Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1411 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1411
it cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action
necessary in my judgment to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Inasmuch as it appears that the packing season at Respondent's Stockbridge ware-
house has come to an end I shall not order immediate reinstatement of the employees
herein concerned. It may be expected from the evidence in this case, however, that
the warehouse operations will resume insofar as lettuce is concerned sometime in the
late spring or early summer of 1961, and conceivably earlier in the event other crops
are handled. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to place
the names of the nine employees here involved on a preferential hiring list to be
considered for reemployment when warehousing operations for which the employees
are qualified are resumed at the Stockbridge warehouse and offered employment prior
to any other person. I shall not recommend any backpay award for any period
including and subsequent to August 1, 1960, to date, since it appears that any loss of
pay suffered by them on and after August 1, 1960, was a consequence of their refusal
to work unless the entire crew was employed. In the event that any backpay herein
would be de minunis that aspect may be considered in compliance proceedings.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of .Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Nonsupervisory employees of Respondent's Stockbridge, Michigan, lettuce
warehouse are employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees with respect to their union membership and activities
and by promising employees economic and other benefits on condition that they
refrain from union activity Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By laying off employees Donald Craft, Calvin Craft, Douglas Craft, Herchell
Craft, Joseph Kelly, Lee Conway, Roy Brown, Don Salyer, and Raymond Johnson
because of their union activities and by failing and refusing to reinstate said employees
or to make them whole for earnings lost as a consequence of their layoff the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Southern Electronics Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4445. June 09, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action as set forth more fully in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. He further found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis-
missal of the complaint pertaining thereto. Thereafter the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
131 NLRB No. 170.
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 brief, and the entire record in the case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southern Elec-
tronics Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily laying off employees or otherwise dis-
criminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment of its employees.
(b) Promising employees benefits upon condition that they aban-
don union affiliation.
(c) In any other manner 3 interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, to form labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
i In its exceptions and brief , the Respondent moved that the Intermediate Report and
the recommended order be stricken on the grounds that the Trial Examiner failed to
designate by precise citation of page and line the portions of the record relied upon, that
the Intermediate Report was written in such manner as to make it impossible to deter-
mine therefrom what are findings of fact and what are observations and conclusions,
and that the issuance of the Intermediate Report was unusually and unnecessarily delayed
The Board ' s rules and regulations do not require the Trial Examiner to designate by
citation of page and line the portions of the record relied upon while some of the
Trial Examiner ' s findings are presented in narrative form , the Intermediate Report sets
forth completely the substance of the testimony and specific findings of facts based
thereon The Respondent was therefore fully informed of the basic facts which are needed
to sustain the order Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 120 NLRB 1521, at footnote 2
The Intermediate Report was issued less than 6 months after the close of the hearing
It was therefore not unusually delayed. For the reasons stated heretofore, we find no
merit in the Respondent 's motion. It is hereby denied
2 At the hearing the Trial Examiner permitted the General Counsel to adduce evidence
as to antiunion motivation and knowledge of the dischargees ' union activities in connec-
tion with events which occurred prior to November 10, 1959, the 6-month cutoff date
prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act As there is ample evidence within the 6-month
period to support the finding of unfair labor practices herein and as the Trial Examiner
used the pre-10 ( b) evidence merely to shed light on the Respondent ' s conduct subsequent
to the barred period, we find no merit in the Respondent ' s exceptions to the Trial
Examiner ' s rulings and report. Local Lodge No 1424, International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al v. N L R B (Bryan Manufacturing Co ), 362 U S 411
3 As the discriminatory layoff of six employees because of their union activities goes to
the very heart of the Act, and as the broad pattern of the violations found presents the
threat of a like pattern of violations in the future, we order that the Respondent cease
and desist " in any other manner" from interfering with the rights of the employees
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act N L R.B v . Entwistle Mfg Co., 120 F 2d 532
(C A. 4) ; N L R.B v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426, 437.
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1413
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, to Georgia Hartman, Mildred Melton,
and Minnie Seaton in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Restore Cora Belle Foshee to her former or a substantially
equivalent position on the day shift without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges.
(c) Make whole Georgia Hartman, Mildred Melton, Minnie Seaton,
Jane Hardin, Louise Kesterson, and Evelyn Weems for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, as set forth
in the Section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to determine the amount of back-pay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its plant at Mosheim, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall after
being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps that Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act by
reduction of the wages of employee Hartman.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 :
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily laying off employees
or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits upon condition that
they abandon union affiliation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, to form labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, to Georgia Hart-
man, Mildred Melton, and Minnie Seaton.
WE WILL restore Cora Belle Foshee to her former or a substan-
tially equivalent position on the day shift, without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Georgia Hartman, Mildred Melton, Min-
nie Seaton, Jane Hardin, Louise Kesterson, and Evelyn Weems
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization.
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, 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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, in which all parties were represented, was heard before a duly
designated Trial Examiner in Greeneville, Tennessee, on July 26 and 28, 1960, upon
the complaint of the General Counsel, as amended, and answer of Southern Elec-
tronics Company, Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent.' After the hearing all
parties filed helpful briefs which have been fully considered.
1 During the hearing the Trial Examiner requested the Respondent to supplement its
exhibits 3 and 4 with information as to the seniority of employees working during the
layoffs of 1958 and 1959. The Respondent agreed to furnish such information and
thereafter supplied lists of all employees working during 1958, 1959, and 1960, together
with their hiring dates , and hours of absence each week . Counsel for the General
Counsel subsequently filed a motion with the Trial Examiner to reject these lists , except
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1415
The issues litigated at the hearing, briefly stated, were whether the Respondent,
by reducing the wages of Georgia Hartman on November 19, 1959, by transferring
Cora Belle Foshee to the night shift on March 19, 1960, and by laying off six em-
ployees on April 15, 1960, has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and
whether the Respondent, by other acts and conduct has further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, operates a plant at Mosheim, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, on special orders, of electronic component
parts, primarily coils, for other manufacturers of clocks, timers, washing machines,
automobile radios, and related products. The Respondent annually ships from its
plant directly to customers outside of Tennessee products valued in excess of $50,000.
I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary statement; the organization of the Respondent's business; status of
group leaders
Harold M Detrick is the president and the owner of the Respondent corporation
His wife is a vice president and secretary-treasurer of the Respondent, and works
in the business. Harrison Lamons, Detrick's son-in-law, is also a vice president of
the corporation and is in charge of sales. Detrick's son also works at the plant. In
the spring of 1959, when organizing activities commenced, Wilbur Wailes was pro-
duction manager in charge of plant operations. He was succeeded in September
1959 by Donn Bunch.
The volume of the Respondent's business fluctuates considerably, as the orders
for the numerous varieties of component parts which it makes are not received from
its customers in a steady flow. As a consequence the number of employees, varies
from a low of about 50 to a high of 100, with the low period of employment nor-
mally coming in April, May, and June of each year. The Respondent's operations
are performed almost entirely by women who throughout the record and hereinafter
are referred to as girls. These girls work for the most part upon assembly lines.
Groups of from 8 to 12 girls stationed adjacent to moving conveyor chains perform
successive operations on the parts being assembled as they move past the employees
on the chains. In some operations the work is done without removing the part
from the pin upon which it is hung on the conveyor chain. In others, the part has
to be removed from the pin in order to complete the operation. Because of the
wide variety of products manufactured by the Respondent and the fluctuations in
the flow of orders to the plant, transfers of employees from one operation to another
are very common.
The Respondent utilizes the services of employees called group leaders and relief
operators to assist it in maintaining continuous production on its assembly and
testing lines. Group leaders are responsible for pushing the production of the
operators on the line or lines to which they are assigned. Requests for time off are
channeled through the group leaders to management. Group leaders have no au-
thority to hire and fire. However, their recommendations as to hiring might occa-
sionally be heeded, as would be the recommendations of other employees. Among
the other duties of group leaders, were temporarily relieving operators, substituting
for absent operators, repairing defective coils turned out on their lines, and bringing
insofar as they furnish information as to the navies of the employees and the dates of
their hire. This motion is denied These lists have been relied upon almost exclusively
for the purpose of determining the seniority of the employees To the limited extent that
I have considered these lists foi other purposes, I have done so only where I have deemed
the facts thereon set forth as constituting admissions against interest The aforesaid
lists are received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
materials to the operators. Upon all of the facts, I find that the Respondent's group
leaders were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.2 I find further, contrary
to the contention of the General Counsel herein, that the relation of group leaders
to the management of the Respondent was not sufficiently close to warrant imputing
responsibility for their conduct to the Respondent on some other theory.
B. Sequence of events
1. The organization of the Union; the Respondent's reaction thereto 3
Organizational activities at the Respondent's plant commenced in the spring of
1959. Detrick, the Respondent's president and owner, was away on a European
trip during most of April and May. The day after he returned from Europe, Detrick
asked Georgia Hartman, one of the group leaders, what she knew about the union
activities taking place at the plant. Hartman told Detrick that she knew very little,
as the girls did not talk freely in her presence. Detrick requested her to "go and
see if [she] could find out anything and let him know." Hartman reiterated, "they
do not talk freely in front of me." Detrick went on to say that "he knew who the
ringleaders were" and named six girls, including Minnie Seaton and Cora Belle
Foshee, whom the complaint alleges were the victims of discriminatory treatment
in March and April 1960.4
About this same time Mildred Melton went to President Detrick's office to discuss
her request that he move her from her position on the conveyor line because of back
trouble. Melton presented a doctor's statement recommending such a move. Detrick
consented to move Melton to another position on the line. During this conversation,
Detrick stated that "he was surprised at the girls going behind his back while he was
away, trying to bring in the Union " Detrick also commented to Melton on this
occasion that "he had heard that [she] was running from house to house soliciting
for the Union." 5
On June 10, 1959, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the Board on
the Union's petition for an election and certification as the bargaining representative
of the Respondent's employees, which the Union had previously filed with the Board.
Representing the Union at this hearing, among others, were Cora Belle Foshee,
Connie Dyer, and Vernie Hawkins. This hearing culminated in the direction by the
Board of an election at the Respondent's plant.
The Union held meetings in June and July which were attended by various of the
Respondent's employees. On the morning after the June meeting, President Detrick
came to Georgia Hartman's work station and commented, "I heard that you at-
tended a union meeting last night " When she admitted that she had, Detrick asked
how many girls were there and requested her to name them. Hartman refused,
saying "that is not why I went." 6
A few days later Hartman was asked to substitute for a girl on her line who was
absent Thereafter Hartman was never restored to her position as group leader,
2 See Schwob Manufacturing Company, 129 NL1IB 815.
S As no unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case until May 9, 1960, the com-
plaint herein does not allege any conduct occurring prior to November 10, 1960, as being
an unfair labor practice (Section 10(b)). The events set forth in this section are given
for background purposes only.
4 This is Hartman's testimony Detrick was not questioned specifically about this con-
versation When asked generally whether he had told Hartman that he knew who the
union leaders were, Detrick replied that he did not "recall any conversation of that type"
However Detrick subsequently admitted that lie knew Cora Belle Poshee was "in on the
union activity " Detrick also testified in this case that he had earlier stated that lie
knew who the "culprits" were because they had represented the girls at the first hearing.
Under all the circumstances, I credit Hartman's testimony above set forth
5 The foregoing is based on Melton's undenied and credited testimony.
U Detrick testified as follows concerning this incident :
Q. Did you ask if she attended the Union meeting?
A. No She told me she was going to the Union meeting
Q. How did she happen to do that, do you knows
A. She came to me one evening before the Union meeting and said, "I am going to
go to the Union meeting"
I find it more consistent with the undisputed facts of the case for this incident to have
occurred as related by Hartman She impressed me as having a more accurate recollection
of past events than Detrick Under all the circumstances of the case I do not credit
Detrick's denial.
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1417
although nothing was said to her at this time or later about her being relieved of
her responsibilities as group leader.
After work one day in June, two of the girls informed Margaret Brown, a group
leader, that it had been reported to Detrick that she had gone out to lunch with
three girls to meet a union organizer . The three girls involved were Minnie Seaton,
Alma Ruth Idell, and Connie Dyer. Concerned about the matter , Brown returned
to the plant to talk to Detrick. When she asked him about it, Detrick replied, "I
know that you went with them because I saw you." Detrick added that it had been
reported to him also. Brown assured him that this report was false, that she had
merely returned from lunch at the same time as the three girls had, and had walked
up the driveway to the plant with them? Brown suggested to Detrick that he check
with Betty Beach who customarily followed Brown home to lunch in her car. Later
on Detrick told Brown that he had checked with Beach "about that day at lunch."
Subsequently , Brown went to Detrick and asked him if he had had Betty Beach
spying on her. In the course of the conversation , Detrick informed Brown that she
was seeing too much of Cora Belle Foshee . Foshee, it will be recalled , was one of
those whom Detrick had characterized as "the culprits " representing the Union at
the representation hearing. Brown responded that Foshee worked under her, that
she had to talk to Foshee in connection with her work, and that she thought he
should understand why she had to be "friendly" with Foshee. Detrick replied that
she could be friendly with Foshee, but that she did not "have to speak to the three." 8
The Union held another meeting in July. The next morning Detrick came to
Georgia Hartman in the plant and told her that he knew she had attended the meet-
ing and had spoken to the group , and that "he did not appreciate [her] going to
union meetings and telling about the size of his orders, that it wasn 't any of the
Union 's business nor [hers]." 9
2. The election and events in the interim period
Pursuant to the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election , an election among
the Respondent 's production and maintenance employees was scheduled for August
20, 1959. The day before the election Detrick gave a speech to all the employees
Among other things, according to Cora Belle Foshee's credited testimony , Detrick
said that "he could not fire us for union activities alone, he would have to fire us
for other reasons or he would have the Labor Board on his back." Detrick also
stated on this occasion , "There has been something told me on every girl in here.
Some of you are good, some of you are bad, and about 25 percent of you are
stinkers, and some of you are talking out of both sides of your mouth." 10
The election was held on August 20 and the Union lost by a vote of 28-39. Sub-
sequently , the Union filed with the Board objections to the election based, among
° Detrick in his testimony confirmed the fact that he had told Brown on this occasion
that he had seen her outside with the three girls
8Detrick admitted having told Brown she was seeing too much of Foshee
The substance of this conversation is admitted by Detrick.
lU Hartman testified that Detrick stated on this occasion , "I cannot fire you for union
activities alone , I would have to get other reasons or I would have the Labor Board on
my back " Margaret Brown's testimony was almost identical When questioned as to
the exact words used by him in the speech , Detrick first testified "I think I stated I
did [sic] not fire them for union activities alone " When questioned further by the
Respondent 's counsel , Detrick stated that according to his recollection , he had said "I
cannot fire you for union activities, but I would have to have other reasons to fire you "
He added, "I don't believe I made reference to the Labor Board " According to Detrick,
he included this statement in his speech because of rumors then current in the plant that
he "was going to fire anybody who had anything to do with this union activity , and also
that [he] was going to fire all [his ] old employees and bring new employees in " Detrick
further explained , "I made a statement that I could not fiie them for union activities,
there would have to be reasons other than that for me to fire them " Thus , there is very
little difference between Foshee's version of the statement and Detrick 's In his final
version Detrick omits the word "alone " This is a crucial omission , however , because by
including the word "alone" Detrick , in my opinion, reasonably implied that he would be
able to find additional reasons for discharging union sympathizers In view of the
mutually corroborative testimony given by Hartman and Brown and the further fact that
there is no denial of Foshee's testimony as to the subsequent portions of Detrick ' s speech,
including the comment that he had received reports on every girl present , I credit Foshee's
testimony quoted above , and find that Detrick in his speech impliedly threatened that he
would be able to find reasons for discharging the union sympathizers.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other things, upon Detrick's implied threat to discharge union sympathizers, above
discussed . Ultimately , after a hearing upon the Union 's objections , which was
held on November 23 and 24, 1959 , the Union 's objections were sustained in part,
the first election was set aside , and a new election directed.li
On October 19, 1959, Detrick asked Margaret Brown , one of the group leaders,
to sit on the line and do a taping operation . As found above , Brown was the em-
ployee whom Detrick admitted having cautioned about seeing too much of Cora
Belle Foshee . Having heard rumors that she would be demoted if the Union lost
the election , Brown went to Detrick that afternoon and, after mentioning such
rumors, asked Detrick "if that was it." Detrick 's response , according to Brown's
credited and undenied testimony , was "Don't try to pin me down to anything yet.
Let's say that I want you to work there tomorrow ." Brown continued to per-
form the taping operation the second day. That second day, after a conference
with Detrick attended by Production Manager Bunch , Group Leader Dessie Willis
and Geneva Hankins , Hankins came to her line and commenced acting as group
leader. When Brown asked Hankins about this, Hankins said , "someone else will
have to tell you, Margaret ." Brown was never informed by anyone in management
about being relieved of her job as group leader. Nor was she ever given any ex-
planation for the demotion.
On Friday , November 27, 1959, following the hearing on the objections to the
election , which was held on Monday and Tuesday of that week, Georgia Hartman
found when she received her paycheck that her wages had been reduced 7 cents per
hour. When Hartman asked Detrick about this, he said he did not know about it,
asked her not to mention the fact to anyone, and informed her that he would look
into the matter and report back to her later. Detrick never did give her any ex-
planation for the reduction in her wages.
In December 1959 the Respondent commenced hiring new employees The Re-
spondent added to its staff a total of 14 new girls in December 1959 and January
1960.
The second election was held on February 11, 1960, and the Union again lost,
this time by a vote of 38 to 56.
About a week after the second election Margaret Brown went in to see Detrick
after a "run -in" with Group Leader Dessie Willis. The discussion touched on vari-
ous subjects , including Brown's demotion from group leader and the outcome of
the second election. With regard to the latter topic, Detrick commented, according
to Brown's uncontradicted and credited testimony , that "he was very much surprised
in our votes in the second election, that he didn't think we were going to get as
many in the second one as we did in the first." Brown rejoined that she was as
surprised as he was since the Union had promises of 65 votes Detrick also re-
marked in this conversation that "the people who went Union on him could never
be the same to him as the ones who did not." 12
3. The transfer of Cora Belle Foshee to the night shift on March 8, 1960
Foshee was hired by the Respondent in September of 1953, just 4 months after
the plant was opened. She has worked steadily for the Respondent since that time
without significant layoffs , with the exception of two 2-week layoffs , the last one
being in 1956. As indicated above, Foshee was one of the most active supporters
of the Union . She was one of those whom Detrick characterized as the "culprits"
representing the Union at the first hearing in June. Foshee also was a witness for
the Union in the second hearing in the representation case, and had acted as an
observer for the Union in both elections.
Not long after the second election in February 1960 , Foshee twice asked Produc-
tion Manager Bunch for permission to talk with Detrick. Bunch told her that "Mr.
Detrick said he didn't have to talk to any of the girls out there, . I'm represent-
ing Mr. Detrick and anything to be said to Mr. Detrick can be said to me." 13
Other employees succeeded in gaining access to Detrick during this period.
11 One of the grounds for setting aside the election was Detrick's statement, in the
course of his speech to the employees , to the effect that he would be able to find other
reasons for discharging union sympathizers ( Hearing Officer 's Report on Recommenda-
tion on Objections Case No 10-RC-4390 )
12 This is the testimony of Brown which is denied by Detrick As indicated above,
Brown impressed me as a credible witness It is consistent with admitted conduct on
Detrick's part for him to have made such a statement Under all the circumstances I
credit Brown ' s testimony above
11 This is Foshee's undenied and credited testimony Inferential support for Foshee's
testimony in this regard is found in the testimony of Detrick himself when asked "Do
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1419
In October 1958, Foshee had been transferred to the night shift which runs from
3:30 p .m. to midnight . After working about 3 months on the night shift she con-
sulted a doctor who advised her that it was bad for her health to work on the
night shift Foshee reported this fact to Detrick , and about 10 days later, in Febru-
ary 1959, Detrick transferred Foshee back to the day shift.
In March 1960 the Respondent received a rush order from Robertshaw -Fulton
which was scheduled to take from 5 to 13 weeks to complete . In order promptly
to fill the order it became necessary to add a night shift . Among those transferred
to the night shift were Foshee and two other girls who were experienced in operating
solenoid coil winding machines.
On March 7 the three girls were summoned to Production Manager Bunch's office
and were informed that, effective the next afternoon , they were being transferred
to the night shift. When they asked why , Bunch replied , according to Foshee's un-
denied and credited testimony , "Harold [Detrick ] gave me you three girls ' names,"
and added , "Harold got me out here to do his dirty work and I 'm going to carry out
his plans to save my job ." When Foshee pointed out that she could not work on
the night shift because of doctor 's orders, that it had "hurt her" when she pre-
viously worked on the night shift, Bunch suggested that she bring in a doctor 's state-
ment, and said, "I will honor a doctor 's statement and I 'm sure that Harold [Detrick]
will too." Foshee also stated on this occasion that she did not have any way to get
to work on the night shift. Bunch advised her , "we'll work something out," and
later came to her and told her that she could ride to work with June Evans.
Pursuant to Bunch's suggestion that she obtain a doctor's statement , Foshee went
to Dr. Horner, the company doctor , that afternoon after work . She reminded him
that he had previously recommended against her working on the night shift. Dr.
Horner declined to give her a statement and suggested that she try it for a month
and then come back. Foshee then went back to the plant and talked to Bunch
again. Among other things Foshee stated on this occasion that "Mr. Detrick 's trying
to get rid of me by forcing me to go on the night shift." Bunch replied, "I don't
think so, but you could be right ." Bunch also said on this occasion , "Mr. Detrick
knows who of you girls were Union . In fact he can name almost every one of
them." 14
By April 15, 1960, much of the night shift work was completed , one line was dis-
continued , and the girls on that line were transferred back to the day shift , including
June Evans , the girl with whom Foshee rode back and forth to the plant. Early
the next week the two other solenoid winders , who had been transferred to the night
shift at the same time as Foshee , were transferred back to the day shift.
The transfer of Evans back to the day shift left Foshee without any means of
transportation to the plant for night shift duty . She informed Production Manager
Bunch of this fact and he said that he would try to work something out. However,
Bunch never did anything about solving Foshee's transportation problem. In the
past the Respondent has cooperated with other employees in helping them arrange
transportation . In 1958, before the advent of the Union, the Respondent transferred
two girls to the night shift so that Foshee would have transportation to the plant.
As a result of not having any transportation to the plant for the beginning of he
night shift, Foshee commenced riding to work with her sister who began work at
7:30 a in. and waiting around until 3:30 p.m. when her shift started.
Foshee was still on the night shift at the time of the hearing in July, although the
order for Robertshaw -Fulton had been completed , and a machine like the one Foshee
was operating at the time of the hearing was standing idle on the day shift.
4. The layoffs of April 15, 1960, and subsequent events
(a) The Respondent 's selection of experienced union supporters for layoff
As indicated above, employment at the Respondent 's plant fluctuates , and its slack
season normally comes in April, May , and June each year . Shortly before April 15,
1960, Detrick and Bunch concluded that the layoff of 12 employees was necessary.
After consultation with one another , they selected 12 girls for layoff, including 4
who had voluntarily requested layoffs The Respondent follows the practice, in se-
lecting employees for layoff, of choosing first the employees who volunteer for lay-
offs On April 15, all the girls were given layoff slips, including the six here in-
you recall ever saying as to Cora Belle Foshee and Connie Dyer and Verna Parkins or
Margaret Brown that you didn't have to talk to those three ," Detrick replied , "I don't
remember . I could have made that statement I have to talk to no one if I don't want Ito "
14 Foshee 's testimony above quoted is not denied.
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
volved, namely Georgia Hartman , Louise Kesterson , Jane Hardin , Mildred Melton,
Minnie Seaton , and Evelyn Weems.
All these girls were active union supporters . All except Melton had attended
union meetings . Melton was a cousin of Cora Belle Foshee , one of the known
ringleaders in the Union , and associated closely with her. In May 1959, as found
above, Detrick informed Melton that he had heard that she was running from
house to house soliciting for the Union . Hartman's support of the Union was also
known to Detrick . As found above , Detrick unsuccessfully sought to find out from
Hartman the names of the employees attending the June union meeting. Thereafter,
Detrick eased her out of her job of group leader and quality control inspector. Hart-
man's discussion of the Respondent 's orders at the July union meeting was followed
by a reprimand from Detrick . Subsequently , Hartman 's pay was cut without any
explanation.
Hardin's prounion sympathies were known to the Respondent , as is disclosed by
former Production Superintendent Waite's comment to Group Leader Brown, after
a discussion about the names of girls attending a union meeting the night before,
that he "was very much surprised in one of [her ] girls," whom he identified as Jane
Hardin . Seaton had assisted in obtaining signatures on union cards . On one occasion
after the first election Detrick overheard Seaton talking with another girl about
the Union. Detrick commented to her at the time that she "was one of the main
ones." 15 Weems, as found above, had attended various union meetings She made
herself conspicuous as a supporter of the Union by testifying in its behalf at the
hearing on its objections to the election in November 1959.
The girls here involved were all experienced employees of the Respondent Hart-
man was hired in September 1953 , a few months after the plant was opened. She
was experienced on every type of operation in the plant except machine winding, and
was thoroughly familiar with the various details of the Respondent 's production, as
Detrick admitted . She had been promoted first to group leader and more recently
to quality control inspector . Hartman had never been involuntarily laid off in her
entire years with the Respondent . Seaton, who was hired in August 1954, had
also worked numerous different operations in the Respondent 's plant. Seaton had
never before been included in the spring layoffs.16 Melton who also has worked for
the Respondent since August 1954, had not been laid off for lack of work since 1956.
Weems was hired in August 1955. She has worked on various operations in the
plant, including the coil winding machines Weems worked steadily without layoff
throughout 1958, 1959 , and 1960 , up to April 15. Kesterson was laid off in 1957,
shortly after she was first hired, and continued in layoff status until August 1958.
She has worked steadily since that time with the exception of 4 months maternity
leave in 1959. Kesterson has worked on subassembly , and several assembly line
operations , as well. Hardin has worked steadily for the Respondent since she was
hired in August 1957, with the exception of a 4 months ' layoff during the slack season
in 1958. Hardin has not only worked on the various coil assembly lines but has
done inspecting and testing also.
At the time Bunch handed the girls the layoff slips he invited them to come in to
his office later on , if they wished to talk to him further about the matter. Most
of the girls accepted this invitation . When Hartman asked Bunch why she was
laid off, he replied , that Detrick "told me that you talked too damn much." When
Hartman protested that she did no more talking than the girls around her and that
her talking did not interfere with her work , Bunch replied "I'm only telling you
what Harold [ Detrick] . told me . I'm only out here to do his dirty work.
I have orders and . I have to carry them out." 17 Hartman continued the con-
versation , asserting "Donn , you know and I know and so does everybody else that
I'm being laid off 'because of my union activities ." Bunch declared , "you cannot
prove that" and added that everyone knows "who the three ringleaders of the union
activities are, and we 're not laying either one of those off ." Hartman's answer was
"No, Donn, you 're afraid to because you know you would have the Labor Board
15 This is Seaton 's testimony . Detrick denied having made such a statement Seaton
impressed me as a credible witness and I accept her testimony in this regard
16 The Respondent has two types of layoffs , "lack of work ," and so - called "partial" lay-
offs, which last only for a few days and result from lack of materials Seaton was given
a "partial" layoff slip on one occasion
11 Bunch denied telling Hartman that he was doing Detrick ' s dirty work As noted
below , Bunch did not deny making a similar statement to Hardin after her layoff Also,
as stated below , Melton testified that Bunch made a statement to the same effect to her
after her layoff In view of the mutually corroborative testimony of the three employees,
I do not credit Bunch's denial.
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1421
on your back before morning." 18 When Hartman urged that there were only two
or three girls with more seniority in the plant, Bunch rejoined that "There is no such
thing as seniority in this plant. . . I checked this morning in the office and there
is absolutely nothing to prove that there is any seniority."
During the conversation with Hartman, Louise Kesterson came in the office and
asked why she was laid off, and added, "Is it because I cannot keep up with the work
out there, I haven't had enough time, I have only been on there a week-end." Bunch
said that he did not expect her to under the circumstances. 19 Hardin, after her layoff
sought out Bunch and asked him "why [she] was laid off when there were younger
girls kept than [her]." His answer, according to Hardin's undenied and credited
testimony, was, "I don't have any definite reason for laying you off. . Harold
I Detrick] left at 3 and left me the dirty work to do." 20 When Mildred Melton ques-
tioned Bunch concerning the reasons for her layoff he told her that it was because of
her "high rate" of absences. She informed Bunch that she had been absent
pursuant to doctor's orders. When Melton asked whether there was any other reason,
Bunch answered, according to Melton's credited testimony, "no, that this was a very
unhappy situation that he was having to layoff good workers, but that he had to do
what the man told him." 21 Bunch informed Weems after her layoff that she had been
included among those laid off because Detrick, when he passed by her work station
that morning, had observed some unfinished or imperfect coils lying on the table,
thus indicating she was not keeping up with her work.
(b) The Respondent's retention of newly hired girls; its past practice in selecting
girls for layoff
At the time the Respondent selected the six girls here involved for layoff, it retained
in its employ all of the newly hired girls who were still on its payroll. Not one of
the 14 new girls hired for the first time in December 1959 and January 1960 was
included in the April 15 layoff.22
As found below, in past layoffs the Respondent has generally observed seniority
in selecting girls for layoff. Georgia Hartman was made a group leader in 1954. She
testified that she was present in discussions with Detrick preceding past layoffs, and
that Detrick in these discussions had a list of the girls on her line giving their hiring
dates On these occasions, according to Hartman, Detrick would say " . . this is
one of our oldest hands, and we'll have to shift around and lay off a newer hand."
Margaret Brown, who later on was made a group leader, also testified that Detrick
utilized seniority lists on these occasions. She further testified that she recommended
to Vice President Lamons at the time of the 1959 layoffs that a new employee who
was a highly efficient producer be retained in preference to a less efficient senior girl.
Lamons, however, as Brown further testified, rejected the suggestions, stating that
seniority had to be observed 23 Evelyn Weems credibly testified that in March
1959 she overheard a conversation between Detrick and the then Production Manager
Waites, in which Detrick stated "if he was going to lay off, it would be by seniority."
The Respondent introduced into evidence lists of the girls included in its 1958 and
1959 layoffs. At the request of the Trial Examiner, this evidence was supplemented
with lists prepared by the Respondent from its records giving the seniority of all
employees working at any time during 1958, 1959, and 1960. From these lists it
appears, and I find, that in the 1958 spring layoff the Respondent laid off involun-
18 Bunch's only reference to the testimony of Hartman above quoted was to the effect
that he had not told either Hartman or Kesterson that they were laid off for union
activities.
1B This is Kesterson's undenied and credited testimony.
20 Bunch was not questioned concerning making this particular statement to Hardin
21 Bunch denied having made this statement to Melton. However, as found above,
Hartman and Hardin also credibly testified concerning like statements made to them by
Bunch after their layoffs Accordingly, I credit Melton's testimony
22 Of the 14 new girls hired in December and January, 1 had previously voluntarily
quit and the other, Nellie Hensley, had been laid off on April 8, 1900. In view of the
fact that no others were laid off at this time, this may not have been a "lack of work"
layoff but rather a voluntary one The layoff slips from which the Respondent compiled
the lists were received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No 1 in a number of cases
do not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary layoffs
23 According to Brown's credited testimony, after she was laid off in the spring of 1956
she asked Detrick how long she would be laid off. He informed her that she would prob-
ably be off a few weeks, that "he had to lay [her] off that way because he laid off by
seniority and [she] was one of his newer hands "
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tarily a total of 22 girls.24 In five instances the Respondent failed to follow strict
seniority, selecting five senior girls for layoff while at the same time retaining five
junior girls at work 25 In the 1959 spring layoff the Respondent involuntarily laid
oft 27 girls.26 Strict seniority was observed in all but two cases, and in one of these
the difference in seniority was but 2 woi king days.27
The Respondent laid off 14 additional girls on April 27, 1960. Nine of these girls
were volunteers, as Bunch credibly testified. The remainder were newly hired girls.
According to the credited testimony of Margaret Brown, Bunch later informed her
and Connie Dyer that "the second layoff was by seniority." Bunch explained, as
Brown further testified, "We made a list of the newer hands, then as we had quite a
few volunteers, . as these people would volunteer we would mark off one of
our newer hands, keep her and let the volunteer go." 28
President Detrick, while denying that strict seniority had ever been followed in
selecting girls for layoff, admitted that there probably was a nucleus of experienced
girls who had not been affected by the spring layoffs for some years. Both President
Detrick and Vice President Lamons denied having made the statements attributed
to them to the effect that seniority was followed in selecting employees for layoff.
However, as found above, the Respondent's own records show that the girls with the
longest years of service were generally retained by the Respondent during the spring
layoffs. In view of this fact I do not credit the contrary testimony of the Respond-
ent's officials referred to above and find, upon the basis of the testimony set forth
in the preceding paragraph and upon the Respondent's own records, that while
seniority was not strictly followed in selecting employees for layoffs, the exceptions
were comparatively few and that in general the Respondent, laid off its junior employ-
ees and retained its senior employees.
(c) The Respondent's explanations for the layoffs
The Respondent contends that there were special reasons why each of the six girls
was included in the layoff. The Respondent, however, does not contend that the
conduct upon which it relies in each case was such as would warrant a discharge for
cause. On the contrary, the Respondent took the position at the hearing that it
would be willing to reinstate all of the girls as soon as it had work available for them.
With respect to Hardin and Seaton, the Respondent contends that they were laid
off to make room for night shift girls who had been promised that they would be put
back on the day shift when the night shift ended. Hardin, who was hired in 1957,
was let go to make room for Verneil Richard, who was hired for the first time in
January 1960. With respect to Seaton, according to Detrick, a second factor in her
selection was her high rate of absences. The same explanation is given for Melton.
Absences on assembly line jobs like those held by Seaton and Melton are claimed to
slow up production. Other employees who were retained had as high or higher rate
of absences. The Respondent admitted also that it had some jobs in which absences
did not adversely affect production.
It is contended that Kesterson and Weems were chosen because of their poor pro-
duction. Kesterson had only been on the operation which she was performing at the
time of her layoff about a week and had not as yet mastered the operation. Weems'
operation had been changed before the layoff and she had not at that time acquired
the knack of performing it fast enough. Both, however, had performed other opera-
tions efficiently As found below, both were reinstated prior to the hearing in this
case, as was Hardin.
Hartman, admittedly an efficient worker, was included in the layoff, the Respondent
contends, because of her excessive talking. Considerable testimony on this issue
was received, and upon the basis of this testimony I find that Hartman did engage
in a great deal of talking in the plant, and that during the year prior to her layoff at
24 A number of additional girls took voluntary layoffs at this time.
25 Trial Examiner's Exhibit No 1, which was prepared by the Respondent, indicates
that, had it followed strict seniority, the Respondent would have laid off all girls hired-
after August 22, 1955
26 Almost as many girls accepted voluntary layoffs at this time.
2T Had the Respondent followed strict seniority, the Respondent apparently would have
laid off two of the three girls hired on August 25, 1958, and it would have laid off all
girls hired thereafter
28 Connie Dyer testified to substantially the same effect In view of this mutually con-
sistent testimony and the further undisputed fact that only volunteers and newly hired
girls were included In this layoff, I do not credit Bunch's denial that he told Dyer and,
Brown that the April 29 layoff was by seniority.
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1423
least four employees complained to management about Hartman 's talking, the last
complaint being made in January or February 1960. These complaints , I find, were
brought on as much by the nature of Hartman 's talking-the making of critical,
personal remarks about other employees and their work, and management also-
as by the extent of her talking . However, I find that the basis for these complaints
was not made known to the Respondent 's officials until after the layoffs . Detrick
testified generally that the complaints were about Hartman's talking about every-
thing and everyone . Bunch admitted that no employee had ever informed him spe-
cifically as to the nature of Hartman 's talk which annoyed others.
Talking was very common among the girls at the plant, and although the Respond-
ent had rules prohibiting talking under certain circumstances, the exact nature of
which was not made clear at the hearing , I find that such rules were honored much
more in the breach than in the observance . Bunch admitted that the Respondent had
other employees who talked as much as Hartman. Bunch further admitted receiving
complaints about other employees , including Dessie Willis , a group leader who was
active in opposing the Union in the plant . Although Willis , as Bunch testified, had
"the knack of rubbing people wrong sometimes ," nothing was done about the com-
plaints against her.
(d) Bunch's conversations with Dyer and Brown after the layoffs; the
subsequent reinstatement of some of the girls
On April 29, 1960, Bunch summoned Dyer to his office . After mentioning that
he had heard rumors that the laid off girls had filed unfair labor practice charges
against him, Bunch said he would like to see what he was up against When Dyer
mentioned the layoffs , Bunch stated that "he didn 't think the girls had a leg to stand
on" and then went on to say that
. he "had just gotten Mr . Detrick in a pretty good notion of listening to
his ideas of giving us paid holidays and paid vacations this year ," and he said
"if these girls does anything to louse it up, that it was going to make him
awful mad."
Bunch concluded by saying that he had in mind some other improvements for the
plant, and that he planned a merit system for the girls-changes which he could
put into effect "if only they would just keep off his back long enough." 29
Pursuant to the suggestion of one of the union representatives , Dyer and Brown
went to Bunch's office on May 3 to inform him that unfair labor practice charges
were being filed, based on the layoffs of the girls . Bunch repeated that the girls
did not have a leg to stand on, that they could not prove that "it was for union activi-
ties" because if it had been he would have laid off Dyer, Cora Belle Foshee, and
Brown.30 After they asked Bunch the reasons for the layoffs, the following con-
versation took place:
He said, "Well, I can give them to you one by one ." So he said , "Your No. 1
girl, Georgia Hartman, is a big-mouth troublemaker ." And we told him he had
plenty more left out there, which he agreed.
He said that Louise Kesterson and Evelyn Weems' efficiency went down.
Then he told us that Minnie Seaton , Mildred Melton and Anna Ruth Cansler
were laid off because of their absenteeism , and we referred to a few, to one of
his anti-Union people there , Mary Fannon. He said "yes ," that he would agree
that she was out a lot and that she was sick , too sick to work, and that he could
take her off the line and give her a large amount of coils to solder, and she could
do them just fine, but he could throw her into a conveyor and she would go all to
pieces.
With respect to Jane Hardin , Bunch stated that:
She was the complicated one. She was a good worker , and if it were up to him,
that he would call her back tomorrow , but he said , of course that was up to Mr.
Detrick.
° The foregoing finding is based on Dyer 's uncontradicted testimony
"Brown's testimony fully substantiates Dyer's testimony set forth in the text above
Both impressed me as sincere witnesses with a good recollection of the events as to
which they were testifying Under the circumstances , I do not credit Bunch ' s denial of
having made this statement . With the exception noted below , Bunch was not questioned
concerning the remainder of the conversation quoted below.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The conversation was concluded with the following remarks:
Then we asked him if these charges had not been filed, if these girls would
have been recalled, and he said he didn't see any reason why they wouldn't.
We asked him then why, after all these reasons he gave us for laying them off,
would he even consider taking them back, and we said, "Wouldn't they be just as
inefficient, have just as big mouth, and be absent just as much when they came
back?" He said, "Not necessarily."
So we said then, "How come were they good workers for four or five years and
then, just right after the election, they became undesirable?"
He said, "Mr. Detrick has just decided to do something about it." And then
he mentioned, "When someone knifes you, it's only human nature to knife back."
And then he said he might have to recall some of the girls, that he had more
work than he had girls to fill the jobs.31
As indicated in the conversation between Bunch and Dyer and Brown on May 3,
shortly after the layoffs the Respondent needed additional help and consequently it
commenced recalling some of the laid off girls. By the time of the hearing in July,
the Respondent had offered reinstatement to all but 2 of the 14 girls laid off on
April 27, including all 5 of the new girls. One of the two not offered reemployment
had voluntarily gone on leave and the other was on maternity leave. Of the six
union supporters laid off on April 15, only three had been recalled by the time of the
hearing-Hardin, Kesterson, and Weems.
C. Recapitulation; conclusions concerning the alleged unfair labor practices
1. The layoffs of April 15, 1960
As found above, in the early stages of the union drive, Detrick sought to ascertain
the identity of the union supporters and then went out of his way to impress upon
the girls his awareness and disapproval of their union sympathies. Detrick, without
any explanation, demoted Georgia Hartman from her position as group leader
shortly after she refused to reveal to him the identity of girls attending a union meet-
ing. About this same time Detrick warned another group leader, Margaret Brown,
to stay away from Cora Belle Foshee, one of the most prominent union supporters.
Subsequently the Respondent eased Margaret Brown out of her position as group
leader, also without a word of explanation. Later on, the Respondent transferred
Cora Belle Foshee to the night shift where she was comparatively isolated from the
great bulk of the employees. In the meantime, in an effort to bring about the defeat
of the Union in the election, Detrick had made a speech to the employees containing
what I find was a thinly veiled threat to discharge union supporters. This entire
sequence of events preceding the layoffs of April 15, follows the same pattern and
in my opinion is consistent only with an attitude of firm opposition to the Union.
This same attitude is further revealed in Bunch's comments to Dyer after the
layoffs about his efforts to obtain paid holidays and paid vacations for the girls,
"if they did not do anything to louse it up." 32
As found above, six of the eight girls involuntarily laid off on April 15 were union
sympathizers. With respect to all except Kesterson, who had attended union meet-
ings, the record shows an awareness on the Respondent's part of their support of the
Union. The group included some of the Respondent's oldest employees. Several
had 5 to 7 years' experience and not one had been hired after 1957. Almost all had
not been affected by seasonal layoffs in recent years. All had experience on various
of the Respondent's many operations.
At the same time the Respondent selected these union sympathizers for layoff,
it retained in its employ all of the new girls hired in December 1959 and January
1960 who were still in its employ at that time. In past layoffs, while it had not
followed seniority strictly, the Respondent had generally retained its senior workers.
In past years, senior workers had been transferred to other operations, whether
experienced on the new operation or not, in order to avoid laying off old hands. In
the 1959 layoff seniority was strictly observed, with but 2 exceptions out of 27
involuntarily laid off.
31 Bunch admitted having made a statement to the effect that "it's only human nature
to knife back " However, he placed the statement as having been made on an earlier
occasion . For the purpose of this case the exact timing is immaterial.
32 Bunch's remark in this regard, together with his further comment that he planned
further changes which he could put into effect "if only they would keep off his back long
enough," I find, constituted a subtle promise of benefits upon condition that the girls
abandon their support of the Union, and was in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. 1425
It is possible that one or more of the girls here involved would have been among
the exceptions to the application of a strict seniority standard , had the Respondent
followed its usual procedure in connection with the April 15 layoff . However, in
view of the sweeping departure from the seniority principle in the April 15 layoffs,
the weakness of the Respondent 's explanations for selecting most of these girls,
discussed below , and the Respondent 's demonstrated opposition to the unionization
of its plant , I conclude that the Respondent was motivated by antiunion considera-
tions in selecting these six girls for layoff.
My conclusion concerning the antiunion motivation underlying the selection of
girls for layoff is reinforced by the lameness of some of the Respondent 's explana-
tions for the selection of the girls . Hardin and Seaton were included , according to
the Respondent , in order to make room for night shift girls who were being trans-
ferred back to the day shift . But, as found above, one of the night shift girls thus
favored was Richards , who had been in the Respondent 's employ only a little over
2 months . Hardin had been employed since 1957 , and was a very satisfactory worker.
Kesterson and Weems were assertedly chosen for layoff because they had not yet
mastered the new operations to which they had been assigned , although the Re-
spondent had various other operations which they could satisfactorily perform.
Such transfers had been the normal procedure in the past . The Respondent admitted
that after their reinstatement both Weems and Kesterson worked out satisfactorily
on the operations to which they were assigned . In the case of Melton , it is asserted
that she had a high rate of absences . This is also advanced as a partial explanation
for Seaton 's inclusion in the layoff. There is no claim made that these employees,
who had each worked for the Respondent almost 6 years, were deliberately staying
away from work to suit their own convenience . The Respondent admittedly retained
others with a higher rate of absences . Admittedly , it had never before laid off an
employee for excessive absences . Here, as in the case of the two girls who were
unable to keep up with production at the time of the layoffs, the Respondent could
have solved the problem with which it was allegedly confronted by making transfers,
as had been its usual custom.
With respect to Hartman , the facts brought out at the hearing establish that her
talking was offensive to some others in the plant. However the most recent com-
plaint about Hartman's talking was at least 2 months old , and even then the nature
of the employee 's obections to Hartman 's talking was not communicated to the
Respondent . At the hearing the Respondent stated its willingness to recall Hartman
as soon as it had an opening for her . But one of the reasons the Respondent had
no opening for Hartman was that it was retaining all of its newly hired girls on the
payroll . Upon all the facts of the case , including the fact that Detrick had pre-
viously tangled with Hartman because of her union activities , I find that the real
reason for Hartman 's inclusion with the others in the layoff was the Respondent's
desire to get rid of such active union supporters as it thought it could get away with
without too obviously running afoul of the law.33
2. The transfer of Cora Belle Foshee to the night shift in March 1960
As found above, Foshee was one of the most active union supporters . Detrick
was aware of her union activities and admittedly had cautioned Group Leader Brown
to stay away from her. Foshee had been hired by the Respondent in September
1953, shortly after the plant was opened. On March 7, Foshee and two others were
transferred to the night shift to operate solenoid coil winding machines . Despite
her protests that the condition of her health did not permit her to work on the night
shift (Detrick had removed her from the night shift about a year earlier pursuant
to a doctor's recommendation), the Respondent insisted that Foshee transfer 34
These same solenoid machines were also operated on the day shift, but other girls
were given this task instead of Foshee. By about the middle of April a substantial
portion of the night shift work was completed and at least one line of girls was
° In making this finding I am not vnmindfui of the testimony of Bunch that he had
twice warned Hartman about her talking Hartman testified that in her conversation
with Bunch immediately after her layoff she asked Bunch why she had not been warned,
as required by' the Respondent's rules Iiesteison, who was present at the time, testified
to the same effect Under the circumstances, I find that while Bunch may have previously
spoken to Hartman about her talking , he had not done so in such a manner as to apprise
her of the seriousness with which the Respondent allegedly regarded such conduct.
31 In the past the Respondent had transferred employees to other operations in com-
pliance with such requests
599198-62-vol. 131-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transferred back to the day shift. This left Foshee working with only a compara-
tively few others on the night shift. Even after the completion of the job which
originally had required the addition of a night shift, Foshee was transferred to
another operation on the night shift and kept there, although an identical machine
was standing idle during the day. The Respondent's only explanation for Foshee's
transfer was that it needed solenoid coil winding machine operators on the night shift.
But it also needed such operators on the day shift also; consequently this is no
explanation why Foshee, rather than one of the others, was transferred to the night
shift.
Upon all the facts of the case I find that the Respondent transferred Foshee to
the night shift on March 8, 1960, and thereafter refused to restore her to the day
shift, in an effort to isolate her from the great bulk of the Respondent's employees
who were employed on the day shift. This action, I conclude, was discriminatory
and in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act 35
3. The reduction in Georgia Hartman's wages in November 1959
The complaint as amended alleges that the Respondent reduced the wages of
Georgia Hartman on or about November 17, 1959, because of her activities on behalf
of the Union. The Respondent's answer to the amended complaint admits the
reduction in wages but avers that it was due to her earlier demotion from group
leader to inspector and was done in order to make her wages conform to the wages
of the other inspectors. The original demotion is beyond the reach of the Board's
processes, no charge of unfair labor practices based thereon having been filed with
the Board within the 6-month limitation period prescribed by Section 10(b).
I make no finding of unfair labor practices based upon the Respondent's reduction
of Hartman's wages because, in my opinion, it was part and parcel of the Respond-
ent's original demotion of Hartman, which is beyond the Board's reach, 36 and it
would be inappropriate in such circumstances to require the Respondent to pay
Hartman the higher wages of a position which she no longer occupies and to which
the Board is powerless to order her restoration.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Southern Electronics Company, Inc., has engaged in unfair
labor practices, my recommended order will direct it to cease and desist therefrom,
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will also be recommended that Southern Electronics Company, Inc., offer Georgia
Hartman, Minnie Seaton, and Mildred Melton immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent employment, without loss of seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make the above-named employees and Jane Hardin,
Louise Kesterson, and Evelyn Weems whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against
her to the date of offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period, and
in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. My recommended order will further provide that Southern Electronics
Company, Inc., shall restore Cora Belle Foshee ,to her former or a substantially
equivalent position on its day shift.
It will also be recommended that Southern Electronics Company, Inc., preserve
and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and
copying, all payroll and other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due under the terms of my recommended order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
"6 The further allegations of the amended complaint based on the Respondent's failure
to furnish Foshee with transportation to her night shift job are hereby dismissed. While
there is some evidence that the Respondent occasionally furnished transportation to em-
ployees, in my opinion it is insufficient to establish such a practice on the Respondent's
part as would obligate the Respondent to furnish transportation to Fosbee on her night
shift job.
80 Cf. Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinsst8 v N.L R.B ,
362 U.S 411.
SIGNAL OIL AND GAS COMPANY 1427
2. By laying off Georgia Hartman , Jane Hardin , Minnie Seaton , Louise Kesterson,
Evelyn Weems, and Mildred Melton on April 15, 1960, and by transfering Cora
Belle Foshee to the night shift on March 8, 1960, Southern Electronics Company,
Inc., has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
above-named employees , thereby discouraing membership in the United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By promising employees benefits upon condition that they abandon their union
affiliation , Southern Electronics Company, Inc., has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Signal Oil and Gas Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , Local No. 4-227, AFL-CIO and
Employees Representation Federation , Party to the Contract.
Case No. 23-CA-1077. June 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel,
the Respondent, and the Party to the Contract filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 briefs, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and re-
commendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Signal Oil and
Gas Company, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall :
131 NLRB No. 175.