General Indicator Corporation, REDCO Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Indicator Corporation, REDCO Division
and Bobby Rhines. Case 33-CA-5022
March 29, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER
On September 9, 1981, Administrative Law
Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions' of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Indica-
tor Corporation, REDCO Division, Peoria, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
'In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the moti-
vating reason for Rhines' discharge was his protected concerted activity,
Chairman Van de Water emphasizes Respondent did not have or uni-
formly enforce a rule prohibiting employees from talking or entering into
discussions on working time and that Respondent's termination letter
stated that Rhines' "unsettling relations with other employees" prompted
his termination. Despite Rhines' irritating conduct which was repugnant
to both union members and Employer representatives, the Chairman con-
cludes that Rhines' principal activity, seeking to displace the current
union steward, falls within the purview of protected union activity
I In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250
NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forth therein
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Peoria, Illinois, on May 27, 1981,
pursuant to a charge filed on September 3, 1980,' by
Bobby Rhines, an individual, and a complaint issued on
October 10.
'All dates referred to are in 1980 unless otherwise stated.
The complaint alleges General Indicator Corporation,
REDCO Division (herein referred to as Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the
Act), by unlawfully terminating and thereafter failing
and refusing to reinstate Bobby Rhines because he en-
gaged in union or protected concerted activities2 and in
order to discourage its employees from engaging in pro-
tected union and concerted activity.
Respondent in its answer served on October 15 denies
having violated the Act and stated it was unaware of any
"union or protected concerted activities" engaged in by
Rhines.
The issue involved is whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily dis-
charging and refusing to reinstate Rhines because of his
union or protected concerted activities.
Upon the entire record3 in this case and from my ob-
servations of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent, I hereby make the following: 4
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an office
and place of business located at Peoria, Illinois, is en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing electrical switch-
gear and controls. During the 12-month period preceding
October 10, a representative period, Respondent in the
course of its operations sold and shipped finished prod-
ucts, valued in excess of $50,000, from its Peoria plant to
points located outside the State of Illinois and purchased
goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, which
were delivered to its plant directly from States located
outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI VED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 34 (herein referred to as the Union), is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a plant located at Peoria, Illinois,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of electrical
switchgear and controls. Included among its official and
supervisory personnel are President David Fulton, Fore-
2 The General Counsel in response to a motion for a bill of particulars
defined the protected activities referred to included "Rhines, discussions
with other employees, the effectiveness of Kenny Johnson as union ste-
ward and Rhines suggesting that Johnson be removed from his position
as union steward "
' The motions of Respondent and the General Counsel to correct the
transcript are hereby granted
4 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based upon the pleadings.
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit
260 NLRB No. 179
1266
GENERAL INDICATOR CORPORATION
man Stan Jolliff,5 Production Manager Vick Eller, and
Controller Lee Hagemann.
Its production and maintenance employees are repre-
sented by the Union with which it has a collective-bar-
gaining agreement covering them. This agreement also
contains union-security provisions requiring employees to
become members of the Union. Michael Miller and Don
Leroy are business agents for the Union and Kenny
Johnson, who is employed by Respondent, has been a
union steward 6 at the plant since May 17, 1977.
Bobby Rhines was employed by Respondent for ap-
proximately 15 years until his discharge effective April 3.
He worked as a senior wireman in the wiring department
under the supervision of Foreman Jolliff at the time of
his discharge.
Prior to being transferred to the wiring department in
1979 Rhines worked in the SP department during which
he also served as leadman7 until being relieved of that
position in 1976.
According to President Fulton, Rhines' title as lead-
man was removed at the request of other employees and
he was subsequently transferred as a result of his con-
tinuing to give instructions to other employees when he
did not have the authority to do so, thereby creating dis-
sension among them.
Kenny Johnson, who worked in the SP department
while Rhines was leadman, testified he was instrumental
in having Rhines removed from his position as leadman
by drafting a petition listing complaints from other em-
ployees to have Rhines removed and giving it to former
Production Manager Dale Vaughn.
Rhines acknowledged blaming Johnson for the loss of
his leadman's position and stated the reasons given to
him for his removal as leadman and his subsequent trans-
fer were because other employees were complaining
about him and his giving orders.
Foreman Jolliff testified Rhiness would not cooperate
with or work with other employees in the shop and kept
it in constant turmoil. According to him, other employ-
ees, including Jimmy Witt, Roy Harris, Jack Gulick, and
Thomas Franz, had all asked him not to put Rhines on
jobs with them and their complaint was Rhines wanted
to do everything his own way rather than Respondent's
way.
Neither Harris nor Witt testified. While Gulick ac-
knowledged having informed Foreman Jolliff a couple of
times he did not want to work with Rhines and had said
lots of times he could not get along with Rhines, he
stated most of the time he got along fairly well with
Rhines. Franz described his working relationship with
Rhines as one where they tolerated each other but
denied complaining to anyone else about working with
Rhines.
While Rhines admitted in connection with his removal
as leadman and his transfer from the SP department
being told that employees were complaining about him,
he denied being aware of complaints that other employ-
' Both Jolliff, who became a foreman in January 1980, and Fulton are
supervisors under the Act.
'The stewards are selected by the business agent
'The leadmen are included in the bargaining unit.
'Both Jolliff and Rhines admitted disliking each other
ees did not want to work with him in the wiring depart-
ment. He also denied having arguments with Jimmy
Witt, Jack Gulick, Thomas Franz, or other employees
but said he had debates with them.
Rhines was admittedly opposed to Johnson serving as
union steward. He estimated during the 2-week period
preceding his discharge he talked to about 25 of the ap-
proximately 43 employees in the shop about removing
Johnson from his position as union steward because of
his relationship to Foreman Jolliff.9 Rhines also talked to
Business Agent Miller on several occasions about it in-
cluding April 3 when he talked to both Business Agent
Miller and Business Agent Leroy while they were at the
plant. Under cross-examination Rhines acknowledged
that soon after Johnson took over as union steward,
which was in 1977, he had talked to a lot of employees
complaining about Johnson being steward and had com-
mented to them Johnson should not be steward because
he was related to Foreman Jolliff. According to him, his
position that Johnson should not remain as union steward
was common knowledge at the plant.
Several witnesses presented by Respondent, including
Foreman Jolliff, Union Steward Johnson, and employees
Dennis Seidel, Thomas Franz, Jack Gulick, Walter Car-
rington, and Danny Gorham, all testified that for years
Rhines had wanted Johnson removed from his position
as union steward and this was common knowledge in the
plant. Jolliff further stated Rhines always wanted to be
union steward himself and several times over the last 10
years he had heard Rhines talk about becoming union
steward. 'o
About March 13, Union Steward Johnson, Rhines, and
Thomas Frantz were working together on a job involv-
ing the wiring of panels and doors. Johnson was assigned
to the job first and acted as coordinator.
Johnson, whose testimony was corroborated in part by
Franz, testified without denial that upon suggesting to
Rhines that Rhines start working on the doors Rhines
made no response and later he observed Rhines doing
other work instead.
Johnson complained to Foreman Jolliff who took both
Johnson and Rhines to Production Manager Eller's office
where the incident was discussed with Eller."
This meeting ended with Foreman Jolliff informing
both Johnson and Rhines that they had a job to do and
instructed them to cooperate with each other and to get
the job done.
No warning was given to Rhines on that occasion. On
March 24, Union Steward Johnson and Rhines were also
working on the same job. Johnson stated on that occa-
sion Rhines had started tying the door to the subpan but
stopped without finishing it. Upon his questioning Rhines
about why he had not finished the job, Rhines first said
he was not ready. However, later that day when he
again questioned Rhines about it, Rhines cursed him and
they got into an argument.
Rhines at the hearing did not specifically dispute John-
son's testimony about not finishing the job. Both Johnson
9 Johnson is the nephew of Foreman Jolliff
"' Rhines denied thinking he should have the job as union steward
" Eller did not testifv
1267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Rhines stated they complained to Foreman Jolliff.
According to Foreman Jolliff following complaints that
day by Johnson that Rhines would not cooperate in per-
forming work and after hearing both of them holler and
swear at each other he again took them to Production
Manager Eller.
Jolliff testified that during this meeting after they had
viewed the job itself Eller informed Rhines it was plain
that he was not trying to cooperate on the job. When
Rhines and Johnson then began arguing among them-
selves Eller instructed Jolliff to place Rhines on a job
strictly by himself so he would not have to work with or
be around other people. Jolliff stated he himself told
them other people had run up and down the stairs with
Rhines over things like that but he wanted them to know
this would be the final trip up there and he did not have
time to run up and down those steps over his turmoil.
Jolliff further stated Eller said they would have to take
further steps.
Union Steward Johnson corroborated Jolliff's version
of this incident.
Rhines acknowledged such statements were made at
this meeting. While he further stated Jolliff told him he
would get rid of him but Eller had informed Jolliff that
he and Rhines may be up there a lot of times and Rhines
would still have his job, I do not credit such comment
which is inconsistent with the testimony of Foreman Jol-
liff and Union Steward Johnson which I credit. Apart
from my observations of the witnesses in crediting Jolliff
and Johnson rather than Rhines, his testimony was con-
tradictory.
Rhines was not given a written warning concerning
this incident.
Following the meeting in Production Manager Eller's
office Foreman Jolliff removed Rhines from the job and
assigned him to a job by himself and he continued work-
ing by himself until his discharge.
Donald Carpenter stated a few weeks before Rhines'
discharge, Rhines, who was coming from Production
Manager Eller's office, had remarked he had to watch
what he was doing because somebody was after him
trying to get his job or something. Rhines acknowledged
talking to Carpenter but stated he could not recall their
conversation.
B. Rhines' Discharge
Walter Carrington, whose testimony was corroborated
by Donald Carpenter, testified shortly before lunch 2 on
April 3 he was working at his machine in the sheet metal
department 3 with his helper Donald Carpenter when
Rhines came over and mentioned he wanted to get rid of
Johnson as union steward. After asking Rhines if he
could talk to him at lunchtime Rhines left. During the
conversation Carpenter asked Rhines to leave the area.
Rhines admitted talking to both Carrington and Car-
penter about Johnson that day on company time. Rhines
also said he talked to employee Danny Gorham that
same day and asked him if he thought Johnson should be
the union steward.
"'The lunch period was from 11:30 a.m to 12 noon.
' Carrington worked in department 32
During the lunch period that day Carrington stated he
asked Johnson about what Rhines had said whereupon
Johnson said he would look into the matter. Johnson ac-
knowledged Carrington had informed him Rhines had
been back in the sheet metal department talking about
the relationship between Jolliff and himself and about
trying to get him out as union steward and Carrington
had said somebody ought to stop it.
Carrington further testified during the afternoon break
that day1 he also talked to Foreman Jolliff about his
conversation with Rhines and when it occurred and told
him to keep Rhines out of their department because he
wanted to get rid of the union steward and he was both-
ering them. According to Carrington, Rhines was both-
ering them because of the union business and he could
not understand why Rhines wanted to get rid of Johnson
who had always helped them out with the Union. Jol-
liff's response was that he would look into it.
Foreman Jolliff acknowledged having the conversation
with Carrington which he placed as occurring at lunch-
time and stated Carrington asked him to keep Rhines out
of their area and away from them because he was back
there stirring up trouble and they could not get their
work done.
Danny Gorham, who was present when Carrington
talked to Foreman Jolliff, testified he then told Jolliff if
they were going after Johnson he was going to take the
whole shop out on a wildcat 15 because he believed John-
son had done a good job and believed the people in the
shop would stand behind him. According to Gorham
about 10:30 a.m. Carrington had come to him on compa-
ny time'6 and wanted to know what Rhines was doing
about wanting to get a different steward or getting up a
petition or something.
Foreman Jolliffs version was Gorham mentioned to
him if Rhines became the union steward Gorham was
going to take most of the people and walk out of the
place. He aslo acknowledged that after Gorham told him
this he had an idea that this was the trouble Carrington
had mentioned Rhines was stirring up.
Union Steward Johnson testified that after lunch that
day while he was at his work station Danny Gorham
came and told him he had heard the same thing Carring-
ton had related to him. Other employees including Millie
Stevens, Ron Peterson, and Dennis Seidel also reported
to him that day they had heard the same thing about
Rhines questioning his ability as union steward because
of his relationship to Foreman Jolliff and because of Jol-
liff's influence.
That afternoon a meeting was held at the plant be-
tween representatives of the Union and Respondent con-
cerning the pension plan. This meeting, held in Control-
ler Hagemann's office, was attended by Hagemann,
Union Business Agents Miller and Leroy, and Union Ste-
ward Johnson.
" The break period was from 1:45 p.m to 2 p.m.
'5 Under sec. 15 of the collective-bargaining agreement employees
were subject to discipline or discharge by Respondent for participating in
unauthorized strikes.
16 Gorham worked in wiring department 30
1268
GENERAL INDICATOR CORPORATION
Following this meeting Johnson stated he asked Hage-
mann if he could have a few minutes and requested that
Foreman Jolliff also be brought in the office where the
same persons who had attended the meeting on the pen-
sion plan were present. After Jolliff arrived at the office
Johnson told them there was something he wanted both
the Company and the Union to listen to whereupon he
got Hagemann to bring both Gorham and Carrington
into the office and told them to relate what they had told
him.
Gorham testified he told them Carrington had come to
him on company time wanting to know what it was all
about and why people were coming to him; he also told
them what he had told Jolliff and about Rhines going to
Carrington on company time. Carrington did not testify
concerning what he said at the meeting.
Jolliff stated upon reporting to Hagemann's office for
the meeting Hagemann told him there was a problem
and Rhines was supposed to be cranking up some trouble
and stirring up the shop.
Johnson, who was not present when Carrington and
Gorham talked to the others at the meeting, stated after
they left he told Hagemann, Miller, and Leroy if the
Company wanted his job or if the Union needed the
steward's position that was fine but he had made up his
mind. He said he had been reprimanded for Rhines and
seen excuses made for him and been lied to about Rhines
and everything else for 7 years but it stopped that day.
When Miller asked whether he wanted them to take the
steward's position away his response was he did not care
what they did which was entirely in their own hands.
However, he said he just wanted them all together to
hear this and said the next time he heard talk or Rhines
threatened him verbally or physically he would handle
it; he told them they could have his job that day but said
it ends now.
According to Johnson, Hagemann felt this was impor-
tant enough for President Fulton to know so they all
then went to President Fulton's office.
The meeting in President Fulton's office was attended
by Union Business Agents Miller and Leroy, Foreman
Jolliff, Controller Hagemann, and President Fulton.
Union Steward Johnson also attended the first part of
the meeting but left shortly after it started.
President Fulton's version of this meeting was that the
group explained they had a problem with Rhines and
mentioned his employment history and the March 13 and
24 incidents" and the warning given to him on the latter
occasion. He was informed Rhines had left his work sta-
tion that day and proceeded out of the work area to an-
other part of the shop where he did not belong and was
disrupting the efforts of Carpenter and Carrington, who
went to supervision and complained Rhines was prevent-
ing them from performing their mission and work and
that they were not interested in whatever Rhines wanted
to talk about. s Fulton denied that any mention of
" Fulton denied having any knowledge of the March 13 and 24 inci-
dents prior to the meeting.
"8 Fulton admitted having knowledge that as a result of this incident in
which Rhines had approached Carrington and Carpenter that Carrington
had mentioned, although not to him, that he was going to prepare a doc-
ument for other employees and had asked Fulton's secretary to type it.
Rhines' comments was made at this meeting. Both Jolliff
and Johnson also commented that the April 3 incident
was the last straw. After Foreman Jolliff recommended
Rhines' termination should be considered, Fulton then
discussed it with Business Agents Miller and Leroy, who
acknowledged something should be done and by either
word or other means acknowledged discharge was ap-
propriate. Fulton then went around the room and after
finding the consensus of opinion was uniform he an-
nounced that he and Hagemann would draft Rhines' ter-
mination letter; this was subsequently done.
Fulton stated that Rhines was discharged as a result of
a long history of creating dissension among the employ-
ees for whatever reason; disrupting the employees during
working hours; being away from his work station; and
creating an unhealthy environment in the work area. His
decision was based upon the recommendations of Fore-
man Jolliff, Controller Hagemann. Union Business
Agents Miller and Leroy, and Union Steward Johnson
and those incidents relied upon included the March 13
and 24 and April 3 incidents as well as Rhines' prior his-
tory of not being able to get along with other employees.
Union Steward Johnson testified that at this meeting
he began going over the things he brought out at the
earlier meeting in Hagemann's office and told Fulton if
the Company needed his job or the Union wanted that
position it did not make a bit of difference to him be-
cause he had made up his mind; he mentioned he was
not there to bargain for anyone's job and told them to
evaluate their own positions.
Foreman Jolliff, who acknowledged he was involved
in the decision to discharge Rhines, stated he informed
Fulton he felt it was time something was done about
Rhines because he kept the shop in constant turmoil,
whereupon Fulton agreed.
The following day, April 4, when Rhines arrived at
work Foreman Jolliff told him he would like to see him
in the office. Upon going to the office where Controller
Hagemann was also present, Jolliff told him due to what
happened yesterday and in the past they had decided to
terminate his job; he gave him his termination letter.
Rhines stated when he questioned Jolliff about his termi-
nation Jolliff made no response and Hagemann told him
to leave the building which he then did.
Rhines' termination letter dated April 3 and signed by
Foreman Jolliff provided as follows:
I am sure you are aware of the concern for the un-
settling relations with other employees resulting
from your actions on numerous occasions. Your su-
pervisor and representatives of the Union have
brought these matters to your attention in the form
of warnings, without result.
Since the unsettling effect has recently become very
serious, it is my responsibility to inform you that
your employment is being discontinued effective im-
mediately.
Section 17.3A of the collective-bargaining agreement
provides the following grounds for discharge: gross mis-
conduct; insubordination; disobedience; two major or
1269
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three minor reprimands within a I-year period; failure to
comply with established safety standards and/or proce-
dures; use of intoxicants or hallucinatory type drugs at
work and/or reporting to work in the state of intoxica-
tion; theft; absenteeism; and failure to report following
an authorized leave-of-absence.
President Fulton denied that Respondent has a prohi-
bition against solicitation in its facilities. Although Fore-
man Jolliff contends that Respondent maintains a rule
against solicitation in the shop, he defined solicitation to
mean people selling things and denied any knowledge of
anyone having been punished for violating this rule, al-
though he said several were verbally reprimanded.
Two employees, Thomas Franz and Jack Gulick, testi-
fied that Respondent frowned on employees being away
from their jobs or work areas. However, according to
Franz this was only if it was for any lengthy period of
time.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, contrary to Respond-
ent's denial, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging and refus-
ing to reinstate Rhines because of his union or protected
concerted activities.
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . .
by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organization
Discharging an employee because of animosity direct-
ed against him by his fellow employees and supervisors
because of his union activities violates Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. See Sargent Electric Company, 209
NLRB 630 (1974), enfd. 506 F.2d 1051 (3d Cir. 1974).
Direct evidence of discriminatory motivation is not nec-
essary to support a finding of discrimination and such
intent may be inferred from the record as a whole. Heath
International, Inc., 196 NLRB 318 (1972).
The findings supra, establish that during the 2-week
period immediately prior to his discharge Rhines, con-
sistent with his position openly expressed over previous
years, actively solicited the support of other employees
to have Johnson replaced as union steward because of
his relationship to his uncle, Foreman Jolliff. Two of
those employees who were solicited earlier on that same
day the decision to discharge Rhines was made, namely,
Walter Carrington and Danny Gorham, both of whom
supported Johnson as steward, reported Rhines' contacts
with them to Foreman Jolliff and Union Steward John-
son that day. Carrington informed Jolliff to keep Rhines
out of their department because he wanted to get rid of
the union steward who was bothering them and Gorham
threatened Jolliff with taking the employees out on a
wildcat strike in support of Johnson or if Rhines became
union steward.
Union Steward Johnson, after being informed of
Rhines' actions by Carrington and Gorham and several
other employees, reacted by having the Respondent at
his request conduct a meeting held that same day and at-
tended by representatives of both the Union and Re-
spondent, including Foreman Jolliff, at which Carrington
and Gorham related their conversations with Rhines.
Further, after Johnson informed those present if Re-
spondent wanted his job or if the Union needed his stew-
ard's position it was fine with him, he gave them an ulti-
matum that he would no longer tolerate Rhines' threats.
Thereafter, this matter and the prior incidents occurring
on March 13 and 24 as well were reported to President
Fulton who made the decision that day to discharge
Rhines based on recommendations including those of
Foreman Jolliff, Union Steward Johnson, and Business
Agents Miller and Leroy, who appointed the stewards.
Such evidence clearly shows that Rhines evoked the
animosity of certain of his fellow employees and union
members, including Union Steward Johnson as well as
Foreman Jolliff, by his attempts to have Johnson ousted
as union steward because of his relationship to Foreman
Jolliff and this resulted in threatened strike action by
Gorham who opposed Rhines' actions. To seek changes,
as here, in the union representation of employees in the
bargaining unit is a right protected by the Act and to
discharge Rhines for that reason would violate the Act.
The reasons advanced by Respondent for Rhines' dis-
charge were a long history of creating dissension among
the employees; disrupting employees during working
hours; being away from his work station; and creating an
unhealthy environment in the work area. Also included
were the March 13 and 24 and April 3 incidents.
Upon examining such reasons in light of the events
and circumstances surrounding Rhines' discharge, I do
not find them persuasive. Rather, I find these reasons
were mere pretexts to conceal the real discriminatory
reason for discharging Rhines, an employee with ap-
proximately 15 years' of service, which was his union ac-
tivities. For instance, Respondent did not have a no-so-
licitation rule prohibiting its employees from conversing
with one another. While Rhines admittedly talked to
Carrington and Carpenter together while they were
working on April 3, Gorham testified that on that same
day Carrington came to him on company time and dis-
cussed this same issue which he reported to Foreman
Jolliff and Controller Hagemann at the meeting held that
day leading to Rhines' discharge, without any showing
that either Carrington or Gorham was admonished or
disciplined for such similar conduct. Moreover, Union
Steward Johnson stated that on that same day after
lunch while he was at his work station Gorham came to
him and discussed this same issue.
Insofar as the March incidents are concerned no warn-
ing was issued to Rhines concerning the first incident
and on the latter occasion only a verbal warning was
given. Further, any dissension and disruption of employ-
ees occurring on April 3 appears attributable to the hos-
tile reaction of those employees who supported the in-
cumbent Union Steward Johnson rather than to any mis-
conduct on the part of Rhines who was merely exercis-
ing his legitimate union rights on that occasion. Thus, I
reject Respondent's defenses.
1270
GENERAL INDICATOR CORPORATION
Based upon the foregoing evidence and having reject-
ed Respondent's defenses as being pretextual, I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discriminatorily discharging Rhines effective April 3,
1980, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him for engag-
ing in union activities which had evoked animosity di-
rected against him by his fellow employees and union
members, including Union Steward Johnson as well as
Respondent Foreman Jolliff.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occur-
ring in connection with the operations of Respondent de-
scribed in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. General Indicator Corporation, REDCO Division,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 34, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Bobby Rhines effec-
tive April 3, 1980, and thereafter refusing to reinstate
him because of his union activities, Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to offer im-
mediate and full reinstatement to Bobby Rhines to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, then to a sub-
stantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his senior-
ity and other rights and privileges and to make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other compensation
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in his employment herein found by discri-
minatorily discharging him effective April 3, 1980, and
thereafter refusing to reinstate him. Backpay shall be
computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in-
terest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). '9
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
i" See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
ORDER 20
The Respondent, General Indicator Corporation,
REDCO Division, Peoria, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging activities in the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 34, or
any other labor organization, by discharging, refusing to
reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Bobby
Rhines to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
then to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make
him whole for any loss of pay and other compensation
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him herein found by discriminatorily discharging
him effective April 3, 1980, and thereafter refusing to re-
instate him, in the manner set forth in that section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Peoria, Illinois, facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."2 ' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 33, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 33, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
20 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
"2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Coun of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
1271
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF rHE
NATIONAL. LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WI I NOT discourage activities in the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Local 34, or any other labor organization, by
discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WIL l. NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WI. offer immediate and full reinstatement
to Bobby Rhines to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, then to a substantially equivalent job,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges, and WE Wll.L make him whole for
any loss of pay and other compensation he may
have suffered by reason of our discrimination
against him, with interest.
GENERAL INDICATOR CORPORATION,
REDCO DIVISION
1272