Harrington & Richardson, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1095 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC. 1095
1153; Spink Arms Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Continental Hotel, 133
INTLRB 1694.
3. During the 9-month period from June 1, 1961, through Febru-
ary 28, 1962, the Employer's gross volume of business was $376,465,
which if projected for a period of 12 months from June 1, 1961, would
-amount to $501,952.80. See Chickasaw Hotel Company d/b/a Chisca
Plaza Motor Hotel, 132 NLRB 1540. Further, the Employer's motel
is considered nonpermanent in character, for purposes of this Board's
jurisdictional standard, as more than 25 percent of the guests were
.transient and as more than 25 percent of the Employer's rental income
was derived from such transient guests. Finally, during the fiscal
,year ending February 28, 1962, the Employer had a direct inflow of
products from outside the State valued at more than $5,000. Such
.movement of goods across State lines is itself sufficient to establish
this Board's legal jurisdiction over the Employer. Southwest Hotels,
Inc., supra, at pp. 1153-1154. Under these circumstances, we find that
the Employer's operations come within the Board's legal jurisdiction
,and that they meet the gross volume of business test as well as the
-transient character test of this Board's standard for assertion of juris-
diction over motels, exclusive of permanent or residential motels.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised under Section 102.103
,of this Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on
the facts here present, this Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
.Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
Harrington & Richardson , Inc. and International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL -CIO. Case No.
1-CA-3562. April 17, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 31, 1962, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint
as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's dismissals.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
136 NLRB No. ,113.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations,
of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner,
The Board further orders that the complaint be dismissed to the extent
recommended by the Trial Examiner.
IIn the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the findings of the Trial
Examiner with regard to Respondent's violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with the General Counsel and the Respondent represented, was.
heard before Alba B. Martin, the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Gardner,
Massachusetts, on November 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1961, on complaint of the General'
Counsel and answer of Harrington & Richardson, Inc., Respondent herein. The
issues litigated were whether Respondent interrogated employees and created the
impression of surveillance of their union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1),
and whether Respondent discharged three employees, John J. Baltakis, William L.
White, and Douglas R. Young, on August 21, 1961, because they joined or assisted
international Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, referred
to herein as the IUE, which Union filed the charge. After the hearing, Respondent
and the General Counsel filed briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Harrington & Richardson, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal
office and mother plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, and two additional plants, one
in Rochdale and the other in Gardner, Massachusetts. Only the Gardner plant is.
directly involved herein. Under contract with the United States Government, Re-
spondent manufactures, sells, and distributes M-14 rifles. Annually Respondent
ships directly to States outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and
I find that at all times material herein Respondent has been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The setting
The Gardner plant, a newly opened one where the events herein occurred, makes
parts for the M-14 rifle. It began to hire employees in May 1961 and continued
doing so in June and July. At first its employees were paid on an hourly basis.
During a 2- or 3-week period in July many of the jobs were timed and put on a
piece-rate basis, including the jobs of Baltakis, White, and Young. It developed three
production lines-a safety line, a sear line, and an operating rod line. As the lines
got to the point of being operational and able to produce, the mother plant in,
Worcester gave the Gardner plant production schedules for each line, whichi
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC. 1097
schedules the lines were expected to meet. The production scheduling began some-
time in July and has continued since.
The events herein, most of which occurred during the third week in August, thus
occurred during the early weeks of production of a new plant during the "shake
down" period when management was setting up production lines and then trying
to get them to meet the weekly schedule, and was also studying its personnel and
was weeding out those it deemed unsuited for or unable to fit into its manner of
production.
For some 15 years prior to the events herein Respondent had had a collective-
bargaining relationship with the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, during
which time I take official notice of the fact that no unfair labor practice charges
were filed against it.i At that time Respondent had only the Worcester plant and
made the M-1 rifle. When Respondent received the Government contract for the
M-14 rifle (date ungiven) it opened its Rochdale plant. At the time of the hearing
the current contract between the Company and the Steelworkers was a union-shop
contract covering both the Worcester and Rochdale plants providing for a single
unit for seniority purposes of the employees of both plants.
Prior to August 21, the date of the discharges, the IUE held two organizational
meetings in Gardner for Respondent's Gardner employees, on August 11 and 16,
1961, at which employees signed IUE cards; and during the next few days after
the latter meeting, those employees who had attended the meetings passed IUE
cards among the employees and got some of them signed. There were rumors in
the Gardner plant that the Steelworkers also was interested in the Gardner plant.
On or about August 14 and 15, both the IUE and the Steelworkers were passing out
literature at the same time near the Gardner plant, a fact which came to the atten-
tion of Plant Superintendent Korandanis. At a management meeting August 18
Korandanis instructed the supervisory staff that he wanted no union literature or any
other kind of literature passed out during working hours and on company property.
This was not alleged or litigated as a possible violation of the Act.
When in late May or early June 1961 employee Douglas R. Young was seeking
employment from Plant Superintendent Korandanis of the Gardner plant, Korandanis
told Young that he was going to try to maintain at Gardner for at least a year the
same working conditions they had at the other two plants under the contract with
the Steelworkers. Korandanis exhibited no hostility toward the Steelworkers. Just
prior to becoming plant superintendent of the Gardner plant in May 1961 Korandanis
had been for some 6 years plant superintendent of the Worcester plant, and just
before that for 2 years superintendent of a division of the Worcester plant-in
which capacities he had undoubtedly had relationship with representatives of the
Steelworkers. This record is devoid of any evidence of hostility against the Steel-
workers or the IUE or any other union or unionism in general by Korandanis or
by any other member of management at the Gardner plant.
B. Interrogations and impressions of surveillance
Of the five members of the Gardner plant management involved in the three
questioned discharges of August 21, only one, Guy Sharron, the plant personnel
manager, was shown to have involved Respondent in an open violation of the Act.
During August and September, Sharron engaged several employees in conversations
about a union or any union activity and interrogated them as to whether they had
heard anything about a union or how they felt about "the" Union, what the chances
were that "the" Union would get into the plant. On Friday, August 18, Sharron
told an employee he knew there was some union activity going on and that he
knew who "some of them were"-mentioning the names of Young and possibly
White. During the evening of September 13 he asked the same employee if he
had just come from a union meeting, told him he heard he was there, that Sharron,
had heard he had "quite a voice" at the meeting, and that he was "striking" or
"bucking" for a steward's job. Later that evening Sharron asked the same em-
ployee if he was going back to the meeting, meaning the union meeting. Sharron's
statements to this employee created the impression of surveillance.
On August 17 or 18, after interrogating an employee as to whether he had gone
to "the union meeting" and as to whether the employee thought "they would get in
or not," Sharron added: "Well, it's too bad . if you get the Steel Union in here,
well, we'll probably, you know, be bounced off of our jobs." On the witness stand
the employee, a friend of Sharron's who played cribbage with him at Sharron's.
house and went hunting and fishing with Sharron, said that he had understood from
IA first contract was negotiated in 1945 in settlement of 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) charges.
In Cases Nos. 1-C-2611, 1-C-2620, and 1-C-2621, of which I take official notice.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this statement of Sharron's about the "Steel Union" that Sharron did not know
what union meeting the employee had gone to (the August 16 IUE meeting). The
employee did not enlighten him. The employee understood Sharron to mean that
if the Steelworkers got into the Gardner plant as well as the other two plants, some
"people" from the other two plants might ( by their seniority rights ) bump off some
"people" at the Gardner plant. Under the circumstances Sharron 's remark was a
.regretful prediction to a friend , not a threat?
On the morning of August 22 or 23, when the chairman of the employees organiz-
ing committee of the IUE identified himself to Sharron as serving in that capacity,
.Sharron replied that he had known for about a month that the employee was active
for the committee . Sharron added, "What do you think I have been coming in here
.at 6:30 in the morning for, if it wasn't to find out about union activity in the plant?"
The employee testified that during the IUE campaign Sharron came to work earlier
than had been his custom theretofore . Sharron 's remark created this impression of
surveillance.
Sharron admitted interrogating an employee about union plans and activities and
how he felt about "the union ." He did not deny most of the interrogations and
statements attributed to him. He testified that all his information about union activi-
ties came to him from employees . The record showed that Sharron asked a ques-
tion or two of several employees but did not probe deeply for information about the
.activities of any union . He did not try to pump the employee who was his good
friend, or any other employee, for information as to who was active on behalf of any
.union , and he made no threats . Nevertheless the interrogations which have been set
forth above, and the statements which created the impression of surveillance of the
employees ' union activities , coming as they did early in an organizing effort and
prior to any election , reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain , and coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , Respondent
thereby violating Section 8 ( a) (1) .
C. The discharges
John J . Baltakis, William L . White, and Dougles R. Young, three machine opera-
tors who had started working for Respondent in the Gardner plant in June 1961,
were discharged on August 21, 1961 . Although they were told they were laid off,
Plant Personnel Manager Sharron testified and the entire record established in sub-
stance that their severances were final and that when they were severed Respondent
had no intention of recalling them. Sharron discharged them at the end of their
workday at individual conferences one after the other . A fourth, Dee Duval, was
discharged at the same time.
Baltakis and White had attended both IUE organizational meetings on August 11
and 16; Young had attended only the latter. Baltakis and White had passed out IUE
cards and solicited IUE memberships during nonworking hours in the plant-
Baltakis during the day shift on August 17 and White during the day shift on
August 17 and the night shift on August 18 3 and also at noon on August 19.
During nonworking hours, Young (who was absent from work August 17 but
present on August 18 and 19) on August 21 approached his setup man and group
leader, Ronald Racicot, and another group leader named Lawrence , and several em-
ployees, concerning the IUE . The record did not prove that Racicot or the other
group leaders were supervisors . Racicot, who was called as a witness by the General
Counsel , testified on cross-examination that he had no supervisory authority, was
not a supervisor or foreman , that he was principally a setup man , and that he had
no authority to hire or fire or recommend hiring or firing. The General Counsel
did not contend and I do not find that Racicot or Lawrence were supervisors within
the meaning of the Act for whose knowledge of Young's union activities Respondent
was therefore responsible.
At the August 16 meeting Baltakis, White, and Young volunteered , together with
four other employees , to serve on a seven -member employees ' IUE organizing
committee.
2 Sharron and the employee were both Gardner residents who had not worked at Re-
spondent 's other plants The record does not support an inference that Sharron's ex-
pressed fear for his job if the Steelworkers "got into" the Gardner plant was shared by
other members of management in Gardner , some of whom had worked at Respondent's
other plants
3As White was leaving the plant this evening the night -shift foreman , Rene Doiron,
passed right by him , looked at him, but did not speak White testified that Doiron knew
he was on the day shift and usually greeted him when they passed On this evidence I do
not find that Doiron knew of White's union sympathy or activities
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC . 1099'
The only evidence in the record that, prior to the discharges, management knew
anything about the IUE organizing campaign, the solicitations by Baltakis, White,
and Young, or the employees' comnuttee, were the statements, interrogations, and
admissions of Plant Manager Sharron set forth above. As has been seen above, the
day or two after the August 16 IUE meeting (the only other prior union meeting.
referred to in the record was the August 11 IUE meeting) Sharron had displayed
his ignorance of which union held the meeting referred to-presumably the August 16
meeting-and had spoken as though he thought it had been a Steelworkers' meeting.
In the light of this I find that when Sharron told the chairman of the IUE employees'
committee on August 22 or 23 that he had known for about a month that he was
active for the committee, Sharron was exaggerating his knowledge. I find, rather,
that Sharron had not known what union the committee represented until that
August 22 or 23 conversation. That Sharron was exaggerating his knowledge and
the truth was further evidenced by the fact that the committee had been in existence
at that time only 6 or 7 days, a period which Sharron described as a month.
As will be seen below, the decision to discharge the three was made by the plant
superintendent upon the recommendations of others and his own observance. To
find that the discharges were in violation of the Act would require a finding that
those who recommended them and/or the plant superintendent had knowledge of
the three employees' union activities and made the discharges to discourage member-
ship in a labor organization. The record would support neither finding.
There was no evidence that Plant Superintendent Korandanis; the foreman in
charge of production, Stanley Davidowicz; Process Engineer Fossett; Process Engi-
neer Burnham; or the assistant to the plant superintendent, Brian Rowe, who had
something to do with the discharges, had any knowledge that any of the three dis-
chargees were active on behalf of any union or were motivated by a desire to fore-
stall any such activity. One statement by Sharron to an employee indicated that
Sharron knew Baltakis was active for a union and possibly White also, but this
record will not support a finding that Sharron communicated that information to
those who recommended and made the decision to make the discharges or that if they
had the necessary knowledge, they were unlawfully motivated.
In substance Respondent contended and proved that the four employees dis-
charged on August 21, including Baltakis, White, and Young, were severed in the
weeding-out process of unsatisfactory employees. Baltakis and White were dis-
charged because management was convinced that they had not adapted to and were
not adaptable to Respondent's standards of piece-rate production, and because
Respondent concluded, after looking closely into the matter, that they had attempted
to "control production" on their respective operations-that is, held down the
production of other operators doing similar work to theirs. Young was discharged
because he did not operate his drill press properly, with resultant downtime and
spoilage of drills and parts, and because he failed to respond to the foreman's sug-
gestions for improvement.
The final decision to discharge Baltakis, White, and Young, and presumably also
Duval, was made sometime during the week prior to Monday, August 21, by Plant
Superintendent Korandanis, and Korandanis communicated this decision to Plant
Personnel Manager Sharron, who executed the decision,4 and to Korandanis' as-
sistant, Brian Rowe, who was to be left in charge when Korandanis went on a
2-week vacation beginning the afternoon of August 18. Rowe was a young man, a
son of an owner of the Company, who was working in the plant only during the
summer months. It was not a precipitate final decision which Korandanis made-
"we just don't take and discharge a man just like that"-but one taken after due
deliberation and after careful looking into the facts. Korandanis had been aware
of the shortcomings of the three since about the end of July-since shortly after
they had gone onto piecework-when the two process engineers, Fossett and Burn-
ham, and the foreman over the whole plant, Davidowicz, had first complained about
them. During the intervening 3 weeks, according to the credited testimony of
Korandanis, he had been asked once or twice a week (by the supervisors) what he
was going to do about these three, and also some other unsatisfactory employees.
He had tentatively decided to discharge them about 2 weeks before he made the
final decision, but had held off "to go over some figures to make sure that my think-
ing was right." Korandanis testified, "Before I discharge an employee, I look into
* Before discharging the three on this Monday, August 21. Sharron and Rowe discussed
the figures on White's performance the previous week, which figures came to the Gardner
plant from the Worcester plant that day. This does not alter my conclusion on the entire
record that the decision to make the discharge had already been made by Korandanis the
previous week.
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their record ; and if it's to the Company's advantage that that employee go, he'll have
to go , that's all there is to it." Korandanis , who was primarily concerned with pro-
duction output in order that the Company meet its commitment to the Government
for rifles , kept daily production records in his office , but to study an individual's
record, he had to get records from the Worcester plant office . This fact , together
with the other burdens upon him as plant superintendent getting a new plant going,
accounted for his delay in reaching his final decision.
As plant superintendent , Korandanis expected piece-rate operators to produce 20
percent or more than their base rate. Sometimes they produced up to 50 percent
more than their base rate. At the time of the hearing 90 percent of the piece-rate
operators were producing 20 percent or more than their base rate. The entire
.record strongly suggests that at best Baltakis, White, and Young merely made their
base rate. At best they were marginal employees . Each had excuses why he did not
do better . What the Company wanted was high producers of good quality work.
These three employees demonstrated their inability to become such employees.
During the first few days after he went onto piece rate on July 25 Baltakis com-
plained to Process Engineer Fossett in substance that his rate was not right , that he
could not make it; and asked to have the job retimed and the rate set higher so that
he could make it and make some money. He made the same complaint to Foreman
Davidowicz . It was not uncommon for operators to complain about their piece
rate, but as he discussed the matter with the foreman and the foreman asked him
to give it a fair try for awhile , Baltakis said in substance that there was no use trying
any more. By his reply and his manner and low production Baltakis is convinced the
foreman, Davidowicz , that what was wrong was with Baltakis and not with the rate;
that Baltakis was simply not trying and was not going to try to work hard and was
;intentionally trying to keep his production low in order to convince. the Company
that the rate was low.
Fossett and Davidowicz suspected that Baltakis was not only keeping his own pro-
duction low but was also "controlling" the production of the two women operators
performing the same operation on two machines next to his. Sometime between
August 10 and 15 Fossett himself timed the performance of Baltakis and one of the
women , Ruth Courtemanche , twice the same day, once in the morning for one-half
hour and once in the afternoon for one-half hour. His figures showed that during
the first test Baltakis was working at the rate of $1.56 per hour ( the base rate was then
$1.47 per hour ) and Ruth was working at the rate of $2.46 per hour . The figures
for the afternoon test showed that at that time Baltakis was working at the rate of
$1.331/2 per hour and Ruth at the rate of $2.42 per hour . Shortly thereafter when
Foreman Davidowicz told Courtemanche that she was making a good deal more
pieces while Fossett was timing her than she had been making per hour during the
previous few weeks , she replied that Baltakis had told them in substance to work
slowly so that they could get a higher rate. In addition to the above evidence that
Baltakis was "controlling" production on those three machines , from their study of
the figures management knew that during each of the first 6 working days after the
piece rate was instituted Baltakis and the two women worked about the same number
of pieces per hour and that on 3 successive days-July 28 , 29, and 31-when all
three operators worked 8 hours each day on that operation , each handed in almost
the exact same number of pieces during the course of the day. Beginning about Au-
gust 2 all three of the operators increased their rate of production per hour but they
continued to produce at the same rate one as against the other with Baltakis pro-
ducing a little more slowly than the other two . As experienced men in their work,
Korandanis, Fossett , and Davidowicz knew that those three machines were capable
of producing considerably more pieces per hour than they got out of them.
The low production on those three machines created a bottleneck on that line
which deprived the operators below the three on the line of sufficient parts to do a
good day's work and necessitated costly overtime for the Company to get the parts
out and meet the plant's commitments . The discharge of Baltakis broke the
'bottleneck.
Davidowicz and Fossett construed as further evidence that Baltakis had thereto-
fore been depressing production the fact that when Fossett explained to the women
that his test showed they could make money on the job if they would only try and
they then tried , Baltakis' production then went up as well as theirs-even though the
Tate was not , as requested by Baltakis , changed. Company records in evidence
showed that their production went up beginning about August 2 from around 24
pieces per hour to around 35 pieces per hour. In his testimony Baltakis attributed
this improvement not to their actual production of more pieces but to the fact that
about then , at the suggestion of a setup man to him , they began to subtract their down-
'time from their piece -rate hours . Whatever caused the improvement does not
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC. 1101
effect the ultimate conclusion demanded by the preponderance of the evidence that
Baltakis' discharge was motivated not by antiunion considerations but by production
considerations.
Respondent did not consider discharging the two women operators for their par-
ticipation in the slowdown , because Respondent was convinced Baltakis was the
instigator of and therefore responsible for it, and also because Foreman Davidowicz
was convinced that the two women followed Baltakis because they were afraid of
Baltakis. Regardless of whether Davidowicz was correct or mistaken in this con-
clusion , the record sustains the finding that in good faith Davidowicz reached this
conclusion . Although Davidowicz and Fossett did not confront Baltakis with their
suspicions and conclusions about Baltakis , this may have been because, as old
factory men ,5 they would not have expected truthful answers and so avoided asking
futile questions.
During the entire time they were on piece rate from July 25 through August 19,
Baltakis produced at the average rate of a little over 30.5 pieces per hour; Ruth
Courtemanche at the average rate of 32.4 pieces per hour; and Anita Boudreau at
the average rate of a little over 36 pieces per hour . The record revealed that man-
agement was aware in a general way of the difference in speed among these three
operators and of the different potential among them indicated by the figures.
On the entire record considered as a whole, I conclude that Baltakis was discharged
for cause and not in violation of the Act.
White was discharged upon the recommendation of Foreman Davidowitz. He
was a lathe operator . Some 2 weeks prior to the discharge-and prior to any union
.activity by White-White and another lathe operator named Stuckey were sum-
moned to an office room and there criticized by Foreman Davidowicz (Process
Engineer Fossett was present ) because their production was low and was consid-
erably under a night -shift operator 's production . Davidowicz told them he expected
"a little cooperation from you two guys." Davidowicz testified that "they promised
that they 'd go along and see what they could do . And they went back to their
jobs." Apparently that same evening Davidowicz checked their production and
found that it had not improved that day. Davidowicz also noticed that the produc-
tion of a third lathe operator , a new man whose production was just getting good,
was that night "way down." Davidowicz then checked "the whole series of time-
cards" and found that they revealed that White had much more downtime than
Stuckey, and so operated his machine fewer hours , and that Stuckey produced many
more pieces per day. Davidowicz knew that White was a faster operator than
'Stuckey. There was a bottleneck on that line at this point, and , correctly or in-
correctly , Davidowicz concluded that White was controlling production of the group
.and was responsible for the bottleneck . As lathe operators did their own setup work,
and as White's machine was down a lot, Davidowicz evidently concluded that White
intentionally shut down his machine to avoid producing , and also prevailed upon
other lathe operators in his vicinity to keep their production down to the level of his.
In the office that day White and Stuckey gave their reasons why their production
was lower than the night -shift operator , Joe Gough 's. Their explanations were ap-
parently unacceptable to Davidowicz , for he then , in writing , recommended White's
discharge on the ground that he was consistently slowing down and was unadaptable
to Respondent 's "standards of production ." It took the intervening 2 weeks and
further conversations between the supervisors and Korandanis before the latter
made the decision to discharge White. Stuckey was not discharged because David-
owicz considered White responsible for the bottleneck and did not recommend
Stuckey's discharge . The severing of White broke the bottleneck.
On facts generally known to it through observation of performance and weekly
observation of figures, White's job performance convinced Respondent that he was
not and would not be a good lathe operator or worker for Respondent . White had
more makeup time and pay than the other lathe operators . White's makeup pay
(the amount Respondent paid him to bring his take-home pay up to $ 1.51 per hour
when his piece-rate earnings were less) for the week ending July 30 was $31.39.
In 24 working days during July, White had a total of 52' hours of downtime, an
average of 2.2 hours per day. In 17 working days in August he had 48.3 hours of
downtime , average of 2.8 hours per day. Downtime hours were , of course, non-
producing hours-when Respondent was struggling for production . Joe Gough
operated White's machine on the night shift from August 7 through 19 while White
operated it on the day shift . Gough 's average hourly output during this period was
54 pieces ; White 's was 46 pieces.
6 Davidowitz had been foreman of another plant for 15 or 16 years. Fossett had worked
in the machine tool field for about 28 years.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record considered as a whole, I conclude that White was discharged'
for cause and not in violation of the Act.
Young operated a drill press on the day shift and Chester Szymczyk operated
it on the night shift. It was a hand-operated drill press and the only one then in
steady operation. Both Young and Szymczyk were discharged, Young on August 21
and Sczymczyk on September 11, because Respondent became convinced that they
were not satisfactory production employees. Young was discharged because he did
not operate the drill press correctly, had too much spoilage of drills 6 and parts, too
much downtime, and because he failed to respond to Davidowicz' suggestions that
he improve. Respondent concluded that he consistently put too much pressure on-
the wheel, thereby forcing the drill into the part too hard and too fast, thereby
breaking drills and dulling them too rapidly, and sometimes causing the breaking
of bushings which guided the drill into the part and thereby causing downtime
to replace drills and bushings. He was cautioned numerous times by Process En-
gineer Burnham, Foreman Davidowicz, and Setup Man Racicot. When cautioned
by Process Engineer Burnham and Foreman Davidowicz, Young once questioned
Burnham's judgment in the matter; another time he told Davidowicz that he was
there to make money and did not care about the drills. After conversations with
Burnham and Young's setup man, Racicot, about Young, Davidowicz concluded
that he could not convince Young to operate the drill correctly with just the right
amount of pressure,7 and in writing recommended his discharge for "improper use
of company drills. Too much spoilage on stock and drills. Failed to respond to,
repeated warnings." This recommendation was made at least a week and possibly
2 weeks prior to Young's discharge and well before Young's participation in any
union activities.
In substance the General Counsel's evidence was designed to prove that Young
was not responsible but that the sole cause of the spoiled parts was improperly
sharpened drills. There was much evidence on this point, and in substance Respond-
ent's witnesses admitted that at times the drills were improperly sharpened. The
record established that in management's judgment Young was at least partially
responsible for much spoilage and for breaking and quick dulling of drills, and for
much consequent downtime. Whether this was a correct or incorrect judgment, I
conclude that Respondent honestly reached it and was not motivated in doing so
by any anti-IUE or antiunion motives.
During his last 13 days of employment Young had 20.9 hours of downtime on,
his regular operation of the drill press and in addition 8.6 hours of downtime on
other operations. Succeeding him on the drill press was one McManus, who had
worked for Respondent about a week and had never before operated a machine.
During his first 13 days on the same drill press McManus had 10.1 hours of down-
time and for the next 6 days he worked 8 hours each day and had no downtime.
During Young's last 13 days of operation of this drill press, in 90.8 hours of actual
production, he produced 7,845 pieces, making on the average 86 pieces per hour.
During McManus' first 13 days, in 93 hours of actual production, he produced
8,707 pieces, making on the average 93 6 pieces per hour. During the succeeding
6 days McManus improved his pace slightly in addition to having no downtime,
so that in his first 19 days on Young's machine McManus in 141 hours made 13,224
pieces, at an average production of 93.8 pieces per hour. The same firm was sharp-
ening the drills during the time that McManus operated the drills as when Young
operated it. Although lack of production was not specifically assigned by manage-
ment as a reason for the discharge of Young, these figures tended to support man-
agement's conclusion that Young was not a satisfactory production worker.
Upon the above considerations and the entire record considered as a whole, I
conclude that Young was discharged for cause and not in violation of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's unfair labor practices set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
9 Young's testimony that he never broke a drill is not credited.
7 Davidowicz testified that a skilled operator learns by feel within day or two after he
operates a drill press how much pressure to put on the wheel or handle The operator has
no control over the speed of the drill but only on bow heavily or, how fast he pushes the
drill into the part.
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC. 1103
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Under all the
circumstances I recommend a narrow cease-and-desist order.
As Respondent did not violate the Act in the discharge of Baltakis, White, and
Young, I recommend that as to these discharges the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Harrington & Richardson, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning
.of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. During August and September 1961, by interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities and sympathies and their judgment as to whether a union
would get into Respondent's Gardner plant; and by creating the impression of
surveillance of its employees' union activities, Respondent reasonably tended to
interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a)( 1 ).
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
,pursurant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
Harrington & Richardson, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union activities, sym-
pathies, and judgments in violation of the Act.
(b) Unlawfully creating the impression of surveillance of employees' union ac-
.tivities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
.of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Gardner, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the First Region, shall, after being signed by an authorized representa-
tive of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicous 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 covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9
As I have found above that Respondent did not violate the Act in discharging
Baltakis, White, and Young, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed with re-
spect to these discharges.
8 In the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci-
sion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
8In the event that these recommendations 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 "
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations 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 interrogate our employees concerning their union activities
or sympathies and as to what chances any union has of getting into our
Gardner plant , under circumstances constituting interference , restrain, or
coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of the union activities,
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be.
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24
School Street, Boston 8 , Massachusetts , Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-8100, if'
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union,.
Local 125 and Atlantic Maintenance Co. Case No. 4-CP-20.
April 17, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 30, 1961, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the,
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed timely exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support thereof.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner for the reasons stated below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's picketing
of Atlantic did not come within the proviso to Section 8(b) (7) (C)
protecting publicity picketing and that it violated that section of the
Act. However, we do so for the following reasons :
I The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent also violated Section , 8 (b) (1) (A) by
its picketing. However, as the General Counsel neither alleged nor litigated . a . violation ,
of this section of the Act, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding in this regard.
136 NLRB No. 105.