Standard Cable Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS . Case No. 16-CA-394. June 30, 1952
Decision and Order
On December 14, 1951, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick 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 Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,' and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner .3
In its brief, the Respondent requests that the record be reopened
and its collective bargaining contract with the Union, made after the
close of the hearing, be received in evidence. It argues that its con-
tract will disprove the Section 8 (a) (5) allegations of the complaint.
As the negotiations leading to this contract were begun after the
hearing in this case, the Respondent's claim is, substantially, that the
refusal-to-bargain issue raised in this proceeding has become moot.
In view of the Respondent's other violations of the Act, and its
previous unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union, we believe the
policies of the Act will be effectuated by ordering Respondent to cease
and desist from hereafter refusing to bargain with the Union. This
is necessary, not only to dissipate the effects of past unfair labor
practices, but also to prevent recurrences of similar unlawful conduct
in the future.' However, in determining whether the Respondent
complies with our Order, its contract with the Union will be considered
as evidence of compliance with relevant portions of the Order.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
I 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. .
2 The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record, including
the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
3 in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner inadvertently stated that Christian
had become in on August 8, and that he had been discharged on April 8, 1951. The record
shows, and we find, that each of these events occurred on May 8, 1951.
4 Local 1150, United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, et at., 84 NLRB 972.
99 NLRB No. 159.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1253
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Standard Cable Corpora-
tion, Chickasha, Oklahoma, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to employ any of them because they have
become members of or have been acting, on behalf of any labor
organization, or by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Making statements, warnings, or threats to employees that
activity for or membership in the Union will result in loss of employ-
ment or disadvantage to the employees, and questioning employees as
to their union activity or interests.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association
of Machinists as the exclusive bargaining representative of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Respondent's main plant
and stranding plant, excluding office, professional, and technical em-
ployees, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
(d) In any other planner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of
Machinists, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such ac-
tivities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Harvey Leon Christian immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Rem-
edy."
(b) Make whole the afore-mentioned employee in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of back pay and the right of re-
instatement under the terms of this Order.
215233-53-80
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Asso-
ciation of Machinists as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
its employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(e) Post at its two plants in Chickasha, Oklahoma, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix."
(f) Copies of this notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
Based upon a charge filed June 4, 1951, by the International Association of
Machinists, herein called the Union, a complaint was issued dated September
17, 1951, alleging that the Standard Cable Corporation of Chickasha. Oklahoma,
herein called the Respondent, (1) discriminatorily laid off Harvey Leon Chris-
tian from about April 15 to April 29, 1951, and discriminatorily discharged him
about May 8, 1951, and has since refused to reinstate him; and (2) from about
March 4, 1951, to the date of the issuance of the complaint interfered with the
rights of its employees by questioning, warning, and threatening them about
activity for or membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The Respondent's answer admits that Christian was laid off and -later dis-
charged but alleges that it was for incompetence. It denied the commission of
air; unfair labor practices.
At the opening of the hearing, held at Chickasha, Oklahoma, on October 2
through October 8, 1951, the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint so
as to include an allegation that the Respondent had refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit. The motion to amend the complaint, based upon an amended
charge duly filed by the Union on October 1, 1951, was granted over the Respond-
ent's objection! In' its amended answer, Respondent denies that it refused to
6 This notice , however , shall be, and It hereby Is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order ." 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."
i On October 2, 1951, when the motion to amend the complaint was granted , the Respond-
ent waived any additional time because of the newly raised issue.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1255
bargain with the Union and alleged that it was "ready to bargain with the rep-
resentative of said employees of said unit." The amended answer also alleges,
as additional reasons for the layoff and discharge of Christian, that he was
guilty of insubordination and did not follow orders and directives of management.
Upon the entire record and a full and complete hearing on the issues thus
drawn, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Standard Cable Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Chickasha, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in
the manufacture and distribution to points outside the State of Oklahoma
for the Signal Corps of the United States Army of insulated wire, cables, and
related products. For the calendar year 1950 the Respondent purchased ma-
terial to be used in the manufacture of its products in excess of $50,000 in value,
approximately 90 percent of which came to Chickasha from points outside the
State of Oklahoma. During the same period it sold and delivered products in
excess of $50,000 in value, about 90 percent thereof going to points outside Okla-
homa. I find, as alleged in the complaint, admitted in the answer, and stipu-
lated at the hearing, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and sequence of events
The Respondent started its business enterprise at Chickasha in the year 1950.
In order to manufacture the necessary quantity of insulated copper wire of the
type required by the Signal Corps, Respondent had to develop certain types of
extruder machines together with the parts and equipment incident thereto. The
development and installation of this machinery and equipment was in charge of
Pierre (Pete) Corveleyn, plant engineer, assisted by such mechanics and helpers
as he required. In the earlier stages some of the parts developed on an experi-
ment basis had to be changed in part or remade. But as workable equipment
was installed, operators were trained to run the machines. Production starting
in a small way increased gradually and by the late spring of 1951, the Respond-
ent had probably 150 production employees, and the work of the 38 odd mainte-
nance employees was confined mainly to keeping the extruders and other ma-
chines in repair and working condition. At the time of the hearing the Respond-
ent had about 211 production and maintenance employees at its main plant and at
what is referred to in the record as the stranding plant.
About the first of March 1951, Harvey Leon Christian, a maintenance me-
chanic employed by the Respondent and a former member of the Union, became
interested in organizing the Respondent's employees. On March 13, he wrote
the Union at Washington, D. C., requesting that he be reinstated to membership
in the Union and that a representative be sent to Chickasha to organize the Re-
spondent's employees. Thereafter, Christian received the following letter from
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. R. Sterns , assistant secretary -treasurer of the Grand Lodge of the Union,
dated March 23:
DEAR Sin AND BROTHER: In view of the information furnished in your
letter of March 13, we are referring a copy of same, together with a copy of
our reply, to our General Vice-President who has charge of the territory
referred to -in your letter. We are confident he will arrange to have am
organizer assigned to that section at an early date, for the purpose of char-
tering a new lodge.
We are returning, herein, your dues book sent with your letter and would
suggest that you reinstate in the new lodge to be organized.
With best wishes, I am
Fraternally yours,
After the receipt of the above letter Christian showed it to several interested
employees and, while he was temporarily laid off during the last 2 weeks of
April, talked about the Union to B. L. Dayton, foreman of the third shift, and
also tried to "feel out" Pete Corveleyn, the plant engineer.2
When Christian returned to work on April 30 after the above layoff, at his.
request, he was transferred from the second shift (4 p. in. to midnight) to the
third or graveyard shift (midnight to 8 a. m.) where he and Mason J. Cole
handled the maintenance problems. As previously noted, the foreman of this
third shift was B. L. Dayton. The first day after Christian's return, Corveleyn
warned Christian that the "whole office force" had its eye on him, and to
"watch his step" as Plniit Manager George A Peck had referred to him as a
"labor agitator."'
About May 4, C. A. Buskel, Grand Lodge representative of the Union, called
upon Christian at his farm near Chickasha and at his suggestion, Christian
arranged a union meeting for Monday night, May 7. Christian passed the word
around among the employees at the Respondent's main plant and about 14
employees attended the meeting held at a residence in Chickasha All those
present signed authorization cards and a captain was elected for each of the
Respondent's 3 shifts to secure additional authorization cards Christian was
elected captain of the third shift. The next day at midnight when Christian
reported for work, he was discharged.
On May 10, Buskel had a conference at the plant with William D. Claypool,
then vice president, Plant Manager Peck, and Personnel Director and Paymaster
Joe Mosley, wherein he demanded that the Respondent reinstate Christian and
also bargain with the Union as the representative of a majority of its employees.
Both demands were refused . On May 14, at another conference with Respond-
ent's officials, the same matters were discussed. At that time Claypool stated
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into alleged subversive
activities in the plant and that Christian was included in their investigation.
Y This finding is based upon Christian ' s credited testimony Dayton was not asked and
did not deny the testimony . Corveleyn denied that he ever "made any statement to
Christian or any other employees " in reference to union activities prior to Christian's
discharge on May 8 ( hereinafter discussed in detail ). Corveleyn testified that on May 8
he did not "directly" know that Christian had engaged in union activity , but indicated that
Christian had told him he had been a union member when he first came to work for the
Respondent.
3 Corveleyn did not specifically deny this credited testimony of Christian but, as previ-
ously noted , denied making any statements to Christian relative to union activity prior to
the Iatter 's discharge I am satisfied from the record as a whole that Corveleyn did give
the primary warning when Christian returned to work the end of April.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1257
He further stated that he did not want Christian's discharge and the request for
bargaining tied together 4
Up to this time the organizational efforts of the Union had been confined to
employees in the main plant, Buskel apparently being under the impression that
the stranding plant was not being operated by the Respondent. On or about
May 15, a petition for representation by the Union of the employees in the main
plant was filed at the Board's Regional Office. On May 29, as the result of the
filing of the above petition, a "preelection" conference was held at the Respond-
ent's office, as Buskel described it He had requested Christian to attend the
,conference in order to assist him in checking union cards against the Respond-
ent's payroll if they "got that far along." However, when Christian appeared
at the office he was refused admission by L. W. Lord, president of the Respondent
(later succeeded by Claypool as president) .5 During the discussion that followed
it developed that Respondent operated both plants so thereafter the Union asked
leave to withdraw its petition and proceeded to organize employees in the
stranding plant also.
On June 4, the Union filed the original charge herein alleging discrimination
as to Christian The original complaint issued pursuant thereto, together with
a notice setting the hearing for October 2, was served on the Respondent on
September 18, 1951.
On Friday, September 21, after the renewed organizational efforts had continued
for some time, Buskel wrote President Lord as follows :
DEAR MR. LORD • I have been authorized by a majority of the employees in
your Chickasha Oklahoma Plants, to represent them in collective bargaining.
I am in a position to prove representation by signed cards, and would be
willing to prove same through a third disinterested party.
The Unit which I claim to be appropriate consists of, all Production and
maintenance employees at both the main plant and the stranding plant, but
excluding all office, professional, and technical employees, watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended.
Please accept this letter as a request, or demand, to bargain collectively
for the employees in the above described Unit for Wages, Rates of Pay, and
Other Working Conditions.
This is also to advise you that I am ready to meet with you for the above
mentioned purposes at your earliest possible date.
Yours very truly,
About September 24 or 25, Plant Manager Peck, acting under telegraphic in-
structions from Claypool (who on September 15 had succeeded Lord as president
and was on business in Washington, D. C ) to settle the case out of court, tele-
* Findings as to the May 10 and 14 conferences is based on a reconciliation of the testi-
mony of Buskel and Claypool. Neither Mosley nor Peck were asked about these conferences.
Claypool denied that the FBI was mentioned at the first meeting with Buskel. Assuming
that Claypool intended thereby to deny he had made any reference to the FBI in any con-
ference with Buskel, I still cannot accept the denial. The record shows without dispute
that about this time the FBI was at the Respondent's plants investigating the reason why
so much wire was being rejected by the Signal Corps, and a preponderance of the credible
testimony, as will hereafter appear, discloses that Claypool as well as other management
officials was using the investigation by the FBI as a means to discourage "agitation" in
the plants.
At the time Lord stated to the conferees, according to the undenied and credited testi-
mony of Buskel, that Christian "would never come back to work as long as he was
president."
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phoned Buskel offering to agree to a consent election to determine if the Union
represented a majority of all employees in the claimed unit, provided the
Union would agree to withdraw the charges of unfair labor practices as Respon-
dent would not consider reinstating Christian . Buskel refused to go along with
such a compromise arrangement.'
On September 29. by registered mail , Buskel sent a letter to President Claypool
requesting a bargaining conference practically identical to his previous letter to
Lord set forth above. No answer to either letter, oral or written, has been re-
ceived other than Peck ' s telephone compromise offer above detailed.
B. Interference
There is credible testimony, considered on the record as a whole, that during
the above organizational period, the Respondent through various officers and
supervisors, by acts and statements, sought to discourage union activity among
Its employees.
As heretofore noted on April 30, Plant Engineer Corveleyn warned Christian,
the most active union member in the plant, to watch his step as Plant Manager
Peck regarded him as a "labor agitator."
James O. Moore, an extruder operator no longer employed by the Respondent,
testified that about the third week in April Plant Superintendent J. K. Monroe
asked him at work if he had been approached about a union; that when he
responded that he had heard about it but had not joined, Monroe said that if
ruanagement ever found out who "was agitating this union talk" they would
be "sent out the damn door." Patrick J. Novotny, another extruder operator
still working for the Respondent, testified that on May 10 Monroe came to his
machine and asked him if he had "heard anything about the union that
-*s hen he responded in the negative, Monroe asked that in the event anyone talked
to him about the Union, Novotny was to let Monroe know about it, as the
Respondent would discharge anyone having anything to do with the Union.
Mason J. Cole, who worked with Christian as a maintenance mechanic and is
still with the Respondent, testified that about a week after May 8 (when
Christian was discharged) Monroe took him outside the plant building and
inquired , "What do you think about the union deal"; that when he responded
he had not given the matter much thought, Monroe stated that Respondent
could not pay any more money and if the Union got in the plants it would
break the Respondent.
Monroe denied talking about the Union to Moore or Cole. While he did not
mention Novotny by name, he stated that he never urged any employee to
report union activities. He testified further that he never said anything deroga-
tory about the Union to any employee "prior" to Christian's discharge, but
stated that after Christian had been released on May 8 "everyone" talked about
the Union including himself ; that on several of these occasions he told employees
that he was for a union but wanted a "company union ,"' and that about the
time Union Representative Buskel appeared. he told several employees that if
fl Finding as to the telephone conversation is based on Buskel ' s testimony and in part on
the testimony of Peck (Peck testified that Buskel agreed to ascertain whether a "cash
settlement" for Christian was possible and to call Peck back about the results He did not
deny that his offer to agree to a consent election included a requirement that the unfair
labor practice complaint issued by the Board be first disposed of
4 Monroe defined a company union as one that was close to the employee and not of Bated
with a national union
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1259
anyone came in the plant "bothering" them he would throw the person out.
I find on a preponderance of the credible testimony in the record considered as
a whole that Plant Superintendent Monroe made the statements substantially
as testified to by Moore, Novotny, and Cole.
As heretofore noted , Christian was discharged at midnight on May S. The
next day about noon he returned to the plant to pick up his tools and secure
a record of the hours he had worked While at the office he talked with Vice-
President Claypool and Personnel Director Mosley about the reason for his
discharge. According to Christian, Claypool stated that union agitation was
holding up vital defense work and he had reported Christian and 2 other
employees to the FBI as engaging in subversive activities and Christian should
tell the 2 others that when management found out for sure about them they
would also be fired, unless in the meantime they made a "clean breast of the
whole affair" ; that they could not have the "union in here tearing down" the
Company which had been moved from the East to get away from such things,
and he could move it again. According to Christian, Claypool also stated on
this occasion that he had planned on installing a rolling mill at Chickasha that
would require about 200 additional workers but had changed his mind about
it since Christian had "started this union agitation." The conversation in the
offce continued through most of the afternoon, according to Christian, and
during the interview Mosley observed that the local chamber of commerce bad
worked hard to get new industries in Chickasha, and asked Christian where the
union meeting had been held and if he did not feel "ashamed" working against
what had been accomplished.
About 8 o'clock in the morning 2 or 3 days after the above conference, Chris-
tian was at a restaurant near the main plant of the Respondent drinking a cup
of coffee at the counter when Claypool and Mosley came in and ast down on each
side of him. Christian testified that Claypool accused him of being "ungrateful,"
saying that the previous April Corveleyn reported that he had warned Christian,
about "labor agitation" and Peck at the time wanted to discharge Christian but
that he (Claypool) "interceded" with the result that Christian was given a
2-week layoff to "think about" what he had been doing.
Claypool denied that he had ever told Christian that the FBI had been called
into the plant to investigate subversive activities or union agitation ; or that he
had fired Christian as a result and was looking for two other agitators. He did
not deny having had a conversation with Christian on the occasions stated nor
the others items of Christian's testimony. Mosley admitted that Claypool talked
to Christian at the restaurant in Mosley 's presence a few days after the dis-
charge and that the Union was discussed. In the light of the entire record
herein, I find that Claypool made the statements at the restaurant substantially
as testified to by Christian.
J. H. Higginbotham, machinist on the second shift, testified credibly and with-
out denial that about 10 p. in. on May 8 Claypool told him, "We have got one,
we have Chris, and we are looking for two others. We don't know exactly who
they are but we have the FBI here and we are going to find them." Claypool
continued, according to Higginbotham, that the Company was preferring charges
against Christian, which, if pressed, would involve fine and imprisonment on his
part ; that management would like to have some "company men" and asked Hig-
ginbotham if he knew of any union agitators , adding that the Company was con-
sidering Higginbotham for a new job because he had some "new ideas" on ma-
chinery. Higginbotham further testified that the next day as he left work at
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the end of the shift, Claypool asked him if he had "anything to say" and when
Higginbotham responded in the negative, Claypool replied "0. K.," but has not
since mentioned the proposed new job to him 8
Higginbotham also testified that the night after Christian was discharged while
he, Charles Rollins, and Vernon Christian (brother of Harvey Leon Christian)
were working, Claypool came over to them and said it was "question and answer
night," and inquired what they thought about the Union ; that Higginbotham
did not answer but Rollins and Vernon Christian replied that they had not given
the matter much thought, whereupon Claypool stated the Respondent had found
"one union organizer or agitator" and management and the FBI were looking
for two more ; that he did not care what the employees did about organizing, but
if they went "union" the "Army would take over" the plant.
Vernon Christian substantially corroborated Higginbotham' s testimony in most
respects. He testified that Claypool mentioned "something" about the FBI but
could not recall what it was. Rollins agreed that Claypool questioned the three
of them about the Union and stated that management had gotten one man for
talking about the Union and that there was another man that they expected to
get because an FBI agent had a list of those in the plant engaged in subversive
activity.
Claypool denied that he told Vernon Christian that one of the organizers had
been fired and that he was looking for two others or that he had ever told the
three employees referred to or any other employee, "this is question and answer
night." He was not asked and did not deny the other statements attributed to
him by Higginbotham, Rollins, and Christian. Under the circumstances I credit
the testimony of Higginbotham above detailed as substantially corroborated by
Vernon Christian and in part by Rollins.
As will hereafter appear, other management officials made coercive statements
to employees in the presence of Claypool.
About May 26, according to the testimony of James F. "Red" Harris (still
employed by the Respondent), he was called to Personnel Manager Mosley's of-
fice and, after some talk about production, Peck appeared and asked Harris if
The knew why he had been called ; that on further urging, after denial, Harris
guessed that he had been called in about the "union deal" and Peck agreed, stat-
ing that he understood Harris had been "getting some cards signed up"; that
when Harris commented that "somebody" had been "snitching," Peck stated that
.he knew "everything that goes on," adding that Harris was on the "wrong side
of the fence" because if the plant went union, he would probably have to depend
on Harvey Leon Christian if he had any trouble. At this point, according to
Harris, Claypool, also present, interjected that he would close down the plant
before he would let Christian return to work; that Peck then assured Harris he
had always liked him and requested that Harris "quit talking to the boys about
the Union." Harris also testified that about a week after the above incident,
Plant Superintendent Monroe said to him, "I hear Harvey Christian is going to
be your boss," and about the same day as Peck and Monroe passed where he was
working, Peck slapped Harris on the back saying, "Well, Red here's doing all
right since he's quit union agitating."
Neither Mosley, Claypool, nor Peck denied that Harris was called to the office
for an interview on the above occasion. Mosley and Monroe both testified that
they took a neutral position if approached about the Union. Claypool denied
8 Although Claypool did not specifically deny the above testimony of Higginbotham, he
admitted that the FBI was in the plant "every now and then," but testified that fact was
confidential and was not discussed with any of the employees.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1261
that he told Harris he would close the plant before he would permit Christian
to return to work. Peck stated that he knew who most of the union men in the
plant were and admitted he talked about the Union to Harris, asserting, however,
that he always adopted a neutral attitude. Testifying about the later incident
in the plant above referred to, Peck explained that what he said at the time
was "Red Harris is doing all right since he sobered up." °
I find from the record as a whole that about May 26 Peck sought to discourage
Harris' union activities and specifically requested him to desist therefrom and
that Claypool stated that he would close the plant rather than reinstate Chris-
tian.
As heretofore noted, a petition for representation of the employees in the
Respondent's main plant had been filed by the Union on May 15. Shortly after
the filing of this petition, Respondent called a meeting of the employees on each
shift in the main plant on company time where they were addressed by Mosley
and Claypool. Vernon Christian, employed on the second shift at the time,
testified that at the meeting for his shift, Mosley told the employees that if they
wanted a union they could have one, but if they "went union," the union would
break the Respondent and the employees would all be out of work, including
probably himself. For some reason no other employees who testified were asked
about these meetings.
Mosley, testifying about these meetings, stated that they were called be-
cause of (a) "unrest" among the employees; (b) the Union; ( c) rumors about
the Company's profits and the reason why Christian was discharged. He said
that he told the assembled employees the Respondent was neutral insofar as the
Union was concerned. He specifically denied the other statements attributed to
him by Vernon Christian. Peck, although present, was not asked about this par-
ticular meeting. Claypool testified that he instructed Mosley and Peck to call
the meetings because of unwarranted rumors, and that Mosley told the employ-
ees that Respondent was neutral as to the Union. I find, from the record as a
whole, that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of
credible testimony that at any of these open shift meetings Personnel Director
Mosley stated that if the Union organized the plant it would break the Respond-
ent and the employees would be out of work.
There is undenied testimony that employee Loy W. Burnett was called into
the Respondent's office for a conference with Mosley, Peck, and Claypool some-
time in June.10 According to Burnett, Mosley asked him if he knew of any
"grievances" among the employees ; that when he responded in the negative,
Peck asked how he felt about the Union and he replied he did not know as he
had never worked in a union shop. Peck testified that Burnett often came to
the office and on this occasion there was some talk about the Union and
grievances ; that Burnett stated that the maintenance employees were "beefing"
because their shift hours had been changed, but he did not specifically deny
questioning Burnett about the Union. Mosley was not questioned about this
interview. The record shows that the shift hours of the maintenance crew
were changed the previous February or March. Claypool testified that Burnett
9 Harris admitted that he had been criticized by management for drinking on the job
but denied that anything was mentioned about that by Peck on the occasion above re-
ferred to.
10 Burnett was not too certain as to the date of this conference . He estimated that it was
before Christian ' s discharge and about a month after he had signed a tool card . The record
shows that this tool card was signed by Burnett on April 26. I therefore find, as testified,
to by Peck , that the above conference was several weeks after Christian's discharge.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-was in the office several times during the organizational period but that the
Union was never "discussed" with him.
I find, as testified to by Burnett, that General Manager Peck questioned him
about the Union on the above occasion.
Recapitulating the above generally, I find that by Plant Engineer Corveleyn's
warning to Harvey Leon Christian to watch his step because Plant Manager
Peck regarded him as a "labor agitator" ; Plant Superintendent Monroe's ques-
tioning employees about union membership coupled with threats that union agi-
tation or membership would result in discharge of the workers or insolvency for
the Respondent; Vice-President (later President) Claypool's statement to Harvey
Leon Christian that union agitation was interfering with vital defense work and
was being investigated by the FBI as subversive-that the Respondent's plant
had been moved from the East to get away from union interference and it could
he moved again-and union activity in Chickasha had caused him to change his
mind about installing a roller mill in that city, his questioning of employee Hig-
ginbotham, and his request that the latter assist in locating labor agitators, his
interrogation of Higginbotham, Rollins, and Vernon Christian about the Union
coupled with statements that the FBI had a list of employees engaging in sub-
versive activities in the plant and his statement that the plant would be closed if
Christian was returned to work ; and General Manager Peck's statement to em-
ployee Harris that he was on the wrong side of the fence in securing union appli-
cations and should desist therefrom, and his questioning of employee Burnett
about his feelings toward the Union ; Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 and
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
C. Discrimination
Harvey Leon Christian came to the Respondent as a maintenance mechanic
under Plant Engineer Corveleyn on December 18, 1950, at a time when the
machinery and equipment for the main plant was being developed and installed.
He started at 75 cents an hour and within a week was raised to 90 cents. About
January 27, 1951, he received another raise to $1.25 an hour. This last increase
was authorized by Vice-President Claypool when Christian threatened to leave
and engage his full time in farming. It is Christian's testimony that at that
time Claypool agreed to give him another raise "later on " Claypool denied that
he promised Christian a further raise. I am satisfied from the record that
Christian understood at the time that Claypool would later consider him for an
additional increase. In January the Respondent was reluctant to lose any em-
ployees, according to Claypool. Furthermore, the evidence discloses that in
April, General Manager Peck was reminded by Christian of the vice president's
previous commitment.
In addition to working for the Respondent, Christian was farming on the side,
of which fact the Respondent was aware. About April 16, Corveleyn and Mosley
told him Respondent was having some difficulty in securing material and it would
be necessary to make some temporary layoffs. They asked if he would be willing
,to take some time off to do his planting." He agreed.
As previously found, Christian had become interested in organizing the plant
in March. During the April layoff above referred to, which lasted from April 15
11 Mosley testified that he told Christian he was being laid off because of "some dissatis-
faction" with his work and as a warning . I find , in agreement with the testimony of both
Christian and Corveleyn that the layoff was voluntary on Christian's part and not because
of any criticism of his work.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1263
to April 30, he talked about the Union to B. L Dayton, foreman of the third shift
in the main plant, and also tried to "feel out" his boss, Corveleyn, relative to that
organization.
Christian returned to work on April 30 and, as he had previously requested,
was transferred from the second to the third shift where he and Mason Cole
took care of the maintenance work. Maintenance workers on all shifts were
directly under Plant Engineer Corveleyn but, in the case of a breakdown in
machinery during his absence, any production shift foreman had authority to
call on the maintenance crew for help. A posted notice in the machine shop
directed maintenance employees to phone Corveleyn, or one of the Company's
officials, in the event of an "emergency." When Christian transferred to the
third shift he reported to Production Foreman Dayton that, as Corveleyn had
directed, Dayton would thereafter also be his boss.12
As also heretofore found, Christian, working with Grand Lodge Representative
Buskel, arranged for and notified the employees of a union meeting held Monday
night, May 7. Fourteen attended the meeting, including Christian, signed
authorization cards, and elected shift captains to secure additional cards. Chris-
tian was selected for the third shift. About 5 a. m. on August 8, Christian became
ill while working and went home after first securing permission to do so from
Dayton. Cole, the other maintenance employee, handled without difficulty such
repair work as developed until the shift ended at 8 a. m 13
The night of May 8 Foreman Dayton came to work prior to the midnight
beginning of the third shift to replace a second shift employee who left early to
attend a funeral. About 11 p. in Claypool called Dayton to the office and told
him in the presence of Peck and Corveleyn that he would be "shy one man" when
the third shift started at 12 as Christian was being fired."
When Christian reported for work about 11: 45 that night, his time card was
missing Corveleyn, who was at the time clock, sent him to Mosley's office,
where he found not only Personnel Manager Mosley but also Vice-President Clay-
pool, Plant Manager Peck, and Plant Superintendent Monroe. Mosley told
Christian he was discharged and handed him his check which had previously
been prepared. Christian testified that he was given no reason for the discharge
until the next day when Mosley told him it was because of "poor work." Mosley
testified that he told Christian he was being discharged because of poor work-
manship in the past and because he checked out the previous morning without
authorization. Claypool and Monroe each testified in substance that Mosley told
Christian his work had not been up to standard, the former adding some "recol-
lection" that Christian at the time stated he left early the previous morning
because of illness. Christian admittedly was not feeling well at the time he
was discharged and could have been somewhat confused. It does not appear
probable that almost the entire managerial hierarchy of the Respondent would
have been summoned to the plant at midnight to discharge an employee and give
no reason therefor. I find that at the time he was discharged Christian was
told by management that it was because of poor work and also because he had
12 While Corveleyn denied issuing any such instruction, I credit Christian's testimony,
supported by that of Dayton, that Christian understood and so reported to the production
foreman.
13 Prior to Christian 's transfer , Cole had been the only maintenance man on the third
shift , at least part of the time.
14 Claypool 's denial that he told Dayton his department would be "short one man" that
night is not credited . Neither Corveleyn nor Peck was asked about this incident. Dayton,
still employed by the Respondent and called by the General Counsel, appeared very reliable
as a witness. Furthermore, as testified to by Mosley. he, Claypool, and Peck came to the
plant late that night for the purpose of discharging Christian as will hereafter appear.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
left the plant without authority. Christian has not since been reemployed by
the Respondent.
Conclusions on Discrimination
1. As to Christian's layoff
It is alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer that Christian was
discriminatorily laid off in April.
Up to the time of the late April layoff, Christian had confined his union
activity to writing a letter to the Grand Lodge and displaying to interested
employees the March 23 answer he received thereto, indicating that an organizer
would be sent to Chickasha "at an early date." During the 2 weeks he was
off, Christian talked about a union in the plant with Foreman Dayton and
attempted to "feel out" Corveleyn about such an organization. The latter part
of the layoff period, as heretofore found, Superintendent Monroe asked employee
James O. Moore if he had been approached about a union, and' warned that
management would discharge any employee found to be "agitating." Manage-
ment's first suspicion therefore of union activity in the plant, so far as the record
discloses , did not occur until after Christian was laid off on April 15 and was
about to return to his duties at the end of that month.
The General Counsel concedes that there is no proof of discrimination at
the time of the layoff on April 15 but argues that Claypool's statement to
Christian 2 or 3 days after his discharge on May 9 that Peck wanted to discharge
Christian April 15 but that Claypool interceded with the result that Christian
was given a 2-week layoff to "think about" what he had been doing, constitutes
an admission by management of a discriminatory reason for the layoff.
I do not believe such inference can logically be drawn from all the circum-
stances in this record. While Peck's testimony indicates irritation on his
part toward Christian predating April 15, it was based on the latter's work,
not on any known union activity. Peck did not become suspicious of Christian
as an "agitator" until the 2-week layoff period was practically over. The most
that can be said, therefore, under the circumstances, is that Peck, the plant
manager, was unable to persuade Vice-President Claypool to refuse to return
Christian at the conclusion of the temporary layoff because he was an agitator.
It has no bearing whatsoever on the reason why Christian was originally asked
to accept the layoff.
I therefore find, in spite of Vice-President Claypool's gratuitous statement to
Christian in May above referred to, that the latter was not discriminatorily
laid off in April.
2. As to the discharge of Christian
There is no competent or credible testimony that Christian's work was criti-
cized in any way from the time of his return on April 30 after the layoff until his
discharge at midnight on April 8. During this period, however, in spite of
Corveleyn's warning on April 30 that Peck regarded him as a "labor agitator,"
Christian continued to promote the organization of the Union. Working with
Grand Lodge Representative Buskel, he arranged a union meeting and notified
Respondent's employees of the same. He attended the meeting on the night of
May 7, signed an authorization card, and was elected a captain to solicit the
employees on his shift. The next night he was summarily discharged.
The Respondent contends that Christian was discharged because he was (1)
incompetent; (2) guilty of insubordination; and (3) did not follow orders and
directives. These contentions will be discussed in reverse order.
,STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1265
First, as to Christian's disobeying orders and directives. In this connection
Corveleyn testified that in January , February, and possibly March, 1951,
Christian put in more overtime than he was authorized to do. The record shows
that it was the Respondent's policy not to require any employee to put in over-
time unless he desired to do so when requested. According to Personnel Man-
ager Mosley 's credited testimony, no employee was paid for overtime work un-
less it was specifically authorized by the immediate supervisor (Corveleyn in
Christian's case ) or the plant manager. In the instances above referred to by
Corveleyn, either he or Plant Manager Peck must have approved the overtime
Christian worked during such period or it would not have been paid. Peck's
testimony confirms this conclusion because he states that in constructing air-
horns from drawings, aligning machinery, building patch press dies, and working
.on head heaters for the extruders in the early months of 1951, Christian put in
a "tremendous amount of overtime" as his work was not accurate and he had
to work late to get it right. In short, it appears that Christian was not com-
pelled to work beyond his shift hours, and if he did work beyond that period
(and the record indicates that he did on occasions), he received no overtime
pay therefor unless it was authorized by management. This explanation for
Christian's discharge several months later is rejected.
Respondent also asserts that Christian's failure to report to Corveleyn, or
one of Respondent's executives, at 5 a. in. on May 8 that he was leaving his
work before the close of the shift because of illness, contributed to his discharge,
because he disregarded the posted notice to inform Corveleyn or other manage-
ment officials in the event of any "emergency." As previously found, Christian
understood that he was working under Foreman Dayton as well as under Cor-
veleyn after April 30. When taken ill in the early morning on May 8, he se-
,cured Dayton' s permission before leaving the shift. Cole, the other maintenance
man on that shift, was also notified and carried on without any difficulty. No
"emergency" developed requiring higher management's official attention.
As to the second contention that Christian was guilty of insubordination,
Superintendent Monroe testified that about a month before Christian's layoff
on April 15, he came into the machine shop one noon while Christian, his
brother Vernon, and Loy W. Burnett, Frank Borden, and James E. Robinson
were eating their dinner, and he heard Harvey Leon Christian say in a "joshing"
way, "Here comes that guy Monroe, you want to watch him" and then added,
"This guy Corveleyn, I don't know about him." Monroe further testified that
he had heard Christian remark, sometimes in the presence of employees, that
"Pete [Corveleyn] did not know what he was doing" on several occasions when
they were installing equipment. Neither Harvey Leon Christian, Burnett, Bor-
den, or Robinson was asked about the first incident. Vernon Christian could not
recall it.
General Manager Peck testified that on "numerous occasions" Harvey Leon
Christian tried to undermine Corveleyn's authority ; that Christian complained
to him that Corveleyn was giving "preference" to the electrical department and
was not a good supervisor ; that within 2 days of his discharge on May 8,
Christian complained because Corveleyn had asked him to work overtime and
do a certain job saying he thought Corveleyn was "all wrong" and "stupid."
Christian testified credibly that he performed no overtime work while on the
third shift after his return from the layoff. Respondent's records would have
shown what overtime, if any, Christian put in after his transfer, but they were
not produced I believe in the above instance that Peck was confused and the
last incident he referred to happened in March or early April. Christian's
testimony, as well as that of Frank L Borden of the electrical department (also
tinder Corvele}n's supervision at that time), and Corveleyn's testimony, makes
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it clear that while the extruder machinery and attachments were being developed
and installed, some friction arose as to whether the electrical department or
maintenance department would do certain types of work; that as a result
criticism arose among the employees relative to Corveleyn's ability to handle the
situation as a supervisor 'b and that Christian participated therein. This con-
clusion is buttressed by the testimony of Superintendent Monroe, above referred
to as to Christian's comments about both Monroe and Corveleyn in March, not
denied by Christian. However, in early April the difficulty, arising in part at
least from jealousy between the electrical and maintenance departments, was
rectified by more specific allocation of the work and the appointment of Christian
by Corveleyn as "straw boss" in maintenance.10
I find that prior to April 1951, Harvey Leon Christian criticized Corveleyn's
efficiency as a supervisor as did other employees, but that such criticism by
Christian did not constitute insubordination or an attempt to undermine Cor-
-,eleyn's authority, and that it had no bearing on Christian's later discharge in
May.
Coming now to the question of Christian's competency as a worker, as already
noted, Christian's work with Respondent, like that of the other maintenance
employees, consisted of assisting in the preparation of extruder machines capable
of turning out the amount and type of wire required b> the Signal Corps, and
the installation and maintenance of such machinery. In endeavoring to develop
adequate machines for this purpose, considerable experimental work was done
from December on up to and including the early spring of 1951. For example,
according to Corveleyn, in February he made an airhorn Christian followed
with a duplicate which Corveleyn criticized because the threads were loose,
but Christian then made a second airhorn which worked better. Corveleyn also
made an experimental spliced die which was not satisfactory. Christian
attempted another spliced die which Corveleyn could not use. Patching dies
were made, "some" of them by Christian, in which the grooves were not "very
satisfactory" and the handles did not line up. Head heaters had to be installed
on the extruder and Christian's lineup of the bolt holes was inaccurate.
Christian made several tips for the heaters that were unsatisfactory and in
repairing a respooler, caused it to vibrate.
Peck testified that the second airhorn that Christian made was "very good"
but not what management required, and a satisfactory airhorn had not been
made by any employee up to the time of the hearing. He confirmed Corveleyu's
testimony that the patch dies were faulty and testified that Christian's alignment
of various machines was poor and that the holes drilled in the head heaters
would not mesh.
Contrary to the assertions of both Corveleyn and Peck, Christian testified
that he received no complaints of bad work at any time and that Peck told
him his work was "average." Christian emphasized the experimental character
of much of his work in the earlier days, but did not specifically deny any of the
above testimony of Corveleyn and Peck as to particular jobs.
The record discloses without dispute that a goodly amount of the jobs done
by Christian and other maintenance employees was precision work, and the
evidence shows-in fact Peck admitted-that the lathe used by Christian was
worn and in poor condition. Furthermore, the airhorns and head heaters,
15 In fact, Borden, a witness for the Respondent, testified that while Corveleyn "knew"
machines, he did not know how to handle men and that he told Corveleyn he was not a
good boss.
16 As a result of this promotion, Christian with Corveleyn's approval, requested Peck to
also grant him an increase in pay but was unsuccessful, as heretofore found
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1267
Including tips , were electrical equipment, the preparation and installation of
which was later assigned to the electrical department.
Conceding that Christian's experimental work prior to April 1950 was often.
unsatisfactory, and some of his installations-including electrical equipment-
were faulty, I do not believe from this record that the Respondent gave the matter
very much concerti even at the time. There is no evidence that the Respondent
threatened Christian with discharge or other disciplinary action if he did not
improve. On the contrary, in early April he was made a "straw boss" by
Corveleyn and the end of that mouth when he returned from his voluntary layott,
he was presumably (as the senior maintenance employee on that shift) in charge
of maintenance from midnight until 8 a. in the next morning, a position charac-
terized by General Manager Peck as "one of the most responsible jobs a machinist
in the plant could hold." This third contention is therefore also rejected as
an explanation for the May dismissal. In the light of the antiunion bias of
the Respondent, as found herein, I find that Harvey Leon Christian was dis-
charged by the Respondent at midnight on May 8, 1951, and has not since been,
reemployed because he joined and assisted the Union
D. Refusal to bargain
I find , as alleged in the complaint and stipulated by the parties at the hearing,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at both the
main plant and the stranding plant, but excluding all office, professional, and
technical employees, watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in Section 2 (11)
of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. A check at the hearing of authorization
cards against the Respondent's payroll conducted by the parties disclosed 114
valid signatures of employees as of September 21, 1951, in the appropriate unit
consisting of a total of 211 employees at that time. I therefore find that on
September 21, 1951, and at all times since, the Union has been and is the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit above found for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
As previously found, the Union, in May 1951, sought bargaining rights for the
employees in the Respondent's main plant, but withdrew its petition for repre-
sentation on that basis when it ascertained that Respondent had two plants in
Chickasha. On September 21, 1951, the Union notified the Respondent that it
represented a majority of employees in the unit found appropriate herein, of-
fered to prove its majority by a card check, and requested that the Respondent
bargain with it. This written demand was received by the Respondent on Sep-
tember 22, 1951. A day or two later, General Manager Peck, under instructions
from Respondent's president, telephoned Union Representative Buskel offering
to agree to a consent election provided the Union would withdraw the unfair
l::bor practices, involving Christian, it had previously filed. This offer was re-
fused. On September 29, the Union again reiterated in writing to the Respondent
that it represented a majority in the unit, offered to prove it, and demanded a
bargaining conference. Other than Peck's compromise proposition above noted,
no answer has been received from the Respondent to the Union's demand for
bargaining, nor have any bargaining conferences been held.
I find, under all the circumstances detailed in the record, that the so-called
compromise offer of the Respondent to agree to a consent election to determine
whether the Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit was not made in good faith because of any real doubt of the majority
status of the Union, but in order to delay and thwart legitimate bargaining with
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its employees' representative. In fact General Manager Peck's proposition was
no answer to the Union's bargaining demand, but at most a suggestion of an
alternative method of establishing the claimed majority coupled with a demand
that the Union compromise an unfair labor practice charge of interference and
discrimination presumably at that time being investigated by a governmental
agency. I therefore find that on September 22, 1951, and at all times thereafter,
the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated against Harvey Leon
Christian by discharging and thereafter denying him reinstatement because of his
activity for and on behalf of the Union. It will be recommended that the He-
spondent offer to Christian immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's discriminatory action against him. Loss of
pay to be computed on a quarterly basis with the Respondent making available
to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the compu-
tation."
It has been found that the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union, upon request, as the exclusive representative of the employees in such
unit. It will further be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights of its employees as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Standard Cable Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Harvey
Leon Christian, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging .in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at both the
main plant and the stranding plant, but excluding all office, professional, and
17F W . Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION 1269
technical employees, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. On September 21, 1951, and at all times thereafter, International Associa-
tion of Machinists has been and now is the exclusive representative of all employ-
ees in the aforesaid unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act. By refusing to bargain collectively with said Union
as the exclusive representative of their employees in said unit on September 22,
1951, and thereafter, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the above discrimination, the refusal to bargain, and by other conduct
found to constitute interference, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by dis-
criminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate any of our employees,
or in any other manner discriminate in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union member-
ship and activity or warn or threaten them that such activity or member-
ship will result in loss of employment or other reprisals.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their: right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS as the exclusive representative of our employees with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is :
All production and maintenace employees of the Respondent at both
the main plant and the stranding plant, but excluding all office, pro-
215233-53-81
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fessional and technical employees , watchmen , and supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Harvey Leon Christian immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , or any other labor organization . We will not dis-
criminate in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term and
condition of employment because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization. .
STANDARD CABLE CORPORATION,
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.
AKIN PRODUCTS COMPANY and CITRUS, CANNERY WORKERS AND Fool)
PROCESSORS UNION No. 24473, AFL. Case No. 39-CA-108. June
30, 1952
Decision and Order
On October 22, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his In-
termediate 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
and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the
General Counsel also filed 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recominenda-
1 Together with his exceptions , the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion to
correct the record. The motion is based on errors in transcription , as set forth in a letter
from the official reporter addressed to the Trial Examiner on August 4, 1951. Copies of
both the official reporter's letter and the General Counsel' s motion were mailed to the
Respondent , and by letter dated December 6, 1951, the Board 's Executive Secretary invited
the Respondent to state its position on the motion . No response has been received from the
Respondent. The motion is hereby granted, the record is hereby corrected accordingly,
and the official reporter 's letter is hereby received in evidence.
99 NLRB No. 39.