Lectron Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1976

227 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lectron Products, Inc. and International Union, Unit-
ed Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-
12401
December 23, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On September 16, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations -Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.3
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Detroit, Michigan, on April 6 and 7, 1976.
The charge was filed by the Union on October 16, 19751
(amended November 3), and the complaint was issued on
December 15 (amended April 7, 1976). The primary issues
are whether the Company (Respondent) (a) discriminatori-
ly discharged Karen Bedwell , a union supporter, and (b)
coerced the employees by engaging in unlawful interroga-
tion, threatening the loss of work, discriminatorily enforc-
ing a no-solicitation policy, and engaging in other illegal
conduct, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the oral arguments of counsel for the General Counsel and
of the Charging Party, and the brief filed by Respondent
(the only brief filed), I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Lectron Pro-
ducts, Inc., Troy, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the Administrative
Law Judge's conclusions that certain allegations in the complaint be
dismissed.
3 The Respondent seeks in its exceptions to limit the remedy applicable to
Karen Bedwell , who we find was unlawfully discharged on October 9, 1975.
The Respondent contends that Bedwell is only entitled to a single day's
backpay compensation, on the alleged ground that she was to be laid off for
lawful cause on October 10, 1975. Respondent's supervisor, Glenn, gave the
only testimony which affords a basis for concluding that Bedwell had been
selected as one of the employees laid off in the week ending on October 10
for reasons predating and unrelated to any union organizational activities.
Although the Administrative Law Judge failed to comment on this particular
point, he generally discredited Glenn 's testimony . We find that the failure of
the Administrative Law Judge to limit his remedy in the manner requested
by Respondent indicates that he had specifically discredited Glenn with
respect to Bedwell's allegedly impending layoff and concluded she was not
really scheduled to be laid off for cause on October 10. We adopt that
conclusion. Accordingly, we shall adopt the recommended Order of the
Administrative Law Judge.
227 NLRB No. 86
The Company, a Michigan corporation , is engaged in the
manufacture of electronic and related products at its plant
in Troy, Michigan, where it annually ships goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State . The Company admits, and I fmd, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
As previously noted, Respondent is engaged in manufac-
turing electronic and related products in the State of
Michigan. Among its customers are various automobile
manufacturers. In the spring of 1975, Respondent received
a large contract from a Chrysler division to make warning
gauge lights for fuel gauges and temperature gauges. This
I All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated.
LECTRON PRODUCTS 577
contract caused, Respondent to expand greatly its work
force by hiring new employees ' in subsequent months as
follows: May, 27; June, 20; July, 38; August, 111; and
September, 160. Karen Bedwell was hired on August 26,
during which week 33 other employees were also hired.2
On October 8, at approximately 2:45 p.m. Leonard
Montford, a vice president of the Union, appeared at
Respondent's plant, and,,, together with two other union
organizers, passed out ;union literature to employees of
Respondent. Montford had been approached by several
employees of Respondent in September to secure represen-
tation for the employees, and this was his initial organiza-
tional effort. The three organizers ceased handbilling at
approximately 5 p.m., having covered the day-shift employ-
ees as they left the plant, and the afternoon-shift employees
as they entered. -
Bedwell was discharged by Respondent at 1:35 a.m. on
October 9, having completed the afternoon shift which
commenced October 8. The General Counsel and the
Charging Party contend that she was discharged in order to
discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act:. Respondent asserts that the discharge
was for cause. We turn now to a- consideration of the
evidence relating to this issue.
B. The Facts Concerning Bedwell's Discharge
Prior to her discharge on October 9, Bedwell worked for
the Company for a period of 6 weeks on the afternoon shift,
with regular hours of 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. During the first 2
to 3 weeks of her employment she had worked in the lock
department, where locks were assembled for automobile
doors. Bedwell was then transferred to the electronics
department by Harold Glenn, the afternoon shift foreman
for the lock and electronics department-3
In the electronics department Bedwell worked as a
"bottom inspector," whose duties she described as follows
"You look at the fuel gauges that they have, under a mirror,
and you see if they have any bridges or holes in them, and if
theii do, you put, them in a box to be repaired, and if they
don't they go into another box to be tested." Basically,
Bedwell inspected a small piece of what she termed
"cardboard" about 2 inches wide by 2-1/2 inches long that
contained soldered wires and a light bulb.
On. October, 8, she arrived at the plant at 3:45 p.m. and
saw men passing out union literature at the plant gate. She
did not know-the men, not did she know that the UAW was
going to handbill the plant, but she accepted the literature.
The literature consisted of a pamphlet, a UAW authoriza-
tion card, and a letter addressed to all employees inviting
them to attend -a union meeting on October 12. After
entering the plant, she testified "when we started work at 4
o'clock everybody was talking about the Union and
discussing' their cards." Sometime thereafter, John Singer, a
factory employee who -worked behind Bedwell, asked
Glenn, who was walking through the department, if he was
going to the union meeting, and when Glenn told him yes,
Bedwell testified, "And I looked back and told him that he
could not go to this union meeting because he was a
foreman, and he turned all red in the face - and-he walked
away. "4
Prior to the afternoon-shift lunch period, Bedwell talked
to Richard Tobin, known to her as the "safety foreman,"
who to her knowledge had the duty of going around the
plant to see if 'die employees had their safety glasses on.
Tobin was also the supervisor of shipping, receiving, and
stock, and although the day shift ended at 3:30 p.m., he
usually worked until 5 p.m., and sometimes later than 5
p.m. Tobin asked Bedwell if she was for the Union and she
told him that she was, and that she was going to try to get
people to go to the meeting. Tobin told her good, to do so
on her lunch and on her breaks. Tobin stated that he was
going to' attend the union meeting , and Bedwell made no
objection because she stated that he was only the foreman
of the safety committee .5
Bedwell testified that during the lunch hour she talked to
other employees telling them to go to the meeting and find
out what the Union would offer them. When asked who she
talked to, she recited the names of seven employees and
stated there were also several others. On cross-examination,
when asked how many employees she talked to she stated
10 or more in electronics, and about 20 in the lock
department. When shown her prehearing affidavit which
read "I spoke to about 10 employees about the Union and
asked them to come to the union meeting," she still insisted
that she talked to a total of 30 employees, 10 of them
representing the employees in the electronics department. I
do not credit Bedwell's testimony that she talked to 30
employees, as I regard her affidavit as factual, and also
2 These statistics are taken from an exhibit that appeared originally in
Case 7-RC-13287, which involved the same parties as those herein. At the
hearing in the instant case, Charging Party requested that the Administrative
Law Judge take official notice of this exhibit , which contains voluminous
statistics on the hiring and termination of employees, and such request was
granted. Charging Party then supplied a copy of the exhibit, and it was
marked as ALJ Exh. 1. General Counsel and Respondent acknowledged its
authenticity, and official notice has been taken.
3 Glenn had been hired in August as a maintenance electrician , and after
I week in this role was promoted to be the supervisor for the afternoon and
night shifts, of both the lock and electronics departments The night shift
(midnight shift) was terminated at the end of September . In October Glenn
had approximately 90 employees under his supervision, 60 in locks and 30 in
electronics. -
4 Glenn testified that he believed Singer had asked him if he was going to
attend a UAW meeting; he was sure that somebody had asked him this
question . However, he gave no testimony as to any reply -by him to the
questioner or as to Bedwell 's statement to him that he could not go to the
union meeting, and I credit her uncontradicted testimony.
5 Tobin's testimony was substantially the same as Bedwell's about the
conversations in the plant following the distribution of the union literature.
In addition, he also stated that he heard many employees discussing the
handbilhng that afternoon . Tobin did attend,the.union meeting and was in
fact an active supporter of the Union , his mother being an employee of the
Union. On October 9 he encouraged employees to sign authorization cards.
On October 10 he was discharged for reasons that do not appear in the
record.
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because at the hearing when- asked who she talked to, she
named seven-employees, and_added that there were several
others, which would closely approximate 10, not 30,
employees.
Bedwell continued- to work through the night, and
worked 1 hour of overtime, just as she had done on the 2
previous nights .6 At the end of the shift, Glenn called her to
the back of the shop, and notified her she was fired. When
she asked him why, she testified he said "he didn't have to
give me a reason and if I wasn't satisfied with his decision I
could contact the owner the next day." When Bedwell's
husband picked her up that night, she told him of her
discharge, and he went in the plant and talked to Glenn:
According to a prehearing affidavit of Glenn, when Mr.
Bedwell wanted a further explanation, "I told him that she
did not like her work, she had a bad attitude; and could not
get along with other workers." Mr. Bedwell did not testify.
Bedwell testified that she never did learn why she was
discharged. On October 16, she received her last paycheck
covering her work performed on October 6, 7, and 8.
C. Respondent's Explanation for Discharging
Bedwell
Afternoon-shift Foreman Glenn testified that in Septem-
ber the Company started to reduce its work force for two
reasons , "One was we had hired a lot of employees on the
initial start-up and they were weeding out the good
employees and the bad employees - also there had been a
substantial - drop in the production requirements that we
were required to make, everyday.117' Glenn met with
Foreman Mike Chase and Day-Shift -Foreman Robert
Mack at meetings in September and the first partial week in
October, where he was informed that the reduction in work
force would be based on the merit system, that-those who
produced better than others would stay, and those who had
been problems as far as discipline and low production
would go first. Since the Company did not have a seniority
system, seniority was not, to be considered. In the meeting
prior to Monday, October 6, Glenn reviewed the employees
on his shift and designated those who would be terminated
on specific dates, starting with October 6; some employees
were to be terminated on Wednesday, October 8, and some
on Friday, October 10. - Bedwell was scheduled to be
discharged at the end- of the Friday afternoon shift
(Saturday, 12:30 a.m.).
Glenn, who had supervised Bedwell in the lock depart-
ment, testified that she had been transferred from that
department because she constantly complained about her
job and did not get along with the people in that
department. Bedwell, who testified extensively on rebuttal,
did not contradict this testimony, it remains undenied on
the record, and I credit it.
During the 3 weeks Bedwell worked as an inspector in the
electronics department, Glenn testified that she continued
6 Glenn testified that he did not assign overtime on the basis of merit, that
it was a blanket assignment, those who wished to work, could work, and
those who did not want to work did not have to work. This testimony was not
contradictedand I creditrt
7 Vice President Schenck testified that after the Company took on the job
of making the warning gauge lights from Chrysler, "We employed a great
quantity of people. In fact, we employed anybody who walked in the door of
her complaints: that- the job was boring, about -the wages,
about the restrooms, and about the company insurance
coverage,' among- other things. Glenn's' testimony about
these complaints was uncontradicted, and .I credit- this
testimony.
Glenn also testified that while walking through the shop,
he saw Bedwell three or four times; -after inspecting apart,
throw it towards a container box; with-the part ending up
on the floor. Several times he stopped by Bedwell's station
and told her the-parts were not to be thrown, but were to be
laid in the box. He also testified that -at times her work
station was a mess with parts lying on the floor, and he
would tell her-to pick up the parts, that they were delicate
instruments. When asked what Bedwell would say after his
reprimands, Glenn answered "She wouldn't say anything."
Glenn did not recall seeing Bedwell throw any parts on the
floor on October 6 or 7, but he testified that he did see-her
throw one part on the floor on October 8,- at about 7:30
p.m. He did not talk to-her about it.
Nancy McCubbin was called as a witness for Respon-
dent. -She had,worked in electronics testing boards at a
station about 5 feet from Bedwell, from the date of her hire,
September 12, until the end of September, when she went
on daywork. McCubbin testified that she saw Bedweil
throw or flip parts in the box that was in front of her. She
also saw Bedwell-throw parts on the floor four or five times
in the 2-week period she worked near her, and she reported
this to Glenn on two occasions. McCubbin tested about a
thousand boards a day, and she did"not know how many
parts were good or how many were bad. McCubbin further
testified that in a conversation with Bedwell about the
work, Bedwell stated that she did not like her job, or her
salary, or the insurance, or the foreman. This testimony was
undenied and stands uncontradicted, and I credit it.
Gary Borushko testified for Respondent, stating that
while he did not directly supervise Bedwell, "on a number
of occasions [he] spoke to her about the handling of
material from the standpoint of the items she was examin-
ing should be placed in boxes and not'tossed in boxes, and
et cetera - more -from the standpoint of explaining to her
why the cost associated with not dropping those particular
items in a box was very significant- to the company "
Borushko, a law student, had been hired by Respondent in
June as a security guard, and in late August Vice President
Schenck had- personally employed Borushko as a CPA.
Borushko testified as to his many duties at Respondent's
plant: He was in charge of purchasing, spent a good deal of
time in the hiring of employees, and helped Glenn to
supervise employees. He was clearly an agent of Respon-
dent.
D. The General Counsel 's Rebuttal
Karen Bedwell was recalled by the General Counsel to
testify on rebuttal. She testified that her work place was a 3-
his own power, and maybe some who didn't even come in under their own
power, and tried to make some semblance of order out of this group of
people." The statistics of persons hued in May through August, as set forth
in ALPS Exh. 1, corroborate Schenck's statement, particularly the months of
August and September in which 111 and 160 employees were hired. Schenck
testified that in August they had built up to about 260 or 270 employees, and
towards the end of October they were down to 140 employees.
LECTRON PRODUCTS
foot wide table, on which to her left were four boxes for bad
parts, and- on the floor were four boxes for good parts.
While sitting on a chair, she examined each part under a
magnifying glass for defects. She denied that "she was told
to place them carefully in any box whatsoever." She freely
admitted that she tossed the parts in the boxes, as it would
take too much time to place them in the box, and she had to
keep up with her work. Each box held 200 or 300 parts. She
admitted that at times parts were laying around the boxes,
but she considered the neatness of her work station about
the same as the rest of the stations. She denied that she was -
ever reprimanded for poor work, or warned about damag-
ing company property. She denied that there was any
discussion between herself and Borushko concerning the
manner in which she was placing the parts in the contain-
ers.
She did testify as to a conversation with Borushko, whom
she termed the personnel manager, during a break in late
September when layoffs were occurring. "He had told me
that there was going to be a- layoff and he said this was
supposed to get rid of the poor workers. And I asked him
did I have anything to be afraid of and he said no."
Borushko denied any such conversation and testified that
his function at meetings about layoffs concerned how many
people had to go at a particular time because of financial
considerations, andnot with the question of which employ-
ee would be terminated. I credit Bedwell's testimony over
Borushko's. Borushko was a very tense witness, contradict-
ed himself several times, and impressed me as trying to
answer questions so as to absolve the Company of any
liability.
E. Analysis and Conclusion as to Bedwell's
Discharge
It is well established that an employer may terminate an
employee for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, without
running afoul of the Act, provided it is not motivated by
unlawful considerations. The existence of justifiable
grounds for discharge is no defense if the motivation for the
dismissal was in part because of the employee's participa-
tion in protected activities. With these principles in mind,
and recognizing that the burden of proof to show the
illegality of the discharge rests with the General Counsel,
we now anlyze Bedwell's discharge.
In support of the General Counsel 's case, we have an
employee fired precipitately, suddenly, and without warn-
ing at the end of the shift on which Foreman Glenn learned
that Bedwell was advocating the union cause, and without
any reason being given for her discharge.
Respondent knew of the union organizing campaign on
the afternoon of October 8, when Glenn admitted that
some employees informed him that "the UAW was outside
the gates handing out handbills." 8 Respondent also knew
that Bedwell was an active supporter a short time later,
when she-had her confrontation with Glenn over his right to
attend the union 'meeting that was set forth in the UAW
literature. The straight-from-the-shoulder statement of the
young, unskilled assembly line worker to him, the after-
8 Respondent admits such knowledge in its brief, "The evidence also
shows that, Respondent had no knowledge of Mrs. Bedwell's position with
regard to any union prior to October 8, 1975." Bedwell had contacted the
579
noon-shift foreman, that he could not attend the meeting,
caused his face to :turn red, and he walked away obviously
angry. Glenn did not deny Bedwell's, statement and did
admit that Singer, or for sure somebody else, had asked him
if he was going to the'meeting. At the next lunch hour,
Bedwell spoke to 10 other electronic department employees
and urged them to attend the meeting. Being an active
unionist, of course , does not -shield her from being dis-
charged for cause . But dismissing an outstanding propo-
nent of a union often tends to discourage other employees -
from becoming interested in a union. "Obviously, the
discharge of a leading union advocate is a most effective
method of undermining a union organizational effort."
N.L.RB. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc., 346 F.2d 1003,
1006 (C.A. 5, 1965).
Respondent's stated reasons for discharge do not stand
scrutiny. When Glenn was first asked on direct examina-
tion why he terminated Bedwell, he testified, "I terminated
her on the eighth due to the fact that there were parts being
thrown again in her area. Her area was a mess and I had
had my fill of it." Asked a second time why he terminated
her, he stated "I terminated her on the basis of her
performance on the job and her area not being clean. That's
how it was. And her attitude and her constant complaining
about things in the shop." To yet a third inquiry he replied,
"I terminated her earlier because of the incident on the
eighth. When I walked past her work area there were parts
laying on the floor and later I had observed her throwing
parts."
Thus, the crux of Respondent's stated reasons for
discharging Bedwell was because she threw parts. However,,
when Bedwell's husband came into the plant immediately
after her dismissal and asked the reason for her discharge,
Glenn did not even mention the throwing of parts. "I said
that her work attitude was poor. She complained a lot and-
she was bored with the job."
One month later, Glenn gave an affidavit to a Board
agent in which he again did not mention throwing parts as a
reason for her discharge, but stated, "We had to cut back
on the work force, so since Bedwell had a poor attitude we
let her go."
There is little` doubt that some of the parts Bedwell
inspected ended up on the floor, but this was a natural
byproduct of the nature of her job. I have credited
Bedwell's testimony that four boxes were on her work table
for bad parts, and four boxes were on the floor for good
parts, over - Glenn's testimony that there were six to eight
boxes on the table. ' Bedwell was precise and exact in
describing the number of boxes and -where they, were
located, whereas Glenn was vague and uncertain. When
asked on cross-examination "Were there any on the floor at
her workplace?", he weakly- replied, "As far as I can
remember, no." I have generally credited Bedwell's testimo-
ny over Glenn's based on my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses as they testified. Bedwell impressed me
with her straightforward testimony, sincerity, and prompt
and uncontrived responses on cross-examination. On the
other hand, Glenn's testimony was unimpressive, as he
Teamsters in the middle of September , but there is no evidence that such
action was ever known by Respondent.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified in a soft , often faint voice, without conviction, and
he tended to be uncertain , vague, and unresponsive.
Bedwell sat in a company supplied chair and inspected
approximately 2,000 boards a day , piece by piece , under a
magnifying glass. McCubbin estimated that there would be
100 to 150 bad parts a day , which means Bedwell put 1,850
to 1,900 good parts in the containers on the floor per day. It
would be absurd to contend that she was supposed to get
out of her chair 1 ,850 times a day and lay each board in the
containers . Even if Glenn 's version that the six to eight
boxes rested on the table was accepted , this would require
Bedwell to get out of her chair hundreds of times each day.
Glenn said the boxes were 8 inches long by 11 inches wide
by 6 inches deep , which would place at least the three or
four outermost containers out of Bedwell 's reach, and
would require her to get up out of the chair to place each of
the 200 to 300 parts in the outermost containers.
Actually , Glenn testified as to only one occasion that he
saw Bedwell throw parts on the floor , and that was one part
on October 8. In his prior testimony , he testified that he saw
her throw parts , but did not say, on the floor . "She'd pick
up a part and she'd inspect it and then throw it," and again,
"I saw her throw parts a third time , but as for parts actually
hitting the floor , I could not tell you ." Obviously, he saw
Bedwell toss parts into the containers , which is what she
was required to do under the realities of the industrial
worksite that the Employer had established for her. Also,
when Glenn 's statement that he saw her throw parts four or
five times over a 2- to 3-week period is measured against the
2,000 parts a day that Bedwell inspected , it is readily
apparent that the number of thrown parts Glenn objected
to was a miniscule amount of the 20 to 30 thousand parts
that she handled during that 2- to 3-week period.
On the evening of the discharge , when Glenn said he saw
Bedwell throw one part on the floor , he admitted that he
did not say anything about it to her. He also admitted that
he never warned her that she might be discharged for
throwing parts . Thus , the evidence is overwhelming that
Glenn 's asserted reason for discharge , the throwing of
parts , was an afterthought conceived after Bedwell's
discharge and was a pretext for the real reason.
Glenn's other asserted reasons for discharge, poor
attitude , complaining about things in the shop , inability to
get along with other employees, also do not stand scrutiny.
Inspecting and handling 2 ,000 boards a day was undoubt-
edly a monotonous and tedious job and may have chilled
Bedwell's attitude . However , these alleged shortcomings
were never serious enough deficiencies to cause Glenn to
warn Bedwell that she might be discharged for them. Also,
if we assume that Bedwell had these traits , Glenn's
testimony was that he had scheduled her for layoff at the
end of the week , not in the middle of the week , and he did
not allege any incidents of bad attitude in the week of
October 6 . Bedwell worked an hour of overtime on October
6, 7, and 8 , which Glenn admitted was the voluntary act of
the individual and is indicative of a good employee attitude
during that week rather than a poor one.
Respondent contends in its brief that no union animus
has been shown by General Counsel and accordingly an
inference of illegality should not be drawn . In section F,
infra, I have found Respondent in the mid-evening of
October 8 , before Bedwell was discharged , violated Section
8(a)(1) by threatening employees with more onerous
working conditions if they chose the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative , which illustrates that
Respondent had union animus . Also, the suddenness of
Bedwell 's discharge without any warning, and without any
reason for her discharge , is also some evidence of union
animus.
It is to be noted that it is not essential in order to find
Bedwell's discharge discriminatory , that her union activity
was the only motivation . Her dismissal will be found to be
discriminatory if her union activity was a substantial or
motivating ground for her discharge , notwithstanding that
a valid ground may also have existed for it. Sinclair Glass
Co., and Sinclair Glass Division, David B. Lilly Co. v.
N.LR.B., 465 F .2d 209 , 210 (C.A. 7, 1972); N.L.R.B. v.
Whitin Machine Works, 204 F .2d 883 , 885 (C .A. 1, 1953).
And I expressly find, on the basis of the entire record, that
the motivating reason resulting in her discharge was the
union activity of Bedwell , and the said "union activity
weighed more heavily in the decision to fire [her ] than did
dissatisfaction with her performance ." Whitin Machine
Works, supra at 885 . I further find that the reasons
presented by Respondent for discharge were a pretext to
conceal the antiunion motivation for her discharge . Gould,
Inc., 216 NLRB 1031 (1975 ); Poloron Products of Mississip-
pi, Inc., 217 NLRB 704 (1975).
F. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The Complaint alleges nine specific incidents of violation
of Section 8(a)(l). The evidence in respect thereto will be
discussed below in the same order as the incidents are
pleaded in paragraph 9 of the complaint , except for
subparagraph (g) which will be reviewed in its chronologi-
cal order.
Subparagraph (a) alleges : On or about October 8, 1975,
Respondent, by its agent Harold Glenn , threatened em-
ployees with removal of their chairs and restrictions on
their breaktimes if its employees chose to be represented by
the Charging Party.
Bedwell testified that on the evening of October 8, while
working on her job, Glenn talked to several employees
about working conditions as follows : "Well, before lunch,
around eight o'clock , he told us all that if the union got in,
he was going - they would take away our chairs and that
we would have to be back at the time that the bells would
ring and that things would be more stricter in the shop."
Bedwell stated that Glenn was standing 3 feet to her right
when he made this statement . Glenn's sole testimony on the
incident was that it was not true that he had made the
statement . I have previously credited Bedwell's testimony
over that of Glenn , and I do so in this instance . Glenn was
clearly threatening that Respondent would make working
conditions more onerous for the employees if the Union
became the employees ' collective-bargaining representa-
tive . Plainly, such a threat following so closely the Union's
commencement of an organizing campaign has an inhibito-
ry effect on employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
No evidence was presented to sustain the allegations
contained in subsections (b) and (c). In the absence of
LECTRON PRODUCTS 581
evidence, I fmd that-subsections '(b) and (c) have not been
established, and accordingly I recommend that these
allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
Subparagraph (d) alleges: On or about October 13, 1975,
Respondent, by its agent Michael Chase, interrogated an
employee as to said employee's support for the Charging
Party and threatened to have said employee discharged in
retaliation for that employee's sympathy for the Charging
Union.
Pamela Betea was a young, attractive worker in the
electronics department on the day shift. Michael Chase was
her immediate supervisor, and Chase worked under Dewey
Mobley, the plant manager. Betea testified that on the
morning of October. 13 while at her work station, "I was
approached by Mike Chase and he asked me if I was pro-
union or not. And I answered him why and he said that
Gary Borushko had told Mike to warn me that Dewey
Mobley was going to try to get me fired by convincing
either Mr. Schenck or Mr. McPhail that I was pushing
strongly for the Union in the plant." Betea told Chase that
she would give him her answer at breaktime. At the next
break she approached Chase and,"I asked Mike if he still
wanted to know if I was pro-union or not. And he replied
Yes. And I said okay, yes, I am pro-union." Chase did not
reply.
On cross-examination, Bet ea answered in the affirmative
when asked if she and Chase were fairly good personal
friends and if they got along fairly, well. She also admitted
that she and Mobley did not get along very well and that
this was due to personal matters, not business.
Chase did not testify and Betea's testimony was uncon-
tradicted. I found her to be a completely sincere, fair,
straightforward witness and I credit her testimony. Chase's
inquiry as to whether Betea was prounion or not was a clear
invasion of her Section 7 rights to support or not support
the Union, and her right to keep her views to herself. The
fact that Betea and Chase were fairly good personal friends
did not alter the fact that he was her foreman questioning
her on her jobsite, seeking to ascertain her support or
nonsupport for the Union. Respondent contends in its brief
that there was no evidence that Chase threatened to have
her fired, that he was only warning her of retaliation by
Mobley, and with this I agree. However, the heart of the
allegation is Chase's interrogation. Chase's question to
Betea in the industrial background surrounding it inter-
fered with her right of free choice guaranteed by the Act.
Accordingly, I fmd the interrogation by Chase to be a
violation of Section 8(a)(1). Quemetco, Inc., a Subsidiary of
RSR Corporation, 223 NLRB 470 (1976); Abex Corporation,
162 NLRB 328 (1966).
Subparagraph (e) alleges: On or about October 15, 1975,
Respondent, by its agents, promulgated a rule indiscrimina-
torily forbidding its employees to engage in any solicitation
on Respondent's premises including solicitation during
employees' own time.-
Betea testified that on the afternoon of October 15 as she
punched out she noticed on the company bulletin board a
notice to the employees, dated October 15, that listed
various prohibited types of solicitation by employees, one
of which was union activities. The notice carried the
signature of William Schenck and applied to all company
property.
Michelle 'Moore, an inspector in the electronics depart-
ment, testified that shortly after October 15, when she
looked at the company bulletin board- "I saw a notice
signed by Mr. Schenck, stating that it was a policy of the
company since nineteen seventy-two, that-there would be
no soliciting on company property, and this included union
activities, and it was signed by Mr. Schenck."
Although Respondent in its brief alleges that the General
Counsel failed to present evidence which- linked the
Employer to such posting, Vice President Schenck readily
admitted that he had had a notice posted on Respondent's
bulletin board on or about October 15, that read that
employees could not engage in any type of solicitation on
company property. He later referred to this as the "No
Solicitation Rule."
Schenck's obvious reason for the posting of this rule was
the result of information he stated he had received on
October 14, that Betea was soliciting employees to sign
union cards. Schenck testified that after he received -this
information he went to tell her on the next day that this was
not permitted, but she had gone home early. Thursday
morning he also went over to see her but she was not at
work. He did catch up with her on his third effort.
It is well established that an employer may not, at least in
the absence of special justifying circumstances, enforce a
rule that. prohibits- solicitation by its employees during
nonworking time and in nonworking areas on company
premises. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B. 324
U.S. 793, 797-798 (1945). The manufacturing plant of
Respondent was clearly not the type of facility that merited
any exception to this principle, and Respondent did not
attempt to establish any such justification. Respondent's
no-solicitation rule was of the broadest nature, with no
limitations as to its applicability at any time,-or any place
on the Employer's premises . This rule would eliminate
employees' rights. under Section 7 of the Act to engage in
solicitation on behalf of the Union during their nonworking
time. It would also eliminate the employees' rights to
engage in union solicitation in nonworking areas of the
factory's premises. I find, therefore, that Respondent's
promulgation and maintenance of the broad no-solicitation
rule in this case violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Pepsi-
Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870 (1974);
Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615
(1962).
Since the incident alleged in subparagraph (g) occurred
prior to the incident alleged in subparagraph (f), we now
examine subparagraph (g) ' which reads: On or about
October 17," 1975, Respondent, by its agent William
Schenck, prohibited without qualification one of its em-
ployees from soliciting on Respondent's property.
Betea testified that on Friday morning [October 17],
while at her workbench, Schenck came up to her, engaged
in conversation as to how she was feeling, "And then he
told me, as you know, as a Lectron policy, there is to be no
soliciting except on public property." " Betea nodded and
said okay.
Schenck readily admitted that on Friday morning he did
go to Betea's workplace, and talked to her, "I did tell her
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that we did not allow solicitation on company property of
any kind, and I would appreciate it if she wouldn't do it,
and she agreed." He also told her this rule included United
Foundation, Red Cross, and whatever.
At no time did Respondent make any attempt to
ascertain whether Betea solicited employees to sign the
union authorization cards during her breaktime, or off-duty
time, or in what part of the premises the cards had been
offered for signature. Respondent's failure to investigate
the circumstances of Betea's card solicitation is but a
natural extension of its overly broad rule, because under
Respondent's rule all solicitation at any time, on any part of
Respondent's premises is a violation of its no-solicitation
rule.
Schenck knew that Betea was promoting the union cause,
and he sought her out for 3 consecutive days to notify her to
cease soliciting for the Union on any company property, at
any time. This was an invalid rule, and Betea had a legal
right to solicit for the Union during nonworking time in
nonworking areas of Respondent's plant. The vice presi-
dent's admonition to this young factory worker to cease all
soliciting on company property was coercive and interfered
with the employee's Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Bell and Howell Company, Micro Photo
Division, 221 NLRB 170 (1974); The Wm. H. Block
Company, 150 NLRB 341 (1964).
Subparagraph (f) alleges: On or about October 17, 1975,
Respondent, by its agent Michael Chase, informed an
employee of Respondent that said employee was laid off in
part because of the Charging Party.
Betea testified that on the afternoon of October 17 at 1:30
p.m. she was leaving the plant to go home, when she was
approached by Foreman Chase, "and I asked him some-
thing like what is it this time and he told me that I was being
laid off. And I said why? And he said part of it was because
of my part-time hours and some of it had to do with union
activity." That evening at about 6:30 p.m. she received a
telephone call at home from Schenck. Schenck proceeded
to tell her that he had been out of town that afternoon and
only found out that she had been laid off when he returned,
and her being laid off was a mistake, and he apologized for
it. He informed her that she was free to return to work on
Monday. Betea did return to her job at the plant on
Monday and worked until November 24 when she volun-
tarily quit.
Chase did not testify. Betea's testimony is undenied and I
credit it. Schenck testified that he telephoned Betea at her
home because he had not authorized her discharge as he
alone was responsible for employment in the plant, that it
was done without his knowledge, and he apologized for the
discharge. Schenck stated that he had been told "by some
of my employees" that she had been terminated, but he did
not recall any reasons.
It is possible that Schenck9 did not recall the reasons that
were given him by unnamed employees for Betea's layoff,
but Mike Chase, who notified Betea of her layoff, had no
doubt about the reasons. When Betea asked him why she
was being laid off, he spelled it out for her-(I) part of it
was because of her part-time hours, and (2) some of it had
to do with her union activity.
The record is silent as to what hours Betea regularly
worked. However, Respondent offered no evidence that the
hours she worked were in any way a hardship on the
Employer's routine, or that the Employer was in any way
critical of these hours. It thus becomes evident that the
substantial reason for Chase's statement about her layoff
was Betea's union activities. I find that this statement was
coercive and contravenes Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Subparagraph (h) alleges: On or about October 20, 1975,
Respondent, by its agent William Schenck, urged an
employee to request to be disassociated from the charge
which had been filed with the Board in this case.
On the afternoon of the Monday that Betea returned to
work, she was summoned to the office of the vice president.
Upon arriving Schenck informed her that he had received
some charges from the National Labor Relations Board,
and one of them had to do with her. Schenck then asked
Betea if she would explain what it was about. She then
related to him Mike Chase's conversation with her about
union activities. At Betea's suggestion Chase was then
called into the office, and when Schenck repeated Betea's
account of Chase's conversation with her on October 17,
Chase agreed that it was the truth. Schenck then questioned
Betea "as to what I wanted to do about the charges and I
told him I didn't really understand what there was I could
do about the charges." When asked specifically by Schenck
if she wanted the charges to proceed or not, she told him "I
want them to proceed. I don't want to drop them. Its' not
up to me to decide." On cross-examination, Betea testified
that Schenck, in response to her statement above, replied,
"He said that it was - would involve a lot of work and he
was a very busy man and did I realize that he would have to
go downtown and I said yes."
Schenck testified that he had spoken to Betea in his office
about the notice he had received from the NLRB, concern-
ing the charge she had filed. "I asked her if she wanted to
consider dropping the charge in view of the fact that she has
lost no time and that I had apologized for the tings that had
happened to her on the 2 previous Fridays. And she stated
that she [would] leave it up to the NLRB and I said well,
that's fine. I didn't - in no way suggest that she do it. Ijust
asked her if she wanted to do it in view of the fact that she
hadn't been damaged in any way - loss of time, et cetera."
Betea 's version of the conversation is substantially the
same as Schenck's. However, on cross-examination, when
she was asked if he told her that it was her right to have the
NLRB decide what to do about the charge, she did not
deny it, but replied "I don't recall." I credit Schenck's
testimony that he told her that it was fine after Betea stated
that she would leave the charge up to the NLRB.
Schenck's words contained no warnings not to use the
Board's processes, nor did they contain any threat of
reprisal. In his mind, he believed he had healed the wrong
done her by the Company, by apologizing, and calling her
back to work without any loss of pay. Schenck simply
wanted to avoid the loss of time that would be required for
him to go downtown and respond to the charge and did not
9 The vice president was an impressive witness , befitting his self-described
corporate duties of secretary, treasurer, in charge of personnel, dealt with
sales, manufacturing , and all legal problems
LECTRON PRODUCTS
wish to interfere with her Section 7 rights. I do not find that
under- these circumstances, Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I recommend that this allegation
of the complaint be dismissed. GTE Lenkurt, Incorporated
225 NLRB 190 (1974):
Subparagraph (i) alleges: On or about October 21, 1975,
Respondent, by its agent -Michael Chase, interrogated an
employee as to statements which had been made and the
identity of employees of Respondent who had allegedly
made statements critical of Respondent's management at a
meeting conducted by the, Charging Party.
Inspector Michelle Moore testified that on October 21,
shortly before breaktime, Foreman Michael Chase took her
aside and,
- he asked me if I was at the UAW meeting on Sunday
and I said why? And he said, well because of the thing
with Dewey Mobley and Pam Betea. He was wondering
if there was any other girl that would be at the meeting
that had complained of this and Mr. Schenck had
wanted him to get the names of whoever, so that he
could- apologize to. them. And he was ready to write
down the names if I would give them to him.
I told him that 1 could not help him. And he said you
don't trust me, do you? And I said I can't help you
Mike, I'm sorry.
On cross-examination Moore testified that Chase wanted
to know the names of the girls at the union meeting who
had complained about Mobley, "Not blanket who had
attended." Chase did not testify, and Moore's testimony
stands uncontradicted and I credit it.
Schenck testified that he had learned from' Mike Chase
that Mobley (plant manager) "had solicited her [Betea] for
social activities and that she had turned him down."
Schenck talked to Betea about this, she admitted that it had
happened, and indicated that this had happened with
several other employees. He then testified that he felt that
anybody who had been insulted by Mobley was due an
apology from the Company. However, he denied that he
gave an assignment to Chase to find out which women had
been approached by Mobley, and stated, "I didn't ask him
to find out who had been - I asked him if he knew
somebody who had been - there's a difference." Schenck
also admitted that he had received information that at least
five of the people present at the union meeting had
complained of Mobley's solicitation for social activity.
While it is a general principle that employers may not
question employees as to who went to union meetings, and
as to what was said, Queen City Equipment Corporation 211
NLRB 284 (1974), Bassett Furniture Industries of Georgia
Inc., 188 NLRB 895, (1971), this is not a hard and fast rule
that bars any and all questioning about such meetings. It is
not important whether Schenck asked Chase to fmd out the
names of the employees, or whether Chase sought to
ingratiate himself with the vice president by seeking out the
names . What is important is the nature of the information
that Chase asked of Moore. By Moore's own testimony
Chase did not seek to learn the names of the employees who
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein, shall, as provided in Sec.
583
attended the meeting, but only the names of the girls who
had complained about Mobley, and as he told Moore, he
sought that information; because Schenck wanted to
apologize to the girls who had been insulted by Mobley. I
do not fmd that this inquiry by Chase had a reasonable
tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce Moore in the
exercise of her union activities, and, under the circumstanc-
es of this case, I recommend that this allegation be
dismissed. -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAPP
1. By discharging Karen Bedwell on' October 9 because
of her support of the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. By threatening employees with reprisals for union
activities, by coercively interrogating an employee about
her union sentiments, by the promulgation and enforce
ment of an invalid rule against solicitation for the purpose
of putting employees in fear of exercising their rights of self-
organization under Section 7, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practice, I fmd it necessary to order Respon-
dent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. -
Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Karen
Bedwell, I fmd it necessary to order Respondent to offer her
full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly
basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum as prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date
of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended.
ORDER 10
The Respondent, Lectron Products, Inc., Troy, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), or any other union.
(b) Threatening employees with removal of their chairs
and restrictions on their breaktime for supporting a union.
(c) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or union activities.
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.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Maintaining a no-solicitation rule entirely prohibiting
union solicitation on company premises at any time.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise, of their rights under
Section 7-of the Act.
2. Take' the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Karen Bedwell immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if her job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for her, lost earnings in the manner set forth in the Remedy.
(b) Remove from its bulletin board the notice to
employees described by the vice president in section F of
this Decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its -agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,. timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its factory in Troy, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, "after being duly signed by Respondent's autho-
rized representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this ' Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found. .
11 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment' of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
hearing, that we violated Federal Law by discharging Ms.
Karen Bedwell for supporting a union and by otherwise
interfering with our employees' rights to join and support a
union:
WE WILL OFFER full reinstatement to Ms. Karen
Bedwell, with backpay plus 6 percent interest. -
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discriminatory
treatment for supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about union
support or union activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain a no-solicitation rule entirely
prohibiting union solicitation on company property.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
activities in any other manner.
LECTRON CORPORATION