Kanawha Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 51 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Kanawha Manufacturing Company and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-8050
June 26, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Fannie M. Boyls issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge, and hereby orders that
Respondent, Kanawha Manufacturing Company,
Charleston, West Virginia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M. BOYLS, Administrative Law Judge: This case,
initiated by a charge filed on September 28, 1973, and a
complaint issued on November 27, 1973, was tried before
me in Charleston, West Virginia, on January 24, 1974. The
complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respon-
dent, during a union organizational campaign in September
1973, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, by discriminatorily discharging employee
Gerald R. Turner because of his union membership and
activities and by engaging in various other acts of interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of
their organizational rights. Respondent's answer denies that
it engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged. Sub-
sequent to the hearing the General Counsel and counsel for
the Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, upon my observation
of the demeanor of of the witnesses, and after a careful
consideration of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
51
Respondent is a West Virginia corporation, engaged in
the manufacture of structural steel products at Charleston,
West Virginia. During the 12-month period preceding the
issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period,
Respondent sold and shipped goods and merchandise val-
ued in excess of $50,000 from its Charleston, West Virginia,
plant directly to customers outside West Virginia. On the
basis of these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
I
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of Events
About September 17 or 18, 1973, Gerald R. Turner, one
of Respondent's machinists, obtained union authorization
cards from another employee (whose identity is not dis-
closed in the record) and started actively soliciting fellow
employees to join the Union. He did this openly during his
lunch and coffee breaks and before and after work, person-
ally talking to and soliciting signatures on cards from 50 to
55 employees, some on the night shift and some on the day
shift. Three other employees, Fugate, Rutlidge, and Nicho-
las, were also active in soliciting employees to sign cards and
they turned over to Turner the signed cards they received.
Many of the solicitations were in the general area where the
supervisors ate their lunches. Around September 20, some
of the signed cards were delivered by Rutlidge to Turner in
a small room adjoining the machine shop, with Machine
Shop Foreman Jones about 10 or 15 feet away looking in
their direction.
On the following Monday morning, September 24, before
Rutlidge had turned his machine on and started working,
Floor Foreman Jack Vance came to him and said, "I've got
a message for you from Don Lane [the plant manager]. He
told me to tell you to stay in your work area. Don't leave
your machine and stay off the mule [the forklift truck].. .
I don't want to catch you bullshitting with anybody." Rut-
lidge asked the reason for these instructions and Vance
replied that he did not know the reason, explaining that he
was just transmitting the message from Plant Manager
Lane, and adding, "Now, if you're caught doing any of
these, you will be fired."
Later the same day, Rutlidge stopped Lane as he was
passing the area where Rutlidge was working and asked
Lane, "Don, what have I done to make you mad?" Lane,
after ascertaining that Foreman Vance had delivered his
message, reiterated the same instructions but did not ex-
plain the reason for them. Rutlidge had never previously
been warned about leaving his machine or work area or
212 NLRB No. 7
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about using the forklift or about talking to his fellow em-
ployees. Indeed , it was a part of his duties as a drill press
operator frequently to leave the structural shop , where he
regularly worked , to go to the machine shop for drill bits or
other supplies and to use the forklift , as did the other opera-
tors, to pick up or deliver work all over the plant or to move
the forklift if it was obstructing something ) Rutlidge testi-
fied that he used the forklift and went to work areas other
than his own only in connection with performing his regular
duties and there is no evidence to the contrary . Moreover,
as he explained , the machines on which he and other opera-
tors work are close together and he and others normally talk
freely to each other while working , without interfering with
production.2
Also on September 24, employee Fugate (who had previ-
ously signed a union card on September 21 and had turned
over to Turner the signed card he had received from others)
was approached by Plant Manager Lane and asked, "Big-
gun, I 've got him down pat, haven 't I? Did he sign you up?"
Fugate replied that he did not know what Lane was talking
about . Thereupon Lane asked , "Did you sign a card?" Fu-
gate replied , "You're damn right I signed a card." It is
apparent from Lane 's conduct that he wished to leave the
impression that he knew who was responsible for promoting
the union movement and at the same time to ascertain
whether Fugate had signed a union card . Lane's interroga-
tion of Fugate, under the circumstances , was clearly of a
coercive nature.
On the following day, September 25, Gerald Turner was
discharged by Plant Manager Lane for the asserted reason
that Turner was violating a plant rule by failing to wear his
safety glasses . The circumstances of this discharge and the
additional reasons later assigned to Turner for his discharge
will be considered below.
Later that day and after learning of Gerald Turner's dis-
charge, employee Rutlidge-upon whom unexplained re-
strictions on his movement and talking had already been
placed-met Foreman Vance at the water cooler . Rutlidge
remarked, "The Company really hung one on Jerry, didn't
they?" When Vance nodded , Rutlidge continued, "Now,
you know that wasn ' t over the hardhat and glasses. It was
over the Union ." Again Vance nodded , appearing to agree,
and told Rutlidge , "Now, if you 're not careful and watch
what you are doing and do as Don Lane told you , you will
be fired too ." Vance testified that his remarks to Rutlidge
at the water fountain were "off the record" and "as a
friend ," to warn him to be careful and stay in his work area
so that Vance would not have to fire him. Vance appeared
very uneasy on the witness stand and I do not believe that
he was entirely frank . While at first testifying that he did not
believe Turner 's discharge was mentioned during the water
fountain conversation , he later acknowledged that the sub-
ject had been brought up but that Vance did not believe he
told Rutlidge the real reason for Turner 's discharge. He
testified that at the time no one had told him the reason and
1 At the time of the hearing Respondent had a regular forklift driver, but
it did not have one at the time Rutledge received his admonition
2 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on the undenied and
credited testimony of Rutlidge Plant Manager Lane did not even testify nor
did Machine Shop Foreman Jones
he did not in fact know the real reason . It does not appear
that the two versions of this conversation are necessarily
inconsistent . I am satisfied that Vance , at least at that time,
did not really know the true reason for Turner 's discharge
but that , like Rutlidge , he suspected that Turner 's union
activities may have been the motivating reason ; that he
sincerely liked Rutledge and did not want Rutlidge to lose
his job because of Rutlidge 's union activities ; and that he
therefore did not disagree with Rutlidge 's speculation as to
the real reason for Turner 's discharge and did , in fact, nod
his head in apparent agreement with Rutlidge 's statements
and warned Rutlidge to adhere strictly to the instructions
Plant Manager Lane had relayed to him on the preceding
day so that Lane would have no ostensible excuse for dis-
charging Rutlidge. I find that Vance 's statements and con-
duct constituted a veil threat to Rutlidge that because of his
union activities he might suffer the same fate as Turner and
be terminated upon some slight pretext.
On September 26, the day after Turner 's discharge, as one
of the welders , Nicholas, returned from the restroom , Assis-
tant General Foreman Sam Shelton, who was working with
an employee on a machine adjoining Nicholas', told Nicho-
las, "I want you to stay in your work area. I don't want to
catch you out, unless its something pertaining to your job."
Nicholas asked , "Well, is it all right, if I have to go to the
restroom ?" Shelton thereupon became angry, shook a finger
in Nicholas ' face , and said, "Don't get smart with me."
Nicholas replied , "I'm not trying to get smart , Sam I need
to know , in view of these new rules, that I can't get out of
my working area, I've got to know if I can go to the rest-
room ." Shelton told him, "Now, get your ass back to your
work" and warned him, "Now, if I catch you out again, I'm
taking you upstairs and firing you ." Shelton also instructed
him not to talk to other employees.
According to Shelton his admonition to Nicholas was
occasioned by the fact that during a period of about 23
minutes, while assisting the employee on the machine next
to Nicholas', he noticed that Nicholas was not at his work
station . Shelton did not, however , ask Nicholas where he
had been or explain why the restriction on his moving about
the plant or talking was placed upon him. Nicholas had
never before been admonished to stay in his work area and
the nature of his work , as Shelton acknowledged in warning
Nicholas, was such that it became necessary at times for him
to leave his work station in performing his normal duties.
Nicholas credibly testified that, except for going to the rest-
room or water fountain and performing necessary work for
Respondent , he had not been leaving his work station. Nei-
ther had he been aware of other employees drifting around
or "goofing off." Nicholas acknowledged that about 2 years
prior thereto when a very talkative employee had been
working next to Nicholas, General Foreman Weisman
would occasionally tell the two of them they were talking
too much , but these casual admonitions were not accompa-
nied by threats of disciplinary action ; nor did they consti-
tute prohibitions against a reasonable amount of talking
which would not tend to interfere with production . Accord-
ing to Nicholas' uncontroverted testimony , three or four
other active union supporters , in addition to himself, were
restricted in their movements and their talking during the
period dust before and after Turner's discharge , whereas
KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY
other employees were not similarly restricted.
Later that day, when Nicholas was in the foreman's office
getting an order for welding rods, Shelton came to him and
invited him to another office for a talk. Nicholas asked him
what he wanted to talk about, adding, "If its about union,
I'll tell you now. I'm supporting it and I'm for it. If you want
to fire me, you may as well fire me right now." Shelton
assured him, "No, we're not going to fire any more men"
or "We are not going to fire any more now." In the office
Shelton told Nicholas that he had probably been too rough
on Nicholas earlier that day and was not "really mad" at
him but was `just hurt" and "disappointed" because he had
found out that Nicholas was involved in the union activities,
after "the Company had done so much for" Nicholas and
"had been so good to" him. He told Nicholas that the Com-
pany could do a lot more for the men if there was no "third
party" involved, and that "if the Union was to get in there,
that the Company would have to get tighter on the men, get
more work out of them and there would be certain benefits
that the men would lose," such as a Christmas party, a $50
Christmas Bonus and a Christmas turkey. Shelton also told
Nicholas about a previous experience Shelton had while a
union official, when he had had to watch his employer fire
men, with the Union powerless to stop it.
During this discussion, Fred (Hopper) Weisman, general
foreman over the Construction Shop, came in and joined
the conversation. He stated that during 1965 when Respon-
dent was having labor trouble with another labor organiza-
tion, the UAW, Respondent had considered closing the
plant down and "had even looked into converting the plant
into just a steel warehouse." Weisman added, "And I be-
lieve the old son of a bitch [referring to Respondent's presi-
dent] would be contrary enough to do it."
It is manifest that the restrictions placed by Assistant
General Foreman Shelton upon Nicholas' movements
about the plant and upon his talking to fellow employees,
constituted reprisals against Nicholas for having been an
active supporter of the Union and were designed to discour-
age him from engaging in further union activities. Shelton
in effect conceded as much when he acknowledged later in
the day that his "rough" treatment of Nicholas was occa-
sioned by his being hurt and disappointed upon learning
that Nicholas was involved in union activities. Shelton's
statement to Nicholas that Respondent "would have to get
tighter on the men and get more work out of them" and take
away their Christmas bonuses and other benefits if the
Union came in constituted further threats of reprisal against
employees if they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative. Moreover, his reference to an experience at
a prior employer's plant where the union was powerless to
stop the employer ,from firing employees appears to have
been a veiled threat or warning that a union at Respondent's
plant would be powerless to prevent Respondent from dis-
charging the union adherents.
General Foreman Weisman's remarks, during the same
conversation, about Respondent having considered closing
the plant and converting it into a steel warehouse during
previous labor trouble with another union and Weisman's
expression of belief that Respondent's president would be
contrary enough to do it, were, I am convinced, a thinly
veiled threat of plant closure in the event that the Union
53
presently attempting to organize Respondent's employees
was successful.
I find, as alleged in the complaint, that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the coercive statements
and conduct of Management Representatives Vance, Lane,
Shelton, and Weisman, as described above.
B. Turner's Discharge
At the time of his discharge on September 25, 1973, Turn-
er had been employed by Respondent as a machinist for
about 3-1/2 years and had advanced in his rate of pay from
$2.50 to $4.20 an hour. Four or five of the increases received
during this period were merit increases.
Turner's prominence in the Union's organizational drive
has already been described. His open solicitation of 50 or
55 employees in the plant before and after work and during
luncheon and other breaks, in areas where supervisors ate
their lunch, and his acceptance of signed cards from other
solicitors, could hardly have escaped the notice of manage-
ment . There is specific evidence that one supervisor,
Turner's own foreman, was looking in the direction of em-
ployee Rutlidge when the latter handed Turner some signed
union cards on September 20, while all three men were in
a small office together. It is clear that at least by Monday,
September 24, management representatives knew of the or-
ganizational drive in progress and were trying to pinpoint
the leaders, for on that date Plant Manager Lane indicated
to Employee Fugate that he knew the identity of the person
who was organizing the plant and asked Fugate whether
that person had signed him up in the Union. I am satisfied
from all the evidence that Lane, prior to September 25,
knew or suspected that Turner was prominent in the union
movement.
Shortly before 8 a.m. on September 25, while showing a
fellow employee how to use a measuring instrument, Turner
removed his safety glasses, as he customarily did when read-
ing an instrument or lining up small lines. On this occasion,
Plant Manager Lane walked up to him and asked where his
glasses were. Turner pointed to them at the end of his ma-
chine, about 2 feet away. Thereupon, Lane told Turner,
"You're fired, get your stuff together and get out. Your
check will be ready in half an hour." Turner protested that
he did not believe that his failure to have safety glasses on
was sufficient reason for firing him, but Lane stated that he
did not want to discuss the matter and walked off.
On his way to the office, Turner stopped to talk to his
immediate supervisor, Machine Shop Foreman Jones, who
himself has the authority to hire and fire employees. Jones
professed not to know anything about the discharge and
said he "didn't have any idea what was going on." He stated
that he was "sorry" that Turner was leaving. Turner asked
if his work had been satisfactory and Jones replied that he
was satisfied with Turner's work and that Turner "had done
a good job for him."
In the office Turner told General Manager Sidney Davis,
Jr., who is also Respondent's president, about his discharge
and again expressed the view that he did not believe what
had happened was sufficient reason for his discharge. He
told Davis that other employees were guilty of failure to
wear their safety glasses or safety hats and were not fired,
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that one employee had been told a dozen times by his super-
visor to put his safety hat on and that nothing had happen
to him, and that Davis, himself, had appeared in the shop
dozens of times without safety glasses or a safety hat on.
Davis stated that he knew nothing about the discharge but
would talk to Lane about it, suggesting that Turner wait in
his car while Davis consulted Lane. About a half hour later,
according to Turner, Davis recalled him and in the presence
of Lane told Turner that the safety glasses incident was only
the straw that broke the camel's back, that Turner "had
been a flagrant violator of Company privileges," that he was
taking too much time on his lunch and coffee breaks and
that he "had been harassing other employees." Davis testi-
fied that, after talking to both Lane and Foreman Jones, he
listed the following offenses as justifying Turner's dis-
charge: Violating safety rules by failing to wear both his
hardhat and glasses; leaving his work station at "unauthor-
ized times for reasons, apparently, other than Company
business"; harassment of fellow workers; horseplay with
fellow workers; and violation of the privilege of leaving 5
minutes early to clean up for lunch or get in line at the
vending machine. I do not resolve these slight variances in
the testimony of Turner and Davis, for they are not really
material. Davis did not refer to any specific incident or time
when these supposed offenses took place. He told Turner
that the "sum total" of these offenses, in the eyes of his
foreman and management people, justified the discharge
and that even if he personally disagreed with their decision,
he would stand behind their decision.
After Lane left the meeting, Turner, referring to Lane,
told Davis, "There is one good reason that we need a
union." Davis asked what other reasons the employees had
for wanting a union and Turner replied that the men were
getting tired of listening to promises which were never kept.
Turner asked Davis if he believed that Lane thought he was
involved in the Union and Davis replied that he did not
know. During the course of the conversation, Turner told
Davis that he personally favored a union but was not active-
ly working for it. Toward the conclusion of the meeting,
Davis told Turner that he was sorry that an employee whose
mechanical work was satisfactory had to leave for the rea-
sons which Davis had outlined but that with Turner's back-
ground and experience, Turner should have no problem in
getting another job elsewhere .3
Let us now turn to the reasons assigned for Turner's
discharge. It is undisputed that about 2 years prior to
Turner's discharge, Plant Manager Lane had called a meet-
ing of all the employees and told them that recently promul-
gated safety regulations required that all employees wear
safety glasses and hardhats while working and that anyone
violating that regulation would first be warned, after a sec-
ond such offense would be laid off for a week without pay,
3 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited, and for the most
part, mutually corroborative testimony of Turner and Davis Turner testified
that during the conversation Davis acknowledged that he knew there was
union activity at the plant Davis, on the other hand, denied knowing about
the union activity before Turner mentioned it I do not resolve this conflict
because even if Turner's account is accepted, I do not agree, as the General
Counsel urges, that the statement attributed by Turner to Davis would
amount to an implication that the employees' union activities were under
surveillance
and after a third offense would be dismissed. Turner credi-
bly testified that he normally wears his glasses constantly
but that he occasionally takes them off temporarily, as do
many of the other employees, to read instruments or for
some other specific purpose; that the supervisors, observing
employees with their glasses off, sometimes ignore the situa-
tion and at other times motion to the employee, by pointing
to his eyes, to put his glasses on or ask him where his glasses
are; and that on the day preceding his discharge, when
Turner held his glasses momentarily in his hands, Lane
motioned for him to put them on and Turner did so. After
one employee had worn no glasses for 2 days, Lane asked
him where his glasses were and when the employee replied
that he had lost them Lane merely said that he would fur-
nish the employee with another pair and did so. Turner's
testimony regarding Respondent's laxity in the enforcement
of the requirement that safety glasses be worn was corrobo-
rated by employees Nicholas and Rutledge. There is no
evidence to the contrary.4
With respect to Turner's other alleged deficiencies, there
is no substantial evidence in the record to support these
allegations. The only specific evidence adduced regarding
Turner's abuse of the privilege granted employees of leaving
5 minutes early to wash up and get in line for lunch was one
occasion about which Turner himself testified. Plant Man-
ager Lane had accused Turner and a fellow employee of
"jumping the gun" by 1 minute. Turner pointed out to Lane
that the master clock showed that they had not jumped the
gun, but Lane said his watch indicated they had.
The only specific instance shown in the record when
Turner was in a work area other than his own during work-
ing hours and not on company business occurred 2 or 3
weeks before Turner's discharge, when an employee of the
Structural Shop, Titwell, who was a good friend of Turner's,
fell from a large tank on which he was working and Turner
ran to him to ascertain how badly he was hurt. Again on the
following day Turner left his machine for a few minutes to
check with Titwell on how he was feeling. Turner's immedi-
ate supervisor at the time, Ed Williams, testified that he
assumed Turner and Titwell were close friends and assumed
that the accident was the occasion for Turner's visits but
that, at the request of Night-Shift Foreman Fizer, he told
Turner "in a nice way" that he felt Turner should stay closer
to his work area. Turner emphatically denied that Williams
ever said anything to him about being away from his work
station, but accepting Williams' recollection as the more
accurate, it is obvious to me that Respondent could not have
considered Turner's conduct under the circumstances, as
serious offenses. Moreover, there is no evidence that such
conduct ever came to the attention of Plant Manager Lane
prior to his discharge of Turner. Turner, of course, did leave
his work station and go to other areas of the plant from time
to time but the nature of his work required him to do so. As
Turner testified, a lot of his work comes from the structural
shop and from the Ingersoll Rand department and it is
necessary for him to be in those areas frequently to check
1 doubt that any mention was made to Turner that failure to wear his
hardhat was one of the reasons for his discharge No evidence was adduced
that he had in fact ever failed to wear his hardhat while working In any
event, the record discloses that Respondent wasjust as lax in enforcing that
requirement as the one regarding safety glasses
KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY
on different jobs and problems in connection with them, to
pick up parts, or to return jobs to those departments for
painting or shipping.
Supervisor Williams testified that occasionally he would
observe Turner move around his own department, the ma-
chine shop, and talk and laugh with other employees but
that he, Williams, "didn't pay much attention to that" be-
cause Turner's machine would be running and Williams
believed that he was working. There was no evidence what-
ever adduced in support of the allegation that Turner har-
assed any employee or engaged in horseplay and Davis,
upon being asked by Turner whom he was alleged to have
harassed, could not name anyone.
I have no -doubt whatever that the reasons assigned to
Turner for his discharge were not the true reasons. Turner's
summary discharge on September 25, for the ostensible rea-
son that he was not using his safety glasses , as it was his
practice not to do when reading an instrument, against
Respondent's background of extreme laxity in enforcing its
safety rules and its failure even to follow its announced
procedure in disciplining violations of those rules, must
have appeared too obviously a flimsy reason for discharge
when General Manager Davis discussed the matter with
Plant Manager Lane and Foreman Jones. I am satisfied that
they then sought to think up other offenses which they could
add to that already indicated in the hope of making out a
more plausible case against Turner. But these other alleged
offenses, too, appear to me to be so insubstantial that I
cannot believe that they had anything to do with the deci-
sion to discharge Turner. Plant Manager Lane and Fore-
man Jones, the only persons Davis allegedly consulted to
ascertain the reason for Turner's discharge, were not even
called to the witness stand to explain Plant Manager Lane's
summary discharge action. Turner, as already noted, was
considered a good worker by his immediate supervisor,
Jones, and he had received four or five merit increases
during his less than 4 years of employment with Respon-
dent. The only plausible explanation for Lane's action in
summarily discharging Turner would appear to be Lane's
knowledge or belief that Turner was a leader in the union
movement. For the reasons hereinbefore indicated, I have
found that Lane, prior to September 25, knew or suspected
that Turner was prominent in the union movement. Re-
spondent was strongly opposed to having the Union repre-
sent its employees. Assistant General Foreman Shelton, on
the day following Turner's discharge, had implicitedly ac-
knowledged that Turner's union activity was the real reason
for his discharge when he told Employee Nicholas that Re-
spondent was not going to fire any more men then, in re-
sponse to Nicholas' assertion that he was for the Union and
that if Shelton was going to fire him for that reason, he
might as well do it then.
I am thoroughly convinced and find, under all the cir-
cumstances, that the reasons assigned by Respondent for
Turner's discharge were mere pretexts and that the true
reason was his union membership and activities. The dis-
charge was accordingly in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
55
1. Respondent, by -discriminatorily restricting union
leaders to their working areas and forbidding them to talk
to fellow employees; by threatening employees with dis-
charge in reprisal for supporting the Union; by threatening
employees with stricter and more onerous working condi-
tions, with loss of Christmas bonuses and other benefits and
with possible plant closure should they select the Union to
represent them; and by coercively interrogating an employ-
ee as to whether he had signed a union card, has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. By discriminatorily discharging Gerald R. Turner be-
cause of his union membership and activities, Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. A preponderance of the evidence does not support the
allegations of the complaint that Respondent engaged in
other unfair labor practices not specifically found herein.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act, my recommended Order herein will require that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Turner was put back to work about a month following his
discharge. There is no testimony regarding the circum-
stances under which Turner was reinstated but
Respondent's counsel, in his opening statement at the hear-
ing, asserted that because of protests from groups of em-
ployees against the discharge, and to improve employee
morale, Respondent converted the discharge into a 2-week
disciplinary layoff and gave Turner a little over 2 weeks in
back wages. Since I have found the disciplinary action
against Turner to have been discriminatorily motivated, his
loss of work and wages, whether from his discharge or lay-
off, must be considered equally discriminatory. To remedy
the discrimination against Turner, my recommended Order
will require that Respondent make him whole for his wages
lost during the entire period he was off from work because
of the discrimination against him, to the extent it has not
already done so, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. Respondent will also be required to restore to Turner
all seniority and other rights and privileges which he may
have lost because of the discriminatory action taken against
him.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDERS
The Respondent, Kanawha Manufacturing Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or
his terms or conditions of employment in order to discour-
age union membership or activities.
(b) Discriminatorily restricting union leaders to their
working areas and forbidding them to talk to fellow employ-
ees; threatening employees with discharge in reprisal for
supporting the Union; threatening employees with stricter
and more onerous working conditions, with loss of Christ-
mas bonuses and other benefits, and with possible plant
closure should they select the Union to represent them; and
coercively interrogating any employee as to whether he has
signed a union card.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Gerald R. Turner whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy" and restore to him any seniority or
other rights and privileges he may have lost as a result of
such discrimination.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Charleston, West Virginia, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by an authorized represen-
tative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days therafter, in conspciuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
5In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifi-
cally found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL make Gerald R. Turner whole for any wages
lost between the date of his discharge on September 25,
1973, and the date he was reinstated, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum , and he will suffer no loss
of seniority or other rights and privileges by reason of
his loss of work during that period.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise disciminate
against any employee because of his membership or
activities in behalf of United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily restrict union leaders or
advocates to their working areas or discriminatorily
forbid them to talk to fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge in
reprisal for supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with stricter and
more onerous working conditions , with loss of Christ-
mas bonuses or other benefits or with possible plant
closure if they select the Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any employee as
to whether he has signed a union card.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act.
KANAWHA MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
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. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
3003, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3663.