Coca Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis

284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and employees in the military serv- ices of the United States who appear in person at the polls, but ex- cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, or by Butchers Union Local No. 193, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, or by neither. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. Louis and HOWARD D. BREWER COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. Louis and LOCAL UNION No. 606 AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , A. F. L. Cases Nos. 14-CA-4,51 and 14-CA-199. July 19, 1951 Decision and Order On February 2, 1951, Trial Examiner Allen McCullen issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed? The Respondent's request for oral argu- ' The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner's allowance of the General Counsel's motion to amend the complaints so as to include the names of four additional employees in the allegations alleging demotion for union activity . The motion was allowed at the close of the General Counsel's case during the afternoon of Friday , November 3, 1950. The Trial Examiner thereupon allowed a recess until Monday morning , November 6, 1950. The Respondent did not request the recall of any of the General Counsel ' s witnesses for further examination , and was afforded a full opportunity to proceed with its defense of 95 NLRB No. 45. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 285 ment is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record, the exceptions, and the brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of ' the parties. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent''s'exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications noted below 2 1. The Trial Examiner found that the offer of reinstatement made to Dearel Sullivan and Howard Brewer by President Cox on April 8, 1950, was coupled with an implied condition that in returning to work they must withdraw from the Union. However, we do not believe that 'the record substantiates such a finding. On the contrary, the record discloses evidence leading to an opposite conclusion. Thus, Brewer testified that President Cox said nothing to him or Sullivan at the April 8 meeting about their having to drop out of the Union as a 'condition of returning to work. Furthermore, Sullivan could not •recall that Cox had made any such statement. In answer to their question, Cox also stated to Brewer and Sullivan that there would be no prejudice against either of them as long as they performed their jobs properly. Brewer's additional statement that he did not see why he should come back to work without a union appears to have been directed toward obtaining recognition of the Union as bargaining agent for the employees and not toward protesting his individual status the amended allegations. Accordingly , we find that the Respondent was not prejudiced by the allowance of the General Counsel's motion. Olin Industries, Inc., 86 NLRB 203; •Ftilton Bag and Cotton 'Mills, 75 NLRB 883 ; Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. v. N. L. R. B., Ill F. 2d 869 (C. A. 7, 1950) ; cf. N. L. R. B. v. Mackay Radio & Telfgrapl► Co., 304 U. S. 333 (1938). The Respondent also excepted to the Trial Examiner's exclusion of certain records relating to Arthur G. Stevenson's driving. These records were prepared by the safety committee of the Respondent 's plant in the ordinary course of business and were identified by a member of the safety committee : They showed that the last accident In 'which Stevenson was involved occurred on November 16,,1949. The Trial Examiner believed that such evidence was too remote in point of time to have any relevance to the issue ,of Stevenson 's discharge. Notwithstanding the remoteness of such evidence , the records, considered in connection with other evidence, might have substantiated a defense that Stevenson was discharged for cause . Although they contain expressions of'opinion, for which no adequate foundation was laid and to which no weight can be given , they should have been admitted into evidence for the purpose of showing the number and type of accidents in which Stevenson was involved . However, upon consideration of all of the evidence relating to Stevenson 's discharge, including the records of his driving, we are of the opinion and we find that Stevenson was discharged for his union activities. Accordingly, the exclusion of the driving records did not constitute prejudicial error. ' In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner incorrectly stated that Lukas A. Bader testified as to statements allegedly made by President Cox at a meeting of the employees of the industrial department Saturday , April 8, 1950. The record reveals no such testimony on the part of Bader. However, Claude W. Evering did testify as to such statements , and his testimony is supported . by that of John B . 'Sweeney and Alfred J. Hart. Accordingly, we find that this error in no way affects the validity of the Trial Examiner 's Conclusions of Law and Recommendations . The Trial Examiner also incor- rectly stated that in January 1950 , Doyle ( meaning Bader ) was promoted to a route salesman -in the wholesale department. According to Bader's own .testimony, he had been promoted to the position of an extra man in the wholesale department and held that position at the time of his discharge. X86 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as a union meinber.3 Sullivan's testimony likewise reveals that he did not accept the offer because of his concern for the other employees involved in the dispute with the Respondent. Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that on April 8, 1950, the Respondent made a bona fide offer of reinstatement to Dearel Sullivan and Howard Brewer. The subsequent refusal by those employees of the offer of reinstatment placed them in the status of strikers, thereby preventing after that date the accrual of back pay to which they were entitled. as discriminatorily discharged employees 4 2. The Trial Examiner found that, when Sullivan and Brewer re- turned to work on June 13, 1950, they were not reinstated to their former jobs, but were assigned to positions at St. Charles, Missouri, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We do not agree. Sullivan's testimony which is uncontradicted, is to the effect that he and Brewer requested assignments at some place away from the .plant so that they would not have to cross the existing picket line, in ,which they had been active. Their assignment to St. Charles, Mis- souri, instead of the St. Louis plant, followed as a result of their own request. Moreover, the record contains no indication that they have ,requested reassignment to the St. Louis plant at anytime since their assignment to St. Charles, Missouri. Accordingly, because their rein- statement was made in accordance with their own request, we find that their assignment to St. Charles, Missouri, did not violate the provisions of the Act. In view of their .acceptance of the assignment to St. Charles, we shall not order the Respondent to offer to them their former or substantially equivalent position 5 Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Coca Cola Bottling Works of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Local No. 606, affiliated with In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen 8 This conclusion Is fortified by Brewer's statements that, "I didn't go back to work because some of the guys who had been fired thought that we would get a union in if we stuck it out," and that, ". .. if it had been left entirely up to me, I would have gone back to work." 4 Pacific Moulded Products Company, 76 NLRB 1140; Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, -69 NLRB 355; Union Manufacturing Company, 63 NLRB 254; Ohio Fuel Gas Company, 25 NLRB 519; Horace G. Prettyman, et al., 12 NLRB 640. However, the back pay of the other employees who were discriminatorily discharged Is not affected by their 'participation in the strike and the picket line. Long Lake Lumber Company, 34 NLRB 700; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; cf. Kelco Corporation, 79 NLRB 759. $Texas Miller Products, Inc., 83 NLRB 616 (reinstatement not ordered for employee who desired to remain in department to which he was assigned when reemployed) ; Ames Harris Neville Company, 67 NLRB 422; cf. State Center Warehouse -& Cold Storage Company, 90 NLRB 2115. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 287 and Helpers of America, A. F. L., or any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or discriminating in any manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning union membership and ac- tivities; warning employees to refrain from participation in such activities; soliciting employees to withdraw from union membership; threatening loss of employment, senority, or other benefits because of participation in such activities; or promising wage increases and other benefits conditioned on abstinence from union activities. (c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to formnt labor organizations, to join or assist Local No. 606, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and{ Helpers of America, A. F.'L., or any other labor organization, to bar-- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, 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 wilt: effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to James P. Bendickson, Donald H. Mueller, Lukas A.. Bader, John H. Nierman, John H. Rose, Arthur G. Stevenson, George. L. Frodeman, Richard Espy, William Brengle, Jack Collins, and Rich- ard Guier immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former- or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-, ity or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole James P. Bendickson, Donald H. Mueller, Lukas: A. Bader, Howard D. Brewer, John H. Nierman, John R. Rose, Arthur G. Stevenson, Dearel Sullivan, George L. Frodeman, Richard Espy,. William Brengle, Jack Collins, and Richard Guier in the manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The- Remedy." (c) Upon requests, 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 amounts of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order. (d) Notify Local Union No. 606, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers: of America, A. F. L., that certainletters signed by Howard D. Brewer, Dearel Sullivan, Bob Sullivan, G. L. Frodeman, Bobbie Agoain, Rob- ert Fletcher, Robert Bogen. Don L. Cline, Richard Espy, Richard 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Woods, Richard C. Guier, R., Fuchs, William Brengle, and Jack Collins, bearing dates from June 7, 1950, to and including August 23, 1950, and purporting to revoke the authority of said Union to represent said employees, were obtained by Respondent from said employees through threats and coercion, and were mailed by registered mail to said Union by Respondent. (e) Post at its. plant, at St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the'Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, after being signed by the Respondent or its representative shall be posted by the Respondent and' maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees 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. (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in -writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints, insofar as they allege that the . Respondent discriminatorily discharged Warren Becker in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and insofar as they llege that the Respondent spied upon and kept under surveillance union members, officials, meetings, meeting places, and activities of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, be, and they hereby are dismissed. Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning union mem- bership and activities; warn employees to refrain from partici- pation in such activities; threaten loss of employment, seniority, or other benefits because of participation in such activities; or promise wage increases and other benefits conditioned on absti- nence from union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL UNION NO. 606 AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words, ,.,A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS - 289 A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- •certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all 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. IVE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay which each of them may have suffered as the result of the discrimination against him. James P. Bendickson Arthur G. Stevenson Donald H. Mueller George L. Frodeman Lukas A. Bader Richard Espy John H. Nierman William Brengle .John H. Rose Jack Collins Richard Guier WE WILL make each of the employees named below whole for any loss of pay which either of them may have suffered as the result of the discrimination against him. Howard D. Brewer Dearel Sullivan WE WILL notify LOCAL UNION No. 606, AFFILIATED WITH IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS' OF AMERICA, A. F. L., that certain letters signed by Howard D. Brewer, Dearel Sullivan, Bob Sullivan, G. L. Frodeman, Bobbie Agoain, Robert Fletcher, Robert Bogen, Don. L. Cline, Richard Espy, Richard B. Woods, Richard C. Guier, R. Fuchs, William Brengle, and Jack Collins, bearing dates from June 7, 1950, to and including August 23, 1950, and purporting to revoke the authority of said union to represent said employees, Were obtained by Respondent from said employees through threats and coercion, and were mailed by registered mail to said union by Respondent. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LouIs, Employer. By --------------------------------------------- (Representative ) . (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and.-must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 290 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Howard D. Brewer, an individual, and Local Union No. 606, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director of the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued complaints dated October 6, 1950, against Coca Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, com- plaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaints alleged in substance that on or about April 3, 1950, Respondent discriminatorily discharged certain employees and demoted other employees because of their union and concerted activities ; that from on or about March 28, 1950, Respondent made intimidatory and coercive statements to employees to discourage union membership and ac- tivities; interrogated its employees concerning union membership, etc. ; urged, as- sisted, and requested its employees to surrender their union membership; threat- ened and warned its employees to refrain from union activities, and invoked re- prisals against employees for union. activities ; granted a wage increase to_ dis- courage union membership, and. promised job security and other benefits to its employees to discourage union membership and activities ; all in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent filed answers to the two complaints, admitting the commerce alle- gations set forth in the complaints; admits that it.discharged certain employees on April 3 and 4, 1950, but denies that it discharged these employees by reason of union activities ; and denies that it demoted certain employees ; and denies all other allegations of the complaints. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 31, and November 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, 1950, at St. Louis, Missouri, before Allen MacCullen, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel, and all parties partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. Upon conclusion of the testimony of Warren Becker, Respondent moved to dis- miss the complaints insofar as they alleged the discriminatory discharge of Becker in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. General Counsel and the Union offered no objection to the motion. Becker's uncontradicted credited testimony established that he had taken no part in the union organization, and at the time he was dismissed had not signed a union authorization card ; that he had an operation for hernia, and he was dismissed by reason of his physical inability to perform his duties. The fact that be was dismissed about the time other em- ployees were discharged for union activities as herein found, raised the suspicion that he was dismissed for union activities, but I find that the evidence does not support this charge, and the motion to dismiss the complaints charging that Becker was discriminatorily discharged. was granted. 1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board. COCA -COLA BOTTLING COMPANY. OF ST. LOUIS. - 291 At the close of General Counsel's case and again at the close of the hearing, Respondent moved to dismiss both complaints. The motion was denied. Upon conclusion of General Counsel's case, General Counsel moved to amend paragraph -VI -of the complaint in Case No. 14-CA-499, and paragraph VII of the complaint in Case No. 14-CA-451, by the addition, after the words "and de- moted, on or about August 15, 1950, George L. Frodeman," of the following : On or about June 15, R. W. Espy ; on or about June 15, J. T. Collins ; on or about June 15, W. L. Brengle ; and on or about July 5, Richard Guier. Respondent objected to the motion on the ground that General Counsel was limited by paragraph VI of Case No. 14-CA-499 and paragraph VII of Case No. 14-CA-451 alleging the demotion of George L. Frodeman only. The objection was overruled and General Counsel's motion to amend the complaints granted for the reason that paragraph VIII of Case No. 14-CA-499 and paragraph IX of. Case No. 14-CA-451 alleged that Respondent had "invoked reprisals against its employees for having engaged in union activity" etc., and evidence was of- fered and received, without objection by the Respondent, purporting to show that Respondent had demoted Espy, Collins, Brengle, and Guier for the reason that they participated in the unfair labor practice strike herein mentioned. General Counsel's motion merely conformed the pleadings to the proof. Respondent thereafter proceeded with its defense and was afforded full opportunity to meet the amended charge. Motions by General Counsel and the Respondent to conform the complaints and the answers to the proof as to names, dates, and other matters not relating to substance were granted. All parties waived oral argument, and a brief was filed by the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed by Respondent, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Coca Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, and is licensed to do business in the States of Missouri and Illinois. It has an exclusive franchise from the Western Coca Cola Bottling Company of Illinois to bottle and sell Coca Cola in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and certain areas adjacent thereto in Missouri and Illinois, Its principal office is at 2930 North Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, and it distributes bottled Coca Cola from that place and from warehouses at Alton and Belleville, Illinois, and St. Clair, Festus, St. Charles, and Cuba, Missouri. All Coca Cola is bottled at the North Market Street plant in St. Louis, and distributed from there to the various warehouses above men- tioned. During the past year, Respondent purchased raw materials, supplies, or com- modities of a value in excess of $500,000, of which about 30 percent was purchased outside of the State of Missouri and shipped to the St. Louis plant. During this, same period, Respondent sold bottled Coca Cola in St. Louis and the vicinity in an amount exceeding $500,000, of which approximately 15 percent was sold out- side of the State of Missouri. The undersigned finds that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 961974-52-vol. 95-20 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED - Local Union No. 606, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organi- zation as defined by Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The background; summary of events and issues For some time prior to April 1950 Respondent's employees 2 were dissatisfied with their wages and from time to time complained to their supervisors but without effect. In the latter part of March or early April 1950, a meeting was arranged with officers of the Union and the. organizational campaign started.' Thereafter and up to April 13, 1950, various supervisors questioned employees concerning the union activities, as herein mentioned, raising the issue of re- straint, coercion, and interference in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; officers of Respondent peremptorily discharged nine employees as herein men- tioned, raising the issue of discriminatory discharges in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act; and just prior to April 13, 1950, at which time the employees went on strike, Respondent announced a wage increase, which General Counsel contends was to coerce the employees to abandon the Union, and raises the issue of a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion The evidence concerning the statements which General Counsel asserts con- stituted interference, restraint, and coercion will be summarized under the names of each of Respondent's supervisors to whom the statements were respec- tively attributed. Reno Cova Reno Cova testified credibly that prior to April 13, 1950, he was a route super. visor in the industrial department, and Respondent stipulated to this fact. Howard D. Brewer, a route salesman in the industrial section, testified credibly that on Monday, April 3,, 1950, Cova asked him if he knew anything about the Union, and he told Cova that he did not. Cova then informed Brewer that someone told Mr. Buchheit (department manager in charge of the indus- trial department) that Brewer, Dearel Sullivan, and John B. Sweeney were the ones who started the union organization. Cova then asked him if he had signed a union authorization card and Brewer told him that he had. Cova then asked him why they wanted a union, and Brewer told Cova that the employees were dissatisfied with their wages. Coca then told Brewer that the employees would be better off without a union, and that even if they had worked for the Company for 14 or 15 years the Company could find reasons to discharge them. Cova also informed Brewer that Respondent was then working on a plan to give the employees a raise. The employees Involved will be mentioned as trainees or helpers and as route salesmen In the industrial department, and as helpers and route salesmen in the wholesale depart- ment. New employees usually came in as trainees in the industrial department where they acted as helpers to the route salesmen who had charge of the delivery trucks. Route salesmen called at various establishments where Coca Cola machines were operated, filled such machines, removed empty bottles, cleaned and inspected such machines, etc. 8 Employees Harold D. Brewer, Donald D. Mueller, Dearel Sullivan, John H. Nierman, and George Frodeman, herein mentioned, including several other employees, were present at this meeting, and thereafter participated in the organizational campaign. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 293 Dearel Sullivan, a route salesman in the industrial department, testified credibly that on Saturday, April 1, 1950, Cova asked him if he, Sullivan, knew anything about the union activities going on at the plant, and he told Cova "no, he did not." Cova then asked him if he had signed a union card and he told Coca that he had not. Cova then asked him if Howard Brewer had signed a card and he told Cova that he had not. On Monday, April 3, 1950, Cova again asked him if he had signed a union card and he told Cova no. Cova then said that the Union would not benefit the employees much, and that the employees had a raise which would be announced soon and that things would be a lot better. On Sunday afternoon, either the 9th or 16th of April 1950, after Sullivan was discharged, he met Cova at Ray Fuchs', another employee, house, and Cova said he wanted Sullivan to come back to work, that the Company had been working on a pay increase for the employees, and that the employees would be pleased with it, and that he, Cova, thought Sullivan, was very foolish to throw away the good reputation he had with the Company for the purpose of trying to get into the Union, and that if Sullivan would come back to work he was certain he could get back pay for Sullivan. John B. Sweeney, another employee in the industrial department, testified credibly as follows: About April 3, 1950, Cova asked Sweeney if he had heard anything about the Union, and if he, Sweeney, had signed a union card. He told Cova no. Cova then mentioned by name nearly all of the employees in Cova's division, and asked Sweeney if he had any knowledge if any of them were in the Union, and he told Cova that he did not know. . On the morning of April 5, 1950, after Brewer and Sullivan had been dis- charged, Cova again asked Sweeney if he had joined the Union, and he told Cova no, and asked Cova why Brewer and Sullivan did not go out on their routes that morning, and Cova said he did not know. Later that morning he talked with Brewer and Sullivan, and Cova asked Sweeney what Brewer and .Sullivan said to him, and he told Cova they said they had been discharged, and he asked Cova why Brewer and Sullivan had been discharged, was it because of the Union, to which Cova made no reply. Cova then again asked him if he had signed a union card, and Sweeney said yes, and he then asked Cova if he, Sweeney, was going to be the next one discharged, and Cova said no, that no one was being discharged because of that. Cova then told Sweeney to get out of the Union that it would be better for him. The following Sunday, April 9, 1950, Sweeney met Cova at Ray Fuchs' house Sullivan was there but Brewer was not. Cova was talking to Sullivan in Sweeney's presence and was trying to get Sullivan to come back to work, but be and Sullivan could not reach an agreement. After they left Fuchs' house, Cova•asked Sweeney if he would see Brewer and get Brewer to drop out of the Union, and call on Mr. Cox, president of Respondent, about coming back to work. Later in the week, Cova asked Sweeney if he had seen Brewer and Sullivan and had tried to convince them to leave the Union and come back to work. Following this conversation, Cova again talked to Sweeney and asked him to withdraw his union card, and to see Sullivan and Brewer and tell them that if they withdrew their union membership and saw Mr. Cox, they could get their jobs back. In this same conversation, Cova told Sweeney that Respondent was working on a raise for the employees, and that the employees would be better off with the new raise than with the Union, and that it would be wiser to get out of the Union and stay with Coca Cola. Sweeney then told Cova that he did not think the wage increase would compensate for the. fact that several 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the employees had been discharged , that he and some of the other employees: were mad because of that. Cova admitted being at Fuchs' house at the time of the alleged conversation with Sullivan and Sweeney , but testified that the only conversation he had' related to getting Sullivan and Brewer back to work for Coca Cola, and that he. did not discuss anything relating to the Union. Cova's general denial of all conversations with employees relating to the Union is not credited for the reasons herein later mentioned. John H. Nierman testified credibly that about April 1, 1950, Cova asked him: if he knew about the union cards which were circulating around the plant, and who was participating in it, and he told Cova that he knew nothing about it. Cova was not asked about this conversation and therefore did not deny it. George Maurer, employed by Respondent as a route salesman in March and,. April 1950, testified credibly that shortly before the picket line was set up on April 13, 1950, Cova asked him, what he would do in the event a picket line was set up. Cova was not questioned concerning this statement and therefore made no denial of it. Raymond Fuchs, employed by Respondent as a route salesman , was questioned: about some statement alleged to have been made by Cova at Fuchs' house on April 9, 1950. Fuchs' testimony on this subject was so hazy-and confused that it did not impress the undersigned , and it is not credited. Cova flatly denied any and all conversations attributed to him by employees. He admitted on cross-examination that sometime beginning about the last of March there were rumors about the Union around the plant but that "the boss says just let them do as they want ; if they want to sign it, let them, and if they don't want to sign it, let them do as they want ." If such were the instructions from "the boss" the record in this case does not convince me that it was fol- lowed by the supervisors , including the department managers . With Cova's ad- mitted knowledge of union activity among the employees , and the talk that must have been engaged in by the employees , it does not appear reasonable that. Cova had no conversation with any of the employees relating to the Union, and, yet he emphatically denied any conversation attributed to him which contained the word "union." For this reason his denials of these conversations are not credited. Lewis Langdon Doyle George N. Sisler , an employee of Respondent from August 1938 to April 15,. 1950, at which time he went out on strike , testified credibly as follows : In March and April 1950 he was working in the wholesale department under Doyle, and that sometime in the latter part of March 1950 Doyle asked him if he had heard anything about any union activity ; Doyle said there were rpmors some of the employees were trying to start a union. Sisler told Doyle that he. had heard the rumors but refused to tell Doyle the source of any of his informa- tion. Doyle then told Sisler that as the oldest man in the division , Sisler should tell the men in the division of the advantages of working for Coca Cola, all that the latter had done for the employees , and all that the employees would gain by continuing to work for Coca Cola. Doyle then asked Sisler to let him know if Sisler heard anything further about the Union. On April 4 , 1950, when Sisler returned to the plant after serving his route, he was informed that Doyle wanted to see him . When he saw Doyle the latter said he had heard that several members of his division had signed union cards, and that he, Doyle, had heard that Sisler had signed a.union card . Sisler told Doyle he had not signed a card, and asked Doyle from whom he secured his information , and Doyle said he did not know who told him. Doyle then told COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 295 him that Luke Bader, another employee, was not there any more, and he asked Doyle why, and Doyle said "he didn't meet the qualifications of a Coca Cola salesman." A few days later Doyle told Sisler that he, Doyle, had heard that a number of the employees had signed union cards. Doyle then told Sisler that if the employees had a union they would no longer work for Coca Cola but would work for the Union, and that Sisler with 12 years' experience and a good route might have somebody else come in and take the route away from him. Doyle generally denied having any conversations with Sisler relating to the Union. His denials are not credited. George Hagenbrock George Hagenbrock, prior to April 13, 1950, was supervisor of.sales in the industrial department. George E. Frodeman, a route salesman in the industrial department, working under George Hagenbrock, testified credibly that about a week before April 13, 1950, Hagenbrock asked him if he had signed a union card. Alfred J. Hart, a route salesman in the industrial division, working under George Hagenbrock, testified credibly that sometime the first part of April 1950, .Hagenbrock asked him if he knew anything about the trouble that was going on and if he knew of anyone who had signed a union card.- He told Hagenbrock that Frodeman had signed a union card, and that he, Hart, had signed one. On this same day, Hagenbrock told'=Hart that -he had a list of everyone who had signed union cards. Hagenbrock denied questioning Frodeman and Hart, or making any statement to them about the Union. His denials were not convincing, and are not credited by me. Richard Guier, a route salesman in the industrial department, testified that while in company with a number of other employees and some supervisors, he thought he heard Hagenbrock ask him if he had signed a card, but that "I couldn't swear that he was talking directly to me." Such testimony is -not credited as proving that Hagenbrock did question Guier. Randolph Johnson Respondent stipulated that prior to April 13, 1950, Randolph Johnson was a supervisor in the industrial department. Richard Woods, a trainee in the industrial department, working under Randolph Johnson, -testified crediably that on. April 12, 1950, Johnson.-told him there were rumors that a picket line would be established, and Johnson asked him if he, Woods, would cross it, and said that if he did he would be assigned a route. Woods told Johnson he did not know if he would cross the picket line. Richard Guier, hereinabove mentioned,' testified credibly that on the day just prior to the announcement of the increase in wages," Johnson said to him that he should not do anything foolish until President Cox talked to the employees, as Cox was going to make a generous offer to the employees. On cross-examination, Guier further testified credibly that shortly before the picket line was established, Johnson asked him if he would cross the picket line and come to work, and he told Johnson that he would not. Johnson was not questioned as to any of these alleged statements by him and they all stand uncontradicted. The exact date the raise in wages was announced was not clearly fixed by the testimony, but the increase was effective beginning April 10, 1950, and the announcement was probably made on Saturday, April 8, 1950. 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD Adelbert Rothermick Rothermick testified, and. Respondent stipulated, that prior to April 13, 1950, he was a supervisor in the industrial department. Nils Roy Nelson, a helper in the wholesale department, was called by Respond- ent, and testified credibly that sometime after March 28, 1950-he could not fix the exact date-Rothermick asked him if he had joined the Union. Respondent then called Rothermick in an apparent attempt to contradict its own witness. Itothermick testified that he had never asked Nelson if Nelson had signed a union card, but Rothermick was not asked if he had questioned Nelson about joining the Union, and Nelson's testimony stands uncontradicted 6 Frank Sheldon Frank Sheldon was not produced by Respondent as a witness. Respondent .stipulated that he was a supervisor. George N. Sisler, heretofore identified, testified credibly that about the time the pay raise was announced, Sheldon asked him to assist in_broadcasting the news of the raise as later herein mentioned, and in the course of the conversation Sheldon said to him that employees who refused to cross the picket line did not value their jobs with Coca Cola. This statement stands uncontradicted. John Nierman, previously mentioned, testified credibly that shortly after he was discharged on' April 4, 1950, and before the picket line was established, he was soliciting one of Respondent's employees to sign a union card. This was on the sidewalk near Respondent's plant. Sheldon came up and asked him if he was working for Coca 'Cola; and.Nierman told Sheldon that he had been discharged. Sheldon then said "From hereon, let's not hold conversations on Coca Cola property." He then asked Sheldon if Coea Cola owned the side- walk and streets of St. Louis, to which Sheldon made no reply. This conver- sation stands uncontradicted. Bernard Sullivan Bernard Sullivan testified, and Respondent stipulated, that : prior to April 13, 1950, Sullivan was a supervisor. Dearel Sullivan, heretofore identified, testified credibly that the week before he was discharged Bernard Sullivan told him that it would not be wise to sign union cards because Respondent could cayy "Jellyroll" Hogan an."official ,of the Bottlers Union, and have him get in touch with Local 606, and Respond- ent could then ascertain the names of all employees who signed cards. The night before the Dearel Sullivan was discharged, B. Sullivan told him Respondent had ascertained the names of all employees who signed cards, and that Dearel Sullivan was among them. Arthur G. Stevenson, employed by, Respondent as a route salesman in the industrial department prior to his discharge on April 4, 1950,, testified credibly that on April 4, just prior to his discharge, he asked Sullivan how long Respond- ent was going to continue to discharge,the employees, and Sullivan told him that Respondent "will keep it up until they get rid of all of them." Stevenson then said that Respondent could not possibly know who all of the union members were, and Sullivan replied that " Jellyroll" Hogan, previously mentioned, was in to see President .Cos the previous Saturday, and that Hogan knew the names of all employees who had signed union cards, and that Respondent could find out the names of all employees who were active in the union. 6 Rothermick testified that he heard about the union organization as earix as the latter part of March 1950. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 297 John L. Cline, employed by Respondent as a trainee in the industrial depart- ment, testified that the night before the picket line was established, Sullivan came in a room where a number of employees were gathered. He had a num- ber of small paper cards in his hand, and he said to the employees that anyone- who had signed a union card should take one of the cards, and he passed' them around the room. The card had a picture of a man flushing himself. down:. the toilet and 'saying' "Good-bye cruel world." Bernard Sullivan denied that he ever had a conversation with Dearel Sullivan. concerning the Union. He also denied the conversation attributed to him by Stevenson. He testified that be did not know John L. Cline, but that he had nothing to do with the alleged distribution of. the paper cards as testified by Cline. His denials of the conversations with Dearel Sullivan and Stevenson.1 were not impressive, and are not credited by me. I do credit his denial of having anything to do with the distribution of the paper cards as testified by Cline.. Cline's testimony was not impressive,. and it is significant that General Counsel did not question any of the other employees. alleged to have been present when the cards were supposed to have been distributed. Vito Zerille Vito Zerillo testified, and Respondent stipulated, that he was a supervisor in: the industrial department prior to April 13, 1950.. • Arthur G. Stevenson, herein identified, testified credibly and without con- tradiction that on April 4, 1950, after his discharge herein related, he walked. out of Buchheit's office with Zerillo, and the latter said it was a shame that they were discharging some of the employees. because of the Union, that the Union was no good, and it seemed foolish to be discharged over something like that,; -and Zerillo then suggested to Stevenson that the latter call up President Cox that evening and give Cox the names of all of the employees who were in the- Union, and that some sort of an arrangement might be made for Stevenson to be reinstated. Claude W.. Evering testified credibly, and without contradiction, that he was employed by Respondent in the industrial department until April 13, 1950, that About April 7, 1950, Zerillo asked him if he were one of the instigators or or- ganizers of the union organization. Zerillo further informed Evering that Zerillo had heard from some of Evering's friends that he was one of the or- - .ganizers.-- Evering told Zerillo that this was false. Zerillo -then asked Evering - if he had signed a union card, and Evering said he had. Zerillo replied that -that was all right, that-was all he wanted to know. Robert W. Fletcher, trainee in the industrial department, working under Zerillo, testified credibly that shortly after the union organization started Zerillo questioned him as to which employees were initiating the organization so that he could talk to them and find out what the trouble was, as there might be something the Company could do to settle the differences. John H. Nierman, previously identified, testified credibly that on the after-- noon of April 4, 1950, while he was waiting for an interview with Buchheit Wei— !dent to his discharge. herein related, he heard Zerillo say to Jaycox, one of the- route salesmen, "I hope they fire all of those S. B's, they don't know about .unions." Zerillo was not questioned concerning the statements attributed to him by Stevenson and Evering. Zerillo denied that he questioned Fletcher about the Union, and also denied he made the statement as testified by Nierman. Such denials were not convincing and are not credited. Robert E. Sullivan, employed by Respondent as a trainee in the industrial 298 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department, gave some testimony regarding an alleged conversation with. Zerillo during the time Sullivan was on the picket line, in which Zerillo was alleged to have said that he did not think the Union was getting any place. Sullivan was so indefinite as to when this. conversation took place and as to what Zerillo actually said that such testimony is not convincing, and it is not credited. Richard Espy, route salesman employed by Respondent, was questioned by General Counsel concerning an alleged statement made by Zerillo at the latter's home shortly after Brewer and Sullivan were discharged to the general effect that Zerillo could get about 15 witnesses to testify to something which the wit- ness said he could not remember. Espy's testimony was so evasive and con- tradictory that it is not credited. Raymond Fuchs, route salesman employed by Respondent in the industrial department, testified that at the meeting at Zerillo's house referred to above, Zerillo said "If you are ever short on money, the old man will take care of you." Zerillo denied making this statement. Standing alone, the statement, even if made, does not prove interference, restraint, or coercion, and I do not find it necessary to determine if the statement were actually made. Willard R. Cox Lukas A. Bader, route salesman in the industrial department, and Claude W. Evering, previously identified, testified credibly that at a meeting of the em- ployees of the industrial department on Saturday, April 8, 1950, Cox, president of Respondent said he had heard that a picket line was going to be set up, and that any employee who refused to cross the picket line was eith'er•a coward or he did not want his job, but that employees who did cross the picket line would always have a job with Coca Cola. Cox testified that he told the employees he had heard a picket line would be -set up, and that he hoped and expected the men would come to work if it were 'set up. He testified that he had no.recollection of making the statement ``that those who do come to work will have their jobs and those who don't either are ,cowards or don't want their jobs," but he did not deny that he made the -statement. At the meeting of the employees shortly before the picket line was established at which Cox made the statement with reference to crossing the picket line as related above, he also announced that.effective for the week ending April 15, 1950, there would be a wage increase for all route salesmen in the industrial department of $5 a week in their base pay-with an increase in minimum-earnings for the week from $35 to $42; for all route salesmen in the wholesale depart- ment an increase of $5 a week in their base pay and an increase in their mini- mum earnings to $50 per week; extra men in'the wholesale department were increased to $48 a week, with no increase for the trainees in the industrial. department. I conclude and find that by questioning of employees concerning union ac- tivities; warning employees to drop out of the Union, questioning employees as to their intentions when the picket line was established, warning the employees of the possible damages flowing from union membership, urging employees to :solicit other employees to drop their union membership, urging an employee to advise other employees of the proposed raise in wages just prior to the strike, interfering with an employee soliciting other employees to join the Union, stating to an employee the hope all union members were discharged, promising a -wage increase simultaneous with the statement that there was a rumor a picket line -would be established, and following this with the statement that employees who refused to cross the picket line were either cowards or did not want their jobs, COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 299 Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. C. Discriminatory discharges On April 3, 1950, Respondent discharged James P. Bendickson and Donald H.. Mueller, and on April 4, 1950, discharged Lukas A. Bader, Howard D. Brewer,. John H. Nierman, Arthur G. Stevenson, and Dearel Sullivan, and technically dis- charged John M. Rose by forcing his resignation. With minor variations not material to the cause of the discharge, all of the discharges were effected in the same manner . It is not necessary, therefore, to give the testimony of each of the dischargees as it was all substantially the same and was not contradicted by Respondent. With-the exception of Lukas A. Bader, the other seven employees- were called to the office of R. A. Buchheit, manager of the industrial department, and told they did not meet the qualifications of Coca Cola salesmen, and that. it would be to their advantage in the future to seek employment elsewhere. Buchheit then gave them the choice of resigning or being discharged. Rose- elected to resign , and Buchheit gave him paper and dictated the resignation which read as follows : I do not believe I have the necessary qualifications to make a successful Coca Cola salesman. Please consider this my resignation effective today.. The other six employees elected to be discharged. Buchheit had checks ready for all of the discharged employees for the preceding week, which he immediately delivered to them, and paid them in cash for the time worked in the current week.. When the employees asked for some explanation as to the meaning of the discharge, Buchheit gave no explanation. Shortly after their discharge, the employees received a letter from Respondent, signed by Buchheit, reading as follows : Upon your request for reason for dismissal we beg to advise that the reason is as follows : We have found that your services are no longer required because you have proven an unsatisfactory employee in that you did not come up to the- qualifications which are set for Coca-Cola salesmen. We have certain stand- ard's which are required of our salesmen and since you did not come up to- these qualifications it was necessary to dismiss you from the employ of our company. We further feel that since you do not possess the qualifications for our requirements as a Coca-Cola salesman, that it would be better and more advantageous for your own welfare to use your efforts in a field in which you better qualify and which might offer more chance for success. Lukas A. Bader was discharged by Frank Sheldon, manager of the wholesale- department, and the same reason was given him by Sheldon that Buchheit gave the other employees, that he was not qualified to be a Coca Cola sales- man. When Bader asked him in what way he was not qualified, Sheldon said "Oh, it is something like that incident you had with Mr. Buschulte." Sheldon, said further, "You just can't put your finger on it, it is a combination of things." The incident with Buschulte occurred on August 13, 1949, and was a minor disagreement with a fellow employee. The uncontradicted credited testimony of all of the dischargees is that they were all members of the Union and very active in the organization attempt, and that none of them had been reprimanded recently by their supervisors and there was no testimony offered that any of them had been reprimanded for 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any serious offense or warned that a repetition would call for punitive action by Respondent. Respondent offered certain testimony, as to alleged acts of some of the dis- chargees which it claimed was the cause of their discharge . General Counsel objected for the reason that Respondent in its answers denied generally that it bad discharged the employees by reason of their union activities as alleged in the complaints , but did not plead that the employees were in fact discharged for cause. General Counsel's objection was overruled and the testimony re- ceived, and is summarized as follows : Lewis L. Doyle, supervisor in the wholesale department , and the immediate superior of 'Lukas A. Bader , testified that he recommended the discharge of' Bader to Sheldon ; that he complained to Sheldon concerning Bader around the 1st or 15th of January 1950; that he talked with Bader about his service to cus ' tomers and his quick temper on numerous occasions ( he later corrected this to lots of times, and finally on several occasions ) ; that Bader was untidy with his clothes and very arrogant. On cross-examination when questioned as to; the specific times and the exact nature of his complaints against Bader, Doyle was very evasive and uncertain . Doyle was first employed by Respondent in October 1948 as a trainee, was then promoted to a route salesman in the indus- trial department, and about January 1950 was again promoted to route salesman in the , wholesale department . No testimony was cffered by Respondent, as to Bader's lack of qualifications during his employment from October 1948 to Jan- uary 1950, and the fact that he was promoted to higher jobs with Respondent. would indicate that his services were entirely satisfactory. Doyle's testimony as to the complaints against Bader was evasive and uncertain , and I find that it does not warrant a finding that it was the real reason for his discharge. It is significant that at the time of Bader's discharge when he asked Sheldon to explain his lack of qualifications, Sheldon made no reference to any of the :so-called complaints to which Doyle testified . Doyle was present at the confer- ence when Bader was discharged , but did not contradict Bader's testimony that the only thing Sheldon said was to refer to the incident in August 1949 with .Buschulte. If the real reasons for Bader's discharge were the complaints by Doyle and Doyle's recommendation to Sheldon , why were these alleged facts not brought to Bader's attention at the time ? The answer is obvious, and I find that the real reason for Bader's discharge was his union activities and that the alleged reasons given by Doyle were a pretext. R. Johnson testified that sometime in February 1950 he complained to Buch- iheit that Bendickson was chipping bottles ; 6 and that he reprimanded Bendick- .son concerning his personal appearance but gave no testimony as to when this was. Buchheit testified that he had a report from Johnson complaining about .Bendickson's personal appearance the week before Bendickson was .discharged .and that he received a report about the bottle chipping incident about the first .of March ; and that he had received a report from Johnson a month or so before Bendickson's discharge that he was speeding with company equipment. Cova testified rather generally that Brewer turned corners too fast with his truck and that this occurred sometime prior to February 1950. Buchheit testi- fied that he received a report from Cova the first week in March 1950 that Brewer. Drivers were authorized to refund to customers 5 cents for each chipped bottle of Coca Cola turned in. and this amount was refunded to the driver when he got to the' plant. Some drivers deliberately chipped bottles and collected the refund themselves. Bendickson admitted to Buchheit when the latter questioned him that he had been,. guilty of this practice and the matter was then settled by Bendickson agreeing to refund all of the money he had collected for these bottles and being warned not to repeat the' practice. There was no evidence, that Bendicleson did repeat this practice. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 301 -was "argumentative with his customers," and about 2 weeks later received a report from Cova that Brewer was gambling with his customers. . Buchheit testified that he received a report from Cova about the first of March 3950 that Mueller was a very reckless driver, about a week later received a report about his driving, and about a week later another report that he was not .Billowing his supervisor's instructions properly. Buchheit further testified that on Saturday before Mueller's discharge, the latter reported to him that he had been involved in a back-up accident, the nature of which Buchheit did not give. When questioned as to complaints against Mueller , Cova gave no testimony as to Mueller's driving, and said his only complaint was that Mueller "indulged in horse-play in the garage" and that he had, had complaints from customers as to empty coolers but could fix no definite time or specific trans- -action. Respondent offered no testimony as to any complaints concerning Rose. R. Johnson testified he made a complaint to Buchheit about Stevenson's driv- iug, and said this was probably in February 1950, and that he never made any .other complaints regarding Stevenson's performnace as an employee. Buchheit testified that he received a complaint from Johnson about the middle of March 1950 that Stevenson did not follow his supervisor's orders, that he. received another report from Johnson the last week in March 1950 that Stevenson was ,continually coming in late for work. On cross-examination, Buchheit said he received the first report about the 5th of March and the second report the following week ; that Stevenson had worked for the Company from December 1948 and these two were the only complaints he had ever reecived regarding Stevenson. Buchheit also testified that Stevenson's driving record was con- sidered in determining to discharge him. Buchheit produced company records relating to Stevenson's driving, and these records disclosed that the last accident in which Stevenson was involved was on November 12, 1949, and there was no testimony offered disclosing that Stevenson was responsible for this accident, 3.1or was any evidence offered as to why Respondent had delayed taking action against Stevenson within a reasonable time after the accident. Cova testified that he reprimanded Dearel Sullivan about returning to the plant from his route too early in the afternoon, about reporting for work late in the morning, and about marking inspection tickets 0. K. without actually inspecting coolers. When questioned on cross-examination as to specific events and the dates thereof, Cova was very evasive and could relate no specific event or date. Buchheit testified he received a report from Cova the week of March 19, 1950, that Sullivan was returning to the plant from his route too early in the afternoon, that lie received another report from Cova the following week that Sullivan was reporting late for work, and was checking coolers 0. K. without inspecting them. On cross-examination, Buchheit testified he received the first report from Cova concerning Sullivan the first week in March and received the next report the, week of March 12, and that Sullivan had been em- ployed by Respondent from October. 4, 1948, and these two complaints were the only ones he ever received concerning Sullivan. Cova testified that he could not think of any complaint he ever made con-' -cerning Nierman. Buchheit testified that the only complaint he ever received from Cova concerning Nierman.was in the last week of March 1950, that Nier- man was not following supervisor's orders. Asked if he made any inquiry -as to what this involved he said no. The conflict between the testimony of the supervisors and Buchheit is so noticeable it raises considerable question as to the value of any of it. The bottle chipping incident involving Bendickson occurred at least a month prior ,to his discharge, and had been fully settled. The driving record of Stevenson 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is another illustration of Respondent's desperate efforts to justify the discharge of these employees. If the reasons for the discharge of these employees were as Buchheit testifies, why did he not so- inform the employees at the time he called them into his office, and why did Respondent delay taking action against all of these employees until after the union activities of these employees alarmed Respondent and caused it to call in these eight employees practically at one time and discharge them? Zerillo's remark to Stevenson after the latter had been discharged "that it was a shame that they were discharging some of the employees because of the- Union," as herein related, supplies the real reason for the discharge of these employees. President Cox's statement to six of the discharged employees made shortly after their discharge, that after the employees were discharged he had heard that there were some labor troubles, as herein related, clearly shows his understanding of the reason for the discharge of the employees, and it was not for the. reasons Respondent now contends, but, as Cox expressed it, because of "labor troubles." It is clear from the evidence that Respondent coerced John M. Rose to resign by threatening to discharge him if he did not resign, and that the resignation was not the free and voluntary act of Rose. Under the circumstances, I find that John M. Rose was technically discharged by Respondent. That Respondent was fully informed of the union activities of all of these, employees is clearly shown by my findings under interference, restraint, and coercion, and I conclude and find that the reasons now advanced-6y Respondent for the discharge of these employees was a pretext, and that Respondent dis- charged James P. Bendickson, Donald H. Mueller, Lukas A. Bader, Howard D. Brewer, John H. Nierman, John H. Rose, Arthur G. Stevenson, and Dearel Sullivan, and has failed and refused to reinstate said employees, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of col- lective bargaining and other mutual aid an l protection, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) '(3), and also Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. D. Alleged offer of reinstatement to dischargees President Cox was absent from the city at the time of the discharge of the eight employees. After his return, he held two meetings with the dischargees on April 8, the first meeting with Stevenson, Nierman, Bendickson, Rose, Mueller, and Bader, and a later meeting with Brewer and Sullivan. At both meetings Zerillo and Cova were present. Stevenson testified credibly concerning the first meeting that one of the em- ployees present stated to Cox that the employees understood that Cox was going to work out some kind of an agreement as to a wage increase and reinstatement of the discharged employees, and Cox replied that he had been on vacation and when he returned he found the employees had "taken the ball out of his hands." Stevenson further testified credibly that Bader asked Cox if he would consent to putting up a ballot box in the garage, and Cox replied that he could not do that ; Bader then stated that "our Union can do it" and Cox then said that after the employees signed the union cards the Union had charge of it and the employees could do nothing about it. Further testifying credibly, Stevenson said another employee asked Cox what kind of an agreement would be made with the employees, and Cox replied that no definite decision had been reached at that time. On cross-examination Stevenson was asked if Cox did not go around to each one of the employees individually and offer them reinstatement, and he credibly replied that Cox stood in one place all the time and-made no-offer-of -reinstate- COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 303 went to,any employee present. Nierman also testified credibly that Cox made no offer of reinstatement to any of the employees present. Cova was questioned as to what occurred at the meeting and made no mention of any offer of reinstatement. Zerillo testified that Cox offered to reinstate all -of the employees, and one of them replied that they would not return to work without their Union. Zerillo's testimony is not credited.' Cox testified he told the employees that after they were discharged he had heard there were some labor troubles and that by reason of that fact lie would like for them to come back to work at the earliest moment. Cox's testimony that he offered to reinstate these employees is not credited 8 Later in -the day after the above meeting ended, Brewer, accompanied by Dearel Sullivan, called on Buchheit in connection with a safe driving award to which he was entitled. After paying the cash award to Brewer, Buchheit told Brewer and Sullivan that Cox had talked to the other discharged employees that morning, and asked Brewer and Sullivan if they cared to talk with Cox. Receiving an affirmative answer, Buchheit arranged for the conference, and .Brewer and Sullivan, accompanied by Zerillo and Cova, met with Cox. Cox .asked Brewer -and. Sullivan why they did not come to him if they were dis- satisfied, and Cox then told them he would like for them to come back to work the next day. Brewer and Sullivan then told Cox that they were not the only ones involved and that "there would be prejudice against them by the other men if we come back," and asked.Cox "what protection they had against being discharged under the same circumstances, with such short notice." Brewer then told Cox that he had always thought he was doing his work right, and that if this were not so his supervisor was there and could speak. Neither Zerillo nor Cova made any statement. Brewer then told Cox the reason Buch- heit had given him for his discharge, and then said that under such circum- stances he did not see why they should come back to work without the Union, and Cox replied "Now, son, don't dig up the grave." Cox then told Brewer and Sullivan that Respondent was working on a wage increase for the employees the details of which he was not then prepared to announce. Brewer and Sullivan refused to return to work under the circumstances, and the following week en- gaged in a strike with the other employees .9 Respondent contends that it made an offer to reinstate all of the discharged employees on April 8, 1950. I find that this contention has no merit. As to the first six employees who met with Cox the credited testimony clearly estab- lishes, and I find, that no offer of reinstatement was made to any of them. As to Brewer and Sullivan, both of them testified that Cox did tell them they could return to work. The question whether this was an offer of reinstatement made in good faith, or whether it was conditioned on their withdrawal from the Union presents some difficulty. Cox's testimony that he had heard there T Zerillo evidently confused this meeting with the later one with Brewer and Sullivan where Brewer made the statement about not returning without a union. 81 was impressed with Cox's apparent effort to recall the facts , but it was clear to me that he was very much confused, and his recollection of what happened at the different meetings was very faulty. The testimony of Stevenson and Nierman, however, was very clear and convincing. Although Cox's testimony is discredited, his statement he had heard of some labor troubles is an admission at least of what he had in mind at the time of this conference and. at the later conference with Brewer and Sullivan herein related. 9 The above is based on credited testimony of Brewer and Sullivan . Zerillo's testimony corroborated in the more important details the testimony of Brewer and Sullivan, although he gave no testimony concerning Brewer's refusal to return without the Union (apparently Zerillo confused this meeting with the earlier meeting with- the other six employees herein related), nor did Zerillo admit or deny Cox's statement "don't dig up the grave." Cox's recollection of what occurred at the meeting appeared to be somewhat confused. Cova was questioned as to what happened at the meeting but his recollection was very poor. 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were some labor troubles, his statements to some of the' employees that "the• employees had taken the ball out of his bands" and the effect of signing the union cards, and his efforts to meet the situation by working on a .wage increase,. and the announcement to the employees later this same day of the wage increase- and his efforts to induce the employees to cross the picket line if established,. all as herein related, clearly reflect his antiunion attitude.. With this in mind,. Cox's reply to Brewer "don't dig up the grave" takes on real meaning." Brewer was fully informed as to the unfair labor practices of the Respondent as evi- denced by the charge he filed with the Board on April 5, 1950. Under the circum- stances, Brewer and Sullivan were justified in questioning Respondent's good' faith in making the offer. The evidence satisfies me, and I find, that Cox'& statement to Brewer and Sullivan that he would like for them to return to work was not made in good faith but was coupled with an implied condition that in returning to work they must withdraw from the Union." E. Further interference, restraint, and coercion About 2 months after the beginning of the strike, some of the employees; abandoned the strike and applied for reinstatement. About this same time Respondent sought to encourage some of the employees to return. to work. All employees applying for reinstatement were required to see President Cox, although Cox admitted on cross=examination that it was not his usual funcVlon to interview applicants for positions, but that supervisors and department managers usually performed this duty. Howard Brewer and Dearel Sullivan jointly applied to Cox on June 12, 1950, for reinstatement. Brewer and Sullivan both testified credibly as follows : They asked Cox if they could return to 'work and Cox replied that he did not know, that some of the employees had returned to work and he had given them a chance. Cox then told Brewer and Sullivan that they had to be on one side of the fence or the other, and they replied they had made up their minds and were on the Company's side. Cox then produced a form of letter withdrawing from the Union and instructed them to copy it twice, one copy to be sent to the Union and one copy to the Board, and instructed them to address envelopes for the two letters. Brewer and Sullivan copied the form of letter and addressed the envelopes as instructed, and delivered them to Cox.11 Brewer and Sullivan returned to work the next morning, but they were not reinstated to their former jobs as route salesmen in St. Louis, but were assigned to jobs as extra men in. the wholesale department in St. Charles, Missouri, and I find that they were not reinstated to their former jobs. As the credited testimony of the other striking employees who applied for reinstatement, was that the same procedure was followed by Cox in each case, i. e., he produced the same form of letter withdrawing from the Union and required the employees to make two copies, one addressed to the Union and a copy to the Board, and address envelopes covering both letters, this testimony 10 Cox did not deny Brewer's statement about not returning without the Union. Although he denied telling Brewer not to dig up the grave, he did not testify what answer he made to Brewer. Had his offer to Brewer and Sullivan been made in good faith, the natural answer to Brewer would have been that there was no condition attached to the offer. 11 The Red Rock Company, 84 NLRB 521. 12 The form of letter which Cox handed the employees read as follows : I, the undersigned, who signed a representation card to have local 606 of Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters; Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. L. represent me, am hereby notifying. the aforementioned Union that I no longer desire to have you represent me. This is notice to you to that effect, and' I revoke my signature on such card and withdraw from the authorization given. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 305 will not be repeated. The only variations were the dates of application and the statements made by Cox to the employees , which are as follows : George L. Frodeman applied for reinstatement on August 15,_ 1950 , and Cox said "It would be a good idea for you to be on one side of the fence or the other," and when Frodeman agreed, Cox produced the form of letter for him to copy. Richard Espy applied for reinstatement on June 12, 1950 , and Cox said, "Well, as long as you are going to be working for the company, you do not want to have anything to do with the Union, do you?" and Espy agreed, and Cox produced the form of letter to be copied. Jack L. Collins applied for reinstatement on June 7, 1950, and Cox said "Since 'you want your job back, you do not want to belong to the Union?" William L. Brengle applied for reinstatement on June 12, 1950, and Cox asked him when he wanted to start to work, and Brengle replied he could start the, following -morning, and Cox then asked him if he wanted to withdraw from the Union, and Brengle said "Yes." Robert W. Fletcher applied for reinstatement on June 19, 1950, and Cox told' him he could 'have his job, and then Cox said,, "as you are returning to work you should drop the Union." Fletcher agreed and Cox produced the form of letter. Robert W. Sullivan applied for reinstatement on July 6, 1950, and Cox said "You want to be on one side of the fence or the other ," and then he asked Sullivan if he wanted to withdraw from the Union, and Sullivan said yes, and Cox pro- duced the form of letter. In addition to the foregoing employees who voluntarily applied for reinstate- ment, Luke Smith, Reno Cova, and Albert Hart" solicited the following employees to return to work and withdraw from the Union : Luke Smith asked Richard Woods if he would like to go back to work for Respondent, and when Woods replied in the affirmative, Smith arranged for a conference with Cox. Woods called on Cox on July 5, 1950, and Cox produced the form of letter and gave Woods the same instructions he gave the other returning employees. Cox told Woods at the time he produced the form letter that he could not promise Woods a job if he withdrew from the Union. After Woods copied the form letter twice and gave them to Cox, Cox directed him to, report for work the next morning, which he did. Albert Hart asked John L. Cline if he were interested in returning to work for Respondent. Cline told Hart that he was, and Hart told Cline to meet him the next day. When Cline met Hart, Luke Smith was with Hart and accompanied Cline to Cox's office. This was on June 15, 1950. Cline applied to Cox for reinstatement, and Cox told Cline that he, Cline, was reemployed, "but that he- could not carry 2 pails of water on one shoulder and that he should drop one of them." Cox then asked Cline if he wanted to drop from the Union, and when Cline said yes, Cox produced the form of letter and gave Cline the same instrue- tions as given to other employees. Al Hart and Luke Smith sought Robert Bogen and inquired if he were inter- ested in returning to work for Respondent, and when Bogen said yes, Smith told him to see Cox. Bogen applied to Cox for reinstatement on June 15, 1950, and Cox produced the form of letter withdrawing from the Union and said that was 1 Respondent adnritted Smith and Cova were supervisors prior to April 13, 1950:. Proof of their status after that date was not received . Hart was a rank-and-file employee- who refused to participate in the concerted activities of the other employees . It is not necessary to inquire into the prior authority of Smith , Cova, and Hart to act for Respon- dent, in these matters for the'reason that Cox, as president for Respondent, fully recognized. their acts and on behalf of Respondent accepted the benefits thereof, and I find that Respondent ratified and approved their acts as agents. 306 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the way to go about it if he wanted to withdraw from the Union, and gave Bogen the usual instructions. Luke Smith asked Richard Guier if he wanted to return to work for Respondent, and Guier told Smith that he, Guier, was planning on going into the Army. Smith then told Guier that Cox wanted to see Guier and urged the latter to be in Cox's office the next day at 3 o'clock. Guier kept the appointment with Cox the next day, July 5, 1950, and Cox told him that a number of employees were returning to work and had signed letters withdrawing from the Union, and asked If he wanted to sign one. Guier said he would, and Cox produced the form letter and gave Guier the usual instructions." Luke Smith asked Bobbie Agoain if he intended to return to work for Respondent, and Agoain informed Smith that he had secured another job and could not leave at that time. Smith then asked Agoain if he would go and see (Cox, which Agoain did. Cox asked Agoain if he wanted td return to work, and Agoain replied that he might desire to return to work later. Cox then said that as Agoain might return later, would he care to withdraw from the Union. Agoain told Cox he would rather talk it over with his father, and Cox then said to Agoain that "It did not matter anyhow because the matter was whipped," and Cox then named some of the employees who had returned to work, and said that "in a short time the picket line would probably leave and the matter would all be forgotten." ' Luke Smith called on Agoain several days later, on June 13, 1950, and gave.the form letter to Agoain, together with blank paper and envelopes, and Agoain prepared the letters withdrawing from the Union and gave them to Smith. Raymond Fuchs did not apply for reinstatement with Respondent and secured a job elsewhere. On August 23, 1950, Reno Cova called on Fuchs at his place of employment, and handed Fuchs two typewritten copies of the form letter with- drawing from the Union, and induced Fuchs to sign both copies and return the signed copies to Cova. All of the above is based on the credited testimony of the employees named. Cox was asked if he made the statement to Brewer and Sullivan "you must be on one side of the fence or the other," and replied he told Brewer and Sullivan that they could be on either side of. the fence, that that was their business. He also denied making the statement to Cline "you can't carry two pails of water on one shoulder, and should drop one." His denials of these statements, however, are not consistent with his conduct in soliciting these employees to withdraw from the Union. Cox did not deny the statement attributed to him by Frodeman, but testified affirmatively that Frodeman said, "If I'm coming back, I would like to withdraw from the Union and will you help me to do it." It hardly seems probable that Frodeman would have been interested in making such a statement, unless Cox had made it clear to Frodeman that withdrawal from the Union was a condition precedent to reinstatement. . Cox was not questioned concerning the statement attributed to him by Espy. Cox said he gave the form letter to Espy because the latter asked him if Cox could tell him how to withdraw from the Union. Cox did not deny the state- ment attributed to him by Collins, and said that Collins asked him how he could withdraw from the Union.. Cox was not questioned concerning the question which Brengle attributed to Cox, and testified that Brengle asked him how to withdraw from the Union. Although not denying the statement -which Fletcher attributed to him, Cox testified that Fletcher said to him "Now that I have my job back, I would like to withdraw from the Union." In the case of Robert 14 Guier did not join the Army and later applied for reinstatement and was immediately assigned to work. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 307' Sullivan, Cox was not questioned as to the statement Sullivan attributed to hint, but testified that Sullivan said to him "Now that I have -my job back, I would like to get out of the Union." Cox did not deny the statement which Cline said Cox made, but testified that Cline asked him if he, Cox, could tell Cline bow to withdraw from the Union. Cox also testified that Bogen stated that he would like to withdraw from the. Union; and asked Cox if he could help Bogen. , Cox was not questioned concerning the statement which Guier attrib- uted to him. He testified that Guier came to him and said he was leaving for the Army, and before leaving he would like, to withdraw from the Union. In the first place it is very improbable that all of these employees in applying for reinstatement 'would have been of the same mind about withdrawing from the Union, and would have thought of asking Cox how to do it. In the second place the interest of the employees was in returning to work and not in with- drawing from the Union. Respondent would have the Board believe thgt it was the voluntary act of the employees and that Respondent had no particular interest in the matter other than to assist the employee. To credit Cox's testi- mony and find merit in Respondent's contention, you would have to overlook entirely that it was the Respondent, and not the employees, who was interested in getting rid of the Union, as the record in this case clearly shows. ' Respondent argues further that the reemployment and the solicitation to with- draw from the Union were separate transactions, that the employee was first reemployed before there was any question raised about withdrawing from the Union. , If it is Respondent's position that the question of solicitation should be considered as standing alone, and the employee was not influenced in signing the letter because, as Respondent contends, he had already been reemployed, Respondent's position would not be improved. The Board has held that mere solicitation of an employee to withdraw from a union is coercive per se, and this is true without regard to whether such resignations were induced by threats or promises of benefits. In a recent case, Earl Severin, Inc., 90 NLRB 86, the Board said: Under well established principles, however, it is sufficient that Tipton solicited the resignations and participated in their execution, as found above, without regard to whether such resignations were induced by the Respond- ent's threats or promises of benefit." However, the record in the present case is clear that the two transactions, rein- statement and solicitation, were.so closely intertwined it is difficult to separate one from the other. Even though Cox may have said to the employee that he was employed before he raised the question of withdrawing from the Union, this was not always the fact as shows by the testimony of some of the employees, the employee was still left in the position of either repudiating the freely chosen bargaining representative, or else risking reprisals at the hands of his Employer ; and in the present case such reprisals were vivid in the mind of the employees by the recent action of Respondent in discriminatorily, discharging a number of its employees. Cox, however, did not leave the matter entirely to the imagination of the employee. He was rather emphatic about it-"It would be a good idea to be on one side of the fence or the other," "Since you want your job back, you do not want to belong to the Union" and "As you are returning to work you should drop the union." Such statements, particu- larly coming from the president of the Company, left little doubt in the minds of the employees as to his meaning, and were clearly coercive and threatening. The evidence is clear, and I find that Respondent solicited its employees to 16 See also Magnolia Cotton Mills Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 91 ; Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1525; Missouri Bag Company, 91 NLRB 385. 961974-52-vol. 95--21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD resign from the Union, and I further find that Respondent threatened and coerced its employees in making such solicitations, and thereby interfered with the rights of the employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 16 F. Discriminatory demotion of five employees The credited and uncontradicted testimony of George L. Frodeman, Richard Espy, Jack Collins, William Brengle, and Richard Guier was that, prior to April 13, 1950, they were employed by Respondent as route salesmen; that on April 13, 1950, they joined in a strike of the other employees,by reason of cer- tain unfair labor practices of the Respondent as herein enumerated ; that on August 15, June 12, June 7, June 12, and July 15,1950, respectively, they abandoned the strike and applied to Respondent for reinstatement ; that they were not reinstated to their former jobs with Respondent, but were reemployed on the first working day following their applications for reinstatement as trainees or helpers. Respondent gave no explanation as to why these employees were not rein- stated to their former jobs, and admitted that they were treated as new em- ployees, and as such were assigned to lower grade jobs. The only reason for such action that Respondent offered was that these employees left their jobs on April 13, 1950. The allove evidence clearly establishes, and I find that the strike engaged in by these employees was an unfair labor practice strike, having been caused by the unfair labor practices engaged in by the Respondent as herein found ; and that by reason of these employees having engaged in the strike Respondent dis- criminated against them in regard to the terms and conditions of their em- ployment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and in derogation of the rights of the employees as guaranteed by Section 7, and in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. G. Surveillance of union meetings The complaint charged that Respondent "spied upon and kept under surveil- lance union members, officials, meetings, meeting places and activities" in vio- lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In support of this charge, General Counsel offered the testimony of Dearel Sullivan and Lukas Bader that on occasions during the union organizations campaign Respondent's employees would gather in public taverns across the street from the plant to discuss union activities and to solicit employees to sign union cards ; that at times while the employees were thus engaged in these gatherings, Sheldon, a department man- ager, Luke Smith, one of the supervisors, and other supervisors, came into the taverns, partook of refreshments, and at times engaged in conversation with the 1" In waking this finding, I am not relying on the testimony of Eugene F. Doza, Nils R. Nilson, George E. Maurer, and Alfred J. Hart concerning alleged assistance given them by Respondent in withdrawing from the Union. If such testimony did establish that Respondent solicited them to withdraw from the Union, which is doubtful, it is cumulative of the testimony given by other witnesses. Doza, however, testified credibly and without contradiction, that after he signed the withdrawal letters and gave them to Cox, Cox asked him if he knew of any other employees who had signed union cards, and Doza told Cox yes, and Cox said to Doza "you can talk to him and see if he wants to change his mind." The questioning of Doza by Cox if he knew of any other employees who had signed union cards was coercive per se and a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The suggestion to Doza to talk to the other employee to see if that employee "wants to change his mind" proves solicitation- by Respondent, and is relied on by me in making the above finding. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 309 rank-and-file employees. There was no evidence to show that Sheldon , Smith, or the other supervisors came to these taverns for the purpose of surveillance of the meetings of the employees , or that it was not the practice of the super- visors to visit these taverns on occasion for the purpose of refreshment. The evidence offered by General Counsel shows , and I find that the taverns at which the employees gathered to discuss union activities and to solicit em- ployees to join the Union were public places adjacent to Respondent 's plant customarily visited by•Respondent 's employees, including the supervisors. Hav- ing selected such a place for their gatherings , the employees knew, or should have known , that supervisors visited these places and might come in. The fact, that the supervisors did come in- and observe the employees soliciting other employees to join the Union and heard discussions of union activities by the employees is not sufficient to charge the Respondent with surveillance. I find that General Counsel did not sustain the charge of surveillance , and I will rec- ommend that this charge be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, hereof, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, hereof, have a . close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,, andtend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Respondent has discriminatorily discharged James P. Bendickson, Donald H. Mueller, Lukas A. Bader, Howard D. Brewer, John H. Nierman, John H. Rose, Arthur G. Stevenson, and Dearel Sullivan, it will be recommended that Respondent offer each of said employees immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position with- out prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them and each of them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason: of Respondent's discrimination against them. It is recommended that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion,. thereof during the period from April 3, 1950, in the case of Bendickson and Mueller, and from April 4, 1950, in the case of the other six employees, to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement ; the quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters" shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October; loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which each said employee would normally have earned for each such quarter or por- tion thereof, his earnings, if any, in other employment during said period- Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay lia- bility for any other quarter. In order to insure compliance with the foregoing- back-pay and reinstatement provisions, it is recommended that Respondent be. required, upon reasonable request, to make all pertinent records available to the Board and its agents. (F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.) It having been found that the Respondent has discriminatorily demoted! George L. Frodeman on August 15, 1950, Richard Espy and William Brengle Out June 12, 1950, Jack Collins on June 7, 1950, and Richard Guier on July 15, 1950, it will be recommended that Respondent offer each of said employees imme- 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position- without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them and each of them, whole for- any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them. It is recommended that the loss of pay be computed on the same basis herein recommended with respect to employees discriminatorily discharged.. . It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain acts of inter- ference, restraint, and coercion, it will be recommended that Respondent cease therefrom. It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain acts of inter- ference, restraint, and coercion in obtaining letters from employees purporting to revoke the authority of the Union to represent such employees, which Re- spondent forwarded, or caused to be forwarded, to the Union, it will be recom- mended that Respondent notify the Union that such letters were obtained by acts of interference, restraint, and coercion... The violations of the Act which Respondent committed are, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, persuasively related. to other unfair labor practices pro- scribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Sec- tion 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize the industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner the rights guaranteed in Section 1 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local Union No. 606, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organza= tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms and condition of employment of James P. Bendickson, Donald H. Mueller, Lukas A. Bader, Howard D. Brewer, John H. Nierman, John H. Rose, Arthur G. Stevenson, Dearel Sullivan, George L. Frodeman, Richard Espy, William Brengle, Jack Collins, and Richard Guier, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent did not spy upon. and keep under surveillance union members, oi$cials, -meetings, meeting places, and activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. Respondent discharged Warren Becker for cause and did not discrimina- torily discharge Warren Becker in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.