JFB Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1973

208 N.L.R.B. 2 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JFB Manufacturing , Inc. and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case
30-CA-2260
December 28, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M . Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter , Respondent filed excep-
tions with supporting rationale.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, JFB Manufacturing,
Inc., St. Ignace , Michigan , its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Respondent also filed an exception to the finding that Chief Inspector
Schlehuber made certain remarks to employee Belonga which constituted a
violation of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act The record evidence clearly establishes
-as the Administrative Law Judge correctly described it elsewhere in his
Decision-that it was Respondent Foreman Russell who told Belonga that
"the company would someday better itself" and offer the employees
"more " Accordingly , we correct this obvious inadvertency by the
Administrative Law Judge in referring to Schlehuber when he meant
Russell.
Members Fanning and Jenkins find that Russell's remarks to Belonga,
supra, constituted a promise of future benefits in violation of Sec. 8 (a)(1) of
the Act.
Chairman Miller disagrees with that finding of his colleagues He believes
that Russell 's remarks , unaccompanied as it was by any threatening
statements or clear promises of benefits , should be construed as nothing
more than an expression of opinion privileged under Sec 8(c) of the Act, to
the effect that the Respondent hoped to be in a position sometime in the
unspecified future to offer more to its employees in terms of wages and
working conditions. In his view , such vague predictions are sufficiently
208 NLRB No. 3
uncoercive in effect as to negate a finding that they are , in any real sense,
promises of future benefits in violation of the Act
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed by International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , (UAW) (referred to herein as the
"UAW") on March 9, 1973, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director,
Region 30 , issued a complaint , dated April 12, 1973,
against JFB Manufacturing , Inc., hereinafter referred to as
the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended . Specifically, the complaint
alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, by promising an employee wage increases to discour-
age her support for the UAW; by coercively interrogating
an employee concerning her union sympathies ; and, by
announcing a freeze of wages until union negotiations were
settled. The complaint also alleged that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging
employee Gloria Belonga on or about March 9, 1973,
because of her union activity and sentiment. At the
hearing, I granted General Counsel 's motion to amend the
complaint to allege March 5, 1973, as the date of Gloria
Belonga's discharge. Respondent filed an answer denying
the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me at St . Ignace, Michigan,
on May 23 and 24, 1973, at which all parties were afforded
full opportunity to present and meet evidence . General
Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case , from my observation
of the witnesses ,' and upon consideration of the briefs, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation , has been engaged,
since October 1972 , in the manufacture of automotive wire
assemblies at its St. Ignace , Michigan , plant . In its answer,
Respondent admits that the projected annual gross
revenues for its first year of operation will exceed
$500,000; and that during the same period, it is projected
that Respondent will sell and ship goods valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Michigan.
Respondent also admitted in its answer, and I find , that at
all times material herein Respondent was an "employer"
i The testimony of all witnesses has been considered . In evaluating the
testimony of each witness , demeanor was relied upon. In addition,
inconsistencies and conflicting evidence were considered . The absence of a
statement of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis
of such testimony, does not mean that such did not occur See Bishop and
Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker 's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966). Further, to the
extent that a witness is credited only in part , it is done upon the evidentiary
rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness'
testimony ." N LR B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F 2d 749, 754
(C.A, 2, 1950) vacated and remanded on other grounds 340 U S. 474 ( 1951).
JFB MANUFACTURING, INC.
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
"commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce," as
defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admitted, and I find, that International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, (UAW) is a labor
organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Relevant Facts
1. Respondent's plant organization and
management
Respondent came into existence in October 1972, and
began production at its St. Ignace plant in December 1972.
By March 5, 1973, Respondent employed between 25 and
30 employees on its day shift, and 10 to 15 employees on its
night shift. At all times material to this case, Michael
Shields was Respondent's general manager and vice
president. During the same period, his subordinates
included Plant Superintendent Emanual Swarez, Plant
Manager Richard Wise, Chief Inspector Fred Schlehuber,
and a night shift foreman, Wayne Russell.2
In its answer, Respondent disputed the General Coun-
sel's allegations that Schlehuber and Russell were supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act prior to
their April 1973 promotions. As defined in that Section of
the Act, the terms supervisor denotes:
Any individual having authority, in the interest of the
employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to recommend'such
action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise
of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
This section is to be read in the disjunctive; possession of
any one of the enumerated powers establishes supervisory
status. Eastern Greyhound Lines v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 84,
87 (C.A. 6, 1964).
Respondent's vice president and general manager,
Shields, testified on this issue. His credited testimony in
this regard shows that both Chief Inspector Schlehuber
and Foreman Russell enjoyed sufficient authority to satisfy
the requirements of Section 2(11) of the Act. Shields
conceded that Russell ran the night shift, and had
independent authority to issue disciplinary warnings to
employees on that shift for misconduct. Shields also
testified that Schlehuber, as chief inspector, trained and
instructed Respondent's production inspectors in their
duties, checked their work and directed them to take
corrective action. According to Shields, if an inspector
failed to follow Schlehuber's instructions, Schlehuber had
independent authority to issue a disciplinary warning and
2 In April 1973, Respondent promoted Schlehuber to quality control
manager and appointed Russell to be day-shift foreman.
3
did issue such warnings. In view of their authority to
discipline and responsibly to direct employees in their
work, I find that at all times material to this case Russell
and Schlehuber were supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11). Rowe Furniture Corporation of Missouri, Inc.,
200 NLRB No. I (TXD) (1972). Samsonite Corporation,
Inc., 157 NLRB 35, 37 (1966).
2. Gloria Belonga's employment , union activity,
and discharge
Respondent hired Gloria Belonga as a night-shift
production worker, at $1.70 per hour, on December 19,
1972. In later January or early February, Respondent
transferred Belonga to in-process inspection, on the same
shift, and at the same hourly wage rate. In Respondent's
view, the full training period for inspectors is 30 days.
However, Respondent's experience shows that a trainee
can perform inspections after 1 or 1-1/2 weeks' on-the-job
training.
Although Belonga had a reputation for being tempera-
mental and abrupt, her new immediate supervisor, Chief
Inspector Fred Schlehuber sought her transfer to inspec-
tion because he "felt that she was quite capable." He also
observed that Belonga "did real good work ... and she
seemed to be a responsible girl at that time."
During the first half of February, notwithstanding
Belonga's errors, Schlehuber praised her ability and
performance in remarks to Belonga and to employees
Shirley La Tour and Sharon Lasley. During the same
period, Schlehuber learned that Belonga was at odds with
day-shift inspector Shirley La Tour and had clashed with
Foreman Wayne Russell. Schlehuber sought to remedy
Belonga's errors and personality problems by discussion
and counselling with her. Reports of Belonga's conduct
and performance reached Vice President Shields, Superin-
tendent Swarez, and Factory Manager Wise. In mid-
February, after Respondent had given Belonga a written
reprimand in the form of a warning slip for faulty work,
Schlehuber and Wise conferred with her.
Wise told Belonga that he "felt she would make a good
inspector, that she had the intelligence to do the job." In
discussing the warning slip, he expressed the view that it
was "more of a personality problem than anything else."
Finally, Wise and Schlehuber conceded that Belonga had
not been at fault, tore up the warning slip, and granted her
a 10-cent hourly wage increase.3
Belonga's union activity began in mid-February when
she received and signed an authorization card for the
Teamsters. During the third week, Belonga, at the request
of George Dunlap, a Teamsters' representative, began
organizing a meeting of employees to be held on February
25. On February 21, Teamsters' representatives appeared
at Respondent's plant entrance, and were observed by
Respondent's Vice President Shields as they handbilled
and began organizing activity among Respondent's em-
ployees. Inside the plant, Belonga, assisted by Shirley La
Tour invited fellow employees to attend the scheduled
meeting to discuss union representation.
3 According to Wise's credited testimony, such a 10-cent wage increase
indicates successful completion of inspection training.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Sunday, February 25, approximately 15 employees,
including Belonga, met at the State Bar, in St. Ignace.
Belonga showed the assembled employees a Steelworkers
collective-bargaining agreement, discussed the benefits of
union representation, and offered to contact a Steelwork-
ers' representative the following week.
During the week of February 26, Belonga contacted the
Steelworkers and set up a meeting between the employees
and a Steelworkers' representative for the afternoon of
March 4. UAW Representative Schultze also solicited
Belonga's efforts to set up a similar meeting for the UAW
to be held on March 3. Belonga also organized a meeting
for the Teamsters to be held on the morning of March 4.
Gloria spread word of the scheduled meetings on the night
shift and enlisted the help of other employees to notify the
day shift. Gloria attended all three meetings.
Respondent's management was well informed about the
employees' union activity. Plant Manager Wise and Shields
were both aware of the Teamsters' appearance at the plant
on February 21. During the next 2 weeks, Chief Inspector
Schlehuber and Foreman Russell informed Shields of the
union activity at the plant. During late February, Schlehu-
ber learned that Gloria was having "union meetings" with
employees and reported this information to Shields.
According to Belonga's credited and undisputed testimo-
ny, during the week of February 19, after the Teamsters'
appearance at the plant, she overheard Foreman Russell
discussing union representation with employee Barbara
Lannoo at work. Russell argued that the employees "were
trying too quick, too fast to get it in." Belonga intervened,
declaring that Russell "had no right to discuss union with
the girls and that the union would be the best thing for our
company."
Approximately 1 hour later, Russell invited Belonga to
his office, where he told her that the organizing campaign
was untimely because "the company could not supply .. .
what the union would offer." He recalled his own
organizing effort in the city police and stated that he had
"got into a mess up with it." Finally, he stated "that the
company would someday better itself" and offer the
employees "more ." Belonga replied that she had "never
seen any contract or anything stating this, and that [she]
would only have to take his word for it."
On the afternoon of Monday, February 26, Respondent's
management, including Shields, Wise, Swarez, Schlehuber,
and Russell , held their usual weekly meeting .4 In the
course of the meeting, it was decided unanimously to "let
[Belonga ] go the next time she goofs up." Swarez reminded
his colleagues of Gloria's earlier difficulty with Foreman
Russell and bemoaned Wise's destruction of her warning
slip.
On February 28, night-shift employee Malhot asked
Belonga to identify some wires Malhot was about to use in
her production. The question was whether they were "505"
or "504" wires. It is undisputed that "505" and "504" wires
are similar in appearance, except for a 2-or 3-inch
a My finding as to the date of the meeting is based upon Schlehuber's
credited testimony Respondent's claim that the meeting' occurred on
Thursday, March 1 is supported only by Swarez, who testified that the
meeting was postponed because of Shields ' illness. However, Shields himself
testified that such weekly management meetings were usually held on
Monday, but made no assertion that he was ill on Monday, February 26.
difference in length. Belonga examined the day-shift
inspector Shirley La Tour's setup check at the employee's
press which indicated that the wires to be used in the
scheduled production were "505's," and gave her opinion
that they were "505's." Belonga was uncertain and sought
Foreman Russell's opinion. He concurred.
When Belonga arrived for work on March 1, Chief
Inspector Schlehuber handed her a'warning slip signed by
him and Plant Manager Wise. The slip, designated "Ist
notice," bore an "X" in the box next to "Defective Work."
The "Remarks" portion of the slip stated:
Gloria seems to be missing several problem areas. She
is failing to find her shifts (sic) mistakes.
Schlehuber also told Belonga that her error of the previous
evening, when she had treated "504" wires as "505's" was
the reason for the warning slip. He ignored her explanation
of the wire incident, cautioned her to measure wires in the
future, and told her that if she felt she could not continue
as an inspector, "maybe you should step down, because if
you receive another notice, out the door you go."
On the morning of Friday, March 2, Belonga walked into
Vice-President Shields' plant office and presented a letter
to him reading as follows:
3/2/73
11:15 A.M.
To whom it may concern:
I hereby notify the JFB Corp., of St. Ignace, that
I am organizing a labor Union (sic) to represent
myself & fellow employees.
/s/ Gloria Belonga
witness: Marianna Paquin
Shields read the letter and asked Belonga for an explana-
tion. She replied that the letter was to "let him know
exactly what [she] was doing." She then left his office and
the plant.
When Belonga returned to work on the second shift, that
same day, she noted that Respondent had posted her
inspection job. Foreman Russell met her and conducted
her to Superintendent Swarez's office. Swarez asked
Belonga if she wished to resign from inspection. She
replied that "it was very clear" that Respondent wanted
her to do so in view of the posting of her job. When Swarez
renewed his question, Belonga answered, "yes, I feel I
should. I really don't want to, but I feel I should." The
discussion ended and she returned to the production area
with Foreman Russell.
Russell assigned her to reworking defective wire assem-
blies known as "709's." Four other employees were
engaged in the same production work at a single worktable.
However, Russell stationed Belonga at a separate table
although there was space for her near the four employees.
Several times in the course of her work, Belonga conversed
The remaining participants who testified about the date of the meeting
admitted uncertainty as to the exact date, placing it in the week of February
26 In contrast, on direct and redirect examination, Schlehuber exhibited
certainty that February 26, a Monday was the date of the meeting. In light
of Shields' testimony, I am pursuaded that Schlehuber's testimony as to the
date of the meeting is reliable.
JFB MANUFACTURING, INC.
with press operator Pat Green. At about 6 p.m., Foreman
Russell directed Green to another work station across the
room from Belonga's station out of voice range. Later in
the shift, employee Lannoo finished her press work and
went to Belonga's table to join in the "709" work.
However, soon after her arrival, Russell moved Lannoo to
another worktable with three other employees.
After Belonga had reworked about 50 "709's," the night-
shift inspector examined her work without complaint.
However, Chief Inspector Schlehuber, who had returned to
the plant, rechecked Belonga's work, found a few defective
assemblies, then dumped all of her work on the table and
ordered her to do them all over.
Earlier in the evening, Foreman Russell had ordered
Belonga to stop sitting on her worktable and to sit in a
chair. After the lunch break, while Russell was seated near
her on a worktable, Belonga questioned his order. After
Russell explained that he didn't want her feet on the chair,
it was agreed that she could sit on the table so long as she
kept her feet off the chair. However, when Schlehuber saw
her seated on the table, he complained to Russell who
immediately told Belonga of the chief inspector's senti-
ment. At this, Belonga resumed her seat in the chair.
When Belonga came to work on Monday, March 5, she
found her timecard missing and was met by Foreman
Russell, who conducted her to Superintendent Swarez's
office. There, in Russell's and Schlehuber's presence,
Swarez handed her an "Employee Warning Notice"
designated "Final," which he had signed. In the portion of
the slip headed "Nature of Violation" the boxes designated
"Defective Work," "Conduct," "Attitude," and "Disobedi-
ence" were checked. The notice's "Remarks" portion
noted:
Very poor attitude-Surly Disobedience of instructions
not to sit on work bench-you are a probationary
employee being released-Defective work written
previously-Does not meet our standards (sic).
Swarez rejected Gloria's explanation that Wayne Russell
had permitted her to sit on the workbench on condition
that she kept her feet off the chair. Schlehuber also charged
that Gloria's feet had been on the chair on the evening of
March 2. When Gloria asked Russell to corroborate her
defense , "[h]e shrugged his shoulders" without comment.
Prior to this incident, Respondent had not advised Gloria
that she was a "probationary employee .." Manager Swarez
also declared that another reason for her discharge was
that she was "throwing" 709 wires into a barrel. Gloria's
protest that she "didn't really throw them" met with no
response . At this point Gloria told the three supervisors
that it was "very obvious , anything I'm going to say in here
is going to be denied anyway." At this, she left.
3. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In mid-February, the day after the Teamsters' represent-
ative had handbilled in front of Respondent's plant,
Schlehuber asked employee Florence La Tour who the
men were. Mrs. La Tour first answered "you know who
those men [are]." When Schlehuber denied such knowl-
edge, La Tour told him they were union men. At this point,
5
Schlehuber asked her whether she would join the Union if
the union succeeded in organizing the plant. La Tour
answered "Yes, I would."
Shortly after her discharge, Schlehuber observed Belonga
passing out UAW cards at a St. Ignace drive-in restaurant.
The following day, Schlehuber asked Florence La Tour
what Gloria Belonga was doing. La Tour replied that
Belonga was passing out union cards. A few days later,
Belonga again passed out UAW cards at the same location.
The next day, Schlehuber asked La Tour if she had been to
the restaurant to see Belonga.
Finally, Plant Manager Wise admits that on March 6,
after receiving a letter from the Teamsters dated March 5,
which claimed majority status among Respondent's em-
ployees and demanded recognition and bargaining, Res-
pondent posted a notice to employees stating:
All Hourly Personnel Rates Are Frozen Until Union
Negotiations Are Settled.
Respondent removed the notice on March 7 or 8 without
further comment or explanation to the employees.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Belonga's discharge
In my view , there is ample factual support for the
General Counsel 's contention that Respondent discharged
Gloria Belonga because of her union activity . Respondent
was aware of the Teamsters ' organizing activity among its
employees during the week of February 19. Further, during
the same week Belonga revealed her prounion sentiment to
Foreman Russell . As shown by my subsequent findings
and conclusions , Respondent 's hostility toward union
activity was demonstrated by its resort to unlawful conduct
designed to chill its employees ' Section 7 activity. Thus, "it
stretches credulity too far to believe that there was only a
coincidental connection between" Belonga's expression of
proumon sentiment ; her organizing activity at the plant
during the week of February 19, including her meeting
with employees on February 25; and, Respondent's
decision on February 26 to discharge her "the next time
she goofed up" Angwell Curtain Company, Inc. v. N. L. R. B.,
192 F.2d 899, 903 (C.A. 7, 1951).
Further showing of unlawful motive is provided by the
fact that on February 26, there were no warning slips
outstanding against Belonga . Indeed, Superintendent
Swarez bemoaned the absence of the slip Factory Manager
Wise had destroyed 2 weeks earlier . Thus, as of February
26, there was no basis for Respondent's decision other than
the revelation of Belonga 's leadership in the union
campaign . Moreover, 2 weeks earlier , Wise had given her a
merit wage increase and predicted that she would be a
good inspector . It was only after Respondent discovered
Belonga's union sentiment that it decided to seek a basis
for her discharge.
Finally, Respondent 's unlawful design was evidenced by
the timing of Belonga 's discharge on March 5, the next
working day after her written announcement to Vice
President Shields that she was organizing his employees.
That Belonga's announcement provoked Respondent's ire
is manifest. For, that same evening of March 2, Respon-
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent made certain that she was isolated from her fellow
employees.
In sum, the timing of Belonga's discharge so soon after
her confrontation with Shields, and the circumstances
surrounding the February 26 decision to discharge her,
convince me that the sole reason for her discharge was her
union advocacy , and that the reasons stated in Respon-
dent's discharge notice were pretextual.
Respondent asserts that it discharged Belonga because of
disobedience of instructions not to sit on work benches,
very poor attitude, defective work, and because, as a
probationary employee, she had failed to meet Respon-
dent 's standards . I find no merit in any of Respondent's
proffered reasons.
Respondent's claim that Belonga was disobedient is
based upon the two instances in which Russell instructed
her not to sit on her workbench. However, I have found
upon Belonga's uncontradicted testimony that in, both
instances she fully complied with Russell's orders without
incident.5 Nor is there any ground for finding disobedience
in her sitting on the bench after lunch. For she did so only
after receiving Russell's permission and in compliance with
his instruction that she keep her feet off the chair.
I find no basis for Respondent's further contention that
Belonga exhibited a poor attitude by throwing completed
"709" wires into a barrel on the night of March 2. Initially,
this claim suffers from the infirmity of being an after-
thought raised for the first time on March 5. For Belonga's
credited and uncontradicted testimony reveals that neither
Schlehuber, nor Russell, reprimanded her, or otherwise
cautioned her about such conduct on March 2. Respon-
dent does not claim that Belonga 's tossing "709's" into a
barrel damaged them. Nor is there any showing that
Respondent had promulgated any rule prohibiting such
conduct. On the contrary, I find from the credited
testimony of employees Cheeseman and Lannoo that no
such rule existed. Foreman Russell observed employees
Cheeseman and Lannoo tossing 709's on the night of
March 2, and helped Cheeseman pick up 709's which had
missed the target. Further Respondent never cautioned
either Cheeseman or Lannoo against tossing completed
"709's" into a barrel. I find therefore that Belonga's tossing
"709's" into a barrel was an accepted practice which only
became objectionable when Respondent was looking for a
reason to rid the plant of the leading union activist.
In my view , far from helping Respondent 's defense, its
treatment of Belonga 's error in identifying "504" wires as
"505's" provides further evidence of Respondent's unlaw-
ful intent. For as the facts show , Belonga's error was
largely the product of an erroneous setup checklist
prepared by another inspector and Foreman Russell's
concurrence in Belonga 's opinion . However, as the facts
show Respondent failed to conduct any investigation, or
even ask Belonga for her version of the incident. Nor does
it appear that Russell or the other inspector were
disciplined . These omissions contrast sharply with the
action of Plant Manager Wise and Chief Inspector
Schlehuber earlier in February when they investigated and
revoked a warning slip issued to Belonga for faulty work.
Also significant in this regard is Schlehuber 's admission
that although he issued two warning slips to inspector
Shirley La Tour for faulty work during March and April,
she remains employed as an inspector . In my view, the
explanation for this disparate treatment lies in Schlehuber's
further admission that in February, La Tour advised him
of her antiunion sentiment.
Finally, Respondent's claim that Belonga was subject to
a 90-day probationary period is unsupported by any
evidence , and has not been urged in its posttrial brief.
Moreover , it appears from the credited testimony of
employees Belonga, Lasley, Florence La Tour, and Black
that Respondent has not announced such a probationary
period to its employees.
In view of the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) when it discharged employee Gloria
Belonga. Barnett Instrument Co., 173 NLRB 1397,
1399-1401 ( 1968) enfd . 415 F.2d 1974 (C.A. 6, 1969).
2. Interference, restraint , and coercion
I have found that in mid-February, at the inception of
union activity, Chief Inspector Schlehuber asked employee
Florence La Tour whether she would support a union if it
succeeded in organizing the plant. I have also found that
shortly after employee Belonga 's unlawful discharge,
Schlehuber interrogated Florence La Tour about Belonga's
union activity and her own. In light of Respondent's
willingness to resort to unlawful discharge as shown by
Belonga's discharge , I find the repeated interrogation of
Florence La Tour was coercive and therefore violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Jervis Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 387
F.2d 107, 109, 111 (C.A. 6, 1967).
I also have found that Schlehuber attempted to discour-
age Belonga 's union activity by calling it untimely, and
recounting his own ill -fated experience . He then declared
"that the Company would someday better itself" and offer
the employees "more ." I regard Schlehuber's remarks as a
promise of future benefits if Belonga and her colleagues
abandoned their present union activity. Accordingly, I
further find that by such promise , Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Plaskolite, Inc., 134 NLRB 754,
762 (1961), enfd. 309 F.2d 788 (C.A. 6, 1962).
Finally, in view of Respondent 's policy of granting a 10-
cent hourly wage increase upon completion of an inspec-
tor's training period , I find Factory Manager Wise's wage
freeze notice "until union negotiations are settled" unlaw-
ful. The wage freeze notice was in immediate response to
the Teamsters' demand for recognition and bargaining.
Wise's language indicated that because of the presence of
that union , scheduled wage increases were being withheld.
Accordingly, I find Respondent 's wage freeze announce-
ment violated Section 8(a)(1). Dan Howard Mfg., Co., 158
NLRB 805 , 813 (1966), enfd . as modified in other respects
390 F.2d 304 (C.A. 7, 1968).
That the notice was posted for 2 days and then removed
does not remove the unlawful interference with the
employees ' Section 7 rights. For Respondent issued no
notice revoking or repudiating the freeze notice.
5 Foreman Russell did not testify.
JFB MANUFACTURING, INC. 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging employee Gloria Belonga on March
5, 1973, because of her union activity, the Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
2. By coercively interrogating employee Florence La
Tour about her union activity and sentiment, and the
union activity of employee Gloria Belonga, by promising
benefits to pursuade employee Belonga to abandon her
union activity, and by announcing the withholding of
normal wage increases because of the receipt of a request
for recognition and bargaining from a union, the Respon-
dent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the conventional
provisions in cases involving findings of interference,
restraint, coercion, and unlawful discharge, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. This will require
Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found, to offer reinstatement with backpay to
Gloria Belonga and to post a notice to that effect. In
accordance with usual requirements, reinstatement shall be
to Belonga's former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights or
privileges. Belonga shall be made whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against her by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to that which she normally would have earned from
the date of the initial discrimination against her (March 5,
1973) to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net
earnings, if any, during such period, to be computed in the
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950) and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962).
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:
ORDERS
The Respondent, JFB Manufacturing, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership or activities in Internation-
al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, or in any other labor
organization, by discriminating in any manner against any
of its employees in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment,
because of their union membership, sympathies, or
activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
membership, activities, or sympathies or about the union
membership, activities or sympathies of other employees.
(c) Promising employees benefits to induce them to
withdraw or withhold their support from the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, or from any other labor
organization.
(d) Advising employees that wages or benefits hre being
frozen or withheld because of their union activity.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Gloria Belonga immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if this job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for such loss of pay as she may have suffered as a result of
the Respondent's discrimination against her, in the manner
set forth in the section 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, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant at St. Ignace, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in
Section 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.
7 In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or in
any other labor organization, by discriminating in any
manner against our employees in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment, because of their union membership,
sympathies, or activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union membership, activities, or sympathies, or about
the union membership, activities, or sympathies of
other employees.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits to
induce them to withdraw or withhold their support
from the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, or from any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT advise our employees that wages or
benefits are being frozen or withheld because of their
union activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in their
rights, given them by the National Labor Relations
Act, including the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or help unions, and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain
from any or all of these activities.
The Board found that we discharged Gloria Belonga
because she was for the Union and that this violated the
law. Accordingly:
WE WILL offer Gloria Belonga reinstatement to her
old job or to a job substantially equivalent, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges,
and will make her whole for any loss of pay she may
have suffered because we discharged her, with 6
percent interest.
All our employees are free to join, or not to join,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or any other
labor organization.
Dated By
JFB MANUFACTURING, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Commerce Building, 2nd Floor, 744 North 4th Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-224-3870.