Welsh Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 463
NOTE.-We will notify Juan Soto if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, Fourth
Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn , New York, Telephone No. 596-5386.
Welsh Industries , Inc. and International Union , Allied Industrial
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-4894. Au-
gust 13, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 19 , 1965, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban issued his
Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions , the brief , and the entire record
in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Welsh Industries, Inc.,
Vassar, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as so modified:
'The Trial Examiner found that certain statements contained in the Respondent's
letter to employees dated September 29, 1964, violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
Since this finding is cumulative to other findings of 8(a ) ( 1) violations and does not itself
affect the scope of the Order , we find it unnecessary to, and shall not, pass upon the
validity of that finding by the Trial Examiner.
154 NLRB No. 35.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Amend paragraph 1 (e) of the Recommended Order to read as
follows ;
"(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights 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, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1939."
2. Amend the fifth indented paragraph of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision to read as follows:
EVE WILL NOT in any other 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 the
Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights
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, as modified by the Labor-Man-
agement Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
3. Add the following as the last indented paragraph of the
Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision:
WVE WILL rescind the disciplinary letters issued to Evelyn
Arndt and Florence Smith on September 11, 1964, and remove
any reference in the personnel files of Florence Smith to the
written complaints obtained from employees on September 25,
1964.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF ' THE CASE
Upon charges filed on September 29, 1964, by International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as
the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan),
issued a complaint dated November 24, 1964, against Welsh Industries, Inc , herein
referied to as the Respondent. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(0`6) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In par-
ticular, the complaint alleged that Respondent had violated the Act by reason of
certain disciplinary letters issued to Florence Smith and Evelyn Arndt on or about
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 465
September 11, 1964, by the discharge of Florence Smith on or about September 25,
1964, and by certain other activities discussed below. Respondent duly filed an
answer to the complaint in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint,
but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Sidney J.
Barban at Bay City, Michigan, on February 3 and 4, 1965. All parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to participate, examine witnesses,
and adduce relevant evidence. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were received
from Respondent and General Counsel by March 4, 1965.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Welsh Industries, Inc., is and at all times material herein has been a corporation
duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its only office and place of
business at 6556 South Oak Road in the city of Vassar, Michigan, herein called
the Vassar plant, and is , and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of plastic automotive and appliance parts and
related products. During the fiscal year 1964, which period is representative of
Respondent's operation during the times material herein, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused to be trans-
ported and delivered at its Vassar plant directly from points located outside the
State of Michigan, plastics, paint, and other goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000. During the same period, the Respondent manufactured, sold, and
distributed at the Vassar plant products valued in excess of $50,000, which were
shipped from that plant directly to points located outside the State of Michigan.
The complaint alleged, Respondent's answer admitted, and I find that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. Concerning the disciplinary letters issued to Florence Smith
and Evelyn Arndt on September 11, 1964
The union organizational activities with which we are here concerned began
in August 1964, and were apparently primarily concentrated among the femal.;
employees who seem to compose the bulk of Respondent's work force.' The
undisputed protagonist of the union movement in the plant was employee Florence
Smith, who made the initial contacts which brought the Union into the picture
and at whose home (across the street from the plant) a meeting was held on
September 11, 1964, at which union authorization cards were obtained.
Smith contacted the Union through truckdriver Heidger who was an employee
of United Plastics, a firm doing business with Respondent, and who apparently
was some sort of plant officer in the Union which had been recently installed in
the United Plastics plant. Heidger was one of the drivers delivering materials
to Respondent who was permitted to enter upon Respondent's premises without
restraint prior to September 11, 1964. Smith contacted Heidger on Respondent's
premises and spoke to him about the Union.
Between August and September 11, 1964, Smith talked to a number of other
employees in the plant about the Union, including Eleanor Piazza, Sally Metro,
Evelyn Arndt, Mary Lou Callahan, Unabelle Dye, and Katherine Opperman.
'All the witnesses called by General Counsel with the exception of ex-foreman Laude,
were females and their testimony referred only to female employees. Laude's affidavit,
received with objection, asserts that there were 22 to 23 women and 5 men employees on
the first shift.
206-446-66-vol. 154-31
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Evelyn Arndt, who worked closely with Smith also talked about the Union to
Unabelle Dye and Eleanor Piazza, but did not talk about this subject to any other
employees at work so far as the record shows. The efforts at union organization
among the employees apparently created some degree of dissension which was
upsetting to some of the girls.2 Thus, Katherine Opperman, in a conversation with
Glenn-Welsh, one of the owners of Respondent, after he had solicited her to
consider signing a complaint against Smith, told him that "I can't take it any
more, this feeling among the girls and the way they talk and they keep your
nerves all shook up."
This reaction to the friction present in the plant was evident particularly in the
testimony of Eleanor Piazza who expressed herself as, and appeared to be, a
nervous individual. She testified that in the early part of September, Smith and
Arndt approached her and Unabelle Dye at work and talked to them about the
Union. Thereafter, Piazza went into the office of Erwin (Bud) Welsh, the brother
of Glenn Welsh and the other of the two owners, to complain about Smith and
Arndt. Her testimony with respect to this was as follows:
After this went on three or four days, I went to Bud, in which I was nervous
and I was getting so upset, and I told him that if I had to put up with that,
to have her leave me alone-the girls to quit pestering me about the subject
[of the Union] . . . they were coming to me while I was working and I
wasn't getting out my production of which there was no set production, but
I just wasn't working like I should be . [told him that Smith and Arndt
were the girls who were bothering her about the union] . he told me that
I wouldn't have to work under those conditions and on the following Friday
he wrote the girls a letter of which I didn't see the letter, but I know that
they were told to leave us alone and which they did.
In respect to this conversation, Bud Welsh, who was the only witness called by
Respondent, testified that at some point prior to September 11, Piazza came in his
office and "said that Florence was bothering her" and she was becoming upset
to the point where it was difficult to do her work properly and Piazza wanted to
know if she had to put up with it. Welsh testified that he told Piazza that "we
would watch the situation and see if it continued or what happened." However,
so far as the record shows, Welsh did not thereafter discover any additional activi-
ties of this sort on the part of Arndt and Smith prior to September 11, 1964,
when disciplinary warning notices were issued to Smith and Arndt.3 Welsh, when
referred to Piazza's testimony that she had told him that Smith and Arndt were
talking about the Union on this occasion, stated that he couldn't "honestly say
whether she did or not."
On the basis of the complaint of Piazza, and without prior discussion with fore-
man Laude or Smith or Arndt, Welsh issued letters of reprimand to Arndt and
Smith, with copies to the Michigan Employment Security Commission, each of
which read as follows:
We have recently received complaints from several of the employees to
the effect that you have been bothering them while at work. This is a direct
violation of the Company Rule #4.
They did not want to discuss the exact nature of the trouble; however, they
did seem very upset about it.
This letter is a warning that, if we receive one more complaint against
you, your employment will be terminated immediately?
The record reveals no previous employee complaints against Arndt, although
Welsh asserted in a conversation with Arndt after September 11 that there had
been such complaints. Arndt credibly testified that she had not been reprimanded
previously. While Welsh testified to other complaints against Smith, which will be
'The demeanor and the testimony of the employee witnesses, all called by the General
Counsel, revealed a rather clearly divided demarcation of sentiment, the one exception
being the witness Unabelle Dye. It is noted that the results of the representation elec-
tion, conducted by the Regional Office of the Board, 36 for the Union and 22 against, bear
out the split in sentiment in the plant.
3It is noted that Welsh did not mention, in relating his conversation with Piazza,
that she complained also of Arndt's activities. However, since Arndt was reprimanded
on the basis of the complaint, it is obvious that Piazza's testimony as to this conversa-
tion is the more accurate account of what was said.
* Rule No. 4 , referred to in the reprimand , states that "Excessive talking or bothering
other employees will be grounds for dismissal."
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 467
discussed immediately hereinafter, he did not contend that these asserted prior
complaints (some of which went back at least 2 years) were the cause of the
reprimand on September 11. Respondent's brief with respect to this issue states
that, with respect to Evelyn Arndt, "Mr. Welsh did receive a complaint concerning
this employee which was the basis for the warning letter" [emphasis supplied] and,
with respect to Florence Smith, that the written warning to Smith was issued "as
a result" of Piazza's complaint "that Mrs. Smith was interfering with her work by
stopping at her work station to talk about the Union." It is found that the written
reprimands of September 11 were based solely upon Piazza's complaint, and were
not the result of "complaints from several of the employees" as stated in the letter.
It is further found, consistent with Piazza's testimony, which Welsh did not deny,
that Welsh did know the nature of the complaint against Arndt and Smith, contrary
to the statement contained in the written reprimands.
It does not appear that any employee had been previously disciplined for talk-
ing in the plant,5 although Respondent adduced evidence that one other employee
had been discharged under rule number 4 for spreading gossip about improper
extra-marital relations of employees which caused one of the workers to threaten
physical violence to the offending employee. In that case, the activity on the part
of the offending employee seems to have been condoned for some months.
2. Concerning the discharge of Florence Smith on September 25, 1964
As previously noted, Welsh testified that he had received certain other complaints
about Smith prior to September 11, which Respondent, in its brief, asserts support
its position that Smith was discharged for cause, and which we will now consider.
In this connection, however, it should be noted that Welsh conceded that Smith
was a good worker. Laude, who had been her foreman, testified that she was an
excellent worker; that he had observed her work daily and never saw her engaged
in excessive talking or bothering employees and that only one other employee,
Gail Fuller, had ever complained to him about Smith, that occurring on Septem-
ber 24.6
Respondent further concedes that, for a considerable period, Smith was used
by Respondent as a leadgirl and was given orders or instructions by Glenn Welsh
or Foreman Laude, on either a daily or very frequent basis, to be transmitted to the
other girls and which were to be performed as part of their work. There is a
dispute in the testimony between Welsh and Laude as to whether Welsh told Laude,
about the middle of 1964, to stop using Smith as a leadgirl or possibly to.use her
less, because of complaints from the other girls that she was "too bossy." 7 Be-
cause of the confused nature of Laude's testimony on this point and other factors
noted herein. I find Welsh's testimony more credible on this point .8 However,
Bud Welsh admits that he was aware that Laude continued thereafter to use Smith
as a leadgirl and apparently took no action other than to remind Laude twice or
possibly three times about this. It is my conclusion from this and from the evi-
dence detailed below that Respondent was not greatly disturbed about these alleged
employee complaints or the use of Smith as a leadgirl prior to the advent of the
Union. Thus, Welsh testified on cross-examination, that he had been receiving
5 There was considerable testimony that talking in the plant among the girls was per-
mitted and it is so found Smith, Laude, Evelyn Arndt, and employee Pauline Anthony
testified that Smith did not talk excessively or more than the other girls. Katherine
Opperman, on the other hand, testified that she has observed Smith visiting and talking
to other employees for 2 or 3 years. However, Opperman stated that she did not know
whether Smith was "talking about business" on these occasions, and didn't make any
complaint to Respondent about Smith prior to September 25, 1964, as discussed hereinafter.
Respondent claims, with some merit, that Laude must be considered biased in Smith's
favor. They were personal friends who visited at each other's houses This was known
to other employees. There was also testimony that some of the girls thought that Laude
treated Smith with consideration that he did not show other girls in the shop This
evidence has been noted and given due consideration in weighing Laude's testimony.
7 Welsh's testimony on the point was, in pertinent part, that "we . . . Instructed
Warren [Laudel not to use Mrs. Smith after . . . they complained about her bossy manner
several times and this is the reason that we told Warren not to use her to disseminate
information to various girls. Change it around and not boil it down to one person."
8In general, based on observance of his demeanor and on other factors previously noted
and to be discussed hereinafter, I do not credit Welsh's testimony except as specifically
so stated herein.
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complaints about Smith off and on over a period of 2 years , "but not to where
they were what I considered prevalent or repeated until possibly starting September
of 1964." [Emphasis supplied.]
The nature and timing of these asserted complaints was described as follows by
Welsh on direct examination : first, that these complaints were not directly con-
cerned with Smith's work , but pertained to her "being bossy and riding," thus
putting pressure on other employees in their work . It was stated that such com-
plaints started coming to management very frequently in the middle of 1964.
Thereafter , Welsh testified that for a period of 2 to 3 months prior to Septem-
ber 11 he had been receiving continuing complaints from various girls that Smith
was bothering them at their work .9 Respondent does not claim that Smith was
given either a written or verbal reprimand for these alleged activities . 10 Smith
testified that she had not received any reprimands from management prior to
September 11, 1964, with the exception of one in December 1962 unrelated to
these alleged employee complaints and it is so found.
In the absence of any support for Welsh's testimony that there were continuous
complaints that Smith was bothering employees at their work for a period of 2
or 3 months prior to September 11, 1964 (which is also inconsistent with his
testimony on cross-examination , as previously noted ), that testimony is not
credited . While I am convinced that Welsh was aware that some of the girls
considered Smith "bossy ," the evidence is not convincing that Respondent first
became aware of this in the middle of 1964,11 or that it increased appreciably dur-
ing that period as asserted by Welsh, particularly in view of Welsh's admission
that complaints against Smith did not become "prevalent or repeated" until Sep-
tember 1964 . This is further attested to by the fact that Respondent at no time
brought these matters to Smith 's attention.
After the written reprimand to Smith of September 11, 1964, she asserts that
she did not thereafter talk to employees at work about the Union or concerning
any matters other than related to work. This was confirmed by three employee
witnesses who were questioned concerning the matter , 12 and it is so found.
On September 24, both Bud Welsh and Glenn Welsh were absent from the plant
all day , which Bud Welsh testified was a highly unusual occurrence . According
to Bud Welsh, on the next morning when he and his brother were making their
morning rounds through the plant, five employees , Underwood , Stilwell, Piazza,
Opperman , and Callahan , after approaching Bud and Glenn, "contacted us by
stopping us" at their work stations , and "said they had a real problem the day
before with Smith and they were very upset about it." Welsh asserted that these
employees said that if something wasn 't done about it they would be forced to
quit because they could not work under these conditions any longer. Welsh
states that he told the girls that upon advice of his counsel , because of union
activity , there was very little or nothing he could do with respect to discharging
"Welsh named employees Underwood , Stilwell, Opperman , Callahan , Piazza, and John-
son as making these complaints or some of them . Of these employees , Piazza, Callahan,
and Opperman testified Piazza made no mention of complaints except as noted herein.
Opperman testified that she did not recall making any complaints against Smith other
than the instance on September 25, discussed hereinafter , although she had seen Smith
visiting and talking to other girls over a period of 2 to 3 years. Callahan testified
that prior to September 25, she did not complain to anyone in management concerning
Smith. Callahan was the only employee to testify concerning Smith's "bossy " manner.
Callahan stated that beginning in 1963 Smith 's bossiness was exhibited in her manner
of transmitting orders to the girls and telling them what to do.
io Respondent did give Smith a written reprimand in December 1962 for an admitted
refusal to do work which foreman Laude directed her to do. Other than that Respond-
ent referred only to asserted oral reprimands to Smith prior to September 11, 1964, on
three or four occasions for carelessness.
11 Welsh asserted that even in 1962 when Smith was moved from the second shift to
the first shift, he had been informed that girls claimed that they had difficulties with
Smith. Respondent nevertheless thereafter used Smith as a leadgirl.
12 Callahan testified that Smith talked to her every day for about a week after Labor
Day 1964, and then ceased entirely ; "she didn't talk to me after that." Piazza testified
that the girls did not bother her talking about the Union after September 11. Opperman
testified that Smith talked to her at her work station for about a week only ; however,
she did have a conversation with Smith on September 24, 1964, during lunch period,
during which unionization was touched upon, which will be considered hereinafter.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 469
Smith , "but, if they felt that her actions were far over and above anything in this
union, to the extent they were disturbed, that they were going to quit, then I would
be prepared to take action, if they were willing to sign a statement to this effect." 13
The actual events of the day before, however, according to the employees testify-
ing, appear to differ in significant respects from Welsh 's testimony.
According to the credited testimony of Callahan,14 her conversation with Welsh
about Smith occurred shortly before quitting time on September 25, after Welsh
came up to her in the plant and asked, her to come into his office. There he told
Callahan that he understood that she had been having trouble with Smith and
showed her a typewritten complaint which had been prepared in advance. Welsh
asked her to read it and advised her that she was privileged to sign it or not as
she saw fit. The document read as follows:
I hereby state that Florence Smith has continued to bother me at work,
upsetting me so I cannot work well.
This has happened repeatedly and has reached the point where I can no
longer do my work properly and continue to meet production standards. If
this continues, I will be forced to quit my job.15
Callahan signed the document 16 on the space provided, left Welsh's office and
punched out from work since this was her quitting time for the day. She was
in the office for 4 or 5 minutes.
Callahan testified, as previously noted, that after the first week in September,
Smith did not bother her at all and, in fact, spoke very few words to her during
that period. Prior to that time, Callahan testified. it was Smith's "bossy" attitude,
rather than her advocacy of the Union, that "bothered" her. In particular, Calla-
ban testified that on September 25, Smith did not talk to her at all and she did
not have any direct contact with Smith that day, although Smith did "holler"
something which she did not catch. Callahan did observe Smith in or about the
stockroom for about 20 minutes, talking part of the time to Heldger.17
Opperman, another of the employees who signed statements on September 25,
testified that Glenn Welsh approached her that day and asked her what her trouble
was on the day before. She stated that this was before lunch, that she had not
complained to anyone previously, and did not know how Glenn had found out
"about it." She told Glenn that the incident involved had arisen the day before,
11 Welsh testified that lie had been informed by counsel either on September 11 or
some previous day that it would be advisable to take statements in the event of an employee
discharge.
14 Bud Welsh states that he talked to employees Callahan , Underwood , and Stilwell on
the morning of September 25, but not to Piazza and Opperman who are alleged to have
approached Glenn Welsh on that same morning.
u Callahan testified that she could not recall saying anything to Welsh about quitting
"if something wasn't done about Florence ." Inasmuch as the statement which she
signed had been prepared in advance and was a form presented to all of the employees
involved , and from the fact that Callahan testified that she did not have any direct con-
tact with Smith on September 24, and was not "bothered" by her after approximately
the first week in September , as well as from Callahan 's demeanor , I do not believe that
Callahan threatened to quit on this occasion and Welsh ' s testimony to the contrary is not
credited . In making this finding , I have considered Callahan's acquiesence , on cross-
examination , to the question asked her that the "statement was a truthful statement of
your attitude , no matter"' It Is plain that the witness was thereby confirming her
general "attitude" of irritation with Smith , rather than affirming the truth of the word-
ing of the statement.
1$ This identical statement, either an original or carbon copy of the original, was ap-
parently signed by each of the five employees requested to execute the document
3v Welsh's testimony with respect to his contact with Callahan on September 25 was
that Callahan approached him in the plant In the morning; that she threatened to quit
because the plant was in an uproar the day before ; that she told him that Smith had
been at the loading dock talking to Heidger for approximately 20 minutes the day be-
fore and that she had all she was going to take with Smith With respect to the plant
"being in an uproar ," Welsh stated , that Callahan explained something about Smith
"jump[ing]" her for talking with employee Underwood and stating that Smith would
report them to Foreman Laude, or words to that effect ; that he took the statement to
Callahan late in the afternoon in the plant about 3:30 or 3:45 p m. and did no talk to
her in the office . This testimony is not credited except where It may be supported by
specific credited testimony of Callahan
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after Foreman Laude directed her to pack certain articles which she did not think
were properly prepared, and that thereafter, in the lunchroom that day, she made
a remark that she was going to mark her job tickets "not responsible for parts
that come back"; that Smith asked her to join the Union during that lunch period
and became mad when she (Opperman) refused; that Smith thereupon told Laude
what she (Opperman) was going to put on her job tickets, and Laude thereafter
came over and "jumped all over me." Opperman testified that she objected to
being bawled out by the foreman when she did not deserve it. Opperman's testi-
mony with respect to these matters is credited. She also credibly testified that
during this conversation Glenn Welsh asked her if she wanted to sign a statement
which he handed to her, and said that it was up to her whether she signed it; that
she handed the statement back to him and told him that she did not want to cause
any trouble, to which he replied that was her privilege.18 The witness further
stated that she later changed her mind and told Glenn that she would sign the
statement and did so 15 or 20 minutes after lunch.
Glenn Welsh did not testify. Bud Welsh concededly did not talk with Mrs.
Opperman on this subject that day. However, he did purport to include her al-
leged complaint against Smith in the generalized summation heretofore quoted
from his testimony. As to Opperman this is clearly hearsay and is not credited.
Piazza was the only other employee who signed a statement on September 25
who also testified. It was her testimony that the girls did not bother her by talking
about the Union after September 11. However, she states that both Arndt and
Smith bothered her by pushing racks near her machine during the week ending
September 25, interfering with her work. These racks were normally parked in the
area near her machine, but during this time she states they were pushed closer to
her machine, but not against her physically. Although she states that the racks
got in her way, she did not move any of them herself; but states that other girls
did move them away from her machine.19 On Thursday, September 24, the witness
requested foreman Laude to move the racks for her, which he did. However,
she did not complain to him that any of the girls were bothering her with the
racks. She also never said anything to Smith about the racks. On the morning of
September 25, Piazza states that she spoke to Glenn Welsh and asked him if she
"had to have those racks up against her machine like that." Glenn told Piazza
that she did not and had the girls move the racks away. The witness testified
that this is all that was said. Thereafter, Piazza went to Bud Welsh's office. She
states that she told Welsh that "so far as the talking was concerned, that there
wasn't any more of that, but that she was bothering me with the rack business." 20
When asked if she had said anything about quitting, the witness answered, "I'd
have to quit if it didn't stop." Bud Welsh then asked her if she would sign a
statement and she informed him that she would. The statement naming Smith
was brought to her after lunch by Bud Welsh and she signed it. She was not
asked to sign a statement against Arndt. Piazza testified that she told Welsh that
"if Florence [Smith] left Evelyn [Arndt] alone, she'd be all right." 21
is In response to a question directed to what she said to Glenn about quitting, the
witness replied that she told Glenn: "I can't take it anymore , this feeling among the
girls and the way they talk and the way they keep your nerves all shook up." Accord-
ing to Opperman, Smith had never given her any orders, or previously had much contact
with her except for talking to her about the Union during 1 week The witness testified
that she could not recall making any previous complaints to management about Smith.
Under the circumstances, I believe that this statement of the witness referred to her
upset over the feeling among the girls generally , as she stated , and not specifically to
her experience with Smith on that day.
1 There is no reason given as to why Piazza would not move the racks herself
2D Piazza also testified that she complained to Welsh on this occasion with respect to
Arndt's participation in these incidents involving the racks. However, Welsh testified
that there was no further complaint against Arndt after September 11 ; that it was for
that reason he took no further disciplinary action against Arndt. Piazza's testimony is
credited in this regard rather than that of Welsh.
21 Welsh testified that he did not talk to Piazza on the morning of September 25 about
her complaints leading up to the signing of the complaint against Smith , and that he
thinks she is mistaken about being in his office. He did take her statement to her for
her signature . It is found that the events related occurred substantially in accordance
with Piazza's testimony as set forth above.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 471
The two remaining employees who signed statements against Smith , Underwood,
and Stilwell , did not testify. Welsh testified that he talked to them together. His
testimony was as follows:
Mrs. Stilwell told me that things were so bad that day and she was so shook
up because of Florence not doing her work, . . . the other girls having to
do her work plus their work. Florence spending time away from her work
area out in the dock area . This was such a distracting influence that she
just couldn 't take it anymore and if we didn 't do something about it she was
going to have to quit . Mrs . Underwood , the only thing different that
Mrs. Underwood stated from that of Mrs . Stilwell, was the incident between
she and Mrs . Callahan and Florence . Her statement otherwise as far as I
can recollect was precisely the same, that Warren had been back there, that
he had done nothing about the discipline to see that Florence refrained from
what she was doing, that there was a complete lack of, should I say, control
as far as management control as to what Florence Smith was doing in that
area . . . they did mention one other thing Florence had moved-they have
a group of boxes piled in a certain area. Florence had moved these all
around for some reason . What her reason was I don't have any idea, and
this had disrupted them from their usual pattern of work. I remember this
being mentioned.
None of these asserted activities of Smith were touched upon by witnesses
other than Smith and Welsh, except for the alleged instance involving Callahan,
Underwood, and Smith which has been previously considered . As heretofore
noted, Welsh 's testimony on the point is completely inconsistent with Callahan's
testimony of her experience with Smith on September 24 and Welsh 's testimony
as to the alleged Smith-Underwood -Callahan incident is not credited . The remain-
ing parts of this testimony will be considered hereinafter in connection with the
analysis of Smith's discharge.
At sometime on the afternoon of September 25, Welsh dictated a letter dis-
charging Smith which was placed on her timecard . Neither Laude nor Smith
was interviewed by Respondent about this before the action was taken. This
letter stated:
On September 9, 1964 , [sic] we gave you a letter to the effect that we
had received complaints from some of the employees that you were bothering
them while they were at work and that, if we received one more complaint
of this nature against you , your employment would be terminated immediately.
We have signed statements from some of the other employees that you
have continued to bother them. Some have said they will have to quit their
job because it has disturbed them to the point that they can't do their work
properly.
Due to the above facts, your employment is terminated effective immediately.
There is a curious conflict in Welsh's testimony as to when the decision to
discharge Smith was actually made . On cross-examination he first testified that
the decision was not made prior to the time that the employees were asked for
signatures on the statements . It was then stated that, "The decision was formu-
lated, it was held and we decided that if the girls were that serious in their com-
plaints that they would be willing to sign affidavits to that effect , we would let
Mrs. Smith go, but if they were just talking and not serious in their accusations,
that would be something else." Welsh then said he did not know the day the de-
cision was made, it could have been September 20, 21 , or 22, although he doubted
it. When Welsh was thereupon asked that , "in any event , on some day you
decided that you would discharge Mrs. Smith if people would sign statements?",
he replied "No, we decided that if the situation warranted , if it were serious enough
and these people weren 't talking and trying to make something out of a petty
issue, then we would do something." Welsh then agreed with the statement that
"in effect, you decided if people would sign these statements , you would discharge
Mrs. Smith," and thereupon specifically testified that he didn 't know what day this
decision was made. On redirect examination , Welsh testified specifically and
categorically that the decision to discharge Smith was made on the afternoon of
September 25. In any event , according to Welsh's testimony , the decision was
made jointly between his brother and himself after they had discussed it together.
The totality of this testimony convinces me that the possibility of discharging
Smith if she were involved in something "serious enough," which employees would
support by statements, was discussed between the brothers prior to September 25
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that this ripened on the morning of September 25 into a more positive de-
cision that "was formulated [ and] held" pending actual execution of the written
statement prepared by Welsh. The final decision , embodied in the discharge letter
was made on the afternoon of September 25 after some , but not all, of the written
statements had been secured.
3. Concerning the alleged independent acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion
Employee Metro testified that on the morning of September 5, Bud Welsh came
up to her and asked her, "if I had my union card signed." Metro told Welsh
"No," and asked what was going on. Welsh told Metro that he and his brother
knew that union cards had been passed around and signed the day before. Metro
advised Welsh that she knew nothing about it, that she had "heard the girls talking
about United Plastics having a union and they were getting excited about it."
The witness states that Welsh replied, "Well I don't know wily they should. None
or only so many members showed up for a meeting " Metro told Welsh that she
knew nothing about it. This testimony was not denied and is credited.
Maxine Babcock testified that on the same morning, September 5, Welsh had a
conversation with her in which he asked Babcock how many union cards she had.
Babcock states that she thought he was joking and took it as a joke because she
didn't know anything about it. He further stated that he had heard' that some
of the girls were trying to organize a union in the plant and that their "gripe"
was for more money. He concluded by stating, "Well, the girls got another raise
coming anyways, and, as far as needing the union for more money, a union
doesn't necessarily always get more money." Welsh testified that he asked Babcock
how many union cards she had seen or if she had signed a union card, "in a
joking manner." He did not testify with respect to the remainder of the conver-
sation described by employee Babcock.
On September 8, Respondent posted a notice to the employees setting forth a
new wage schedule effective October 1, amounting to an increase of 5 cents an
hour for the employees affected.
On September 11, Respondent held a meeting of the three foremen, including
Laude. The foremen were asked if they had seen any union cards passed out,
to which the foremen replied that they had not. The foremen were told that
Respondent knew that cards were being passed around. The foremen were further
told that they should not thereafter permit truckdrivers to go through the plant
unescorted. There had previously been no restriction on the movements of the
truckdrivers in the plant.22
On October 1, the Respondent put into effect the wage increase in accordance
with the previously posted notice. The evidence reveals that since 1959 the
Respondent has made the following changes in wage schedules: In 1959, Re-
spondent granted a 5-cent-an-hour increase in the starting rate effective July 1,
1959, with improvements in the steps in which increases would be given there-
after; effective January 1, 1960, the starting rate was again raised 5 cents an hour
and certain adjustments made in the steps for increases thereafter; on January 1,
1961, the starting rate was increased by 5 cents an hour and adjustments made in
the wage increase steps following; effective August 14, 1961, the starting rate was
again increased by 5 cents and adjustments made in the wage increase steps; on
September 10, 1961, Respondent added an additional wage increase step, but did
not otherwise change the wage schedule; on July 1, 1962, the starting rate was
not raised, but other steps were increased; on July 1, 1963, all steps were increased
and the final step eliminated; effective October 1, 1964, as heretofore noted,
Respondent increased each of the wage steps by 5 cents an hour.
Welsh explained that the wage increase in 1964 was delayed because Respondent
had anticipated a major expenditure for capital adjustment, which, if made, would
have prevented a wage increase. It was testified that when Respondent decided
not to make the contemplated capital investment, it was decided to grant the
=Welsh states that he told his foremen to restrict truckdrivers in the plant "after
we started having these problems in the plant we decided it would be better to keep
strangers out of the plant . We have always refrained or should I say not allowed any
outsiders in the plant that had no business being there . So we thought it would be
better on the part of everyone if they were kept out. We felt that keeping the truck-
drivers out would prevent any hard feelings between our customers and ourselves by the
drivers becoming involved in whatever might happen."
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 473
increase to the employees . Welsh testified that it was Respondent 's standard practice
to post notices to employees from 1 to 3 weeks in advance of the effective dat"
of the wage change.
On September 22, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board'Q
office in Detroit, Michigan, docketed as Case No. 7-RC-6493. On or about Sep-
tember 29, 1964, the following letter, alleged to contain material which violates
the Act, was mailed to all employees of the Respondent-
As you may have heard, the Allied Industrial Workers Union has filed
a claim that it represents a majority of our employees. We don't believe that
a majority of you want this Union to speak for you and, therefore, we have
consented to having the National Labor Relations Board conduct a secret
ballot election to determine whether the Union represents a majority of our
people. This election will be held within the next two or three weeks and
we wanted you to know about it directly from us.
Just because we have consented to the election doesn't mean that we are
laying down a welcome mat for the Union. We don't believe that a Union
would be good for our Company or that it is necessary to have a Union in
order for you to have a good place in which to work; however, we felt this
was the best and most democratic way of settling the matter.
We are writing this letter to you at home because we consider this Union
election so important to us, to you, and to the future of our Company. You
know how competitive our business is and that we must bid for every job we
get. If a Union which doesn't understand our business begins to "call the
shots," it is hard to tell how long we'll be operating or you'll have a job.
We think things have been pretty good for you and for us considering the
few number of years that we have been in business. We have tried to grow
and treat our employees as best we can, and hope that you will agree with us
that a third party such as this Union is not necessary.
We frankly believe that this whole thing has been caused by just a few
people and that the majority of you are willing to work with us as a team
as you have in the past. BEWARE OF UNION PROMISES and remember
that whether or not you signed a Union Application Card, you can still vo±°
the way you want at this election. It will be a secret ballot.
We will be in touch with you again between now and the election but
merely wanted to "clear the air" as to what is happening and what our position
is.
As has been previously noted, in a representation election conducted among the
employees of Respondent on January 6, 1965, pursuant to the petition filed in
Case No. 7RC-6493, a majority of the employees participating voted for the
Union. The Union was certified as the representative of employees of Respondent
for purposes of collective bargaining on January 21, 1965.
B. Conclusions
1. The allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion
On September 5, 1964, in the early stages of the attempt of the employees at
self-organization, Bud Welsh stated that he was aware union activity was going
on among the employees, interrogated two employees separately as to whether the
employee had signed a union card or how many union cards the employee
possessed. Respondent offered no justification for these inquiries, other than to
state, in the case of one of these employees who testified that she knew nothing
of the Union at the time and took the inquiry as a joke, that this was done in
a joking manner. While these incidents in and of themselves are not weighty, the
inquiries would naturally have the effect of inhibiting the employees from signing
or accepting or carrying union cards or materials and thus tend to interfere with
their rights under Section 7 of the Act. In the absence of any reasonable justifi-
cation for this conduct, it is found that these acts of interrogation violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
During one of these conversations on September 5, in answer to the employee's
statement that the girls were talking about the union activities at the United
Plastics plant, Welsh said that he did not see why , because "none or only so many
members showed up for a meeting." This is apparently alleged, together with the
interrogation set forth above, to have subjected the employees to an impression of
surveillance of their union activities . I do not agree . The reference is clearly
to a meeting of United Plastics employees . The comment made is quite consistent
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Welsh having obtained the information adverted to from common sources
or by other means raising no implication of surveillance. It will be recommended
that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
It is further alleged that Respondent on September 5 promised the employees a
wage increase, on September 8 posted a notice that the wage increase would be
granted as of October 1, and on October 1 put the wage increase into effect, all
for the purpose of interfering with the employees' rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
It is quite clear that the Respondent was committed to the defeat of the attempt
to unionize its plant. This is established by the content of Respondent's letter to
the employees of September 29, in addition to the other activities of Respondent
considered herein. However, the question here is whether Respondent promised,
granted, and used the wage increase in 1954 to aid it in accomplishing this purpose.
It is concluded that the Respondent did so.
Notwithstanding reservations already expressed concerning Welsh's testimony,
there is no reason in the record to discredit his testimony that there had been a
substantial change in Respondent's plans in 1964 which made it possible for
Respondent to grant a wage increase that year, considerably later than it had ever
previously granted such a raise 23 However, the evidence is convincing that the
raise in 1964 was announced and confirmed at the times chosen by Respondent in
order to affect the employees in their activities in respect to union representation.
Welsh gave no details as to when Respondent decided not to make the capital
investment which he stated made money available for this wage increase. He
further testified that there was no "particular reason" to pick September 8 as the
date to announce the wage increase. However, the reason for the timing of the
wage increase is more than adequately explaind in Welsh's conversation with
employee Babcock on September 5. At that time Welsh informed Babcock that
he was aware that some of the girls were trying to organize a union in the plant
and that he was also aware that their motive was to obtain more money. He then
stated, "Well, the girls got another raise coming anyways, and, as far as needing
the union for more money, a union doesn't necessarily always get more money."
This testimony was undenied. On September 8, 3 days later, Respondent posted
its notice announcing a wage increase to take effect on October 1.
It is therefore found that Respondent on September 5 promised a wage increase,
which was confirmed on September 8 for the purpose of causing the employees
to desist from engaging in union activities or joining or assisting the Union. The
wage increase granted on October 1 carried out these promises and commitments.
It is found that these activities were intended to and did interfere with, restrain,
and coerce Respondent's employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the Act and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
It is also alleged that Respondent by its action on September 11 in restricting the
movement of outside truckdrivers and requiring that they be escorted while in the
plant violated the Act. The General Counsel argues, in effect, that the employees
were thereby prevented from obtaining the assistance of truckdriver Heidger, the
employee of United Plastics, as readily as in the past. I do not agree that the
Respondent has any obligation to make its premises available to nonemployees for
the purpose of assisting its own employees in their union activities, without re-
striction. As the Board stated in Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB
697, 698, citing N.L.R.B. V. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105:
. rules which prohibit union solicitation or distribution of union litera-
ture by nonemployee union organizers at any time on the employer's prop-
erty are presumptively valid in the absence of a showing that the union
cannot reasonably reach the employees with its message in any other way,
or a showing that the employer's notice discriminates against the union by
allowing other solicitation or distribution.
See also General Dynamics/Telecommunications, a Division of General Dynam-
ics Corporation, 137 NLRB 1725; cf. Harrah's Club, 143 NLRB 1356 (no viola-
tion of the Act to require outside union agent be escorted on employer's premises,
where provision of union contract on access to premises was in dispute).
23Previous wage raises had been effective July 1 ( three times ), January 1 (twice) and
August 14 (once ). One change on September 10, 1961 , was not an increase, but a
modification in the wage increase steps. The last two raises prior to 1964 were effective
July 1, 1962, and July 1, 1963, immediately following the end of Respondent 's fiscal
year on June 30.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 475
The General Counsel made no showing that the Union was unable to reasonably
reach the employees with its message or that Respondent's rule was discriminatory,
or even unreasonable. It will be recommended that this allegation of the com-
plaint be dismissed.
The General Counsel further alleges that Respondent in its letter of Septem-
ber 29 to the employees threatened the employees with loss of employment if the
Union was successful, by stating "If a union which doesn't understand our busi-
ness begins to call the shots, it is hard to tell how long we'll be operating or you'll
have a job."
Respondent in its brief asserts that this statement "is an entirely permissible sug-
gestion (not even a prophecy or a prediction) that the Union might be so un-
reasonable in its demands or in its administration of a contract that the company
might lose out to its competitors and be forced out of business."
The problem here is that counsel's explication is not what appears in the letter.
The purpose of the letter was clearly to convince the employees that they should
reject representation by the Union. In order to achieve the maximum force of im-
pact upon the employees it appears that the sentence in question was left obscure,
where it might have been made explicit. There is no question but that an em-
ployer may by reasoned argument appropriate to the circumstances apprise em-
ployees of the risks in belonging to or being represented by a union, just as the
Union is free to extol its own benefits 24 However, that is not the situation here.
Inasmuch as the sentence in question was left vague by the Respondent it must
be given what appears to be the most natural interpretation in the circumstances
and in the light of the purpose to be achieved. Since the purpose of the letter
is to discourage employees from accepting union representation, the obvious pur-
port of the statement in question is that Respondent might shut the plant down
or abolish employee jobs, if the employees should select the Union as their bar-
gaining representative and thus permit it "to call the shots"; i e., to engage in
collective bargaining on their behalf. I have no doubt and find, that the statement
involved was intended to and did interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees
in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
General Counsel's further claim that Respondent additionally violated the Act
by allegedly soliciting employees to sign complaints against Smith on September 25
will be considered hereinafter in connection with the discussion of allegations
relating to her discharge.
2. The allegations of discrimination against Florence Smith
and Evelyn Arndt
a. The disciplinary letters of September 11, 1964
The General Counsel contends that Respondent by issuing the letters of repri-
mand and warning to Smith and Arndt on September I1 discriminated against
those employees in violation of the Act. Respondent contends that these dis-
ciplinary letters were justified by the complaint received from Piazza against these
employees.25
As has been found, Piazza did make a complaint to Welsh upon which he
acted by issuing the letters of discipline on September 11. However, this finding
does not foreclose the issue, as Respondent asserts, but raises the question before
us- Was Welsh's action taken in good faith because of Piazza's complaint, or was
24 See Trent Tube Company, Subsidiary of Crucible Steel Company of America, 147
NLRB 538, particularly the statement in the dissenting opinion that "we agree with
our colleagues that employees may-indeed they should-be told the benefits and detriments
of unionism . Such information is the basis of rational choice. But there is a difference
between information and threats."
25 Respondent's brief states with respect to the "Issuance of disciplinary letter to Evelyn
Arndt" that "The evidence showed clearly that Mr. Welsh did receive a complaint con-
cerning this employee which was the basis for the warning letter [General Counsel's
Exhibit No 5], that the warning had the desired effect and the employee received no fur-
ther discipline of any kind The employee was a known leader of the organizing activity
in the plant. This evidence supports Respondent, not the General Counsel." With
respect to "the disciplinary letter to Florence Smith" the Respondent states "Mr. Welsh
received a complaint from Eleanor Piazza that Mrs. Smith was interfering with Mrs.
Piazza's work by stopping at Mrs. Piazza ' s work station to talk about the union. As
a result, Mr . Welsh issued a written warning to Mrs. Smith."
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint seized upon as a convenient vehicle to justify discipline of Smith
and Arndt because of their prominent activities on the part of the Union? In this
instance, the complaint was solely that the employees bothered Piazza by "talk
about the union." However, the record clearly shows, as has been found, that
Respondent permits talk among the girls, but prohibits only "excessive talking,"
and has previously tolerated over considerable periods of time employee activities
creating dissension and irritation among employees at work.
It must, therefore, be determined whether Respondent's decision that the em-
ployees' activities in this case exceeded the level of tolerated talking, was motivated
by or based upon the employees' union activities. I am convinced, however, that
the Respondent's decision here, considered on the entire record, was, in fact, not
made in good faith, but was motivated by the activities of Smith and Arndt on
behalf of the Union.
As the facts demonstrate, the Respondent was clearly hostile to the employees'
efforts at self-organization. As summarized by the letter of September 29, Re-
spondent did not "believe that a Union would be good for our Company" and
had no intention of "laying down a welcome mat for the Union " 26
As to Arndt, whose prominence in the union drive is admitted, there is no
evidence of any prior disciplinary problem with this employee and she had never
before been reprimanded by the Respondent. Significantly neither she nor her
foreman were questioned about the incident, Welsh quickly acting upon the sole
complaint of the one employee Piazza.
With respect to Smith, whose discharge Respondent's counsel rightly contends is
"the principal issue" in the case, Respondent asserted that there had been previous
complaints against Smith, but it is not claimed that these formed the basis for the
September 11 disciplinary letter. In tact, as we have noted, Welsh admitted
that the alleged complaints against Smith did not become "prevalent or repeated
until possibly starting in September of '64." Moreover, so far as the record in this
case shows, the only complaint against Smith from the time she began her activities
on behalf of the Union until September 11, when she was disciplined, was the
complaint of Piazza. On the basis of the evidence in this case, I am convinced
and find that Smith's activities in talking to Piazza at work during the 3 or 4
days involved were not substantially different from her previous activities in talking
to other employees, of which Welsh was aware,27 and for which Smith was not
previously disciplined or reprimanded, or cautioned, on the basis that they were
excessive or bothered other employees. Moreover, although it is clear that
Smith engaged a number of employees in talk about the Union during the same
period as she talked to Piazza, only Piazza complained that this affected her work.
Significant also is the fact that the burden of Piazza's complaint was merely that
she was made "nervous" and "upset" by the talk of "union " She wanted to be
left alone and have the girls stop "pestering" her on this subject. While she had
no production quota, because of this activity she complained she was not able to
get her production out There is no doubt in my mind that what Piazza objected
to was not that she was interrupted at her work by excessive talk, but by the fact
that the talk was about the Union, which made her "nervous" and "upset "
Without question the Respondent has the right to regulate the employees' union
activities so that they do not affect the employees' work, so long as the rule is
reasonably adapted to the purpose in the circumstances and its enforcement is not
discriminatory. However, here the rule did not ban union talk or even any talk
during working hours, and Respondent does not so claim; it bars only "excessive
31 It was testified without contradiction that, in 1958, Bud Welsh told the assembled
employees with respect to union activities that he did not think the employees needed
a union because there was not any problem they could not work out together and "if
the union came in, he would lock the doors and throw the key away." This testimony has
been considered only for the light it sheds on Respondent's deep-seated hostility as to
unionization of its plant
2' Welsh testified that he spent 50 percent of his time in the plant, and made regular
rounds "to see that everything was going well, and that the employees were performing
their work, minding their own business and not bothering anybody." Also, as previously
found, Welsh had been aware of friction between some of the girls and Smith for at least
2 years and was not greatly disturbed over it Even after Smith's discharge, Welsh
advised other employees that he had no complaint against Smith's work, that she was a
good worker Welsh, indeed, testified that he had problems with employees of this sort
previously "where girls didn't get along with others." However, in only one aggravated
case was an employee disciplined for this sort of thing previously.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 477
talk." Moreover, as has been noted, in this case, Piazza claimed only that the
union talk made her "nervous" and "upset her," not that the talk was otherwise
disturbing or excessive. It was clearly on this basis that the disciplinary letters
were issued.
The mere fact, however, that Piazza may have been opposed to unionization, or
was easily upset by its advocacy, cannot serve to justify the imposition of an addi-
tional restraint upon the proper exercise by an employee of rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act. Factional stress and bruised feelings are a common
concomitant of organizational activities Such activity tends, as the facts in the
present case show, not only to increase the tension of those susceptible of stress,
but also to exacerbate preexisting petty animosities. However, this does not
clothe the employer with immunity to discipline an employee because of other-
wise legitimate union activities because such activities offended other employees
who might hold opposing views on that subject.28
Moreover, as has been previously found, Respondent in this case did not issue
the disciplinary letters involved in good-faith reliance upon Piazza's complaint, but,
in fact, utilized the complaint as a pretext for the reprimands. In addition to
the fact that Arndt apparently had an unblemished prior record, and that Respond-
ent had almost entirely ignored other asserted complaints about Smith prior
to the advent of the Union, the disciplinary action involved was precipitately
taken without further investigation or check on the situation.29 Strongly pro-
bative, also, of the Respondent's bad faith, in the present asserted reliance upon
Piazza's complaint as justification for issuance of the disciplinary letters, are its
own efforts at the time of the issuance of the disciplinary letters to exaggerate
the number of complainants and to mask the tiue character of the complaint
behind the letters by making misleading and inaccurate statements in the letters
and to Arndt when she protested her discipline. Welsh's concern over the inade-
quacy of the single complaint of Piazza to sustain his action against Arndt and
Smith is indicated in the necessity he felt to insist both in the letters and later
to Arndt personally that the letters were based upon "recently received complaints
from several of the employees" when this was clearly not true Further evidence
of Respondent's attempt to cover the union motivation of the letters is revealed in
the utterly incredible statement contained in those documents that the alleged em-
ployees making the asserted complaints, "did not want to discuss the exact nature of
the trouble; however, they did seem very upset about it," when Respondent was
well aware that "the exact nature of the trouble" was the fact that Smith and
Arndt had been talking to Piazza about the Union.
Upon the basis of all of the evidence, I am convinced and it is found that
Respondent issued the disciplinary letters of September 11 to Smith and Arndt
not for good cause, but for the purpose of affecting the tenure and terms of their
employment and discouraging union activities among its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and that these actions interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the excercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
b. The discharge of Mrs. Smith on September 25
Because of Welsh's strained and contradictory testimony as to when and in what
manner the decision to discharge Smith came about, I feel that there are some
grounds for assuming that the idea of discharging Smith was one of the reasons
behind the issuance of the reprimand and warning letter given Smith on Septem-
ber 11, and that a similar letter was given Arndt at that time also because the warn-
ing to Smith could not otherwise be justified . However, upon analysis, this assump-
tion appears to be more speculative than based on the facts necessary to support
a finding . However, it does seem clear that the possibility of discharging Smith
was considered and discussed by the owners of Respondent after September 11
and before September 25. While this has some bearing on the Respondent's
motive in finally discharging Smith, it is by no means conclusive , since if Re-
21 It has long been settled that an employer may not impose discipline upon an employee
on the basis that such employee, because of his legitimate union activities, is considered
persona non grata with other employees in the plant See Fry Products, Inc., 110 NLRB
1000. See also Brewton Fashions, Inc., a Division of Judy Bond, 145 NLRB 99; Beiser
Aviation Corporation, 135 NLRB 399; cf. Porto Mills, Inc, 149 NLRB 1454.
29 As noted hereinabove, Welsh, after advising Piazza that he would watch to see whether
these activities continued, issued the disciplinary letters without receiving further com-
plaints or acquiring further information
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent discharged her for good cause unmixed with a hostility toward her be-
cause of her union activity, the discharge would not violate the Act, no matter
how prominent her union activity might be. This requires that the facts bearing
upon her discharge and Respondent 's stated reasons for the discharge be examined
with care in order that we may determine whether Smith was in fact discharged for
cause or because of her union activity.
It is Respondent's position, as expressed in Welsh's testimony, that Smith's dis-
charge was based upon the statements of five employees (referred to by Welsh as
the ones "predominantly complaining" about Smith) who assertedly approached
Bud and Glenn Welsh on September 25, 1964, and complained that Smith had
bothered them at work on September 24, and who, Welsh testified, voluntarily
signed statements that they would quit if this continued. Respondent's counsel
argues that all of the evidence in the case shows that this was the reason for the
discharge. He further contends that the fact that the rule which Smith is alleged
to have broken antedated the advent of the Union, and the fact that one other
employee had previously been discharged for violation of the same rule supports
the Respondent's position. It is further asserted that the fact that Respondent
did not discharge other known active supporters of the Union attests to Re-
spondent's claim that the discharge was for cause and not because of Smith's
union activity.
However, the facts are seriously at variance with Respondent's contentions as
to the happenings on September 24 and 25. Thus, with respect to Callahan,
contrary to Respondent's contention that she approached Bud Welsh on the morn-
ing of September 25 to complain of Smith's actions the previous day, the credited
testimony of Callahan shows that Callahan did not approach Welsh on this sub-
ject, but was solicited by him to sign a complaint that afternoon after the de-
cision to discharge Smith had already been made. In fact, Smith had not spoken
to Callahan the previous day nor had any direct contact with her Callahan, indeed,
testified that Smith did not bother her at all after the first week in September,
nor is there any credible evidence in the record that Callahan threatened to quit
if Smith was not discharged as Respondent contends.
The credited testimony of Opperman, another of the alleged complainers, also
contradicts Respondent's contention that she initiated a complaint to Respondent
against Smith and threatened to quit if Smith were not discharged. Her testi-
mony was that Glenn Welsh approached her with a written statement to sign and
she did not know how he had found out about her incident with Smith the day
previous.
The facts in this incident, which Opperman related to Glenn Welsh, bear close
examination because they cast important light upon Respondent's good faith in
contending that these employee complaints justify the discharge of Smith. The
incident began the previous day at lunch when Opperman advised the other girls
that she was going to make certain notations on her work cards in protest against
orders which had been given to her by her foreman. She states that after she
had refused to join the Union during the lunch period at Smith's behest, Smith
told the foreman of the notations that Opperman proposed to put on her job
tickets and that the foreman thereafter "bawled" her out for this.30
Opperman did not threaten to quit if Smith was not discharged, as previously
found, but did express a marked emotional stress because of "this feeling among
the girls and the way they talk and the way they keep your nerves all shook up."
Based on these facts, it strains the limits of belief that Respondent in good faith
contends that this incident demonstrates that Smith was bothering Opperman at her
work or was improperly disturbing her to the point that she could not work prop-
30
General Counsel, in his brief contends that Smith "was discharged ostensibly for
bothering employees while at work but really for her union activities." In support of
this conclusion he refers, in part, to the fact that Opperman advised Glenn Welsh "that
Florence Smith had asked her to join the Union at lunch and she [Opperman ] had said
no." Although not further explicated by the General Counsel, he was clearly referring
to the well-established rule of law that discipline of an employee for legitimate union
activities engaged in on the employees' free time, as here, is a clear violation of the Act,
see Southwire Company, 145 NLRB 1329, 1340, 1344, 1345. This would be true even
if Respondent's motive in disciplining the employees was only in part related to her
activities protected under the Act. N.L.R.B. v. West Side Carpet Cleaning Co., 329 F
2d 758 ( C A. 6). In this connection it may be noted that Respondent , concededly, did
not have a rule restricting employees from engaging in union talk or activities during
lunch hour or before or after work.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 479
erly. The evidence may show that Respondent has a supervisory problem, but
certainly does not justify a complaint that Smith was interfering with the work of
employees.31
The testimony with respect to the alleged complaints of Underwood and Stilwell
stand on much the same footing. These asserted complaints are based solely on
the testimony of Welsh. Assuming, without deciding, the reliability of Welsh's
testimony as to the asserted complaints of Underwood and Stiiwell,32 the substance
of the complaint attributed to Stilwell was that these ladies were "shook up" because
Smith on September 24, spent so much time on the dock area that she neglected
her work and that allegedly other girls had to do Smith's work; further that the
foreman "Warren [Laude] had been back there, that he had done nothing about
the discipline to see that Florence refrained from what she was doing, that there
was a complete lack of . . . management control as to what Florence Smith was
doing in that area." 33 It is further asserted that Stilwell stated that this was "such
a distracting influence that she just couldn't take it anymore and if [Respondent]
didn't do something about it she was going to have to quit."
There is no probative evidence, however, that Smith neglected her work on the
previous day or that any of the other girls had to do her work for her, nor does
Respondent claim that she was discharged for this, although these were the only
activities of Smith specified as being such a distracting influence on Stilwell that
she felt she could not "take it anymore." Although these ladies are alleged to have
advised Welsh that foreman Laude was present when the asserted offending activi-
ties occurred and allegedly did nothing about it, so that there was "a complete
lack of management control" in the area, quite inexplicably Respondent deliberately
did not talk to the foreman, or to Smith about these occurrences before discharging
Smith. It is incredible that Respondent, faced with an employee report of com-
plete breakdown of "management control" serious enough to allegedly require
discharge of an employee, should not have discussed the accusations with both
the foreman and the employee involved before talking action.34 The precipitate
action of the Respondent in discharging Smith without investigating this complaint,
as well as the fact that the complaint was obviously more of an indictment of
supervision than anything else convinces me that Respondent was not motivated
by these alleged complaints from Stilwell and Underwood but seized upon them as
pretexts to support the decision to discharge Smith.35
3' The foreman , Laude, was discharged 2 days after the representation election which
the Union won. There was considerable testimony with respect to Respondent's reasons
for discharging Foreman Laude and his loyalty or lack of loyalty to Respondent. This
and other matters litigated in this matter, such as Laude's conversations with Smith on
the day she was discharged , and the alleged rumor that Piazza wanted to slap Smith
and that Respondent did or did not accede thereto, have not been discussed herein be-
cause after full consideration it is concluded that these matters have no material bearing
upon the issues presented.
32 However, Welsh's testimony that Underwood complained that Smith spoke to her and
Callahan on this occasion has previously been discredited.
33 There was a further reference , added by Welsh in the manner of an afterthought,
to Smith moving some boxes around in the area from their normal pattern, the reason
for which he did not understand.
"This may be compared with Welsh 's action in the only other case in which Respond-
ent had discharged an employee , for violation of the rule which Smith is alleged to have
broken. The employee involved in that situation had been orally warned on several
occasions over a period of 2 or 3 months for spreading rumors about alleged extra-marital
activities affecting other employees. On the night of this employee's discharge, Welsh
was called to the plant by the evening shift foreman because another worker was at the
point of physical violence with the offending employee and the foreman said he could not
handle it . Welsh states that when he arrived at the plant the worker concerned "was
disturbed or mad to the point where she was white, shaking . . . we asked her what
had happened and what was happening that evening and we then talked to the foreman,
got his version of it , and we then decided that we had better let [the offending employee]
go." [Emphasis supplied.]
35 Smith credibly testified that nothing unusual occurred with respect to her in the
plant on September 24, except a query by Laude as to her activities in the stockroom
that day and it is so found. It does appear that there was a feeling among some em-
ployees that Smith had been in the stockroom too long that day, although only Smith
gave testimony which I would credit as to her activities in that area and the reason
therefor.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This leaves only the complaint of Piazza to be considered. It is clear that she
was annoyed with Smith. While the extent to which this preexisting antipathy
was actually aggravated by what she referred to as the "rack business" may be
questioned, it is clear that she was convinced that Smith and Arndt were trying
to annoy her with "the racks." However, she testified that although the racks
were normally parked near her work place, she, herself "never pushed them back"
when they got in her way, nor did she speak to Smith about them. Moreover,
when she spoke to Foreman Laude on September 24 and to Glenn Walsh on Sep-
tember 25 about the racks, on the basis of her testimony, she did not complain to
either of them that she was being annoyed by Smith and Arndt in respect to this
matter. This makes her testimony that she told Bud Welsh later in the morning
of September 25 that she would quit over this matter inexplicable,36 except on the
basis of a nervous, temperamental disposition, easily upset. This accords with her
testimony and demeanor. It is difficult to believe that Bud Welsh was unaware
of these characteristics in view of his close contacts with the employees.
It is also abundantly clear that Bud Welsh, who admittedly sought support from
the employees to justify the discharge of Smith,37 was not satisfied that Piazza's
complaint was sufficient to support Smith's discharge. This was demonstrated by
the efforts made by both Glenn and Bud Welsh to solicit complaints for this pur-
pose from employees who had not made complaints against Smith on their own.
Finally, the difference in treatment of Smith in comparison with the only other
employee discharged for allegedly bothering other employees is markedly apparent.
Up until the advent of Smith's union activities, the Respondent had apparently
avoided discharge of employees except under very strong provocation. Thus,
Welsh stated that he was not sure of discharge procedures because he had dis-
charged only five employees in the 10 }ears he had been in business. As he
further admitted, Respondent had previously had trouble with girls not getting
along with one another, but had discharged only one employee for that reason
That employee was let go only after 2 or 3 months of oral warnings and then only
when the employee's activity in spreading rumors about other employees' alleged
extra-marital relationships appeared to be leading to physical violence.
Upon careful consideration of these facts and the record as a whole, it is con-
cluded and found that Respondent discharged Florence Smith, not as a result of
employee complaints as Respondent asserts, but because of her activities on behalf
of the Union, and therefore violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 38 It is
further found that Respondent by soliciting and obtaining complaints against Smith
for the purpose of providing pretexts for the discriminatory discharge of Smith
also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor
practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, it will be rec-
as Piazza 's testimony on the point was in response to a suggestive question tending to
refresh her recollection
37 Welsh not only sought assistance of the employees in providing a basis for the dis-
charge of Smith, but admittedly delegated to those employees the determination of whether
Smith's activities, in their opinion, was excessive. Thus he testified that he told the
girls on September 25 that while he could not discharge Smith for her union activities,
"if they felt" her activities exceeded "anything in this union, to the extent that they
were disturbed, that they were willing to quit, then I would be prepared to take action,
If they were willing to sign a statement to this effect."
38 The fact that Respondent did not discharge other known union supporters, as Re-
spondent contends, does not detract from this conclusion. See Nachman Corp. v. N.L.R B.,
337 F 2d 421, 424 (CA. 7). Indeed, the fact that Bud Welsh Ignored Piazza's complaint
against Arndt on September 25, strongly indicates that he was intent on discharging only
Smith, who was the leading proponent of the Union.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC. 481
ommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent offer employee Florence Smith imme-
diate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she
would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her to
the date of offer of reinstatement, and in a manner consistent with Board policy
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall
be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available
to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computa-
tion of backpay.
It will also be recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
the Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of
employment of Florence Smith and Evelyn Arndt, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct set forth under section III, above, and therein
found to be in violation of the Act, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act by the conduct, set forth in
section III, above, restricting the movement of nonemployees in its plant or by
conduct allegedly subjecting employees to an impression of surveillance.
7. Respondent did not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment or violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
placing a wage increase into effect as alleged in subparagraph 9(h) of the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent, Welsh Industries,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of employees, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their membership in, or activities on behalf
of, the Union, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interfer-
ence , restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge, or discipline or other reprisals, or
promising or granting employees benefits in order to discourage union member-
ship or activities.
(d) Soliciting complaints against employees because of their union activities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi-
zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
206-446-66-vol 154-32
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer to Florence Smith immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, as set forth in that section
of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all
payroll records and other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Rescind the disciplinary letters issued to Evelyn Arndt and Florence Smith
on September 11, 1964, and remove any reference in the personnel files of Flor-
ence Smith to the written complaints obtained from employees on September 25,
1964.
(d) Post at its plant in Vassar, Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix." 39 Copies of the said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 7 shall, after being signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have
been taken to comply with the Recommendations herein made40
8D In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
40 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, Allied Indus-
trial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning activities on behalf of the
above-named or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge, or discipline or other
reprisals, or promise or grant employees benefits in order to discourage union
membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit complaints against employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
WE WILL offer to Florence Smith immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority
and other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against her.
BREWERS & MALTSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 6, ETC. 483
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any labor organization.
WELSH INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 226-3210,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Brewers & Maltsters Local Union No. 6, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America and Falstaff Brewing Corporation and
United Brewers, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, and Its Local Union No. 187, Party
in Interest. Case No. 14-CD-193. August 13, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges by Fal-
staff Brewing Corporation, herein called the Employer, alleging that
Brewers & Maltsters Local Union No. 6, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein called Brewers, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
of the Act by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer
with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by Brewers, rather than to employees
represented by United Brewers, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 187, herein
called Bottlers. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Victor
I. Smedstad on April 6 and 7, 1965, at which all parties appeared
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 hereby affirmed. Briefs were
filed by the Employer, Brewers, and Bottlers, all of which have been
duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor
Relations Board makes the following findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Falstaff Brewing Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the
154 NLRB No. 29.