Jim Robbins Seat Belt Co., 76 (1967)

Jim Robbins Seat Belt Company and Helen M.

Hammond. Case 7-CA-5744

August 17, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

BROWN AND JENKINS

On May 19, 1967, Trial Examiner Frederick U.

Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, only the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's decision, and a supporting brief.

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 threemember panel.

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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the 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 Respondent, Jim Robbins Seat Belt Company, Ypsilanti, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified:

Delete from paragraph 2(d) that part thereof which reads 'to be furnished' and substitute therefor 'on forms provided.' TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

FREDERICK U. REEL, Trial Examiner: This case, heard at Detroit, Michigan, on March 28, 1967, pursuant to a I Apparently, this was misinformation, for the 'temporary' sewers received a flat rate of $1 50, and only the regular sewers like Hammond were paid piece rates if they exceeded production charge filed October 13, 1966, and a complaint issued January 27, 1967, presents the question whether Respondent, herein called the Company, threatened to discharge employees if they engaged in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, and did discharge the Charging Party for so doing.

Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed by the Company, and the oral argument of General Counsel, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY

The Company, a Michigan corporation, maintains a plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan, where it manufactures automobile seat belts, and from which it ships annually to points outside the State products valued in excess of $50,000. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

2. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Hammond's Discharge On October 12, 1966, the Company discharged Helen Hammond, an employee engaged in machine sewing on manual and automatic machines. The Company had employed Hammond from December 1962 to October 1965, when she voluntarily quit, and from May 1966 to her discharge the following October. From September 8 to 27, 1966, she was laid off for lack of work. The principal issue in the case is whether her discharge in October 1966 was because she engaged in concerted activity protected by the Act or because she was insubordinate, refused to follow work assignments, and used profanity in the plant.

Early in October Hammond and her fellow sewers were working on the automatic machines. At this time, her foreman, Herchel Huff, announced to these employees that they would go back to the manual machines and that certain employees on the production line would be brought in as a temporary measure to work on the General Motors order on the automatic machines. Huff explained that this move was necessary to prevent a layoff of these production line workers. During the next few days Hammond and her fellow sewers discussed among themselves what they regarded as an injustice, namely, that according to their information the girls temporarily transferred to the automatic machines were being paid $1.50 per hour, while the Hammond group was paid only $1.37, with both groups making additional piece-rate earnings if they met production standards. I On Tuesday, October 11, Hammond and her fellow employees heard that the 'temporary' girls were continuing on the automatic machines, and were now working on Ford seat belts, having finished the General Motors order. Hammond and several others decided that this was unfair to them, discussed the possibility of a walkout, and considered speaking to Plant Manager Hopka about the 167 NLRB No. 9

JIM ROBBINS SEAT BELT CO.

matter. At least one of the sewers, Faye Allen, told Hammond that if Hammond wanted to speak to Hopka, Allen would be behind her.

Shortly thereafter on the morning of October 11,

Foreman Huff entered the room and asked the employees 'What seems to be the problem? I understand you have a problem.' All the girls chorused 'Yes,' and then Hammond told Huff that she wanted to know 'Why the girls were left on the automatic machines to do the Ford order ... and why they were making $1.50 an hour....' After a short discussion Huff agreed to let Hammond and her group return to the automatic machines, and the girls 'temporarily' on those machines went back to the assembly line.2 Later that day Huff came back to the room to state that he was not 'mad' at anybody.

The following day some of Hammond's group, selected by seniority, were working on the automatic machines although she was assigned to a manual machine. About 10 minutes before the end of the workday, Huff took Hammond to Plant Manager Hopka's office, where Hopka told her she was fired. Hammond's testimony describes the interview as follows:

When I went in Mr. Hopka said 'sit down.' I did, he said 'Helen', he said, 'we have had some problem with you and I am afraid we are going to have to terminate you.' I said, 'well, why?', and he said 'for a number of reasons. First of all, we run this place you don't and that we have heard some talk of a walkout.' And I asked him, I said, 'If I was the only one that was talking of a walkout?' He said, 'well, I don't know but if there are any others they will be fired too, we will find out who they are and they will also be terminated.' Hopka did not testify as to the details of his conversation with Hammond on that occasion. Huff, on the witness stand, asked to describe the discharge conversation, quoted Hopka as follows:

That she had been talking to me kinda rough and he wasn't satisfied with her, the way she was acting toward her foreman, and she was trying to in a sense not do the job which she had been asked to do, that had been presented to her to do; we had no alternative but to let her go.

Later Huff testified as follows:

A. . . . I heard that she was trying, at one time, she was trying to get these girls to walk out and not sew because of the automatics but no one had said that they were not going to sew if they had to sew seven-row.

Q. Was this walkout mentioned to Mrs. Hammond at the time that you and she were in Mr. Hopka's office? A. To the best that I recall it was not, sir.

Q. You are not prepared to say it was positively was or was not? A. Not- no, I am not.

When Hammond left the building after being discharged, she told Allen what had happened. To quote Allen's testimony:

Q. (By Mr. Fischer) You asked Helen why she was fired, right? 2The testimony of Hammond and Allen is that the other group returned to the production area on October 11, and the parties stipulated that another employee, Marian Smith, would corroborate the testimony of Allen According to Huff, he did not remove the 'temporary' girls until the next day, and he put the Hammond group on another set of automatic 77

A. Yes.

Q. What did she tell you? A. She says 'I don't know he said a number of reasons.' Q. Did she say anything else to you at that time? A. I say 'why' and she said 'I don't know, they think I tried to stage a walkout or something.' B. The Company's Explanation of the Discharge According to Hopka, he had had several complaints from Huff about Hammond during the 2 or 3 months preceding her discharge. In August, according to Hopka,

Huff reported that Hammond refused to sew on certain colored seat belts. Some time later, but before the September layoff, Huff complained to Hopka about Hammond's 'method of accepting job assignments' and also that she swore at him occasionally. Hopka testified that he told Huff to overlook the matter as Hammond would soon be laid off, as indeed she was from September 8 to 27. After Hammond's return, when the production...