Stratford Furniture Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1031
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION ' and UNITED FURNITURE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA , CIO . Case No. 33-CA-155. October 04, 1951
Decision and Order
On June 13, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of
these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent that they are con-
sistent with this Decision and Order.
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following acts of interro-
gation : 2 (1) Plant Superintendent Valerio's interrogation of Cousar
as to how the employees felt about the Union; (2) Valerio's interroga-
tion of Manning as to whether anybody had been talking about the
Union in the plant ; (3) Office Manager Haynes' interrogation of
Manning as to whether anyone had talked to him about the Union;
and (4) Assistant Plant Superintendent- Harris' interrogation of
Thomas as to whether he had voted for the Union in the election.
However, we do not adopt the Trial" Examiner's finding that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by Valerio's questioning of
Thomas as to whether the latter knew how a union sticker had come
to be placed on a water fountain near, Thomas' working area. The
question was somewhat obtuse; and in the particular circumstances
it is unlikely to have interfered with, restrained, or coerced Thomas
in the exercise of rights protected by the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner dismissed that portion of the complaint
which alleged that the disciplinary, layoff of Lyons, Pannell, and
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) -of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Reynolds,
and Styles ]. i . , ', ,
2 See Standard -Coosa -Thatcher Co;itpany, 85 NLRB 1358
96 NLRB No. 157. -
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rakestraw violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. We do not
agree with this conclusion.
As is fully detailed in the Intermediate Report, these three em-
ployees were laid off for a period of 30 days because they had absented
themselves from the plant in order to attend a representation proceed-
ing before this Board, after having been refused time off for that
purpose by Plant Superintendent Valerio. The Trial Examiner
recognized the relevance of the Board's recent decision in Superior
Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 586,3 in which a refusal to permit employees
to attend a conference with Board representatives, and the subsequent
disciplining of such employees for attending the conference was found
to have been discriminatorily motivated by a desire to frustrate the
union's organizational efforts, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3). The Trial Examiner concluded, however, that the instant case is
distinguishable from the Superior case, in that here the evidence sup-
ports the Respondent's contention that in denying the time off it was-
motivated by legitimate business considerations. We cannot agree.
We are satisfied that a preponderance of the evidence on the record as
a whole in this case compels the same conclusion that the Board
reached in the Superior case.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not consider persuasive the fact
that the record contains no evidence of open hostility by the Respond-
ent to the organizational efforts of its employees. The several acts of-
unlawful interrogation by high managerial officials discussed above
demonstrate, at the very least, that the Respondent was concerned
over the advent of the Union in its plant. While that conduct may not
in itself demonstrate open hostility to the Union and a desire to frus-
trate organizational activities, it is of considerable significance in
appraising the Respondent's true motive in denying time off to attend
the Board hearing.
Among the factors relied upon by the Trial Examiner in concluding
that the Respondent was motivated by legitimate nondiscriminatory-
considerations was his finding that the Respondent had always fol-
lowed a very strict policy against permitting employees time off except-
for "important reasons." However, a careful analysis of the several
instances in which employees were permitted to absent themselves
from work disclosed by the record convinces us that the Respondent's
leave policy was far more liberal and flexible than found by the Trial'
Examiner 4 Thus, for example, employee Lyons had at an earlier time
been granted time off, without discipline, solely on his representation
that he "didn't feel like working." On another occasion, employee,
8 See also Reliance Manufacturing company , 60 NLRB 946.
4 The several instances which follow are either not detailed at all, or are only mentioned'
In part , in the Intermediate Report. In each instance the testimony involved is uncon-
tradicted and we credit it.
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1033
Wiggington had requested time off in order to get her car which was
being repaired. Her foreman, Kellerman, disapproved, saying it
would leave him "in a spot," and, although Wiggington promised to
get a substitute, she left without informing Kellerman that she had
been unable to do so. She was allowed to return without any discipli-
nary action. Employee Howell testified that he was granted time off
because "I just had plenty of work for them [employees ahead of him
on the production line] to do," and 2 weeks after the incident involved
in the present case employee Manning had walked off the job in the
middle of the shift and remained away for several days without being
disciplined. Even Plant Superintendent Valerio's own appraisal of
the Respondent's leave policy is hardly consistent with the Trial
Examiner's conclusion. When asked what constituted a valid excuse
for time off Valerio testified, "if he [the employee] felt himself that
it was imperative for the happiness of himself and his wife, why there
was nothing else I could do."
In addition to the leave policy itself, the particular manner in which
the request of the discriminatees was handled demonstrates the dis-
criminatory character of the denial of their request. The record
clearly shows, as the Trial Examiner noted, that Valerio had delegated
to the foremen of the various departments authority to grant em-
ployees permission to take time off. Although Valerio testified that
where the foremen were in doubt they were required to consult with
him, in each instance, about which there is testimony in the record
where Valerio was consulted, it is clear that he did no more than refer
it back to the foreman, leaving it to the foreman's discretion. In the
instant case, as is detailed in the Intermediate Report, Lyons, Pannell,
and Rakestraw, after being informed by Union Representative Walker
that their presence at the scheduled representation proceeding would
be necessary, requested and were granted permission by their respec-
tive foremen to take the time off. Subsequently, these foremen, who
were aware of the reason for the request and were presumably in doubt
as to the correctness of having granted the request, referred the matter
to Valerio. In this instance Valerio departed from his customary
practice and took the matter into his own hands. Calling the em-
ployees into his office to a meeting attended by the vice president of
the Respondent, Valerio issued the order reversing the foremen and
denying the request for leave. The manner in which this request for
leave became a matter of great concern to high officials of the Re-
spondent,5 and resulted in reversing the decision of the foremen in
contrast to the casual way in which such requests had been handled in
6 In this connection it may be noted that, according to the uncontradicted and credited
testimony of Lyons, Foreman Whitehead , in advising Lyons and Pannell that Valerio
wanted to see them on the morning of October 18, 1950 , said "you should have seen
[Valerio's ] face when [ I] was telling him about this hearing, his face was as long as his
leg.,,
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the past in reliance on the judgment of the foremen, further reveals
the discriminatory purpose in the Respondent's conduct.
That such was the purpose is most persuasively demonstrated by the
speciousness of the Respondent's contention that it refused to grant
leave to attend the hearing because the Respondent was busy and
needed the employees in question on the job. It must be remembered
that the employees had requested only 2 hours off. They were penal-
ized by a layoff of 30 days. Thus we are asked to believe that the
Respondent, after deciding that it could not spare these employees for
2 hours, found it possible to dispense with their services for 30 days.
We find it difficult to believe that an employer, motivated solely by
the legitimate business consideration of avoiding any production de-
lays during a busy season, would have made such a choice. Nor are
we persuaded, as was the Trial Examiner, by the evidence that on the
day the employees absented themselves, supervisory officials had to fill
in on the line to do the work which Lyons was to have performed.
There is no evidence whatsoever that supervisors continued to fill in
beyond the first day, nor that any of the three discriminatees were
replaced, or their work performed by other employees during the re-
mainder of their disciplinary layoff. We note, moreover, as Valerio
admitted, that one of the three discriminatees, Pannell, had at least
2 hours' work stacked up ahead of his line, at the time he intended to
be absent from the plants Yet the Respondent made no exception in
his case. If the Respondent was motivated by a desire to avoid any
interruptions in production, there does not appear to be any valid rea-
son for not at least permitting Pannell to attend the hearing.'
In view of all of these circumstances we conclude that the reason
asserted by the Respondent for having denied the request for time
off was a mere pretext to disguise its true motive which was to interfere
with the organizational activities of its employees. We find that by
denying the request, and by subsequently imposing a disciplinary lay-
off on Lyons, Pannell, and Rakestraw, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1).8
6 The record establishes that one of the accepted methods of obtaining time off was to
get ahead of the rest of the production line. See the incident involving employee Howell
discussed above.
7 Although Valerio testified that he intended to use Pannell in some other work, there
is no evidence as to what the work was , or that any other employee was used to perform
such work.
8 As is noted ' in the *Intermediate Report , a fourth 'employee, Dickerson , was also sum-
moned to Valerio 's office on October 18, 1950 , and there warned that if he attended the
hearing he would likewise be suspended for 30 days. Dickerson , however , did not leave
the plant and was not suspended: For reasons indicated above we find 'that by threaten-
ing Dickerson with suspension the Respondent further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
In view of our disposition of the issue presented in this case it becomes unnecessary to,
and we do not , pass upon the General Counsel 's alternative contention that a denial of
an employee 's reasonable request to attend a proceeding of this Board is per se viola-
tive of the Act even if not discriminatorily motivated.
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1035
Because such conduct amounts to a discrimination in the hire and
tenure of employment which necessarily discouraged membership in
the Union, it also violated Section 8 (a) (3). However, whether the
Respondent's conduct be viewed as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
or of Section 8 (a) (3) we find, as noted below, that it is necessary to
order back pay for these three employees in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Remedy .
It has been found that the Respondent violated the Act by dis-
criminating with respect to the hire and tenure, of employment of
J. R. Lyons, J. T. Pannell, and H. D. Rakestraw. We shall order
that the Respondent make these employees whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from
the date of the beginning of his discriminatory layoff to the date
he was reinstated to the Respondent's employment, less his net earn-
ings during that period.9 The back pay due, if any, shall be com-
puted in accordance with the formula in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and, in accordance with that decision, we shall also
order that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board
and its agents all records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts
due as back pay.
Because the Respondent, in addition to illegally interrogating em-
ployees about their union activities, has also discriminated in the
hire and tenure of employment, we are persuaded that there exists
a danger of the commission by the Respondent of these and other
unfair labor practices in the future.10 In order, therefore, to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to
prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and
thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that the
Respondent shall cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Additional Conclusions of Law
1. By threatening its employees with disciplinary action for taking
leave to attend a Board proceeding, the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
of the Act.
0 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
10 See May Department Stores v. N. L. R B , 326 U. S. 376, affirming as modified 145.
F. 2d 66 ( C. A. 8).
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of J. R. Lyons, J. T. Pannell, and H. D. Rakestraw, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act. -
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Stratford Furniture Corpo-
ration, New Albany, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities
and affiliations.
(b) Threatening them with reprisal for engaging in concerted
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(c) Discouraging membership in United Furniture `Yorkers of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminatory layoffs, or by discriminating in any other manner
with regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term
or condition of employment of any of its employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Furniture `Yorkers
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole John Lyons, J. T. Pannell, and H. D. Rakestraw,
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against them in the manner described in the
section of this Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records,
time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(c) Post at its plant in New Albany, Mississippi, copies of the notice
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1037
-attached hereto, and marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt there-
of in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
activities and affiliations.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisal for engaging
in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,, or any other labor organization
of our employees, by discriminating in any manner with regard
to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL make whole JOHN LYONS, J. T. PANNELL, and H. D.
RAKESTRAW for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the
discrimination practiced against them, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from be-
coming members of the above -named union or any other labor organi-
zation except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agree-
ment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated ------------ By ----------------------------------=----
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Furniture Workers of America, CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued
a complaint dated April 4, 1951, against Stratford Furniture Corporation, herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent: (1) On October 18, 1950, suspended and laid off for a period of
30 days J. R. Lyons, J. T. Pannell, and H. D. Rakestraw because of their mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union, particularly their efforts and
actions in attending a proceeding of the Board ; and (2) from on or about June 1,
1950, engaged in certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion.
The Respondent filed an answer on about April 19, 1951, in which it admitted
the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New Albany, Mississippi, on April 25
and 26, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representa-
tive. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. None
of the parties presented oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing. The
General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Stratford Furniture Corporation is a Delaware corporation with an office
and plant located in New Albany, Mississippi , where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of furniture.
During the year 1950, the Respondent purchased raw materials, consisting
principally of wood, glue, and upholstery material and having a value in, excess
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1039
of $125,000. Approximately 90 percent of _ this amount was transported to Re-
spondent's plant from points outside the State of Mississippi. During the same
period, the Respondent produced and sold finished products worth in excess of
$150,000, of which value approximately 90 percent was shipped to points outside
the State of Mississippi.
As of October 1950 the Respondent employed approximately 230 persons at
its New Albany plant.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization which
admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Suspension of J. R. Lyons, J. T. Pannell, and' H. D. Rakestraw
Lyons and Pannell were employed by the Respondent as upholsterers "on the
line" under Foreman James Whitehead. There were approximately 12 em-
ployees on Whitehead's line. Rakestraw worked in the inspecting and shipping
department under Foreman Henry Kellerman.
Lyons was an active adherent of the Union. He distributed union literature
and solicited employees- to join the Union at the plant during his nonworking
time. During a rest period on or about October 2, 1950, Lyons and another
employee were at the time-card rack, copying names of employees on a piece
of paper. Plant Superintendent Phil Valerio approached them and asked what
they were doing. Lyons replied that he wanted to become acquainted with the
employees in the plant Valerio then remarked, "Who are you kidding?"
At a union meeting held on about October 11, Lyons, Pannell, Rakestraw, and
employee James Dickerson were elected as members of an employee organizing
committee. Lyons was selected as the committee's chairman. Knox Walker, a
subregional director of the Union, advised the members of the committee that
it was necessary for them to attend a hearing in a representation proceeding
which was scheduled to be held by the Board on October 181 The committee
members told Walker that they could get, permission from the Respondent to be
off from work in order to attend the hearing.
At about 2: 30 p. in. on October 17, Lyons and Pannell told Foreman Whitehead
that they wanted his permission to be off from work for 2 hours during the
morning of October 18 so that they could attend the hearing. Whitehead replied
"It is all right with me." At another union meeting during the night of October
17, Lyons advised Walker that lie had permission to attend the hearing. `
Shortly after the start of work on October 18 and at about 7: 30 a. m., Rake-
straw told Foreman Kellerman that he was a union committeeman and requested
time off from work so that he could attend a hearing. 'When Kellerman questioned
him concerning the nature of the bearing, Rakestraw tbld him "a bearing by the
Labor Board to see if we get an election . . . or not for the Union." Kellerman
then gave his permission.' Early that same morning, Dickerson also asked his
foreman, Dan Humenick, for, rime off from work in order to attend the hearing.
Iumenick gave him a noncommittal answer. At about 8:30 a. in., Lyons and
Pannell were notified by Whitehead that Valerio wanted to see them in his office.
Whitehead accompanied them to the office where Valerio ; Byron Massel, vice
president of Respondent ; Milton NuDelman, a supervisory employee ; and Kather-
1 Stratford Furniture Corporation, Case No. 32-RC-278, December 1950, not reported
in printed volumes of Board decisions.
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ine Kitchens, Valerio's secretary, were present 2 The following conversation took
place :
VALERIO. If you were sick it would be a different story, or if your parents
or family needed you, or you had to attend a funeral. But to take four people
out of the whole shop to go to the hearing would make quite a bit of difference.
If you were required to go, the court would have notified us. However, we
have received no notice that you are required to go to the hearing. It is not
necessary that we go, so why should you have to go?
LYONS. They said that we would get paid for the time we were off. The
representative said he wanted us to be there, and that he would pay us.
MASSEL. I think now is the time for you to make up your mind who you
are working for.
VALERIO. If you go, you will be suspended for 30 days. We have a job
here for you to do and it must be done.
LYONS. That's a nice way to do us, but I am going.
PANNELL. I am going too.
VALERIO. If both you men go to the meeting today and stay off work, you
will be suspended for 30 days. We are interested in producing merchandise.
LYONS. I am interested in making a decent living for my family.
VALERIO. The rest of this is left up to you, and if you go, you must suffer
the consequences. That goes for you too, Pannell.
LYONS. It is not that we are trying to be smart or anything. We just
think it is important that we go to the meeting.
MASSEL. We do not consider it important to be off work unless you are
sick and I suggest that you get the facts straight.
VALERIO. Are Rakestraw and Dickerson also required to go to the meeting?
LYONS. Yes
VALErtro. All of you that go to this meeting will be suspended for 30 days.
LYONS. Or maybe not ever come back.
MASSEL. We said you would be suspended, not laid off.
LYONS. I still say it is a very nice way of doing it.
PANNELL. Well, we will have to stay off for 30 days, then.
VALERIO. Whitehead, do you think this is fair?
WHITEHEAD. Yes, I think it is fair.
At about 8: 40 a. m., Rakestraw was called to Valerio's office and they had a
conversation substantially as follows :
VALERIO. We understand you want to go to a meeting. We cannot allow
you to be off. If you were sick or your family needed you and you were
obligated to go, it would be different. But these circumstances are different.
If you do go, you will be suspended for 30 days. You will not be allowed to
come back to work until the 30 days are up. I am not going to stop you from
going. It is up to you.
RAKESTRAW. Yes, I am going.
Dickerson also was summoned to Valerio's office and Valerio made in substance the
same statement to him as he did to Rakestraw. However, Dickerson told Valerio
that he would not attend the hearing since he could not afford to be suspended
for 30 days.
Lyons, Pannell, and Rakestraw attended the Board's hearing on October 18.
Their names were noted formally on the record as appearing on behalf of the
2 At Valerlo's direction , Kitchens took notes on all that was said at the meeting and
later transcribed the notes.
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1041
TJnion, and during the course of the hearing they assisted Walker in the presenta-
tion of the Union's case. The Respondent also made an appearance at the hearing.
Lyons, Pannell, and Rakestraw returned to the plant before the start of work
the following morning. Their time cards had been removed from the rack. Bob
Harris, assistant plant superintendent, told them that he had orders not to let
them work due to their suspension and that they should see Valerio if they wished
to discuss the matter further. Thereafter, they saw Valerio who told them that
he had not changed his mind about their suspension. At the end of 30 days Lyons,
Pannell, and Rakestraw were reinstated to their jobs by the Respondent.
Concerning the reasons why he refused to grant time off to the three employees
involved and their suspension, Valerlo testified as follows:
A. Well, during that particular month, we had an awful lot of work to
do and, in fact, one of the reasons why Mr. Massel was down from Chicago
was to see if we couldn't get as many shipments as we could during the
month of October. We had had quite a bit of absenteeism. before, and it
was hurting our production entirely too much, and I had a meeting just
about that time with some of the foremen to stress upon them the necessity
that all employees be present, because the mode of operations that we have
isn't of a nature where one person can do the job entirely. Each person is
dependent on somebody else. Their wages are dependent on someone else,
and I stressed as hard as I possibly could for them to tell their employees,
tell their immediate employees to be present as much as they possibly could
because we had so much work to do. In fact, as I recall, October was the
biggest month we have had as far as sales and shipments are concerned
since we have been in operation, and that, more or less, was the position I
took in reference to the four boys involved that day. I couldn't see where
I should allow them to be off from work without our shipments being
jeopardized, and our work, and our customers being unhappy in the fact
they will receive their merchandise later on.
* * * * * * *
A. Well, both Pannell and Lyons, in my estimation, are very good men.
They are very good upholsterers, adept to the work. I spent a lot of time
training them personally. I felt that I didn't want to lose them outright,
but some discipline was necessary. Exactly what discipline was necessary,
I really couldn't establish, but something had to be done, because I couldn't
allow a person to just come out and say "Look, I am not [sic] going to go,
Phil," although I have the final authority, and it seemed in my opinion to
more or less suspend them for 30 days, with the intentions of taking them
back-well, it was the first occasion in our shop that that question ever
arose, and I thought it might teach others to realize the importance of
their work and the necessity of being there every day.
A. I asked Mr. Whitehead to have both Mr. Pannell and Lyons come to
the office, that I wanted to talk to them and to explain to them just what
our position was, and that we just couldn't afford to let them off. We had
just too, much work to do on that particular day and particular month.
Also, Valerio testified without contradiction that on October 18 he and Harris
worked on the line in order to replace Lyons and Pannell and that Whitehead
"also had to help." With respect to testimony of Lyons' to the effect that during
the morning of October 18 Pannell was ahead of the line on his particular work,
Valerio testified,
3 Pannell did not appear at the hearing as a witness.
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- A. Well, as I recall, he had about four sofas ahead , sir, but I did have
at the time other plans for him. He could have performed other operations
in the shop , which I have used him at times. I have moved him from this
particular operation to others in the shop such as when a car of lumber is
coming in or when a car of cardboards-boxes come in, we are short in
that particular department , and we-as a rule; sometimes move one man
from one department to another to help out, and, as I said , the month was
very, very busy , and I didn 't see any reason to let him off, sir.
Witnesses for the General Counsel testified to a number of instances when they
had received permission from their foremen to take time off from work. How-
ever, with some few exceptions the absences involved sickness or death in an
employee 's family. Ocie Howell testified that on one occasion he was granted
time off by his foreman because he moved ; that another time he was granted
time off on a Saturday when he was ahead of the rest of the line in his work ;
that he did not speak to Valerio on either occasion ; and that his foreman often
had refused his requests for time off from work . Alvis Grubbs testified that
during October 1950 his foreman granted his request for time off after the lunch
hour so that he could get license plates for his automobile , and that he was absent
from work for about 1 hour . Rakestraw testified that in early January 1951
he requested Foreman Kellerman for time off for moving ; that Kellerman stated
that since the plant was busy and he was needed , he should see Valerio ; that
Valerio told him that he would let Kellerman make the decision ; and that Keller-
man then gave him permission to take off a half day . Nellie Wiggington
testified that shortly before the hearing herein , her foreman gave her permission
to take time off from work on a -Saturday in order to get her car in another
town where it was being overhauled ; that on the next Saturday her car broke
down and he let her off from work early so that she could ride home with another
employee ; and that her car was her only means of transportation to and from
work.
Concerning the Respondent 's policy in granting employees time off, Valerio
was questioned and testified as follows :
Q. Mr. Valerio , have you had occasion to establish any policies in reference
to time off for production , shipping employees , those members of the shop-
under your jurisdiction with reference to when they may or may not be off
from work?
A. We have had several meetings with the supervisory help, and I have
more or less stated to them that in cases where the necessity was dire and
that nothing could be done on our part to persuade the certain individuals
to stay on the work, that they were perfectly free to let them off, but that
I was to be advised at all times, which I have been . I couldn't possibly
listen to every, oh , more or less excuse or desire of all the employees to
take time off, and I more or less designated that authority to them, to-
let them decide as they were a better judge because they were in their
respective-
Q. In what cases?
A. Oh, in numerous cases, where a person is sick , where a person is needed
at home because of illness at home, because of death in his family , or other
causes that we just had no control over, or they had no control over ; that we-
just couldn 't see any way where we could keep them from going.
Q. In other cases, is there any other policy?
A. Well , I have told them that in any other cases where they themselves
thought or had any question , that I was to be consulted at all times , and my-
decision in all cases would always be final.
STRATFORD FURNITURE CORPORATION 1043
Valerio testified without contradiction that about March 1950 , an employee re-
quested and was granted time off on a Saturday in order to obtain medical
attention ; that he discharged her when he found out later that she had given
a false reason ; and that he discharged another employee about March 1951 be-
cause he took an unauthorized leave of absence on a Saturday.
I believe and find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden
of proving that Lyons , Pannell , and Rakestraw were suspended from work dis-
criminatorily . In its recent decision in Superior Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 586,
the Board holds:
We also agree with the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondent
refused the "Committee 's" request for a day off to attend a conference with
the Board 's representative , and subsequently imposed a penalty upon the
members of the Committee for taking a day off contrary to the Respondent's
instructions , because of its animus against the Union and a desire to frus-
trate the Union 's efforts to organize its employees , and thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act.
The Board also found that the denial of the request for time off was discrimina-
tory.
In the instant case there is nothing substantial in the record to indicate that
the Respondent had an animus against the Union or desired to frustrate the
Union 's organizing efforts. Valerio's questioning of Lyons in the card-rack
incident has been related above . The General Counsel does not contend , nor in_
my opinion could it be found, that Valerio's questioning under the circumstances
constitutes interference . As will be hereinafter related and found, the Respond-
ent in some few instances did interrogate its employees , or prospective em-
ployees, concerning their union sympathies and activities . However , I do not
believe that plain interrogation is sufficient to justify findings such as the Board_
made in the Superior case.
Further , I do not believe or find that the Respondent 's refusal of the em-
ployees' requests for time off to attend the hearing was discriminatory. The-
fact that the foremen at first granted permission is not conclusive . When Val-
erio reversed them during his meetings with Lyons , Pannell , Rakestraw, and_
Dickerson, he gave valid reasons for his action . In substance , he stated that
the plant was busy and that the employees were needed on the job. A The un-
disputed fact that he, Harris , and Whitehead were required to work on the-
line is persuasive support for Valerio ' s statement . The evidence conclusively
shows that the Respondent was strict in the matter of time off from work.
With some few exceptions , such as when an employee was ahead in his work,-
it appears that employees were granted time off only when they had important
reasons, even though the requested time off involved a Saturday when they
were performing overtime work. While the activity under consideration un-
questionably is important to employees ' rights under the Act, nevertheless the
General Counsel had the burden of proving illegal interference by the Respond-
ent. This the General Counsel failed to do, since the evidence discloses that
Valerio's refusal of the employees ' request was not in conflict with the Respond-
ent's established policy regarding time off from work.
Accordingly , it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it relates to the alleged discriminatory suspensions of Lyons, Pannell, and
Rakestraw.
B. Interference , restraint, and coercion
James Cousar was employed by the Respondent from about September 1949,
until about April 1950, when be quit his job in order to engage in farming.-
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About August 1950 he went to Valerlo's home and told him that he wished to
return to work for the Respondent. Concerning his conversation with Valerio,
Cousar testified credibly as follows : `
. . . He went and asked me had any of the boys on the line mentioned
the union or said anything about how they felt about it, and I told him
that they said it had been voted on but voted down. So I asked him how
he felt about it, and he said, well, he didn't think that it would work very
good down here in the South. He said maybe up North where there was
more factories, they might work better.
It is found that Valerio's interrogation of Cousar concerning the Union con-
stitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.
Robert Manning first was employed by the Respondent in early August 1950.
He was interviewed for the job by Dorothy Haynes, a supervisory employee
of Respondent . Concerning his conversation with Haynes at the time , Manning
was questioned and testified credibly as follows:'
A. Well, I went up there to see about a job. She interviewed me up there
and talked about union, and she asked me had anyone been talking to me
about the union. At that time they hadn't been, and so *she said something
about the plant didn't want the union in, and asked me was I for or against.
I told her I was neutral ; I wasn't for or against it.
On about October 30 Manning quit his job. He returned to the plant about
a week later and was rehired by Valerio. During their conversation Valerio
asked him if "anybody" had been talking about the Union in the plant. Man-
ning replied that he and some other employees had talked about the Union.'
It is found that Valerio's interrogation of Manning constitutes interference.
An election was conducted by the Board in Case No. 32-RC-278 on December
20, 1950 At sometime after the election Harris asked employee Whitman
Thomas if he had voted for the Union. Thomas replied that the question was
"unfair," but told him that he had "lost" his vote.' Harris' interrogation of
Thomas is found to constitute interference.
At about the same time Thomas had a conversation with Valerio. A union
sticker was posted on a water fountain which was near Thomas' place of work.
Valerio asked Thomas if he knew "how come that sticker was up there." Thomas
replied that he did not know about it.' It is found that Valerio's interrogation
of Thomas. constitutes interference.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with its operations described in Section I, above, have a close,
* Valerio admitted talking to Cousar about the Union , but testified that Cousar brought
up the subject . He testified that he did not recall questioning Cousar concerning the
attitude of other employees toward the Union. The undersigned believes that Cousar
is the more reliable witness in this connection
5 Manning testified that his interview with Haynes took place in the Respondent 's office.
Haynes denied that she had a conversation with Manning at the plant . She testified
that she talked to him at her home, but denied that the Union was mentioned during the
conversation . The undersigned believes that Manning is the more reliable and credible
witness in this connection. Therefore , her denials are not credited.
Manning testified credibly to the above conversation . Valerio testified that he did
rot "recall" discussing the Union with Manning
' Thomas testified credibly to the above conversation . Harris admitted having a
conversation with Thomas , but denied questioning him about his "union activities "
' Thomas testified credibly to the above conversation . Valerio testified that he knew
a "lot" of union stickers were around the plant both before and after the election, but
that he did not "remember " talking to Thomas on the subject.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC., LOCAL 943 1045
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has interrogated its employees con-
cerning their union sympathies and activities. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner
will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating its employees concerning their union sympathies and activ-
ities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
943, A. F. or L. and MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Case No. 16-CD-4. October 24,1951
Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act. On June
7, 1951, Manhattan Construction Company, Inc., herein called the
Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region a
charge against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 943, A. F. of L., herein called the Carpenters, alleging
that the Carpenters had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10 (k) and Sections 101.30 and 101.31 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the
charge and provided for a hearing upon due notice to all the parties.
The hearing was held before Willis C. Darby, hearing officer, on July
3, 1951. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine .witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
96 NLRB No. 160.
974176-52-vol. 96 67