For this reason I shall recom-
mend also that Respondent be required to cease and desist from infringing in any
manner on those rights.
Respondent introduced evidence that on the occasion of his discharge Blevins
used particularly foul language, that prior to his discharge he threatened to whip
a fellow employee, Robinson, and that subsequent to his discharge he threatened
and physically attacked Robinson. Respondent contends that for these reasons
Blevins should in any event not be reinstated. While I have rejected the testimony
of Respondent's witnesses that Blevins, using the particularly offensive language
testified to, quit, there can be no doubt that Blevins did use the language in ques-
tion. However, Respondent does not claim that it discharged him for that reason.
Moreover, it cannot be found, especially in view of the provocation to which
Blevins had been subjected, that such language made him unfit to work in the
plant 32 and that therefore Respondent should be relieved of the obligation to remedy
its unfair labor practice by reinstating him.33 Blevins' attack on Robinson was not
serious enough a matter to disqualify him from reinstatement Respondent employed
men guilty of apparently more grievous offenses Pultz testified that he had three
parolees on the payroll at the time of the hearing. Blevins, on the other hand, was
merely placed under a peace bond for 1 year without surety. Chambers testified
that Blevins hit Robinson with his open hand high on his shoulder; Robinson testi-
fied that Blevins "shoved" him with his open hand on the shoulder. He went to
court for the peace bond on suggestion of Respondent's agents. By contrast, among
employees whom Respondent did not find it necessary to discharge were an
employee who was discovered carrying a knife with a 2-foot blade strapped to his
leg; Whynn, who "pulled" a knife on Burroughs; and Paul and Burroughs who got
into a fight with each other in which a knife, a piece of 2 by 4, and a board were
used as weapons.34 It is recognized that Respondent is concerned with maintaining
discipline and order in its foundry. Nevertheless, in view of the actual facts, it is
plain that reinstatement of Blevins would not be so disruptive of such discipline
and order as to warrant allowing Respondent's discrimination to go unremedied.
I shall therefore recommend that Respondent reinstate Blevins to his former or a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges. I shall also recommend that Respondent make Blevins whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to what he would have earned from the date of
his termination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during the said period. The loss of earnings shall be computed in accord-
ance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner
described in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 I shall recommend that
that Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board payroll
and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Hot Springs Aluminum Processors , Inc, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
32 Pultz testified, referring to violence at the plant, as follows
Q. It is a matter of fact that you have some pretty tough boys out there, do
you not3
A. You are bound to when you have a foundry.
33 N.L R B v M & B Headwear Co, Inc, 349 F 2d 170 (C.A 4), enfg. in relevant part
146 NLRB 1634
31 Burroughs' description of one of his fights was, in part, as follows :
I jumped off the lift and I jerked him off of his, and I knocked him down on the
ground, and he crawled off and got away from me He picked up an old two by four
and was going to hit me with it, and I slammed it down on the ground beside him
and then he pulled out a knife I picked up a board, and Mr. Patrick stopped the
fight.
Burroughs' description of his second fight was, In part, as follows
I poked him in the mouth, and after doing that, I hit his brother, too, and then
the other two boys. I guess they were trying to break it up. I don't know what they
were trying to do, but I knocked them both down, and Smoke came over and stopped
the fight . . . .
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC. 1305
2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. The Union, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 878, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discriminatorily harassing its employee, Johnny Mack Blevins, and assign-
ing him to more arduous duties, and by discharging him, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices described above 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 the
entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, Respondent, Hot Springs Aluminum Processors, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 878,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by harassing employees,
assigning them more arduous duties, discharging them, or otherwise discriminating
against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of employment.
(b) Threatening to shut down its plant if the employees designate the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization, as their bargaining representative.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or
desires in a manner or under circumstances constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(d) Soliciting, urging, or suggesting to employees that they revoke cards signed
by them applying for membership in the Union, or any other labor organization,
or designating the Union, or any other labor organization, as their bargaining agent.
(e) Preparing or distributing among its employees cards or other documents by
which the employees could revoke union membership or designation cards signed by
them.
(f) Promising employees higher wages, more desirable work, more hours of
work, or other benefits if they would refrain from becoming or remaining members
of the Union, or any other labor organization, or giving it assistance or support.
(g) Threatening employees with discharge if they become or remain members
of the Union, or any other labor organization, or give it assistance or support.
(h) Telling employees that they know who had signed union authorization cards
or had discussed or promoted the Union, or in any other manner creating among
the employees the impression of surveillance by Respondent of the employees'
union or concerted activities.
(i) Impressing on employees that selecting the Union, or any other labor organi-
zation, as their collective-bargaming agency would be futile.
(1) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any of the foregoing.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Johnny Mack Blevins immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges.
(b) Make Johnny Mack Blevins whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner described above
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify Johnny Mack Blevins if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other data necessary to analyze and
compute the backpay and reinstatement rights required by this Recommended
Order.
(e) Post at its office and place of business located at Hot Springs, Arkansas,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 35 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its 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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days
from the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.36
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" shall be replaced by the words "a Decision and
Order" 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 Decision and Order" shall be replaced
by the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
° If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read, "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, 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 assign our employees more arduous duties or discharge them
or in any other manner discriminate against them in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of
their membership in or activities on behalf of Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local 878, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with shutting down our plant, discharging
them, or with any other reprisal if they designate Local 878, or any other
labor organization, as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promise employees higher wages, more desirable work, more
hours of work, or any other benefits if they refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members of Local 878, or any other labor organization, or giving it assist-
ance or support.
WE WILL NOT impress upon our employees that selecting Local 878, or any
other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining agency would be futile.
WE WILL NOT create among our employees the impression that we are
engaged in surveillance of their union or concerted activities by telling them
we know who signed union cards or who discussed or promoted Local 878, or
in any other manner.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, or desires in a coercive manner or under circumstances con-
stituting coercion.
WE WILL NOT prepare cards or other documents by which our employees
can revoke union membership or designation cards or request or suggest to
employees that they revoke their union membership or designation cards.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist Local 878, or any other labor organization to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
QUAKER TOOL & DIE, INC. 1307
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or to
refrain from any of the foregoing.
WE WILL offer Johnny Mack Blevins immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges and will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
HOT SPRINGS ALUMINUM PROCESSORS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Tele-
phone 534-3161.
Quaker Tool & Die, Inc. ' and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-3758. January 30, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1965, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions.
As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Union
was certified on October 16, 1962, as the majority representative of
1 Hereinafter also referred to as Quaker.
162 NLRB No. 124.