Extract
Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., 1193 (1962)
, Wilber had been employed by Respondent for a period of 9 years, during which time no complaints were made concerning his conduct or his work.
Wilber signed an authorization card for the Union in May 1962 and thereafter served as a member of the Union's organizing committee, taking an active part in the Union's organizational efforts by distributing union handbills to employees, wearing a, union button in the plant, and collecting union authorization cards from employees.Respondent contends that Wilber's discharge was caused by his violation of a longstanding company policy prohibiting employees from punching the timecards of coworkers. It is undisputed that on the morning of his discharge, Wilber punched the timecard of his mother, who was also employed at the plant, so that she would not be treated as late in reporting to her work station,5 and that later that s At the reopened hearing, Respondent moved for an indefinite continuance on the ground that two of its witnesses, Eva Figg and Mary Tarzian, were not available to testify because of illness. At that time, the Trial Examiner advised the parties he would reserve ruling on the motion until he had an opportunity to review the record and assess the materiality of this testimony . Thereafter in his Supplemental Decision, which issued 4 months after the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the motion on the grounds that the testimony of these witnesses would be cumulative and because it would not be proper to allow the record to remain open indefinitely because of the unavailability of these witnesses . So far as we are able to ascertain , Respondent gave no indication when these witnesses would be available to testify. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the Trial Examiner abused his discretion in refusing to permit the record to remain open indefinitely. The ruling is affirmed. See The Sun Company of San Bernardino, California, 105 NLRB 515.' These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the Triab Examiner, to which Respondent has excepted , alleging that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced. After a careful review of the record we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence. Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in these cases , and we reject the charge of bias and prejudice . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A 3).c Although there is some conflict in the testimony, we find that Wilber's mother, Mrs.East, arrived at her work station a few minutes after her starting time of 7 a in , but before work had commenced at her station on the assembly line.SARKES TARZIAN, INC. 1195 same day, Respondent told Wilber he was being discharged for this reason. The record indicates that while employees were generally unaware of the existence of any rule forbidding such conduct, they did recognize the impropriety of such conduct. Moreover, even absent a specific rule prohibiting such conduct, we would conclude that it was not unreasonable for Respondent to discharge an employee for such an offense, were we convinced that this constituted the true reason for Wilber's discharge.In light of the evidence before us, however, we must conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that the reason advanced by Respondent for Wilber's discharge was a mere pretext to disguise its discriminatory motivation. Although Respondent sought to establish that Wilber did not receive disparate treatment, the record does not support its argument. Respondent made reference to three other instances where employees were allegedly discharged for punching the timecard of a coworker, but only one such incident is identified in the record.' On the other hand, several employees testified that they had punched other employees' timecards and were not reprimanded for such conduct. One employee, Taylor, testified that she committed such an infraction in the presence of General Foreman Hamric; employee Lockwood stated that on several occasions she observed her foreman,Elvin Jones, punch an employee's card. In a conversation with witness East, Production Manager Polley admitted that he was aware that employees were regularly violating this rule, yet in a 9-year period, with the possible exception of employee Corlett, employee Wilber was the only individual allegedly disciplined for such an infraction. The disparity in the treatment accorded Wilber is brought clearly into focus when compared with that of employee Allen. Allen engaged in the recurring practice, for an undetermined period, of not clocking out until 2 hours after quitting time. As a result, Allen was paid for 2 additional nonworking hours per day until Respondent discovered its error. Although the matter was brought to Allen's attention, Respondent did not see fit to take any disciplinary action for t...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
