Sasser Tractor Co., Inc., 43 (1969)

SASSER TRACTOR CO. 43

Sasser Tractor Co., Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 20, Local Lodge No. 428. Case 20-CA-5302

October 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

BROWN AND ZAGORIA

On July 29, 1969, Trial Examiner George H.

O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions, and Respondent filed cross-exceptions, to the Trial Examiner's Decision, together with briefs in support of such exceptions and cross-exceptions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.

The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearings and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.

The Respondent excepted, inter alia, to the Trial Examiner's finding of a possible inference of unlawful motivation which would support a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to pass on the correctness of the Trial Examiner's findings in this connection TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

GEORGE H. O' BRIEN,Trial Examiner On May 27, 28, and 29, 1969, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter in Stockton, California, at which all parties appeared and participated. The complaint, issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board on March 25, 1969, is based on a charge filed by the Union on November 19, 1968, as amended March 11, 1969, and alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the, National Labor Relations Act Upon the entire record' in this case, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and by counsel for Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sasser Tractor Co., Inc , herein called Respondent, a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Tracy, California, is engaged in the business of selling at retail and of servicing farm machinery. Its annual sales at retail exceed $500,000 in value and it annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 from California suppliers which had obtained the said goods and products directly from sources outside the State of California. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

  1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No 20, Local Lodge No. 428, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint alleges and the answer denies that employees James Reinke and Robert Silva were discharged on October 28, 1968, and that Robert Reeves was discharged on December 2, 1968, 'because of their activities on behalf of the Union.' The complaint further alleges and the answer denies that Respondent on October 25 and October 26, 1968, through its supervisor Russell Halford, threatened employees with discharge or other reprisals, and through its president, Arthur Sasser, on January 6, 1969, threatened employees with discharge or other reprisals. The answer further denies that Russell Halford was, on the dates alleged, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

Respondent's counsel in his brief argues in substance 1. Russell Halford is neither a supervisor nor an agent of Respondent, and no statement by Russell Halford is binding on Respondent 2 Russell Halford did not utter the alleged threats.

3 Arthur Sasser did not utter the alleged threats.

4 James Reinke was discharged on October 28, 1968, for leaving work without permission on October 24 and for failing to report for work on October 26. The discharge of Reinke was the result of the cumulation of 'Respondent's unopposed post-hearing motion to correct the transcript is granted, and said motion is incorporated in the record as Trial Examiner's Exh I The General Counsel's motion to make one additional correction is also granted In transcript p 40, 1 20, the words 'stop, Mr Halford' are deleted and the words ' start. Mr Reinke' are substituted therefor 179 NLRB No. 8 many complaints Respondent had against Reinke including poor work habits, poor attitude, and disinterest toward his job 5 Robert Silva was discharged on October 28, 1968, for failing to report for work on October 26, and because he exhibited poor work habits and was inefficient 6 Reeves was not discharged, but was laid off for lack of work on December 2, 1968.

7 Respondent did not know of any union activities by Reinke, Silva, or Reeves The General Counsel states that the prime evidence on which he relies to establish Respondent's knowledge of union activities and its unlawful motivation for the discharges is an 'admission against interest' by Russell Halford I assume that by the words, 'admission against interest' he means (I) a statement in Russell Halford's pretrial affidavit that in October 1968 he was Assistant Service Manager with power to hire and fire, and (2) Testimony of Raymond Swanigan that Russell Halford stated on October 24 that he had been instructed by Arthur Sasser to discharge Reinke and Silva 'because they went off to see the union ' Thus, the ultimate issue in this case is joined on 'What was the motive of Respondent9' Resolution of this issue depends, almost exclusively, on the credit to be given to the testimony of Raymond Kenneth (Bud) Swanigan B The Service Department Respondent is a franchised dealer in many types and makes of farm machinery Its store and adjacent shop and lot occupies several acres east of Tracy on Route 50, a main highway from San Francisco Bay cities to Stockton and Sacramento Arthur Sasser is president, William Freeman is vice president and general manager, Earl Reedy was assistant general manager, and Marvin White is service manager. Maintenance, repair, and overhaul of farm machinery is performed by service employees, only about 8 of whom are experienced and qualified on all types of equipment Respondent's policy has been to hire young men, without experience, and train them Mechanics, experienced and inexperienced, have their own hand tools and use in common the heavy tools in the shop and yard None is assigned any particular bench or work station, and much of the work is performed in the yard at a considerable distance from the office of the service manager There were 25 service department employees in September 1968 and this number had dropped to 19 as of May 1969

A very large part of Respondent's business has been the sale of tomato harvesters These are large intricate machines which retail in the neighborhood of $30,000 each Respondent sold 66 harvesters in 1966, 39 in 1967 and 52 in 1968 In 1968, 238,000 acres in California were planted to tomatoes and 5 million tons were harvested.

Previous high production in any one year was 3 million tons This gross overproduction resulted in tomato acreage being reduced to 150,000 acres in 1969 and was, in part, responsible for the fact that from January through May 1969 Respondent sold only one harvester In previous years during the winter, over 50 harvesters had been painted in Respondent's shop In the winter of 1968-69

Respondent had only one harvester to paint By September of 1968 it was apparent to Sasser that the overproduction of tomatoes meant that he would not be selling harvesters in 1969, and he conceived the idea of selling overhauls to their owners, so he could keep his service department working To this end he decided that Richard Halford should call upon the owners of the approximately 200 harvesters in the San Joaquin Valley.

Richard Halford had started with Respondent 13 years before as a young man without experience He was then and is now a fully qualified mechanic and was Respondent's service manager. At the same time Marvin White was hired to be service manager White is not a mechanic His previous experience includes agricultural college, district representative for Allis Chalmers (one of the manufacturers whose franchise Respondent holds) and manager of a farm equipment agency Russell Halford,

Richard's cousin, who is also a fully qualified mechanic and who has worked for Respondent for 8 years was selected to go out in the field to sell parts to equipment owners and a specially equipped truck was purchased to aid him in this endeavor. Russell Halford was then shop foreman and substituted as service manager in his cousin's absence On some date in September the service department employees were called together and Sasser announced that as of October 1, White would be service manager, that Richard Halford would remain in Tracy long enough to facilitate the transition and would then take to the road, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT