Model A and Motel T Motor Car Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1981

259 N.L.R.B. 555 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 555
Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction also agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
Corporation and United Steelworkers of Amer- finding that Respondent violated Section 8(aX3)
ica, AFL-CIO-CLC and International Union, and (1) of the Act by suspending employees Jeffrey
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Smith and Rihard Burton, and by discharging
Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases m th a c h ar d r b
7-CA-17064, 7-CA-17412 (2), 7-CA-17450, employees Michael Smead, 4 James Hunt, and Roy
7-CA-17774, 7-CA-17561 (1), 7-CA-17561 Rine because of their union activities,5 and that Re-
(2), 7-CA-17643, and 7-CA-18030
to Respondent's rescission of Rule 16, and we may reasonably infer that,
December 7, 1981 during this time period, Respondent's maintenance of an invalid rule in-
hibited the union activities of its employees. We further note that, at the
DECISION AND ORDER time Respondent promulgated rule 17, it never explicitly repudiated rule
16, and there is no evidence that employees were aware that the rule had
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND been changed. Respondent's belated and unannounced rescission of its in-
valid no-solicitation rule does not absolve its violation of the Act. See,
ZIMMERMAN e.g., Automated Products Inc, 242 NLRB 424 (1979).
On May 13, 1981, Administrative Law Ju e Moreover, under our recent decision in T R. WBearings Division, a Di-
On May 13, 1981, Administrative Law Judge vision of T.R.W. Inc., 257 NLRB No. 47 (1981), rule 17 would also be
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in invalid. The phrase "working time" no longer confers presumptive valid-
this proceeding. Thereafter, both the General ity upon a no-solicitation rule. For a no-solicitation rule to be acceptable,
it must clearly indicate to employees that they may engage in protected
Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and sup- activity during periods of the workday when they "are properly not en-
porting briefs. gaged in performing their work tasks." TR. W Bearing Division, a Divi-
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the son of TR. W. Inc. supro, sl. op. p. 6 Rule 17 does not conform to thisrequirement. However, the General Counsel has not alleged that Rule 17
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- was invalid and the validity of this rule was not litigated at the hearing.
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- Therefore, we shall not find herein that Respondent, by promulgating
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel rule 17, committed an independent violation of Sec. 8()(l) of the Act.thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. I The Administrative Law Judge correctly found that Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(aX3) of the Act by suspending employees Smith and Burton
The Board has considered the record and the because of their union activities. He also found that, when Respondent's
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and personnel director, Mark Nicolai, informed Smith and Burton of their
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, suspensions, he told them that they were not to enter company premises
tinding,' and conclusions of the Administrative .during the length of their suspensions and, if they needed to contact
findings, I and conclusions of the Administrative anyone in the Company, they had to clear it through him. Nicolai also
Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his told Burton that "if [he] was to ever hand out any more printed literature
recommended Order, as modified herein. that [he] would be terminated." The Administrative Law Judge found
that "[s]ince the suspensions were invalid the above-noted restrictions
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we placed by Respondent upon Smith and Burton interfered with their Sec-
agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)() of tion 7 rights and were in violation of Section 8(aX) of the Act." Thethe Act by interrogating employees with respect to General Counsel agrees that these restrictions were invalid, but excepts
the Act by interrogating employees with respect to to the Administrative Law Judge's reasoning as to why they were inval-
their union activities and sympathies, by threaten- id. The General Counsel contends that they were invalid because they
ing employees with reprisals and soliciting griev- improperly interfered with the employees' union activities, not merely be-
cause they derived from the illegal suspensions. We agree with the Gen-
ances from employees in order to influence their era Counsel.
union affection, and by promulgating and continu- Respondent did not demonstrate that it routinely limited access to
ing in effect an invalid no-solicitation rule 2 We company property to suspended employees. Nor did it demonstrate thatg in efet an invalid no-oliciain rule. 2 e these restrictions were in any way related to the maintenance of company
production or discipline. These restrictions were directed solely to union
Both the General Counsel and Respondent have excepted to certain activists and were aimed at hindering their ability to pursue union activi-
credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the ties. For these reasons, the restrictions violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act.
Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's ' We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent dis-
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of charged employee Michael Smead because of his union activities, in vio-
all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- lation of Sec. 8(aX3) of the Act. However, we do not agree that the de-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 termination of whether Smead is fit for reemployment with Respondent
P.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find should be left to the compliance stage of these proceedings. The record
no basis for reversing his fudings. evidence convinces us that we should order reinstatement herein.
' The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent's maintenance Smead was dischrged during the morning of November 2, along with
of a no-solicitation rule violated Sec. 8(aXI) of the Act because it prohib- six other employees, for wearing a union button. He returned later in the
ited solicitation of union support by employees during the entire work- day and directed obscene language toward two of Respondent's manag-
day. Specifically, rule 16 in Respondent's personnel manual read as fol- ers and verbally threatened them with physical harm. Smead's abusive
lows: behavior was provoked by his discriminatory discharge. While we do not
Employees will be subject to disciplinary action for any of the fol- condone his conduct, we do not believe that it warrants his forfeiting the
lowing offenses .... Vending, soliciting, or collecting contributions opportunity for reinstatement. See Hagerty Catering Company, 236 NLRB
for any purpose, unless authorized by Management. 1553, 1557 (1978). Key City Mechanical Contractors Inc, 227 NLRB 1884,
1888-89 (1977).
Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's finding. Respond- )
Member Jenkins would compute interest on backpay due in the mannerent does not claim that the above rule was valid, but contends that the Crpoati 2set forth in his partial dissent in Olympic Mcdical Corpoarion, 250 NLRBrule was rescinded on February 14, 1980, and a valid no-solicitation rule , fo , r
was promulgated on that date. The new rule, rule 17, reads:, ^ ^146 (1980).was promulgated on that date. The new rule, rule 17, reads: I Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line, a Division of Wright
The following will constitute violations of company rules ... Dis- Line. Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), in finding the discharges herein viola-
tributing written or printed literature during working time. tive of the Act. That decision applies only to cases in which it is neces-
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge. We note that union or- sary to identify the cause of a discharge where both a genuine lawful
ganizing campaigns at the Company had existed for several months prior Continued
259 NLRB No. 77
55
i
i l t ti ( )
,- I
i il , ichard 3
l t f i ( ). e l oe Mi c h ael Smed ' Jm H n adR
, R in e "
t o
t'
,

b e
.,
/-»- »xy ll, loc -4™;-;^t-»»;.,» Taw ».., t,.Moreover, . Beari ii
/ . ),
olicit ti
t t
l l i i t
t
viri ,
r t t r i i ti J'n f . . I , prp, si. ., . . ole 17 does not confor to thisl l not 7
t orityin thi ceei a pan l. r l , itt i t i l ti . (8*Xl) f t t.i i l i i tr ti e J rr tl found that espondent vio-
)(
. '

i
t. ... s,' ,nd *onclusions . f, _, ,1, « , . . during
i l i i t e o pany, they had to clear it through hi . Nicolai also
if
)

l) t io " 7 eig "d w Cre 1)
».« *.. .. interrogating *.«loyee .i h.espect
og ting s Wi 0o '
U i S i e te -
Wit rl l ees'uni
l l.
U i l i
fect it l cO p""ny r ert to suspended e ployees. or did it demonstrate thating in effect -s licitation . w
'Both l
a I)
I
,
F
indi
harg ,
s l r
r e.
.... rt it n
l ). t r
I1RRA-s g197 ).
t t t t i i tr ti ' fi i . - Mr
s orp rat on, 50 NLRB
146 r18*
I ber t , isio i t
.... ),
i i it i cc
rule 17, co mitted an independent violation f Sec. 8u^ *l) f the Act.thorit in ths r c i t a tre - r el. I e d n s a ve a e c ectl
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent did not violate the Act by discharging and relocate in order to avoid unionization. We
employee Joseph Hadley.6 agree with the General Counsel.
However, we disagree with the Administrative Although Wagner did not positively declare that
Law Judge in two respects. We find certain state- Respondent would relocate, his statement strongly
ments made by Respondent's foreman, William suggests that Respondent was at least contemplat-
Wagner, to employee Charles Pelfrey to constitute ing moving. Moreover, by stating that if it did relo-
threats of reprisal for union activity in violation of cate, Respondent would not hire the union organiz-
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We also find that Re- ers because "that is what they would be trying to
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act get away from," Wagner indicated that Respondent
by discharging employee David Hall because of his anne to retr the employees' union activi-planned to retaliate for the employees' union activi-
union late March 1980, Pelrey, an outspken U W ty. It is clear that this statement, made during the
In late March 1980, Pelfrey, an outspoken UAW
adherent, was working overtime in the presence of course of Respondent's extensive unfair labor prac-
Wagner. As set forth by the Administrative Law tices would tend to discourage union activities
Judge, Pelfrey testified with respect to their con- among the employees. In fact, Pelfrey repeated
versation as follows: Wagner's statement to at least five other employ-
ees. Accordingly, we find that, through Foreman
Well, I asked Mr. Wagner if there was any Wagner, Respondent threatened its employees with
truth to the Company moving to Indiana be- thus coercing
cause there had been rumors going around that them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and
them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, andthe Company was going to move. Frequently
rumors travel through the Company, and he olatg Section 8(a)() oftheAct
told me that he wasn't sure whether or not the David Hall was originally hired by Respondent
Company was going to move, but if it was, on June 28, 1979, and was discharged for poor at-
that he had planned on moving with the Com- tendance on September 18 of that year. In early
pany. I asked him if the employees would January 1980,8 he was reemployed by the Compa-
have the opportunity to move with the Com- ny-9
pany or whether they would just be left On February 22, Hall attended a luncheon pro-
behind, and if the Company would hire all vided by Respondent for its employees. Hall wore
new employees, and he told me that the Com- a button and a cap indicating that he was a
pany would probably give the employees a member of the United States Steelworkers of
chance to relocate except for the union orga- America and he sat at a table with several employ-
nizers. He said that the Company would not ees who were similarly decorated. An individual
be taking them with them, because if they who introduced himself as Jim Lauren of Respond-
moved, that is what they would be trying to ent's sales department walked over to Hall's table
get away from in the first place. and asked him his views concerning unionization at
The Administrative Law Judge found that Wag- the plant. Hall replied that he desired union repre-
ner's statements were "highly speculative and sentation, because the employees needed a "middle
lacked positiveness" and therefore did not violate man" between themselves and Respondent.10
the Act. The General Counsel excepts to this find- In fact, Lauren was not a member of Respond-
ing and contends that these remarks consituted a ent's sales department but was the vice president of
veiled threat that Respondent would close its plant West Coast Industrial Relations, a management
consulting firm. According to Respondent's person-
reason and a genuine unlawful reason exist. In each of the discharges consulting fir. According to Reondent's perso
found violative in this case, Respondent's asserted reason has been deter- nel director, Mark Nicolai, Lauren came to the
mined to be a pretext, leaving only the genuine unlawful reason as the plant on February 22 "to ascertain whether or not
actual cause for the discharge. To attempt to apply Wright Line in such his firm would be of any service to us in initiating
situations is futile, confusing, and misleading.
' In excepting to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Re- and conducting a union avoidance campaign."
spondent's discharge of Hadley did not violate the Act. the General Lauren spent the day investigating the likelihood of
Counsel attributes considerable significance to events which occurred on
April 16, one day before Hadley was informed of his discharge. On that
day, Hadley leafleted at Respondent's plant and was observed by several
supervisors. We note, however, that Hadley was discharged by Nicolai
on April II as part of an overall reduction in Respondent's work force See PPG Industries, Inc.. Lexington Plant. Fiber Glass Division, 251
necessitated by slow sales. Hadley had been laid off for lack of work NLRB 1146(1980).
since April 3, and thus was not informed of his discharge until he re- All dates are in 1980 unless otherwise indicated.
turned to work on April 17. However, his termination slip is clearly Hall applied to Vonda Shay, the wife of Respondent's president, and
dated April II, and the General Counsel provides us with no direct evi- she decided to rehire him.
dence that this date is not authentic. Accordingly, Respondent's knowl- '° This account of the incident is, of necessity, based entirely on Hall's
edge of Hadley's activities on April 16 is not relevant to our determina- testimony, as Lauren failed to respond to a subpena ordering him to
tion of whether his discharge violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act. appear at the hearing.
"
.
it l

pl d aliate for
union activities. ty. It is clear that this state ent, ade ri t
c o R r l prac
c o u r s e o f t' t si fair labor prac-
t t t i istrati e La ti
c e s , w o u ld t e n d t o discourage union activities
, t ti i i e Administh ir con- a ong the employees. In fact, Pelfrey repeated
tWagner's st t t t at least five other e ploy-
versation as.follows:.ees.

r f te u
t miteexrseoterScin7rgtad
^Com~~~an~~g~~nri?^~ t he m l
n t ^ rn i t?" 7 ri g hts a d voaigScin8a()o h c.
l "l Sec lo n ( )(l)
D a v i H a l l w a s i i ll ir t
o n u n e 19 79
. l
8
.
'

t. 10
------ ~~~~~~~~~~consulting '
m iccorin es -en n-
. Ca O
O tO O
t l f r t isc ar e. o atte pt to apply right Line in such his fir ould be of any Service to us in initiating
* Con Uni
l i t i l t t e t. t e eneral r S e t t e day i esti ati the likelihood of
i
. t.
,
, '
,
, sit ti l ll
t r s t t their
as.f llows:.ees.
i ^ ---- t?"
n e l
MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 557
unionization at the plant and conferring with Nico- textual nature of Respondent's asserted reasons for
lai and other management personnel." discharging him.
On February 29, Nicolai discharged Hall. He in- Respondent's alleged policy of not hiring em-
formed him that his reemployment violated a com- ployees who had been previously discharged was
pany policy prohibiting rehire of former employees never reduced to writing. Moreover, the alleged
who had previously been discharged for cause. At policy was not even in existence when Hall was re-
the hearing, Nicolai testified that this policy was hired. Additionally, although Nicolai claims that he
instituted when he became personnel director on refused to hire several applicants who had previ-
January 21, 1980.12 He stated that he had not ously been discharged, Respondent does not claim
known that Hall had been discharged for cause that the Company ever fired any other employee
until February 22, when Harry Shay informed him who was rehired in violation of this policy. In fact,
of this fact and Shay suggested that Hall be fired. Nicolai admitted that he never looked through the
The Administrative Law Judge found that the personnel files to determine whether there were
General Counsel did not demonstrate that Lauren's any other such employees. For these reasons, we
conversation with Hall was communicated to any find that Respondent failed to demonstrate that it
representative of Respondent. On this basis, he discharged Hall pursuant to a consistent, uniformly
found that the General Counsel failed to establish a applied policy. Rather, Respondent invented this
prima facie case sufficient to support the inference policy as a convenient pretext after the decision
that protected conduct was a motivating factor in was made to discharge Hall because of his union
Respondent's decision to discharge Hall. He further activities. 14 Accordingly, we find that Hall's dis-
found that Respondent would have discharged Hall charge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
in the absence of protected conduct, on the basis of
Respondent's policy prohibiting rehire of employ- ORDER
ees discharged for cause. 13 We find, to the con- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
trary, that there is adequate evidence on the record Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
to demonstrate that Respondent was aware of lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Hall's union activity, that this activity was a moti- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
vating factor in his discharge, and that Respondent fled below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
would not have discharged Hall in the absence of Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction
this activity. Corporation, Battle Creek, Michigan, its officers,
Although, as indicated by the Administrative agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
Law Judge, there is no direct evidence that Re- set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
spondent had knowledge of Hall's support for the modified:
Steelworkers, on the basis of the record evidence 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
we may easily infer that Respondent was aware of "(a) Discouraging activities on behalf of United
Hall's union activity. Hall wore Steelworkers insig- Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or In-
nia for several weeks prior to his discharge. It is ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
unlikely that Shay, who told Nicolai that he saw and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Hall on February 22, would have failed to notice (UAW), or any other labor organization, by dis-
his union button and cap. Moreover, it is incon- charging, suspending, or otherwise discriminating
ceivable that Lauren did not relate his conversation against employees in any manner with respect to
with Hall to Nicolai, Shay, or other managerial their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
employees of Respondent with whom he met later condition of employment."
that day. Lauren's visit to the plant was subsidized 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
by Respondent so that he would personally deter- "(a) Offer Michael Smead, Roy Rine, David
mine the extent of unionization among the employ- Hall, and James Hunt immediate and full reinstate-
ees. We cannot believe that he would have kept ment to their former positions or, if such positions
the results of his surreptitious investigation to him- no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
self. This conclusion is further reinforced by the tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
fact that Hall was discharged within I week of his rights and privileges, discharging if necessary any
conversation with Lauren, and by the clearly pre- employees hired to replace them, and make them
" Respondent compensated Lauren for his work on February 22, and whole for any loss of pay or other benefits suffered
reimbursed him for expenses incurred. However, Respondent did not fur-
ther retain his firm. " In light of our disposition of this issue, we find it unnecessary to rule
" The policy was thus instituted subsequent to Hall's reemployment. on the General Counsel's contention that Lauren was acting as an agent
" His analysis was based on the test that we set forth in Wright Line, a of Respondent and that his knowledge should therefore be imputed to
Division of Wright Line, Inc. supra. Respondent.
a lic r i iti r ir
'
i
i i ,
' t f r t ifie :
i.

' i ti it . ll t l i i - t l r r ri , - I - , r I -
i l
li l t t ,
i i tt . ,
it t , , i l ,
it t l t r c iti f e ploy ent."
t t . '
t off

t lt i titi
s lf. is l i is t i
f t t t ll i it i 1
ti it , i ,
* t t i w h o l e f o r a n l o s s o f o r o t h e r fi Suff
i .L'*
. of
i isi i t ,
'
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent's unlawful discharge of them, in ac- WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten reprisals
cordance with the recommendations set forth in because of our employees' union sympathies.
the section of the Administrative Law Judge's De- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
cision entitled 'The Remedy."' interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
3. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and re- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
letter subsequent paragraphs accordingly: them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
"(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the tions Act.
disciplinary suspensions of Smith and Burton and WE WILL offer Michael Smead, Roy Rine,
to the discharges of Smead, Rine, Hall, and Hunt, David Hall, and James Hunt immediate and
and notify them in writing that this has been done full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
and that evidence of those unlawful disciplinary ac- their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
tions will not be used as a basis for future discipline equivalent positions without prejudice to their
against them." seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ously enjoyed, discharging if necessary any
Administrative Law Judge. employees hired to replace them, and WE
WILL make them whole, with interest, for any
APPENDIX loss of pay they may have suffered because we
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES unlawfully discharged them.
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE WE WILL make whole Jeffrey Smith and
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Richard Burton, with interest, for any lost pay
An Agency of the United States Government they may have suffered by reasons of their sus-
pensions from February 18 to February 21,
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- 1980.
nity to present evidence and state their positions, WE WILL expunge from our files any refer-
the National Labor Relations Board found that we ences to the disciplinary suspensions of Smith
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as and Burton, and to the discharges of Smead,
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. Rine, Hall, and Hunt, and WE WILL notify
The Act gives employees the following rights: them in writing that this has been done and
that evidence of these unlawful actions will
To engage in self-organization not be used as a basis for future discipline
To form, join, or assist any union against them.
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choiceMODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR
To engage in activities together for the CAR REPRODUCTION CORPORATION
purpose of collective bargaining or other DECISION
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all STATEMENT OF THE CASE
such activities. LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: The
WE WILL NOT discourage activities on charge in Case 7-CA-17064, filed by United Steelwork-
behalf of United Steelworkers of ers America, e f America, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein referred to as
AFL-CIO-CLC, or International Union, the Steelworkers, on November 13, 1979, was served by
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- registered mail on Model A and Model T Motor Car Re-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), production Corporation, Respondent herein, on Novem-
ber 15, 1979. A complaint and notice of hearing was
or any other labor organization, by discharg- issued on December 28, 1979. The charges in Cases 7-
ing, suspending, or otherwise discriminating CA-17412(2) and 7-CA-17450 filed by the Steelworkers
against employees with respect to their hire or on February 15, 1980, and February 27, 1980, respective-
tenure of employment, or any term or condi- ly, were served on Respondent by registered mail on or
tion of employment. about February 20 and 29, 1980. The charges in Cases 7-
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate em- CA-17561(1) and 7-CA-17561(2), filed by International
ployees with respect to their union activities Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
or sympathies. Implement Workers of America (UAW), herein referred
to as the Autoworkers, on March 24, 1980, were served
WE WILL NOT uaw y solicit grievances on Respondent by registered mail on or about March 27,
in order to influence our employees' union af- 1980. An order consolidating cases and amended com-
fection. plaint and notice of hearing was issued April 30, 1980.
WE WILL NOT continue in effect an invalid The charge in Case 7-CA-17643, filed by the
no-solicitation rule. Autoworkers on April 11, 1980, was served on Respond-
.
,
I l f ll

W E W I L L m ak e w h o l e it h a n d
I i c h a r d B u r t o n , t h n t er e st , f o r l o st

t h e m in i i t i
i l i ti
ssist i against them.
ice MODEL
C A R
i i r other DECISION
I , i i t ti :
ti l l r
lf l er s o f i
ti l l , r
i l il l l t -
s t i , -
l i ri
t
.
ployment,.about
)

WE WILL NOT unlawfully solicit grievances t o as t h e A u t o w o r ke rs, r
t i t il t
i '
l i t ti i i il , .

MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 559
ent by registered mail on or about April 14, 1980. A (UAW), are now and have been at all times material
complaint and notice of hearing in Case 7-CA-17643, herein labor organizations within the meaning of Section
and an order consolidating cases, were issued May 27, 2(5) of the Act.
1980. The charge in Case 7-CA-17774, filed by the
Steelworkers on May 14, 1980, was served on Respond- III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ent on or about May 16, 1980. A complaint and notice of
hearing in Case 7-CA-17774 and an order consolidating A. The 8(a)(1) Violations and the Discharge of Union
cases was issued on June 30, 1980. The charge in Case 7- Button Wearers
CA-18030, filed by the Autoworkers on July 21, 1980, In October 1979, Jeffrey Smith, an employee of Model
was served by certified mail on Respondent on or about A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corporation,
July 24, 1980. A complaint and notice of hearing in Case contacted United Steelworkers of America and arranged
7-CA-18030 and an order consolidating cases were for a meeting between a Steelworkers representative and
issued on August 7, 1980. Complaints in the consolidated employees of Respondent. In addition to Smith, employ-
cases allege that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(l) ees Richard Burton, Randy Chilton, Steve Cica, Ivan
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- Head, Walter Kilborn, and David Woods attended the
ed, herein referred to as the Act. first meeting held at the Ironworkers Hall in Battle
Respondent filed timely answers denying that it had Creek, Michigan, between the Union and the employees
engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices on October 19, 1979. Cards were distributed at this meet-
alleged. ing and a few were signed. A time was set for a second
The consolidated cases came on for hearing in Mar- meeting to be held on October 30, 1979.
shall, Michigan, on September 9, 10, and 11, 1980, and Prior to the second Steelworkers meeting, on the
Battle Creek, Michigan, on November 18, 19, and 20, morning of October 28, 1979, Danny Sanders, a supervi-
1980. Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be sor at Respondent's Elm Street plant, distributed copies
heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to of a letter received by Respondent from the American
argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings Federation of Grain Millers. This letter, dated October
of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs have 19, 1979, addressed to Harry Shay, president of Re-
been carefully considered. spondent, listed Smith, Chilton, Burton, Head, Kilborn,
and Cica as among the employees constituting the orga-I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT nizing committee.
nizing committee. I
Respondent is, and has been at all times material At lunchtime on the same day, October 28, Danny
herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing Sanders addressed a group of workers, among whom
by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan. were some of the employees mentioned in the Grain
At all times material herein, Respondent has main- Millers' letter. Sanders said that "he wanted to know
tained its principal office and place of business at 200 [the employees'] reasons for wanting a union," because
Elm Street, in the city of Battle Creek, and State of "they wanted to know upstairs." In addition, "[he] told
Michigan, herein called the Elm Street plant. Respond- [employees] what the Company was planning to do for
ent maintains an additional facility at 4950 W. Dickman [them]"; the Company was "going to start a bonus pro-
Road, in the city of Battle Creek, and State of Michigan, gram and vacations." He said that his uncle, Harry Shay
herein called the Dickman Road plant. Respondent is, (president of Respondent), was not a greedy man but felt
and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the that because Model A was a startup company a union
manufacture, sale, and distribution of reproductions of was not needed at that time and that a "union would not
antique automobiles and related products. The Elm give . . . job security." Sanders indicated that the em-
Street and Dickman Road plants located at Battle Creek, ployees would be better off without the Union and that
Michigan, are the only facilities involved in this proceed- the Company would give the employees more.
ing. On October 30, 1979, employees Smith, Denise War-
Since about July 1979, at which time Respondent con- field, Chilton, Burton, Head, Kilborn, Cica, Woods,
menced its operations, Respondent, in the course and Peter Dixon, and a woman named Mary Lou attended
conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, the second Steelworkers meeting. Jim Golden, the union
and distributed, at its Elm Street and Dickman Road representative, distributed buttons which read "Volun-
plants, products valued in excess of $500,000, of which teer Organizer, United Steelworkers of America." Em-
products valued in excess of S50,000 were shipped from ployees Burton, Cica, Chilton, Smith, Woods, Bill
said plants directly to points located outside the State of Wilson, and Michael Smead wore the Steelworkers but-
Michigan. tons in the plant on October 31 and November 1 and 2,
Respondent is now and has been at all times material 1979.
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the On November 2, 1979, Smith, Burton, Chilton, Cica,
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Woods, Wilson, and Smead were discharged for insisting
on wearing the union buttons while at work. Sanders
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL -C'IO-CLC, I' Although organizing on behalf of the Grain Millers continued, Cica,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Burton. Smith, Woods, Chilton, and Wilson organized actively only on
and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace behalf of the Steelworkers after the Steelworkers meeting October 30,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America 1979. The Grain Millers is not a party to this case.
ll

. T h e ) t i f i
-

il , i tt t
t ll i ttl
l
l ti t r 19, 1979. ar s ere distributed at this eet-
.
, .
, t l ti , t
, , , i
' ,
i i r ti f r i illers. is letter, dated ctober
, ,
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTIand i
t h e e m p l o y e e s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e o r g a
-
t i
]
m-
$
.
United Steclwnrkcni nf erica, I - 'l -r'I, <" lt r i i i cr L-C1<-CLC/, gBurto ,
,

, * I
PONDENT
s
d
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told Wilson that he "couldn't wear [his union button] on also Pay'n Save Corp. v. N.LR.B., 641 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.
company time." Sanders also ordered Smith to take his 1981).
button off. Joe Shay, vice president of Respondent, told George Dunlap, an employee at the Elm Street plant
Smith on November 2 that he was "terminated" for and a volunteer organizer for the Steelworkers through
wearing the button. Skip Turner, supervisor at Respond- April 1980, testified without contradiction that Skip
ent's Elm Street plant, tapped Cica's button and said that Turner asked him on three occasions during the period
"this is going to get you in trouble and anybody else October through January whether he was going to
wearing one will get in trouble also." Sanders told Cica attend a union meeting. These inquiries usually occurred
that he "would have to take off the badge or leave." Joe on Tuesday in the evening of which union meetings
Shay told Chilton and Woods that they "couldn't wear were held. Although it is not apparent whether Dunlap
. . . union buttons on company time . . . and to take had begun wearing his button at this time, it is apparent
that button off or punch out." After Burton had punched that he had been attending Steelworkers meetings since
out, he phoned Shay to ascertain if he were actually October and that other employees had begun wearing
fired. Shay responded, "Yes, Richard . . . you are fired their buttons.
for wearing a badge. This is harassment to other work- The General Counsel claims that the interrogations by
ers." Sanders and Turner detailed above were in violation of
Thereafter Smith, Burton, Wilson, Woods, Cica, and Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. "Any interrogation by the
Chilton, all discharged for wearing union buttons, were employer relating to union matters presents an ever pres-
told by Maurice Halstead, a Steelworkers representative, ent danger of coercing employees in violation of their
to report back to work on November 8 or 9. All of the [Section] 7 rights." Texas Industries, Inc., et al v.
aforementioned returned to work as instructed and at- N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 1964). Such inter-
tempted to punch in at their regular starting time, 7 a.m. rogation has the "natural tendency to instill in the minds
All were wearing buttons and some wore Steelworkers of employees fear of discrimination on the basis of the in-
pocket holders. When they attempted to punch in, Skip formation the employer has obtained." N.LR.B. v. West
Turner, a supervisor, told them not to punch in but Coast Casket Company, Inc., 205 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1953).
rather to go upstairs to the cafeteria and wait. He also In the instant case Respondent has shown no legitimate
said "that the union did not hold up their agreement"s i t t t i i t l t ir r t" purpose in seeking the information requested nor did it
and demanded that Chilton, Smith, and Burton take their assure the employees involved that they would be free
buttons off. "[H]e said you are just asking for trouble from reprisals. Indeed, in the case of Sanders, the inter-
from reprisals. Indeed, in the case of Sanders, the inter-again," and "do you want to go out the door again." rogations were accompanied with promises of benefits (a
Subsequently, all went up to the cafeteria but refused to bonus program and vacations and that Res of b ndenfits (
remove their buttons as demanded by Turner. Smith, b o n u s p ro g r am an d v aca tio ns and that Respondenttt r r. ith, would give more without a union) and a threat that the
Burton, Chilton, and Cica waited in the cafeteria and w o u l d e ithout union at
were told by Turner that they "couldn't start work on would give no job security. The interrogations of
today that the union didn't hold up to their agreement." a n d ers an d T u rn e r w e rethe Act.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.Turner did not explain the nature of this agreement and
the above employees and Wilson and Woods (who did In respect to Sanders, the General Counsel additional-
not wait in the cafeteria) were told to leave or to take ly claims Sanders unlawfully solicited grievances citing
off their buttons. All left. Approximately 7 weeks later, Federal Yeast Corporation, 226 NLRB 1046, 1054 (1976)
those employees received letters from the Company tell- In support of the claim, Sanders' testimony reveals that
ing them that they could return to work immediately and he asked them what their problems were ... we knew
to report to their normal stations. All the employees re- we had problems that we were a start up company and
turned to work immediately upon receipt of the letter in that [he] wanted to try to remedy as many as [he]
December 1979. could." Sanders added that he "didn't think the Union
"Unless special circumstances are present which justify would be able to solve these roblems." The General
the maintenance of production and discipline, an employ- Counsel's poit is well taken. The General l ounsel con-
er may not require an employee to remove union insignia cedes that the complaint contains no allegation regarding
while on the job in a plant. Such a restriction collides the solicitation of grievances; nevertheless, relying on
with the employees' rights guaranteed by Section 7 of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, 225 NLRB 911 912
the Act." The Loray Corporation, 184 NLRB 557, 577 (1976), the General Counsel seeks an 8(aX)(l) finding "in-
(1970). Respondent offered no valid evidence which asmuch as the evidence supports such a finding, the
would sustain its right to restrict the wearing of union matter s inextricably tied to a conversation that was spe-
badges in its plants. Hence, by Respondent's threat to cifically alleged, and the the ie o the conversation was
discharge employees for wearing union insignia and by fully litigated." Since the General Counsel's assertion is
its discharges of employees wearing union insignia, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.2 See David Woods, and Wilson, discharged on November 2, 1979, for protect-ed concerted activity in violation of Sec. 8(aX 3) and (I) of the Act and
reinstated in late December 1979. Also included in the settlement was an
On November 20, 1980, Respondent, Steelworkers, Autoworkers, and amount due David Latta for Respondent's alleged refusal to grant a pay
the General Counsel entered into a settlement stipulation constituting a raise in violation of Sec. 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act. A part of the stipula-
partial agreement of the outstanding complaint allegations, which was ap- tion further provided that the "General Counsel may present evidence in
proved by the Administrative Law Judge and by the Board on February respect to the issues settled herein and said evidence may be considered
5, 1981. Provided for in the settlement stipulation was the reinstatement by the Administrative Law Judge to the extent that it bears upon the un-
of Richard Burton, Jr., Randy Chilton, Steven Cica, Jeffrey Smith, settled issues in the aforementioned case."
..
.
, i t ir tt .
e r s
i i l ti
f l l ti
ilt , ll i i l
t l i l t , l nt ti , r i i
stries, .
t . , t i . ). i t r-
t t t i t t i r l r rti ti , . . till
l i i i
t l r . t tt t t i i i l . .
r i ,
t t t i ri i l t
i t t i e
i u r e t h e n o d a t e d fr
tt ff. "[ ] i r j t i f r tr l r e I ee d in t e a ne r t e r -
o^«;^ " »»^ "^ „ * * t »>, j "'from l
a ai ," t t t t i . r ainweecomn ditpoissfbnfts(
tl , ll t t t i t ro g at i o n s w er e ccompanied with pro ises of enefits a
r t ir as y r. i , b o n u s p ro g r am n d vi c t o n s and that Respondent
ri U gvore w a ) and a thre that the
r t l r r t t t " l 't t rt r U n lo n w o u ld Sander j curit . i t rr ti f
t t t t i i 't l t t ir r t." e m p lo y e es b y S a n d er s an d T u r n e r w e r e8 n vo o la t o n o f
Turner i t x l i t t r f t i t I nrepc o S n e rs, t G C ad..l
t l il ( i I n, clamsS t o anders, t r l ounsel additional-
i i t f t ri l l t t I l i l f ll li i i i i
ff t ir tt . ll l ft. i t l l t r, F ed er a l t orporationm , ( ).
those e ployees received letters fro the Co pany tell- I nhe"ppas o f th e c l at i Sanders' testimony reveals that
i t t t t y c l r t r t r i i t l h e as k ed t he m w h at t h ep r Pr l r ...
t report t t ir nor al stations. ll the e ployees re- w e h a d Pr l s t t r st rt c y
t r t r i e iatel recei t f the letter in t h a t [he ] w a n t e d th t hiy "edy as any as [he]
ece ber 1979. could.b Sanders added that he didn.t think the Union
" nless i l ir t r r t i j tif w o u l d b e ab l e t o so l v e t h es e Pr l ." r l
the aintenance f r cti isci li , an l y- c o un s eld s pthat t s w e la tak e n s T h e G en er a l C o un s el c o n -
r y t require an e ployee t re ove union insignia c ed es t h at t h e co plaint contains no allegation regarding
il t j i l t. r tri ti lli t h eC li it ti f ri ; rt l , r l i
it t l y s' ri t r t ti 7 f C1Ow7 eGeerbach r ration, ,
t t." The Loray orporation, 184 L 557, 577 a(1976)a the General Counsel seeks an 8(aXl) finding "th-
). t ff r li i i s t i rt a fi i , t
l sustain it ri t t r tri t t ri f i m at te r l s alextgdca l ti t r ti t t -
i it l ' cfu c l l y . l . issue f ti
f u l lv ^S^- ral rti

spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.2 See David oods, and ilson, discharged on November 2, 1979, for protect-ee e rt ti it i i l ti f . (a 3) (i) r t t
'On t l e
1)

ni mnter-
e a a a tio
^
(1976),
td catio s
r esp ec t
su p p oke
ti Bt -
MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 561
supported by the record and the authority cited, an very much. She felt as if she was abused and intimi-
8(a)(l) finding is hereby entered. dated.
The General Counsel further maintains that the fol- She clocked in and broke down in tears and went
lowing provision of the Employer's personnel manual upstairs and by then was pretty upset. She went to
constituted an unlawful no-solicitation rule: Skip Turner's office and no one was there and tried
one of the others and then Bob Shirk came along
Employees will be subject to disciplinary action for and asked her what was the matter. She asked if
any of the following offenses: . . . 16. Vending, so- Mr. Harry Shay was in and Mr. Shirk said come on
liciting, or collecting contributions for any purpose, and sit down and she told him what happened.
unless authorized by Management.
Iris identified the one of the persons as Jeff Smith.
The General Counsel argues that the rule is "impermissi-
bly invasive for failing to distinguish between working Jackson's statement is as follows:
and non-working time." The General Counsel relies on
Lyman Steel Company, 249 NLRB 296, 303 (1980). Since She came in the building and they were standing at
the above rule on its face prohibits solicitation during the door and she said she didn't want any and that
working hours by employees on their own time or in they were not supposed to be standing at the door
work areas on their own time, which they may do absent handing out papers. She went over to talk with the
unusual circumstances not here shown without permis-guard. They sad take this up to your GD Harry
Shay. She was pretty sure it was Jeff Smith. Shesion of management, the rule is in violation of Sectionhe was sure Jef th he
8(a)(l) of the Act. TB.C. Graphics, Inc., 214 NLRB then walked over to the guard. She tuned around
1003, 1004 (1974). Accordingly, Respondent, by main-and Irs was crying.
taining in effect the invalid no-solicitation rule, was in Mildred does not know what Union it is.
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Mildred was not around Iris when they were talk-
B. Distribution of Union Leaflets by Smith and ing to her
Burton After these statements were composed, Nicolai called
Jeffrey Smith distributed leaflets on behalf of the union Smith and Burton to his office on February 15, 1980, and
organizing campaign once a week after he was reinstated read to them the following rule, published in Respond-
in December 1979. On February 14, 1980, at 6:30 a.m. he ent's personnel policy manual, distributed February 13,
and Richard Burton passed out leaflets inside the em- 1980:
ployee entrance. They stood three steps inside the en-
trance, adjacent to the loading dock area and as close to The following will constitute violations of Compa-
the wall as physically possible. At this time there was no ny rules:
work activity in the loading dock area for it was
common practice for such activity not to begin until 8
a.m. In fact, the door to the loading dock was padlocked
and the woman who kept the keys did not begin work 16. Threatening, intimidating, coercing, or interfer-and the wo an who kept the keys did not begin work
until 8 a.m. Thus it was impossible to unlock the door wh fellow employees
until 1 hour after the 7 a.m. shift began. During preshift Nicolai also read the following:
hours the area was used solely as an employee entrance.
It was in fact the only entrance to the plant to be used PLANT SOLICITATIONS
by employees.
Employees Iris Swartz and Mildred Jackson entered Our Company is interested in fund raising drives
the plant on February 14, 1980, through the employee and requests for contributions within our communi-
entrance where Smith and Burton stood and distributed ty. However, in order to maintain efficiency and
leaflets. Here, an incident occurred which they reported prevent littering we must have certain rules.
to Nicolai and which is described below in the state- Employees are not allowed to engage in any oral so-
ments submitted to Nicolai by Swartz and Jackson. licitation during working time in any work areas. Em-
Swartz' statement is as follows: ployees are not allowed to distribute any printed mate-
rial in work areas during either working or non work-
Walked into building this morning and they were ing time.
handing out pamphlets. She first said she didn't
want one but finally took one. She was [sic] didn't Persons who are not employees are not to be allowed
know what they were. She turned around and tore on the Company premises at any time to engage in
it up and said she was not interested and proceeded either oral solicitation or the distribution of printed
to the time clock. The person then said "Why don't material. [Emphasis supplied.]
you take this to your Harry Shay" and used lan-
guage she didn't catch. She then said "I'll do just Prior to February 13, 1980, the personnel policy manual of October
uthat" and tried to take antheenr pamphlet and he 26, 1979, contained the following which governed the same areas of con-
that" and tried to take another pamphlet and he cern:
looked at her and used "F ASS." This upset her Continued

r l l f t i t i t t t f l- l i r k do n in tears and ent
i i t l ' r l l t ir y t as r tty upset. She ent to
ti l f l li i ti i ' i
_ , .„ . , . ,. . ,. . ^~~one
ti f r o eof te ohers and then Bob she asked if
.. andasked i r. ir s i
Mr ar Sa a n nd ^ l Mr. Siat a e e .

. h e c
a m e i t h e il i t ere sta i at
li ti i t h e d o o r
d sh e sa i sh e d id n 't w an t a an
d th at
i i i t r t t t i at the r
i i t r . t r t t lk ith the
l i g u ar d .ohe s aid t ak e t to y
i cti
as Pretty s r it was J ff S ith. She
8(a)1) o theAct.TB.CGrapicsInc. 214NLRBthen walked over to the guard. She turned aroundl) f t t. . . . raphics. Inc., 214 NLRB^ Iswc °
).
a n d r s w a s c r y i .
ti ( )(l) f t t. ildred as not around Iris hen they ere talk-
istri uti n nion f i i
g to he r.
t t t t t , i l i ll
t -
T h e i l ti
n y
it
. . I f t, t r t t l i locked,16 Treatening, i c o r
in t h f llow employees
til i l
til if i if l t ll i
u r
a n d

i ti .
e rso n s w h o a re n o t t t ll
o n th e
e it h e r o ra l f i t
3
t t i t r rr s la --------
e s i 't t . t i 'll iust '
Pr o r to r r 13- 19 80, th e r l li nual t erguage she didn't catch. She then said "I'll do just 26, 1979, contained the following which governed the sa e areas of con-

t an di
n g .
b ion ni i
b u l d n g
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nicolai asked Burton and Smith if they were "aware See The Times Publishing Company, 231 NLRB 207
of the no-solicitation rule" and asked Smith if he "was (1977); Fluid Packaging Company. Inc., 247 NLRB 1469
aware of Rule 16" and if they understood its meaning. (1980); and J. P. Stevens & Co., 244 NLRB 407, ALJD,
Both Smith and Burton answered affirmatively but "they sec. III,B,l,a.
stated it was not a work area." Smith also denied that he Since the suspensions were invalid the above-noted re-
had "threatened, intimidated, or coerced a fellow em- strictions placed by Respondent upon Smith and Burton
ployee." Nicolai then "executed a correction notice for interfered with their Section 7 rights and were in viola-
Burton to the extent that he [Burton] received a written tion of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
warning and was suspended for three days for violation During February 1980, Harry Shay, president of Re-
of company policy in the distribution of printed material spondent, gave two luncheon meetings at the Elm Street
in a work area during working or nonworking time," plant which employees were free to attend and at which
and "prepared a similar one for Mr. Smith with the ex- lunches were provided and paid for by Respondent. The
ception that he also received a warning and said warning first meeting was held on February 5 and "[t]he whole
also included and said for violating company rule 16, plant" or "at least 150" employees attended. Harry Shay
threatening, intimidating or coercing a fellow employee." gave a speech to the employees where he said, inter alia:5
Both Smith and Burton were suspended for 3 days com- I H -
mencing on February 18, 1980, and ending February 21, m H hay a n e s d t t h s
1980. Smith refused to sign his warning slip acknowledg- ny. . you have that Suggestion Box here that
ing his receipt of a copy. Burton signed his slip and both your s free andwe y drop com-
were informed by Nicolai, that, as suspended employees ments you have at any time and to show you that
they were not to enter "company premises during the we use that box, we type up every suggestion tha
length of their suspension," and that if they had "need to goes into t and put our answers to it and we post
contact anyone in the company or any fellow employee,
that they [were] to call [Nicolai] personally" so that he * * * *
could "review the request and either grant it or relay a
message." They were also told "not to pass out pam- organizing activity
phlets anywhere on the premises again." Nicolai said to from variou s U nions. [U]sually when a compa-
Burton, "if [he] was to even hand out any more printed f roached wi Unions . her a grienc
literature that [he] would be terminated." 4 Smith and y is approahed wh Unions, here is a gieancethere is something wrong somewhere and we can'tBurton returned to work on February 21, 1980, afterBurton returned to workonFebruary2find out, I can't, what is wrong if the people really
their suspension. Respondent's no-distribution rule set out want a union here. Now, some of the comments
above apparently did not bar employees from distribut- th nt
ing union leaflets in nonwork areas. Since the credible organizers we know are totally wrong, which unio
proof does not establish that the area in which Burtonpnt se n a inte, an i an
and Smith distributed union leaflets was a working area f anybody is beig
or that their distribution of union leaflets interere perfered withto oin a union because of those things
or that ther d o of u n l t i d wh then they are absolutely being misled. Now, if thereproduction or discipline or that there was any business ten the reasolutely being isled o i here
justification for banning distribution of union leaflets in is any other reason or gevanc you people have,
then that is what we have the Suggestion Box for.the area, the restriction which was placed upon Burton then tha t we have time, we've said tion Box for.
and Smith interfered with employees' Section 7 rights Be e this oint in ime, si tis er
and over, this is a new Company, it is a start-up
and was in violation of Section 8(a)(X) of the Act. Thus Compay,Company, these things are distractions.it follows that their suspensions for distributing union
pamphlets were in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. . . [WFe were also told that the unions here under-
stand that a start-up company needs time to get started
15. Threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow and there's no efforts to distract the union right in
employees.[First violation to result in written warning; second, weekf org g a , tht td
layoff; and third, discharge.] In addition to Smith, Burton, and Nico-
t h e d s t o f rga g a company, that told to
lai, Carl Searer, the plant manager, and Jim Krider, the general man- us in writing. An absolute lie. It is pretty damn obvi-
ager, were present. Both Smith and Burton had received the manual ous around here that it is going on. So now what that
on February 13, 1980. does it disrupts the operation we've got and the effort
16. Vending, soliciting, or collecting contributions for any pur-
pose, unless authorized by management. [First violation to result in were making just to get the Company goig. The
written warning; second, day layoff; and third, discharge.] result of that is in order to organize apparently,
17. Distributing written or printed matter of any description they come up either because the organizers them-
during working time.[First violation to result in written warning; selves don't know that's going on in the Company
second, day layoff; and third, discharge.]
Testimony of Smith and Burton is credited here as Nicolai does not or their [sic being misled since they are outsiders,
deny that he verbally instituted a broad no-solicitation, no-distribution
rule. In fact on direct examination, Nicolai stated, "I do not allow anyone ' This speech was taped by Mark Nicolai, corporate personnel direc-
to distribute anything in the Company. If I find out that it is going on, I tor, and transcribed under his direction. It is credited as an accurate tran-
order it stopped to the extent that it is going on, I order it stopped to the scription. The General Counsel listened to the tapes provided by Re-
extent that I will not even allow people to distribute the sale of Girl spondent's counsel and agreed that the transcription could be submitted
Scout cookies, Little League tickets, anything of that nature. There is no as an accurate reflection of Harry Shay's speech on February 5, 1980. In
solicitation that goes on-there is none that has been authorized without addition, the content of testimony concerning Shay's speech by three em-
my knowledge. If there is anything that does go on that I do discover, I ployees present at the meeting, Jeffrey Smith, Richard Burton, and
stop it." Charles Pelfrey, virtually is identical to the content of the transcription.

); ,
.
)(

t it t ' r S an I P i of t
i r r , , i r r , ny. S at Suggesion of th at
i li
v - * , . a t t ti x here that
1980 Smth rfusd t sig hi waringsli ackowldg-your (sic] free and we hope you will drop any com-
i i r i t f . rt i i li t m you ha vea any time d t s y ouh
i f i l i, t t, l w m en t s t0 1 h w e atbxw typ up t nhat
t i i t go u ses t h at b o xa w e opu ap ti t w
i nsi n," f mt o lt a n d Pi o u r. sw e n ° l l a n d t
t t
l [T]here's been a lot of i i i i
i i l i i s nio s. ..
if [ ] intedapproached ith i , t e is rievan e
] '" t is something rong somew r and w can't
rt r t r t r , f ot I c
i nsi . t' i t i i l t t i . , t t
r ntl i t r l i t i t- I h ta i h b s
i i l fl t i r . i t i l i I'll
r f t t li t t t i i t ont thos out i mi ut , d f ybody is being
ni t * ,. ,
f i l fl ts interfered ithn
pe r s u ad ed to join a union b e
c a u se of those things
or that their distributi n nio eafle s nterfere ith ol t l i
r ti r i i li t t t r i i or gri vances you people hav ,
j stific tion f i i t i tion i l fl t i thnhaisw tweavteSugtonBxfr
r ~~~a~~~he~~~~es~~~~n8 t^ : h a t h av e t h e ti e , iction i l t B cause at this point in time, ' i this over
it i t rf r it l ' ti ri t and ovr t is a n, * . ,.. r c.^ o/ \/\ r .Li * » *^and i t- p
(a)(l) C p , te tigae srcon.. , „ ., . ,. . . * ,. ..... .~Company, cti s.
l t i i l ti f ti ( )( ) f t t. . . [FVe were also told that the unions here under-
t t-up ted
. i i ti i ti , r i r i t rf ri it f ll t r 's ff rts t istr ct the union right in
l .[ ir t l tt , eek.1. _., . r * * .- _ ,, ti.- -, tou to
ff i e "mdst Or nizin was
i i r l n . te t s i
i i l nd t t s t
, upts tion ' t t f
6. ll ti tri utions wr aigjs ogtteCmaygig h
First i ere i j t t t t in .
) Or Or

lt i ritt r i ; s l s 't t t's goi g on in the o pany
second, day layoff; and third, discharge.] rter[i]bigmse ic hyaeoties
tor )
. S
t sti
at n1an o
ge i nd e t
' '
. ,.. ^i.* „ T.
.)
ltnere
ote and
w
osse no
.
MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 563
maybe they don't know what's going on. So your sonal about it. Now what's happen the union, your
[sic] being misled by people within the Company, dues would then hire a negotiator to speak for you
who themselves don't know whats going on. But, and he would come in to meet and say what you
for example, I've seen a union thing out in writing want. You wouldn't say it he would say it. Typical-
saying we are now established for two years, we've had ly we would engage in a negotiator, more of the
our start-up time and are ready to organize. Totally company's money to go to that man to sit down
wrong. [Emphasis supplied.] with the union representative and two paid people,
Two years ago, this Company was nothing but a neither one having anything to do with the compa-
thought in my head I hadn't even registered the ny, other than their [sic] paid to talk which then
Company, I hadn't even incorporated it yet. Noth- starts the negotiation. So I don't see, at this point in
ing but a thought. You don't organize my thoughts. time, where you expect to find much from that and
[Emphasis supplied.] that's again why I say this is not the time to be or-
ganizing a union.
. . . We have benefits here I understand that major
Now we say we have incentives and some misun- medical insurance and things like that, that some 50
derstanding has come up here is that when we say year old companies in this city do not give their
we're working on something and we're looking to employees yet. So we want to point that out. There
do something, some incentive program, bonuses and is no unon that requires deals. We look at every-
things like that .... So we are looking at various body and we do the best we can do .
plans, one is a share project that is used by Coach- . . . We are not compelling anyone to stay we are just
man, we've talked to other companies that have saying that you came into this Company, knowing
these incentive programs, which one makes the what we are trying to do and let us do it. If you
people the happiest. . . . We hope we are going to wanted to come in for an interview and say that when
have that plan worked out in two to four I get in here I'm going to reorganize your Company
weeks. .. . Now, it was said that we made some for you, you could have said it then and we would have
promises in the past by some managers that are not said out the door. We didn't hire you to tell us how to
here and we are not aware of them, so if anybody reorganize this Company. So we would like you to bear
feels that's a hardship on them, some promises that in mind. Nobody is a prisoner. They don't like
made, we would like you to just write it up and working here they can leave. [Emphasis supplied.]
drop it in the Suggestion Box. I presume these are
individual promises that we are talking about. We . . . I recall that one day on Burnham Street, when
would like to know what they are and we will look we were over there, a person said he hadn't ate that
into it. The only way I know how to bring those up day and didn't have a job and didn't have nothing
is to drop your comment in there and we'll see to eat and wanted a job. We didn't need him there,
what was promised. we didn't need him for two months, but we hired
him any way and then we brought him back here
We mentioned previously they were trying to work and he's one of them organizing the union now. It's
toward a four day work week. We are still trying to too bad we didn't have a union then because he
work for it but that will be some weeks ahead. ... probably wouldn't have been hired but this is the
So, the kind of news we get from all this disruption kind of thing that we happen, we lean over, we try
when we say talking about a union and at time to consider everybody as individuals and they got a
when we are trying to organize our own company problem, what can we do to help. Then if their [sic]
is disruptive, is the word we got from Ford yester- going to forget us as an individuals and start acting
day. . . . Their [sic] telling us they've heard possi- as a group, we have no choice than to turn around
ble disruption company become uneasy. ..... These and act as a group. So I think that covers what I
are the kind of problems that come up when you was trying to and hope that the next lunch we have
say this is not the time to be organizing a will be one with some better news. Maybe the bo-
union. ... We must convince Ford there is no dis-union. . e ust convince Ford there is no dis- nuses will be made or something like that. And, if
ruption so these are the problems that we say don't you do have any questions, we can't answer them
belong to a new company. And that's why we say all here unless someone had a real vital question, we
we need a little peace here and we were told we ask you to throw them in the box and we'll try to
would have peace here in order to keep on our answer them for you, every one of them.
goal, which is producing cars, getting our credit-
ability, showing our creditors we do what we say, In his brief the General Counsel cites sections of the
paying the bills we are supposed to be paying and speech emphasized above and asserts that such passages
that sort of thing. state, "in essence, that Respondent would not knowingly
. . .Unions don't guarantee more money or more have hired union organizers" and that "Shay's repeated
benefits. They negotiate. Now, right now if any- encouragement in the speech of employees use of the
body around here has anything to us we are always 'suggestion box' also illegally solicits grievances in viola-
open to this listen to it, suggestion box. Most half of tion of Section 8(aXl) of the Act." In consideration of
you know who the top is, if you want to get per- Shay's antiunion stance and in the context used, Shay's
lishedfor
.
e i th e r e i
t t o t e r t h ir ( Pai
st a s t h e
fi
o e say e have incentives and so e isun- ic l i r t i li t t, t t
t i
o l d i i t i it t give their
t i ' l i t l t. t t point that out. There
t i ti i
s u n io n t h at re ires d eal s.
e l o o k at every-
t i
and w e d o t h e b es t w e c an d o . .
.

i .
.. r e c a t h a t o ne d a o n t t,
w e w e r e o v e r t h e re , a s s a id h e 't a t e t h a t
a n d d d n 't h a ve a j b a nd d id n 't h a v e t i
'l t o ea t a nd w an ted a e d ' t n eed h im t h e r e,
w e
i l i i t's
t r f r r . r till tryi t too bad e didn't have a union then because he
i l
, t i f t fr ll t i i r ti i f t i t t , l r, t
l i i r l
l f i
is i r ti , is t r t fr r t r- i r et i i i l t t ti
. . . . ir [sic] t lli us they've heard possi- as a group, e have no choice than to turn around
l i r ti co pany beco e uneasy. . . These and act as a group. So I think that covers what I
r t i f r l t t t i t t t l
i i i i .
i . i i i n be ade or so ething like that. And, if
r ti s t s r t r l t t 't ti , 't t
l t . ' l l ti
e need a littl peace r r t l t t t i t
l v c r i r r t r t
l i tti it-
, i i t l l it ti t
i t ill t
t i . t t , i , t t t l t i l
Unions
f

ev e r
e l st
t ,
ti e i . f
t t ie
' ganize y
i t
't e l
f ganize . r
i is . t
l
ti
l l r
i t t t t
. l J
.
ili , i i f r l l ti f
i r i i r
t t i l
's
fi f t
i l ti l ll li
, ti l ti i r ti
f ti i
i t
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remarks clearly contained threats of reprisals and the il- Smead's discharge notice read: "Reportedly left work
legal solicitation of grievances in violation of Section station and disrupted work by others. Also, threatened
8(a)(l) of the Act. safety and well being of a member of the management
The General Counsel further claims that Respondent team." The latter phrase evolved after the incident de-
committed an unfair labor practice by Danny Sanders' scribed above. Smead was not reinstated with the other
remark to employee William Wilson that if he "didn't button wearers or included in the stipulation above men-
like the way it was, that [he] could hit the door." Sand- tioned.
ers' remark followed Wilson's observations: "I mentioned Since the incident of alleged drunkenness occurred
the fact that if Model A and Model T would put some- after Smead was unlawfully discharged for wearing a
thing down in writing in front of the lawyer, that there union button, Respondent's representation that the dis-
would be no need for a union, if they would stand charge was also for the above incident will be viewed as
behind what they say." Wilson was wearing a union Respondent's claim that it may decline to employ Smead
button at the time. because his subsequent conduct rendered him unfit for
In the case of Rolligon Corporation, 254 NLRB 22 future employment. A resolution of this matter is best
(1981), the Board has said: left to the compliance stage of these proceedings.
Smead's discharge being in violation of Section 8(a)3),
We have found that an employer's remarks reinstatement for Smead will be recommended.
which imply that a union activist is unhappy on the
job and therefore should seek work elsewhere vio- D. The Discharge of Ray Rine'
late Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. In the instant case,
Respondent told an assembled group of employees On or about February 5, 1980, President Harry Shay,
that employees whon re unhappy and would rather in his address to Respondent's employees, alluded to Roy
work in a union shop would do Respondent a great Rine in these words: "I recall that one day on Burnhamwork in a union shop would do Respondent a great St
service by finding a job elsewhere. We find that Street, when we were over there, a person said he hadn't
such a statement is coercive and threatening and ate that day and didnt have a job and didn't have any-
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it con- thing to eat and wanted a job. We didn't need him there,
veys the clear message that support for the Union we ddn't need him for two months, but we hired him
and continued employment by Respondent are in- any way and then we brought him back here and he's
compatible. one of them organizing the union now. It's too bad we
didn't have a union then because he probably wouldn't
Thus the remarks of Sanders directed to employee have been hired."'
Wilson constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1). 7 One week later on February 11, 1980, Rine was fired
for "too many absenteem [sic]." As noted by President
C. The Discharge of Michael Smead Shay, Rine was a volunteer union organizer.
Smead, an employee of the Elm Street plant, punched Rine had been employed since August 8, 1979, at the
out during the day on November 2, 1979, for the same Wixom facility and had been transferred with other em-
reason that employees previously mentioned herein ployees to the Fort Custer plant in the latter part of Sep-
punched out. He had been asked to punch out as a tember. In January, Rine began wearing a UAW button
button wearer. Unlike the other button wearers, Smead and pocket saver in the assembly department where he
returned to the plant about "a quarter of four after the worked.' He also distributed union literature and cards
shift had ended." Joe Shay and Danny Sanders were for a 2-week period at the timeclock or in the parking
locking the plant when Smead returned. "Mr. Smead ap- lot Dennis Konecny, plant manager, Dan Weymouth,
peared to be intoxicated" as evidenced by "the heavy foreman, and Danny Sanders, supervisor, observed Rine
smell of liquor on his breath, slurred speech, his obnox- engaged in this activity on several occasions when they
ious attitude." He demanded his payroll check from Joe came into the vicinity of the timeclock to use the food
Shay and when Shay explained that it was impossible to vending machine.
issue his check immediately, Smead said, "[I]f I ever see Sometime after organizing on behalf of the UAW had
you at a bar or out on the street, I will get you." Danny begun, Rine and his foreman, Dan Weymouth, had a dis-
Sanders intervened and told Smead "that he had better cussion in which Weymouth told Rine that he was being
leave the building right now." Smead "cursed and turned removed as team leader and replaced with an employee
and started to walk toward the exit." He opened the em-and started to walk toward the exit." He opened the em- ' The teachings of Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251
ployees' door, "stopped approximately two steps away K,' 1?6 '.'"^ of /'ghl a Di w ""' of Wr is L ine Jne.ployees door, "stopped approximately two steps away NLRB 1083 (1980), has been followed in connection with the considera-
from the door out into the parking lot and said if you ion of all discharges.
[Sanders and Shay] came out here now, I'll whip your I Charles Pelfrey, an employee of Respondent at the time of the hear-
ass out here." Shay then closed the door and he and ing, attended this luncheon meeting and was called on behalf of the Gen-
Sanders continued locking up the plant. eral Counsel. He testified that he and other employees were able to deter-
mine clearly from this paragraph in Harry Shay's speech that Roy Rine,
an alleged discriminatee, was the employee being referred to by Shay.
' Shay's statement that he would not have knowingly hired union par- The witness' testimony is credited.
tisans is linked logically to employees' reasonable fear that they would be 'o In the assembly department other employees also had begun wearing
discharged if they engaged in union activities. some kind of UAW insignia. Roy Rine, Jerry Nichols, Jim Hunt, Tom
' While not urged as an unfair labor practice, Shay in his February 5, (last name unknown), Joe Hadley, and Dave Latta. All were on the
1980, speech used similar language: "They don't like working here they UAW organizing committee. (Rine, Hunt, Hadley, and Latta are alleged
can leave." (Resp. Exh. 10.) discriminatees.)
'

,
aX ,
' ill .
f l . is arge
l ti l O o a
s t t l an ss l r f l y s O n r t r r 5, , r i t rr ,
that e ployees ho are unhappy and would rather in his address to Respondentcs employees, alluded to Roy
r i i l t r t t eet t h es e words: " Ioecall that one day on Buheham
service by finding a job else here. e find that S t r eeth hen e ere over there, a person said he hadn't
i r i t i at e t h a t ^ and dw d n 't i 't ny-
l ti )(l i t '
r nionwe d l d n l n ee d i
l t V t r t i r 's
ti i i '
l).7 e
.
R in e h ad be en l i , , t t
tr f rr it t r -
i l i
m b er . I n r
an d i t e bl rt t r
" 0 l i i i lit r t r r
if
f o r a - i t t ti l r i t r i
. i l t r, t ,
t r i r, r
ll l i t i ti it r l i t y
r ll c am e i t ti l t t f
l i i l
l i i i lf t
i i i f , t , i -
t ss io n i n i i
i r l l
t rt t l t r t it." t --------
, C' ' ' Wn'»"' h, r i ""'o f r is hrL i "
<* "l ':*. S
l ees' r, "st e a r i atel t ste s a a 1083 (1980), has been follo ed in connection ith the considera-
i l t s i if tion of all discharges.
"g

e r a o un e l
.
H e te t i fie th a t he a nd o th e r

ssms "
tivities,.some ,
, tt . t
I reca l
i t
i
at t he
MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 565
with less seniority because Dennis Konecny, plant man- Respondent hired Rine when he was hard pressed for
ager, had seen him standing around not doing his job. a job and Rine apparently performed well on the job in
Rine complained about the way the Company handled return. He was a team leader in the assembly department
seniority: "[T]he company doesn't want a union in here at least by December 1979 and was thought highly of by
. . . this the way you treat your workers. What do you Konecny. In fact, he was thought so highly of that Re-
expect .. .. " Weymouth responded, "We don't have to spondent chose to ignore his absence record until it was
worry about that because Harry Shay will relocate this evident that he was a union partisan. 4 He had 8 of the
plant before he'll allow a union to come in."" On an- 11 absences before he began organizing on behalf of the
other occasion Rine complained to Weymouth about UAW on January 22, 1980, and no action was taken by
how "they would paint right on the line where every- Respondent. After January 22 and after Respondent
body had to work . . . they built a paint booth and they became aware of Rine's prounion stance through its em-
would still bring the paint sprayer over to the line. The ployees Weymouth, Konecny, and Sanders, Rine was put
painter had a mask to wear and the other workers didn't. under the supervision of an employee with less seniority,
They had a dust particle mask, but that isn't any good and was assigned to less responsible work on the line by
for keeping the fumes out. It just picks up dust in the Weymouth, his foreman, who also told him that Harry
air." After Rine objected to these conditions to Dan Shay would relocate the plant before a union was per-
Weymouth, he was assigned to paint on the line for 1 or mitted by Respondent. On February 5, Harry Shay, in
2 weeks. He had never been assigned to paint on the line his luncheon speech, referred to Rine as a disloyal em-
prior to voicing his objection. ployee because of his union organizing activities. On
Approximately 2 weeks before Rine was discharged, February 11 he was asked to produce a doctor's slip
on February 1, 1980, Dennis Konecny initiated a conver- which he had no reason to assume would be required.
sation with Rine in which Rine was told that he was The credited evidence indicates that Rine was actually
going to be transferred to Fisher's line because it was ap- discharged because he failed to furnish a doctor's state-
parent that he and Weymouth did not "get along very ment although the assigned reason for his discharge was
well." Konecny assured Rine that he "would still be "too many absenteem [sic]." Thus it would appear that
drawing leader's pay and so forth." At this time Kon- the reason for his discharge was shifted in that it would
ecny told Rine "that [he] thought very highly of him but be difficult to convince a reasonable person that Re-
... was most concerned about this attitude and his ab- spondent actually would have discharged Rine for failing
sentee record 2 because [Rine] was in a group leader slot to furnish a doctor's statement without giving him an op-
and . . wasn't showing a good example to the new em- portunity to produce one. The precipitous nature of his
ployees that were being hired at the time." discharge coupled with Respondent's union animus and
Rine reported to Kermit Fisher's line on Monday, inclination to commit unfair labor practices to discourage
February 4, and was absent Thursday, February 7, and union activities belies a legitimate motive. Thus it seems
Friday, February 8. Rine's girlfriend, Bonnie Lind, called clear that "too many absenteem [sic]" was seized upon to
in for Rine on February 7 and 8 as outlined in the per- shroud the real reason and the true motive of Respond-
sonnel policy manual in effect at the time of Rine's dis- ent Moreover the credited evidence does not reveal
charge. Rine had fallen on the ice and suffered a dis- * Mcharge. Rine had faen on t ice a sue athat either Rine in the past or other employees had been
abhng back injury. subjected to the same arbitrary demand as was Rine. "
On Monday, February 11, Dennis Konecny "instruct- rir i.
Rine's alleged absenteeism as a reason for dischargeed Mr. Kermit Fisher who was [Rine's] immediate fore- Re's alleged absenteeism as a reason for discharge
man that if Mr. Roy Rine could not supply . . . a doc- was an afterthought utilized to shore up a weak and un-man that if Mr. Roy Rine could not supply . . . a doc-
tor's excuse for Thursday and Friday, that [Rine] was to tenable reason for discharge, one which had discrimina-
be terminated for excessive absenteeism."'3 "[Rine] re- tion written all over it. Thus, it is found that Rine's dis-
ported to work on Monday and worked all day. At the charge was pretextual and for the purpose of discourag-
end of the shift. . . Mr. Fisher asked [Rine] if [he] had a ing union activity. Rine's discharge accommodated
doctor's slip for the two previous days [February 7 and Shay's expressed antipathy against Rine pronounced in
8] that [he] had missed and [he] told him no, and [Fisher] his speech of February 5, 1980.
said well, I'm going to have to let you go." In The Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Teleg-
raphers Union, AFL [A. H. Bull Steamship Company] v.
1" This record is unclear as to when this conversation actually oc-
curred. Both Rine and Weymouth testified it was in January and Rine " Resp. Exh. R-6 is a summary of plant employees terminated for ab-
testified it was after he began organizing for the UAW. Weymouth also senteeism and tardiness between August 1979 and April 5, 1980. Twelve
testified, however, that during the conversation Danny Sanders inter- employees with fewer absences than Rine were terminated. This chart il-
vened and Sanders and Rine cursed at one another. A correction slip was lustrates clearly Respondent's lack of consistent treatment of employees
written up and offered at the hearing, but is dated December 13, 1979. who have been absent or tardy, e.g., one employee was terminated with-
There is no testimony offered in an attempt to reconcile this discrepancy out a verbal or written warning and without suspension with only two
so the testimony that it occurred in January after organizing began is tardies and one absence while a second employee was terminated only
credited. after being given a written warning and 1-day suspension with seven tar-
" Rine had 11 absence and lateness reports between October 26, 1979, dies, two "left earlies," and nine absences.
and February 11, 1980. Nicolai, personnel director, testified that 7 out of ' A Respondent rule read, "Five absenteeisms or tardiness within a
the 1 were unexcused and that only those marked were excused. None three month period, that are not supported by request for leave of ab-
of the 11, however, are marked excused. It is therefore impossible from sence, or signed medical statement, will be grounds for discharge." (Em-
the record to determine whether the absences, in fact, are unexcused. phasis supplied.) The credible record does not reveal that the medical
" Rine's testimony is credited. Fisher did not testify and was not em- statement requirement had ever been enforced or that any employee had
ployed by Respondent at the time of the hearing been discharged for its violation
..
. .
"

,
jection,.ployee
'

ti i t ll
i il i t ' t t -
l l i
. till t i l
i l
t ] l l
t t i ttit his -spondent actually would have discharged Rine for failing
2 ] l spondent a t
. ' i l t it . i i t f i
l i i t t i . i r l t' i i
i r rt t r it i r' li , i li ti t it f ir l r r ti t i r
t , r , incli ti iti li l iti t ti . it s s
i , l union ac iv ies elie t i ] i
r clear that "too many abs entem [sc" a seiz -
l l l i , t i i t r l
ar g ebl g o ni y c e s a that it i i t
abOMng back injury uc subjected to the same arbitrary de and as as ine.", , i i t t n-, 1 ii -i-i i* v *'11- i- rn- 'i * -i- . teeism ...
man l l w as a n
' ]
t en ab l e r e aso n f o r i , i i ri i -
i 13
o n w t t en a o v e r T h us s f o un d s
ll l
if . . ] f ]
u n on ti i i ' i r t
l r
s ti t i t i i
] ] r]
s ,
i ll '
T he R a d io ' i n l
r hers i , . l
"1

c

1, L'* t i
1
I ,
1*
ring,.been .
'
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N.LR.B., 347 U.S. 17, 45 (1954), the Supreme Court Transferred in the last part of January or the first part
opined, "[A]n employer's protestation that he did not of February to work outside, Hunt "was in charge of
intend to encourage or discourage must be unavailing moving the vehicles from inside the plant to the outside
where a natural consequence of his action was such en- . . . of taking care of the shipping, handling of the
couragement or discouragement. Concluding that en- trucks coming in to pick up the vehicles for shipment."
couragement or discouragement will result, it is pre- On March 4, while Hunt and his partner, Bob Hancock,
sumed that he intended such consequence. In such cir- were working outside, a cleanup was begun in the
cumstances intent to encourage or discourage is suffi- plant," which generated much refuse.' I
ciently established." Hunt removed two heater fans and Bob Hancock re-
The natural consequences of Respondent's discharge moved miscellaneous scrap from the dumpsters which
of Rine, a union partisan, following on the heels of they put in a cardboard box and placed in a Dodge van
Shay's remarks at the February 5 luncheon, was to dis- used on company premises "in the work procedures out-
courage membership in a labor organization. Any other side." Later in the day when Hunt went to remove the
conclusion would be at odds with the realities of the in- fans from the van, the driver of the van Franklin Rood,
dustrial world and in opposition to sound reason. Thus it asked him "if [he] had any permission or if [he] had ever
must be deemed that Respondent intended such result, had any permission to remove what he was removing
that Respondent's conduct was "'inherently destructive' . . . referring to the two heater fans." Hunt responded
of important employee rights," and that an unfair labor that he and Bob had gotten the material out of the
practice may be found "even if the employer introduces dumpster and that they "had permission to remove
evidence that the conduct was motivated by business things that had been in the dumpster." Rood then
considerations." See N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, watched Hunt put the fans into his automobile and
Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967). Had Respondent not intended return to work. On his way to his automobile, Hunt
the consequences of its act, i.e., discouragement of union passed the security guard and waved.
activity, Rine obviously would not have been dis- Rood reported the incident to Nicolai and the follow-
charged. Rine was the victim of Shay's antiunion stance, ing statement was prepared for Rood:
for no reasonable employer, except for an ulterior pur-
pose, would have fired a man because he was unable to On Tuesday, March 4, 1980, I was driving the com-
meet an impossible condition set by his employer, in this pany van, when Jim Hunt came over to the van and
case a demand for a doctor's report which Rine was not told me that he had asked and received permission
given a fair opportunity to obtain before he was dis- to take two heater motors that had come from the
charged.'f trash. I sat in the van while he took the two motors
E. The Discharge of James Hunt and walked out to his car, put them in his car and
came back. I thought nothing further of the things.
The UAW had its first organizing meeting for employ- The next morning Bob Hancock came and asked me
ees of Respondent on January 22, 1980. Employees what had happened to the two heater motors and I
James Hunt, Joe Hadley, and Roy Rine, alleged discri- told him that [Jim] took them, telling me that he
minatees, became part of the UAW organizing effort at had permission to do so.
this meeting.
James Hunt signed a card and a "UAW organizing Nicolai called Hunt into his office on March 17, 1980.
committee form" and received a packet of authorization Hunt had been absent from March 4 to 17 because of ill-
cards to distribute at the Fort Custer plant. Before work ness. Nicolai showed Hunt the statement"9 allegedly
on January 23, Hunt discussed the Union with other em- given by Franklin Rood, the employee who witnessed
ployees, distributed authorization cards, and received the removal, and read him rule 33 on theft. ° When
signed cards in return. All of his activity was observed
by Plant Manager Dennis Konecny and Foreman Danny James Hunt was wearing his UAW button on March 4. His partner,
Weymouth. At this time Konecny warned Hunt that Bob Hancock, was not wearing a union button and there is no evidence
"any organizing for any un on" was to be "done on ... indicating he was a union partisan."any organizing for any union" was to be "done on . . . s In general, refuse from the plant either found its way as scrap into
personal time and not on company time." Weymouth the dumpsters which were ultimately carried away by trash pickup trucks
also asked "what his [Hunt's] reasons were for wanting a and returned empty to Respondent; or, as in the case of vendor parts
union." Nevertheless, Hunt continued to distribute cards such as the heater motors, it was "sent back to the vendor for new
every day for a week after th first d y of distribution on parts." Vendor parts were not normally put into the trash system.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,every day for a week after The statement was admitted for the purposes of proving that it was
January 23 and to wear his UAW button openly on his the document Nicolai showed to Hunt and the document upon which Ni-
shirt pocket every day until his discharge on March 17, colai relied in discharging Hunt. It was not admitted to prove the truth
1980. of the matters asserted therein, as Rood did not testify and, therefore, did
not verify the signature as his own and the statement as true.
" Rule 33 reads as follows:
" Even if Fisher, Rine's foreman, were justified in requesting a doc-
tor's slip from Rine, he was not justified in demanding and expecting its 33 Theft of any Company, Government or Employee Property
immediate production. Fisher's demand for immediate production of a
doctor's slip created a no-win situation with which Rine was expected to Violation of any work rule will result in disciplinary action, which
comply. Even if Rine had had a good-faith desire to comply with Fish- will range from verbal reprimand to discharge depending on the seri-
er's demand, it was impossible for him to do so without being permitted ousness of the violation and whether it is a first violation or a recur-
time between the demand for the doctor's slip and its expected produc- rence. A combination of work rule violations will be dealt with ac-
tion. cording to the circumstances of each case.
. . ),
..
t," "

.
. f
.. . .

s,
ti it , i l t i
' ti i
l l t
r
i l i l i
' i i i
rt it t i f r i - t t k t t r otors that had co e fro the
. " t i il t t t t
. is rge f es t and alked out to his car, put them in his car and
t"'
0
J
t . Bo b "nc . w s
"any orgaizing fo any i " as t be "don on . indicating" he was a union partisan."any r i i f r i " t " . . . 1 in general, refuse fro the plant either found its ay as scrap into

uc h t he h ate r
every day for a week after the first day of distribution onmparts." Vendor parts were not normally put into the trash system.ev ry ay fo a e t thefirst ay ofdistrbutio on 1
W Op O
g wrt
I
t r' li i , t j ti i i i ti it .
t
MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 567
asked if he were familiar with the rule, Hunt replied that steal, openly took the fans without stealth, and honestly
he was, but that he did not consider this theft since he believed that he was permitted to take the fans, all of
had gotten blanket permission from Connie, the previous which must have been apparent to Nicolai when he dis-
plant supervisor, to take scrap from the dumpsters. He charged Hunt.
offered to return the fans to the Company, but Nicolai To meet its burden Respondent asserts that "the Re-
did not respond and asked him to leave the room. When spondent had a rule that was generally known to the em-
he returned, Nicolai told him he was discharged. ployees." If such assertion refers to a rule governing the
The reason for Hunt's discharge was described as removal of scrap from the dumpsters, the credited evi-
"Theft of company property to heater motors, 3/4/80 dence does not support this assertion. Respondent further
Co. Rule 33." maintains that "Respondent constantly enforced the theft
Apparently, Respondent had not written or published rules in the situations in which it was aware of the
anything for employees specifically concerning the re- theft." However, the examples offered by Respondent
moval of scrap from the dumpsters. 21 Rather it was com- were for theft of tools or materials, items of value to Re-
municated orally through the employees' immediate fore- spondent used in production by Respondent. Hunt's dis-
men. Dennis Konecny, plant manager at the Fort Custer charge was the only one for removing scrap from the
plant, received a memorandum from Jim Krider, general dumpster. Hunt was discharged as a thief, which he was
manager, directing the foremen upon requests from em- not. He was deprived of any benefit of the doubt al-
ployees to remove scrap for personal use, to orally though the penalty for his alleged offense could have
inform them, "that they did not have the authority and been in a range from a verbal reprimand to a discharge.
that neither did [Konecny] and the only way [to] get au- Moreover, Hunt's offense was innocuous since the scrap
thority was through Jim Krider." This directive was to fans were of such slight value that Respondent did not
be shared only upon an employee's request to remove want them returned. Hunt's offense as it may have affect-
scrap and was never publicized generally in the plant. ed Respondent's business operation was minimal. Ac-
Understandably, it is difficult to discern what specific cordingly, it appears that Respondent has not carried its
policy was to be followed by employees to gain valid burden and it is found that the motivation for Hunt's dis-
permission to remove scrap: Whether written permission charge was to discourage union activity. By Hunt's dis-
from Krider was necessary; whether oral permission charge, Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
from Konecny was sufficient; or whether permission The credible evidence reveals no legitimate business jus-
could be obtained at all from anyone. It is reasonable, tification for Hunts discharge nor has Respondent dem-tifi cation for Hunt's discharge nor has Respondent dem-therefore, to infer from Respondent's varying policies
that employees must have been confused as to what o n str at ed b y e v a sa f ac to rythat e ployees ust have been confused as to what e mploy ee , would have been discharged even in the ab-
process was to be followed to gain permission and whose employee would have been discharged even i the ab-
permission was valid. It is, therefore, a rational inference sence of his protected conduct. Indeed no action was
that Hunt had a good-faith belief that he did not need to taken against Hancock although he likewise removed
seek permission every time he wished to remove scrap tems fromthe on the same t retrieved
and that his belief was reasonable under the circum- e heater ans
stances.t . F. Discharge of David Hall
It is clear that the General Counsel has met his burdenF Dicha oDv H
of establishing a prima facie case by producing sufficient David Hall was hired by Respondent on June 26,
evidence to support the inference that protected conduct 1979, at the Burnham Street plant, and after 3 months
was a "motivating factor" in Respondent's decision to transferred to the Elm Street plant. He was discharged
discharge Hunt in conformity with the teachings of from the Elm Street plant on September 18, 1979, for his
Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB poor attendance record. On January 11, 1980, David
1083 (1980). These factors are controlling in this respect: Hall returned to Respondent and talked with Vonda
(1) Hunt was an aggressive union partisan, (2) Respond- Shay, the president's wife, about whether the Company
ent harbored union animus of sufficient intensity as to would rehire him. He was rehired and reported to work
cause it to commit unfair labor practices, (3) there was on January 14, 1980. Subsequently, he was discharged on
no proof that other employees had been discharged for February 29, 1980, because of a company policy not to
removing scrap from dumpsters although such removal rehire employees who had been discharged for cause.
had been apparently commonplace, (4) the rules in re- Mark Nicolai, Respondent's personnel director, was
spect to employee removal of dumpster scrap were not hired on January 21, 1980, 7 days after Hall had been re-
well defined, (5) no evidence was offered that Hunt was hired by Mrs. Shay with the approval of the previous
an unsatisfactory employee, (6) the heater fans were of personnel director. When Nicolai became personnel di-
such insignificant value that when Hunt offered to return rector, he instituted a policy of not rehiring persons who
them his offer was not accepted, and (7) whereas Hunt had been discharged for cause, but because he was hired
was discharged for theft, an intentional crime, the cred- after Hall was rehired did not know who David Hall
ited evidence indicates that he harbored no intent to was, nor did he know of David Hall's employment histo-
ry. Consequently, when Nicolai was asked by Harry
" A written memorandum allowing removal of scrap from dumpsters Shay, Respondent's president, what David Hall was
with a supervisor's approval was posted on the plant bulletin board prior
to March 17, but there is no credible evidence that it was posted before doing in the plant, he was unable to respond without
March 4, the day Hunt allegedly removed the heater fans for his personal asking who David Hall was. Shay explained that Hall
use without permission from Respondent. had been discharged for cause and had "created quite a
,.ployees."
.2"
t t it i
'

r t bl , it i i i l t i cifi i l t
l l i l '
r i i t r : t itt i i ti it . '
fr ri r ary; t r r l i i t ti
ffi i t; t r r i i r i l i r l l iti t i j -
could be obtained at all fr a e. It is r s l , i rH t'dshrgnrhsRepdntem
S fo~~t~ r ^m R~~po~dS ^mg~c~
t i fi c at fo r 's d is c h a
r g e n; t r f r , t i f r fr s t's r i li i s osrtdb rdbeeiec htHnastsatr
l t f t t eonstr ated by ev d i har a sai facto ry
r t f ll t i r i i se ployeeo l i r atn t -
r i i li . It i , t r f r , ti l i f enc e t n ofai s nst Han t. edk ti
t t t -f it li f t t i t t itak en fro m tst H ancoc ker on th li i
i i r ti i t r tems f ro mh the dumpster t day Hunt r tri
l f l
f vd l
t F . D irc harge o fDovid H au
, ,
).
)
itt ll i l r fr mpstersShay, t' i t, t i ll Was
digi h lnh a nbet epn ihu
, without
t
m h t e
n
u
nstHcate I de dl
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scene and it was a rather violent discharge" and, there- 28 employees. Although a good worker when present,
fore, Hall should not have been rehired. Nicolai was Hadley was frequently absent or late. He was terminated
unable to find a second application in Hall's file, so he for his absenteeism only when Respondent decided to
called Hall into his office and asked Hall if a second ap- terminate 28 people even though Respondent knew of
plication had been filled out. His reason for calling Hall Hadley's union activities as early as the first or second
into the office was in actuality to determine how he got week of February. Given these circumstances, Respond-
rehired. Unable to determine how Hall got rehired, Ni- ent's actions do not "suggest a predetermined plan to dis-
colai prepared Hall's last check, and, under Harry Shay's cover a reason to discharge" Hadley "and thus rid the
instruction, discharged Hall on February 29, 1980. facility of a union activist.""
The General Counsel alleges that Hall was discharged Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, it is found
for union activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. Respondents discharge of Joe Hadley did not violate
This allegation is based on a conversation that supposed- Seon 8( the
ly took place between Hall and Jim Lauren, a repre-
sentative with West Coast Industrial Relations, during an H. Le to Kathy Lauderdale
employee luncheon at the Elm Street plant on February
22, 1980. During this luncheon Lauren allegedly ques- Kathy Lauderdale started June 25, 1979, at Respond-
tioned Hall about whether the employees needed a union ent's Burnham Street facility where she remained until
and Hall answered affirmatively. August. In August she moved to the Fort Custer plant,
Counsel for the General Counsel failed to adduce any and in September transferred to the Elm Street plant in
evidence that Hall's response to Lauren's query was personnel. She began working as the secretary to the di-
communicated to any representative of Respondent. Hall rector of personnel, Mark Nicolai, at the end of January
wore a union insignia. 1980 after serving as the secretary to the previous direc-
The General Counsel has failed to establish a prima tor of personnel from the time of her transfer to the Elm
facie case sufficient to support the inference that protect- Street plant
ed conduct was a motivating factor in Respondent's deci- She was employed until April 8, 1980, as Nicolai's sec-
sion to discharge Hall after he was rehired. Furthermore, retary and she left voluntarily. After she left Respond-
Respondent has adduced sufficient evidence to support ent's employ, she testified for the Depament of Labor
an inference that Respondent would have discharged progm, an s e testified for t eatent of abo
Hall in the absence of protected conduct on the basis of the plant at the time of Tom Mell's death rehiring of in-
Respondent's policy not to rehire employees discharged d vidal at t h t e m M el s d eat n o
for cause. The 8(a)3) allegation in connection with dividuals, about Dave Hall. She also spoke to Pete Cas-
Hall's discharge is dismissed. sidy from the Steelworkers about "[t]he conditions of
how Dave Hall got rehired. The conditions of [her] ter-
G. The Discharge of Joe Hadley mination and why it involved David Hall." She also dis-
Joe Hay ws hired by Rt on A t cussed the above issues with Linda Rabin of the NationalJoe Hadley was hired by Respondent on August 31, Labor Relations Board and gave testimony on the seven1979, and was terminated April 11, 1980, after a slow- m en who were discarged ave tesimoy on the seve
down in production necessary to produce higher quality m e n w h o w e re db sc h ard on N o v em b er 2 , 99, f o r
cars was instituted. 22 This slowdown resulted in the ter- u o n b u o n s a nd o n and
mination of 28 employees who had the worst absentee H all, all employees discharged by Respondent.
and productivity records in the weeks ending April 11, On May 8, 1980, Respondent, through counsel Jona-
18, and 25. Hadley was one of three terminated on April than Miller, sent a letter (G.C. Exh. 16) to Katherine
11 and the other 25 followed in the next 2 weeks. The Lauderdale suggesting legal action if she were to contin-
three terminated on April 11 were discharged by Nico- ue her testimony before "various organizations and/or
lai, the personnel director. His decision to terminate governmental entities." In this letter Respondent states
Hadley was based on Hadley's excessive absenteeism. that "[a] person should always furnish such information
The remaining 25 were terminated by a management which dictated by her conscience [sic]," but that "[i]f the
group. Company is damaged by any furnishing of any informa-
The General Counsel has shown that Hadley was a tion which is incorrect, or about which a person has so
union partisan. Hadley distributed union authorization little knowledge as to make the matter misleading then
cards and literature and wore a UAW button daily. He the Company will pursue their legal remedy." The Gen-
was known to supervisors at the air cargo facility as a eral Counsel claims that the May 8, 1980, letter constitut-
union activist. ed a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
However, it appears that Respondent has successfully As asserted by Respondent "there is no violation of
demonstrated that it would have taken the same action the law either on the basis of the content of the letter
against Hadley in the absence of his engaging in union nor as to Kathy Lauderdale inasmuch as she was not an
activities. Hadley and many other employees were on employee at the time of the receipt of the letter." More-
layoff when Respondent found it necessary to terminate over, the General Counsel has cited no authority for his
claim that the fact that "Lauderdale was not an employ-
n Hadley worked for Respondent from August 31 to December 28, ee of Respondent at either the time of the testimony or
1979, when he voluntarily quit. He was rehired January 17, 1980, laid off
for lack of work on March 3, to March 13, 1980, and again from April 3 the tme she received the letter is immaterial." That part
until April 17, 1980. He was finally terminated the last time he was on
layoff. " Wright Line, supra.
.
'
f r i ti it r t t ti onde 's i a
i ll ti i r ti t t - ect o n d a t 3 do h eAct
ll i S ec t lo n 8(a)(3) of the Act.
. tter le

w o r e u n o n i i i .
r l l t li i a l f
ie ff t t rt t i f r that protect- Street plant.
t ti ti i t' i il ,
i t i r ll ft r r ir . t , e a s e sen-
espondent has adduced s ffici t vi c t s rt e t 's epo sh e te f t prtm e f r,
i f r t t t l ischarged'Aprpoga sh e testified he D p rtment L r,
ll i t s c f r t t t t i f C E T A pl t ram, and spoke about "s fety conditions at
s t's li t t r ir l y s i r i ipduls a tbt h e t m e o f aT o el s d eat hl r e hso t n g o fCa'
X l ti ti l , t ll l
ll'
f r o m t h e
Joe Hadley was rediD espondent ugus 31, l , . A * 1
i l l t i ns r and g ve t sti on t n
ti r li
r disch ged o n v e b er 2, 1 79, f o r
" l l wearing ni tt Ri
n e, Hadley, Hunt,
al l, ll l i r t.
, n M a , 9 8 0 , , t l
ill r,

,

it t i t , t l l it t it i
" l r f r s t fr ugust 31 to ece ber 28 ee f espondent at either the ti e of the testi ony or
, , lai off
, the i i
1 i t i , r .
f t .
a
r i r t r t t i i
u nt l y. t s left
ep ent fLbr
l c e e e ee sc a e
a
November for
and on ne
8 1
, 3, i
e t m e s h e
f t .

MODEL A AND MODEL T MOTOR CAR CORP. 569
of the complaint referring to the May 8, 1980, letter is cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
dismissed. action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
also having been found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
I. Foreman Wagner's Alleged Threat of Closure and charged Michael Smead on November 2, 1980, Roy Rine
Relocation on February 11, 1980, and James Hunt on March 17,
The General Counsel plants his claim that Foreman 1980, respectively, and has since failed and refused to re-
William Wagner's remarks were in violation of Section instate them, in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act, it
8(a)X) of the Act on the following incident described by is recommended that Respondent remedy such unlawful
employee Charles Pelfrey in the record as follows: conduct. In accordance with Board policy, it is recom-
mended that Respondent offer the foregoing employees
Well, I asked Mr. Wagner if there was any truth immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
to the Company moving to Indiana because there or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially
had been rumors going around that the Company equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
was going to move. Frequently rumors travel or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, dis-
through the Company, and he told me that hethroughn the Company, and he told me that heg missing if necessary any employees hired on or since the
wasn't sure whether or not the Company was going. . .
nto m ve, but if it wasn that he had planned on dates of their discharges to fill any of said positions, and
moving with the Company. I asked him if the em- make them whole for any loss of earnings that they may
ployees would have the opportunity to move with have suffered by reason of Respondent's acts herein de-
the Company or whether they would just be left tailed, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
behind, and if the Company would hire all new em- the amount they would have earned from the date of
ployees, and he told me that the Company would their unlawful discharge to the date of an offer of rein-
probably give the employees a chance to relocate statement, less net earnings during such period, with in-
except for the union organizers. He said that the terest thereon, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
Company would not be taking them with them, be- manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
cause if they moved, that is what they would be Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpo-
trying to get away from in the first place. ration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).2
It is further recommended that Jeffrey Smith and
Since Wagner's remarks were highly speculative and Richard Burton be reimbursed for any lost pay by reason
lacked positiveness, it is not found that they, as claimed of their aforesaid unlawful suspensions, with interest, in
by the General Counsel, constituted threat of closure and accordance with the Board's usual policy and that their
relocation. suspensions be expunged from their personnel records.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding,
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the the following recommended:
Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for ju-
risdiction to be exercised herein. ORDER 25
2. The Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Respondent, Model A and Model T Motor Car
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- Reproduction Corporation, Battle Creek, Michigan, its
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair 1. Cease and desist from:
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of (a) Discouraging union or concerted activities of its
the Act. employees or their membership in United Steelworkers
4. By unlawfully discharging Michael Smead on No- of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or International Union,
vember 2, 1980, Roy Rine on February 11, 1980, and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
James Hunt on March 17, 1980, Respondent has engaged ment Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section organization by unlawfully discriminatorily discharging
8(aX1) and (3) of the Act. its employees or discriminating in any other manner with
5. By unlawfully suspending Jeffrey Smith and Rich- respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any
ard Burton for 3 days commencing February 18, 1980, term or condition of employment in violation of Section
and ending February 21, 1980, for lawfully distributing 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
union literature at Respondent's plant on February 14,
1980, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. their union activities or sympathies
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- 24 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1 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
THE REMEDY findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it shall be deemed waived for all purposes
. ' . ,
, , t ,
(a)(l)
. t l t r ri t ri il r i l j , is-
,
wasnt sre wethr ornot e ompny ws ging missing if necessary any employees hired on or since the' , ... r, . - .
to move, but if it was, that he had planned on
d a t e s o f their discharges to fill any of said positions, and
i it t . I i i t - m a
ke t h e m w ho le fo r l o ss o f i t

fe r e d b re
e d , b
t h e a m o t t l r fr t t f
l ,
. t e e st
,
"

, it i , i i , it i t t, i
t r l l, tit t t t l '
i fr t ir r l r r .
t, i
, ll i :
25
T h
,
, l
l ll i i i t il i i
) i it
. i
r rt f r i , , t iti i
21, , for la fully distributing 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
i lit r t r t t' l Unlawfully interrogating employees in respect to
, t i l ti l) .
i i i
f ti it i t i f - ^ ^practies afectingcommece witin th meanig of ec- 2 See, generally, Isis Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
) 11 ti ril i . .
i . . t l
t

1
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Unlawfully soliciting grievances from employees in payroll records, social security payment records, time-
order to influence their union affection. cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
(d) Continuing in effect an invalid no-solicitation rule. cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
(e) Unlawfully threatening reprisals because of em- under the terms of this recommended Order.
ployees' union sympathies. (d) Post at its facilities at Battle Creek, Michigan,
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2'
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act. Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Re-
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- spondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
fectuate the policies of the Act: ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
(a) Offer Michael Smead, Roy Rine, and James Hunt consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
or other rights and privileges, discharging if necessary faced, or covered by any other material.
any employees hired to replace them, and make them (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
whole for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
reason of Respondent's unlawful discharge of them in ac- steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
cordance with the recommendations set forth in the sec- IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
(b) Make whole Jeffrey Smith and Richard Burton, than those found in this Decision.
with interest, for any lost pay they may have suffered by
reason of their unlawful suspensions from February 18 to i In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
21, 1980. States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
.

. '
,
e

s

i t it
,
(c) r r , t, il l t t
r d e r o f t h e N at i o n al L b o r R el
ti
B o rd
ll t r -
or .

a