Geauga Plastics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 486 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Geauga Plastics Company and United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO
Geauga Plastics Company and United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO and Plant Committee. Cases
8-CA-4189 and 8-CA-4210
June 30, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On September 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas
A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affir-
mative actions , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision . He also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in other unfrai labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismis-
sal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified below.
The Trial Examiner found that the General
Counsel had not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Respondent's three layoffs and ul-
timate discharge of employee Lorma Jean hams
were motivated by an intent to discourage the pro-
union sentiment of hams and other employees. We
disagree.
hams began working for Respondent in January
1963 and, prior to the Union's organizing campaign,
had never been reprimanded by Respondent for
poor work performance or for any other reason. In
the summer of 1965, hams was contacted by the
Union with reference to its desire to regain its
representative status among Respondent's em-
ployees. Thereafter, hams personally visited the
homes of some 50 employees, over one-third of the
employees in the unit being organized, and solicited
their signatures on the Union's authorization cards.
hams had worked in the molding department for
about 2 years and was junior in seniority only to
employee Majorie Sieb, with whom hams had
worked regularly for over a year on the assembly of
a Ford part. Sometime during the Union's organiz-
ing campaign, Respondent became aware of Iiams'
extensive union solicitation activities.' In August
1965, employee Trudy Forshaw was placed in
Iiams' regular job and hams was transferred to vari-
ous jobs in the same department. She first worked
for about 2 months with two recently hired girls glu-
ing a new Ford part. Then, according to Iiams' un-
contradicted testimony, she was "switched around
from molder to molder, from molder to molder." In
late November 1965, and apparently for medical
reasons, hams was transferred to lighter work in the
finishing department, where she was again shifted
frequently from one job to another.2
On the morning of December 27, hams was as-
signed the job of trimming, inspecting, and packing
vulcanized gaskets. About 10:30 Tillie Cibek, the
quality control inspector, removed four or five
gaskets from a box which hams had packed and
showed them to Gordon Lilly, the foreman of the
finishing department. Lilly checked a few more
gaskets in the box and then showed hams about six
gaskets which had excess flash on them. hams
acknowledged that more flash could have been
removed from the gaskets and Lilly admitted on the
record that the gaskets could have been retnmmed.
Instead of permitting hams to retrim the gaskets,
Lilly gave the gaskets to Arbogast, and called hams
into his office and told her she was being suspended
for 3 days for packing faulty gaskets. Iiams testified
that she was familiar with the work and that she had
trimmed the gaskets on this date in the same
manner as she had in the past.
On January 13, 1966, hams was assigned the job
of punching hard and soft gaskets. Lilly testified
that after receiving another report from Cibek he
went over and checked five or six gaskets which
hams had punched and found them to be bad.3
hams testified that she had off-punched 35 of the
last 50 gaskets which she had done that day, but
' James Bell, then foreman on the third shift in the finishing department,
testified that employee Mary Carver told him Iiams was one of the girls
who was passing out the cards. Thereafter, according to Bell's testimony,
he asked General Foreman Basel Arbogast, "If they had gotten enough
cards to hold a vote?" Arbogast replied, "Yes. He thought that they had."
Bell asked, "If he knew who was passing the cards out?" Arbogast said,
"Possibly Jean hams was one There were probably a lot more but he
didn't know for sure." Herman Haygood , an assistant foreman and Iiams'
immediate superior in the finishing department , testified also that
everybody knew that hams was for the Union.
2 While it appears from the record that some of the employees in the
finishing department, on occasion, were shifted from job to job because of
Respondent's production requirements , Haygood testified that he
"changed [Iiams] around more" than any of the other employees.
3 Employee Paulette Cozad testified without contradiction that she had
already packed the gaskets and put her inspection slip in the box.
166 NLRB No. 69
GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY 487
that Cibek came over and inspected the gaskets be-
fore she had a chance to inspect them herself.4
Hams testified further that she filled out a scrap
sheet and placed it in a little box; and that, at the
end of the day, Lilly called her into his office and
said he was going to have to give her a week off
"because I was costing"the Company money with
bad scrap." It appears that Lilly had not seen the
scrap sheet at the time he called her into the office
and suspended her. Lilly testified that he took Iiams
into his office after she had checked and reported to
him the number of faulty gaskets, and told her she
was being suspended for running bad parts the
second time within 2 weeks.5 When asked on cross-
examination if he had ever suspended an employee
twice before, Lilly testified, "I don't remember
whether I have or not. Usually when we give an em-
ployee time off they don't return."
Unlike previously suspended employees, Rams
did not quit after her suspension, but returned to
work, and, for the first time on March 8, was as-
signed the job of cutting certain gaskets on a miter-
ing machine. Rams operated the machine until
about 10 or 10:30 that morning when both the
trimmer and Haygood noticed that the gaskets were
running short. Haygood checked the seven boxes
which had been filled by this time and found that
some of these pieces were short also. He then
notified Arbogast who thereafter took Earns off the
job. At the end of the day, Arbogast called hams
into his office and placed the blame on her for
cutting the gaskets short. He suspended her for a
week. hams protested that it was not her fault and
then said, "[Those] gaskets are hard, they had a
hard time running them ever since they started
them." Later in the conversation, Iiams told Ar-
bogast, "Well, you are giving me the hardest jobs
you can find," to which Arbogast replied, "Yes.
Why don't you quit?"6 hams stated, "I am not
quitting.'You will have to fire me first."
Although Arbogast testified that the job last as-
signed hams was easy, employee Laura Argo, the
regular operator on that job, have the following
description: "Well you have to miter. There are
three pieces of gaskets. One is a center piece and
there is a space in the center about that far (indicat-
ing) and a little bit further (indicating) and you got
to be very careful. It is a tedious job to get them in.
You miter that in on one machine. Then you cut the
other two ends off on another machine. You got to
pull them back against the block, which can't be
shoved in real hard, you have to come in or another
cutter." She further testified, "Well, you just got to
know how to put that gasket in there and do it. It is
4 The record shows that altogether hams punched about 300 gaskets, a
total of 40 of which were off-punched The record also shows that approx-
imately 40Q gaskets were punched on the three shifts, about 62 of which
were off-punched.
5 On cross-examination , Lilly testified that he told Earns she was being
suspended for "packing bad parts." It is clear that Cozad, and not hams
a very tedious job putting it in there. It is not an
easy job." Argo also testified, "We all made
mistakes on it. All tricks made mistakes, the same
mistakes on them.''
Following this suspension and a brief absence
due to death in her family, hams refused to "quit"
as urged by Arbogast, but returned to work and did
trimming for the first 2 days. However, on the third
day, March 23, she was again reassigned to work
with employee Helen Clary in assembling- and
finishing a gasket for an IBM machine. This gasket
consists of a hollow piece of extruded rubber tubing
into which is inserted a piece of magnetic material
that is stapled into the ballon of the gasket. When
properly assembled, the staples do not protrude
through the outside of the ballon. It appears from
the record that the two employees first work
together measuring, trimming, and notching a
supply of the tubing and magnetic material. Then,
while one employee continues this operation and in-
serts the magnetic material into the tubing, the other
performs the stapling operation. Rams was assigned
to work on this job in the absence of employee Lois
Starcher, who, after the job was set up, normally
continued with the first operation and Clary per-
formed the stapling. Rams had not performed this
job before. When hams was first assigned,
Haygood showed her how to cut on two of the guil-
lotine cutters, and Arbogast showed her how to
notch on the notcher. After Clary and hams had
spent about an hour getting the job set up, Arbogast
came over and told Iiams that she would have to do
the stapling. Arbogast adjusted the stapling gun and
stapled a couple of the parts in order to show hams
how the operation should be performed. He showed
her one that was improperly stapled so that the sta-
ple was piercing through the outside of the ballon
and cautioned her against this procedure. He
watched her staple several parts and then left the
line. Arbogast testified that he checked Iiams' work
once or twice during the morning and she seemed to
be doing the work properly. Arbogast testified
further that at the end of the shift, and after receiv-
ing word from his second-shift foreman, he checked
the last box of parts worked on by hams and found
them to be bad. Whereupon, he directed the
foreman to check her work and was advised that
more than 50 out of 300 parts were improperly sta-
pled. Arbogast pulled Iiams' timecard and
discharged her the following day, allegedly for bad
work. According to Arbogast, hams said, "I knew
that you had wanted to fire me because of my union
activity. You have not heard the last from me. I will
get even with you. I will be back." Arbogast did not
deny Iiams' charge.
packed the gaskets. Elsewhere in Lilly's direct testimony , he testified that
he told Dams to "make sure that she did not pack any bad parts ," and that
he inspected the pieces in the box rather than those on the table because
"this is what she was supposed to have inspected."
6 hams' charge that she was being assigned hard jobs by Arbogast is
corroborated, in part, by Haygood's testimony , as noted above.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A careful analysis of the foregoing facts, and the
record as a whole, convinces us that Respondent
singled out hams because of her known union so-
licitation activities and embarked on the foregoing
course of conduct for the purpose of getting rid of
hams in order to discourage the organizational ef-
forts of its employees. Thus, in August 1965, hams
was abruptly transferred, without explanation, from
her regular job to various jobs in the molding de-
partment, each of which changed with predictable
frequency. In the absence of some plausible ex-
planation by Respondent, we do not believe that
this abrupt change in Iiams' job status can be iso-
lated from Respondent's knowledge or suspicion of
Iiams' activities on behalf of the Union.7 Indeed, it
appears from Bell's conversation with Arbogast
that Respondent became aware of Iiams' solicita-
tion of union cards before or around the time the
petition was filed in the representation proceeding,
Case 8-RC-6039.8
Nor do we find any basis in the record for isolat-
ing Respondent's sudden and frequent changes in
Iiams' job status from its subsequent conduct in
first suspending and finally discharging her.
Respondent clearly demonstrated its union animus
by the unfair labor practices which it committed
during the Union's preelection campaign. Then, at
the very time that Respondent professed a lack of
antiunion motives in its postelection treatment of
Earns, Respondent, in addition to committing other
unfair labor practices, reactivated the plant commit-
tee and embarked on a course of domination,
assistance, and dealings with the committee in
flagrant disregard of its employees' rights to select
a bargaining representative of their own choosing,
and attempted thereby to frustrate any future or-
ganizational efforts of the emplc,yees.9 In the light
of these unfair labor practices and the unrefuted
testimony in the record that Arbogast admitted giv-
ing hams the hardest jobs he could find and asking
her to quit,10 we find that the reasons asserted by
Respondent for Iiams' three disciplinary layoffs and
discharge were pretexts used by Respondent to
mask its unlawful plan to get rid of Iiams.
Other evidence in the record supports the conclu-
sions which we have reached. Thus, the record
9 We do not consider it material to our decision herein that Respondent
may not have known the extensive nature of hams' solicitation on behalf
of the Union . Respondent knew that some employees were soliciting
cards for the Union, and Iiams' name stood out as the only one which had
been positively identified to the Respondent.
8 We take official notice of the fact that the representation petition was
filed on August 10, 1965
9 This conduct assumes even greater significance since the record
shows that the illegal committee was first established by Respondent
shortly after the Union had been ousted as the employees' collective-bar-
gaining representative.
io We do not consider Respondent's testimony as either contradicting
or denying Iiams ' testimony to this effect.
shows that hams was suspended abruptly on
December 27, without prior warning that her work
was deficient in any manner, for what appears to
have been a minor infraction, one which occurred
at a time of day when it could have been corrected
readily by Iiams herself. h1 While one of the reasons,
if not the principal reason as it appears from the
record, for Iiams' suspension on January 13 was
that she "packed" bad parts, the record clearly
shows that employee Cozad actually packed the
gaskets and placed her inspection slip in the box,
facts which the most casual investigation should
have revealed to Respondent. As to Iiams' suspen-
sion on March 8 for cutting gaskets short, the
testimony of the regular operator, Laura Argo,
makes short shrift of Respondent's attempt to belit-
tle the difficulty involved in the operation. Indeed,
Argo's testimony indicates that the operation
required, over and above the exercise of extreme
care, a certain degree of skill or dexterity which an
employee, as in the case of Iiams, would not or-
dinarily be expected to demonstrate without some
previous experience on the operation. In addition
to Arbogast's failure on March 24 to deny Iiams'
charge that Respondent wanted to fire her because
of her union activity, the record evidence of the
events of the previous day discloses highly suspi-
cious and unexplained circumstances surrounding
Iiams' transfer to the stapling operation. Thus, as it
appears in the record, hams was performing
satisfactorily the operations normally performed by
Starcher, the absent employee whom she replaced.
However, Respondent unaccountably assigned
hams to perform the stapling operation which em-
ployee Clary, who was present, normally per-
formed. When these circumstances are considered
along with the other evidence detailed herein, we
are persuaded, and find, that Arbogast assigned
hams to the stapling operation in anticipation that
she would make mistakes and spoil materials so that
he could have a pretext for discharging her. Ac-
cordingly, and contrary to the Trial Examiner, we
find that Respondent, by its conduct in assigning
hams to "the hardest jobs [it could] find," then
suspending and finally discharging her, violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
"We find wholly unpersuasive Respondent's claim that Lilly did not
know of hams' union activities when he suspended her. As noted above,
both Lilly's immediate superior, Arbogast, and his assistant foreman,
Haygood, knew of Hams' union activities.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not find that other employees had
been suspended in circumstances similar to hams. Thus, the record shows
that employee Judy Herrman, who was given a week's suspension for
packing dirty gaskets, was given a prior warning for the same offense on
the previous day. Penny Batton, who was suspended 3 days for packing
improperly mitered parts, admitted that she did not pay attention to in-
structions. Hazel Vaughn, who was given 2 days off for filling out her
work tickets improperly, was instructed twice and warned once about the
tickets before she was suspended. This was not true in Iiams' case. In-
deed, the Respondent produced no evidence of another employee who
was treated as severely as Iiams.
THE REMEDY
GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY 489
As we have found that Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order it to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall also amend the Trial Examiner 's Recom-
mended Order to include a broad cease -and-desist
order.
As we have found that Respondent discrimina-
torily suspended and discharged Lorma Jean Iiams,
we shall order her reinstated, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed by her, to her former or substantially
equivalent position , and make whole for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of her dis-
criminatory suspensions and discharge. Her
backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Wool-
worth Company , 90 NLRB 289, and shall include
interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Geauga Plastics Company, Crestline, Ohio, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Renumber the present paragraph 1(b) as 1(c)
and add the following as paragraph 1(b) in the
cease-and-desist portion of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order:
"(b) Discharging or suspending its employees
for having engaged in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection."
2. Delete from the present paragraph 1(b) and
the fourth indented paragraph of the Appendix at-
tached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, the words
"like or related" and substitute the word "other."
3. Renumber the present paragraphs 2(b) and (c)
as 2(e) and (f), respectively, and add the following
as paragraphs 2(b) and (c):
"(b) Offer Lorma Jean hams immediate 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 pay which she may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her,
in the manner set forth in that portion of the Board's
Decision entitled `The Remedy."'
"(c) Notify Lorma Jean Iiams, if presently serv-
ing in the Armed Forces of the United States of her
right to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
"(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order."
4. Delete the last sentence in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order.
5. Insert immediately after the third indented
paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision the following paragraphs)
WE WILL NOT discharge or suspend our em-
ployees for engaging in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL offer Lorma Jean hams immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make her whole for any loss of pay which
she may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against her.
6. Add the following as the last indented para-
graph:
WE WILL notify the above-named employee,
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of her right to full reinstatement,
upon application, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the
above-entitled consolidated proceeding was held before
the duly designated Trial Examiner on July 8 and 29,
1966, at Galion, Ohio. The complaint in Case
8-CA-4189 charges the Geauga Plastics Company,
herein called the Respondent or the Company, with il-
legal conduct in restraining and coercing its employees
with respect to their statutory right to self-organization,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and with unlaw-
ful discharge of one employee; the complaint in Case
8-CA-4210 charges the Respondent with having illegally
assisted, interfered with, and dominated the operation
and administration of the plant committee, and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. After the close of the
hearing briefs were received from the General Counsel
and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses I make the following:
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Geauga Plastics Company is a wholly owned subsidia-
ry of Geauga Industries Company, which in turn is
wholly owned by Carlisle Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation having its principal office and place of busi-
ness in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Only the Respondent's
plant located at Crestline, Ohio, is involved in this
proceeding. From this plant, the Respondent, which
manufactures extruded molded plastic goods, annually
ships products valued in excess of $50,000, to points
located outside the State of Ohio. I find that the Respond-
ent is now and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO , herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Plant Committee
For the last 5 years, and perhaps longer, the Company
has maintained in operation in its factory, a plant commit-
tee established by the Company and existing pursuant to
certain written rules promulgated by the Employer. There
exists a printed booklet entitled "Employee Regula-
tions," prepared by the Company and distributed to all its
employees. It contains the following sections:
PLANT COMMITTEE
A -The plant committee was organized to meet with
management at least once each month. This commit-
tee discusses various suggestions, plans and ideas to
both the plant employees and management. Also,
grievances that could not be handled by the various
foremen are discussed and settled
B - The committee is formed as follows
An election is held once each year and each of
the following groups elect one representative.
1st shift- female employees
1st shift- male employees
2nd shift- female employees
2nd shift- male employees
At the time of printing this policy book the 3rd shift
is represented by the second shift committee, how-
ever, the following schedule will apply.
3rd shift-when there are 25 regularly sched-
uled employees-one representative. When
there are 40 regularly scheduled employees-
one male representative, one female representa-
tive.
GRIEVANCES
A - Employees are requested to go to their
foreman with any questions, problems or sug-
gestions, but in event the employee has a matter that
cannot be satisfactorily handled by the foreman, he
(or she) may go to a member of the plant committee
and explain the problem, etc. Thus determination
will be made at the next committee meeting. If for
any reason, the above-procedure does not suffice,
with the Production Superintendent or the General
Manager upon request for an appointment.
The practice has been that whenever there is a vacancy
on the committee a foreman or other management
representative so advises the employees of a particular
department and tells them to gather and select one of their
members. The election takes place sometimes in the work
area, sometimes in the foreman's office. Normally, com-
mittee meetings with the Company take place once a
month, but sometimes less frequently, or whenever there
are questions to be considered. Again, it is the Company
which decides when meetings are to be held, a supervisor
tells a committee member or other, and conferences take
place between the members and the representatives of the
Company, always in the plant and sometimes in the su-
perintendent's office The employees are always paid for
time spent in these gatherings, be it to elect members or
to discuss thew grievances and desires with the Em-
ployer.
There were received into evidence typewritten minutes
of the meetings held on November 18 and December 13,
1965, January 7, February 23, March 29, April 28, May
31, and June 14, 1966. A great variety of subjects were
discussed and decided at these conferences, including
such things as picnic plans, the purchase of phonograph
records to be played during work hours, parking facilities,
courtesy towards supervisors, and matters of that type
The following issues also are reported in writing as having
been discussed: (1) Saturday being scheduled as a regular
scheduled workday; (2) Seniority based on time worked;
(3) Double shifts being counted in seniority;, (4) Why
make 8-hour rate when only work 7-1/2 hours? (5) Will 3
days off for disciplinary action be counted for absentee-
ism? (6) Will third-shift employees get paid for the auto
accident on November 7 because they were unable to
work? (7) Will the employees have Friday, November
26, off? (8) Will the employees get their raise and paid
hospitalization this year? (9) Saturdays will count on
seniority effective December 1, 1965; (10) New Ford
cartons are too heavy to be moved by the women; (11)
The rule for being off on leave for 3 months then being
hired in as a new employee is under advisement; (12) Will
the girls in the molding department be eligible for the 5-
cent raise in April? (13) Will the plant shut down for va-
cation? (14) Can something be set up whereby second-
shift employees can attend high school graduation exer-
cises the day after a holiday and still not lose their holiday
pay?
I find, contrary to the denial in the Respondent's
answer, that the plant committee is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The
minutes of the meeting show convincingly that it
represents the employees vis-a-vis the employer o.I mat-
ters relating to wages and other terms and conditions of
employment I also find, as alleged in the complaint, that
the Respondent has in the past and now continues to
GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY
render unlawful assistance and support to the committee.
Its entire underlying authority stems from rules of em-
ployment established unilaterally by the Company; the
employees meet on rare occasion , without presence of
management representatives, to vote upon and determine
a consensus of opinion on any question which the com-
mittee members and the "Company jointly decide should
be submitted directly to the employees. There is no other
activity of the committee apart from what has been
detailed above; it is literally a creature of the Respondent,
formed, controlled and dominated by the Company. I
conclude that by maintaining the plant committee, by
rendering it assistance and support, and by fully dominat-
ing it, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act. In its brief the Respondent, "offers no objection to
the disestablishment" of the plant committee.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
An organizational campaign began among the em-
ployees about July 1965. On petition filed by the Union
(Case 8-RC-6039) the Board 's Regional Director issued
a Decision and Direction of Election on September 9,
1965, and an election among the Respondent 's approxi-
mately 139 production and maintenance employees was
held on October 6; the Union lost the election by 70 to
52. No objections were filed.
There was much talk in the shop about the union cam-
paign by both rank-and-file and supervisory personnel.
The Union held meetings and word was passed about
openly, both before and after the meetings . Anthony
Tesso, an extrusion machine operator , testified that in
August Aley Smith , then an assistant foreman, asked him
how the Union was "going," and did Tesso think it was a
"good thing." Tesso asked how Smith would vote, and
the answer was "no ." Smith became a foreman shortly
after the election , and, as alleged in the complaint and as
admitted in the answer, a supervisor as defined in the Act
and an agent of the Respondent . In February he asked
Tesso would the Union "come back," and when Tesso
said he thought yes, the foreman told him : "If you want a
chance out here again when the Union comes around you
better talk him down , talk against it . . . that is how I
got to my chance again . . . if I would not have talked
against the Union and that Union would have got in .. .
that he [Smith] would have been the first one out of the
door."
Smith did not testify , and I credit Tesso's uncon-
tradicted testimony and find that Smith told the employee
that he , Smith , was promoted because he spoke out
against the Union , and that Tesso must do the same if he
wished to advance in his employment . This illegal
promise of advancement by the foreman as a reward for
rejecting the Union constituted unlawful coercion upon
the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Judy Volk testified that about a week before the start
of October 1965, James Bell, the finishing department
foreman , asked had she heard anything about the Union
and had she signed a card. She said yes, and Bell then ex-
plained he did not want a union in the plant because it
would "take over" and preclude the Employer 's freedom
to give raises . On October 2, the day after a publicized
union meeting, still according to Volk, Bell asked her
"how the union meeting went ." She said she had not yet
491
decided which way to go , and he then told her: "Well,
I've got my little list of names ... that went to the union
meeting."
Foreman Bell also spoke to employee Kaye Bevins
about the union meeting. She testified there was much
talk between the two of them before the meeting , in which
she made clear she favored the Union. Bell then asked
her not to use her influence to prevail upon others to go
her way, to let them decide for themselves . Bell also told
Bevins, as she recalled , that he "knew ... who was going
to vote for the Union and who wasn't."
Bell admitted having discussed the union meeting with
individual employees . He told one girl, Miss Markum, he
knew she had gone to the meeting . He asked another,
Kaye Bevins , whether she was going . He denied asking
Judy Volk whether she had attended or telling her he had
a list of any kind . Bell also testified , however, that he did
tell Miss Markum he knew who was attending the meet-
ing, and that "I had a list of all the people that had gone."
On the basis of the demeanor of Foreman Bell at the
hearing and of his own admissions , I credit the testimony
of Volk and Bevins. Accordingly , I find that the foreman
questioned employees concerning their attendance at
union meetings and that he told Volk he had a list of those
who had been present and Bevins that he knew exactly
how the employees would vote in the coming election.
Such statements constituted clear intimation to the em-
ployees that the Respondent was surveying their union
activities and, necessarily , as the Board has repeatedly
found , coerced and restrained them in their right to decide
the question of union representation free of employer
interferences) In the light of such intimidating tactics,
and of Foreman Smith 's threat to Tesso that promotion
with the Company was conditioned upon an antiunion at-
titude, the interrogation must also be deemed as illegally
coercive in itself.2 I find that by such statements of
Foremen Smith and Bell the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Discharge of Lorma Iiams
Lorma hams worked for the Company for about 3
years before her discharge on March 23, 1966 . She was
active in the summer of 1965 in the union campaign , visit-
ing upwards of 50 employees at their homes, soliciting
signatures to union cards , and generally talking it up. She
did all this, for the most part, before the election, and
management knew she was among those who favored the
Union , although she testified she limited her union activi-
ties to off premise locations . To what extent others may
also have campaigned on behalf of the Union the record
does not show ; it cannot be said , therefore, that hams
was particularly outstanding among the moving spirits, or
that the Respondent believed her to be a principal actor.
She had been working 1 year or 2 in the molding de-
partment , when , in late November 1965, she was trans-
ferred to the finishing department , where a variety of
functions are performed . In her direct testimony Iiams
said she asked General Foreman Arbogast why the
change, and that Arbogast answered : "None of the girls
get along with me . I caused trouble." On cross-examina-
tion she plainly stated a quite different reason. "Well, I
hurt my back in Molding . They sent me to the Doctor.
The Doctor said I pulled a muscle in my arm. I took a slip
1 Gal Tex Hotel Corporation , dlbla Admiral Semmes Hotel, 154 2 Blue Flash Express Co., 109 NLRB 591.
NLRB 338.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back and I gave it to Basel [Arbogast]. That is when he
pulled me out of Molding." "The Doctor told me not to
do any more hard pulling or pushing." In the end there
was no question but that the transfer was for the purpose
of placing her on the lighter work for personal con-
venience and comfort.
In the finishing department Iiams made a number of
mistakes in her work. That these errors in fact occurred,
and that each indeed reflected carelessness on her part,
she admitted. On December 27 she did not properly trim
excess flash from certain vulcanized parts she was finish-
ing; her foreman imposed a 3-day disciplinary measure.
Early in January she off-punched about 40 parts- they
became scrap- out of approximately 300 pieces she had
made. This time she was laid off a whole week in repri-
mand. On March 8 again she was suspended for a week,
this time because she cut certain gaskets too short by
mistake. Now the suspension was accompanied by writ-
ten notice that another such offense would mean
discharge.
On the day of her discharge hams was working on cer-
tain gaskets on which parts are stapled by machine. She
stapled them in such a way that a necessary part was
punctured where this was not supposed to happen. Of
about 450 such gaskets she made 80 that could not be
used. With this final error as the stated reason by her su-
pervisor, she was released outright.
The complaint alleges that all three of the short layoffs
imposed upon Iiams, as well as her final discharge, were
motivated by an intent to discourage hers, as well as the
prounion sentiments of other employees. I do not think a
preponderance of the substantial record evidence in its
entirety suffices to prove this element of the complaint,
and shall therefore recommend dismissal with respect to
Lorma Iiams.
The Respondent knew she favored the Union, but it
has not been shown she was, or that the Company be-
lieved her to be particularly outstanding in her activities.
It is true the Respondent was opposed to collective bar-
gaining, as evidenced by the coercive and illegal state-
ments of its foremen. There is no significant indication,
however, that its animus was directed against her in-
dividually. In the light of her total testimony, I do not
credit her statement that the general foreman told her the
transfer 4 months before her discharge was decided upon
because she "caused trouble." She was by no means the
only employee to be disciplined in this fashion for errors
of work or for other reasons. Record slips showing layoffs
of four other employees for varying periods between July
and March of 1966 were placed in evidence. Paulette
Cozad, an employee witness for the General Counsel,
called to testify that she had also made errors and had not
been disciplined, also admitted "there was quite a few
people given time off for bad work." When, to all this, is
added the fact hams certainly gave cause for discharge,
it cannot be said a prima facie case has been proved
against the Respondent. After her third successive layoff,
each directly associated with and following improper
work performance, she complained, and the supervisor
asked why did she not quit. In a matter of days she re-
peated the same type of error. In the total circumstances,
however suspect the supervisor's comment may have
been, it cannot serve to obliterate the objective facts.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record of the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Geauga Plastics Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization as
detined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities, by creating the impression that
management is surveying their union activities, and by
promising promotion in employment in return for rejec-
tion of any union as collective-bargaining agent, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By initiating, forming, and dominating the plant
committee the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I recommend that the Respondent, Geauga Plastics
Company, Crestline, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation and
administration of the plant committee or any other labor
organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities, conveying the impression to the em-
ployees that their union activities are being surveyed by
management , promising advancement in employment as
a reward to employees for rejecting collective bargaining
through any union, or in any like or related manner inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and
completely disestablish, the plant committee as the
representative of any of its employees for the purposes of
GEAUGA PLASTICS COMPANY
dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment.
((b) Post at its plant in Crestline, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished'by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 8, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately 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 by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.4
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges-illegal discrimination in the
discharge of Lorma Iiams.
' In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
4In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
493
WE HEREBY disestablish the plant committee as
the representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, and we will
not recognize it or any successor for any of the above
purposes.
WE WILL NOT initiate, dominate, or interfere with
the administration of any labor organization or con-
tribute support to it.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities, create the
impression that their union activities are being sur-
veyed by management, or promise advancement in
employment on condition that employees reject col-
lective bargaining through any union of their choice.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist any labor organization, to join United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any
labor organization.
Dated By
GEAUGA PLASTICS COM-
PANY
(Employer)
(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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley
Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115,
Telephone 621-4465, Extension 42.