Alma Piston Co.

ALMA PISTON COMPANY 339 tives had a part in the dissolution vote of the Association. On the contrary, the CIO and AFL representatives left before the business part of the meeting. Moreover, this dissolution vote was later con- firmed by unanimous vote of all 47 members present at a special meet- ing called for such purpose on December 13, 1953, at which the CIO and AFL representatives were not present. Since that time, the Association has had no officers or funds. No dues have been collected or grievances processed, and all 56 former Association members have now joined the Petitioner. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Association is defunct. Under all these circumstances, we find that the existing contract is not a bar to, the petition. 1 The Employer contends that if the Board directs an election at this time such election be directed solely for the purpose of allowing the employees in the unit to determine whether they desire to select the Petitioner as their exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of administering the existing contract. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this issue in a representation proceeding for the reasons set forth in Boston Machine Works Company. 2 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of section 9 (b) of the Act : All warehouse employees and chauffeurs at the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, sales and shipping office employees, sales trainees, administrative employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. 3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 Universal Utilities, The, 108 NLRB 58; C d D Batteries, Inc, 107 NLRB 1405 ; Ben7a- mtis Asr Rifle Company, 107 NLRB 104 2 89 NLRB 59 While agreeing with the majority decision on this aspect of the case, Chairman Farmer deems the issue presented here substantially different from that of the Boston Machine case , and therefore finds it unnecessary now to express any opinion as to. the rule of that decision Members Rodgers and Beeson believe that, under the circum- stances of this case, if the Petitioner is certified as a result of the election directed herein, it should be deemed to assume the rights and obligations conferred by the existing contract. 3 The unit is described in accord with the agreement of the parties. ALMA PIs'roN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AIITOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO). Cases Nos. 7-CA-727, 7-CA-758, and 7-CA-763- October 18, 195/ Decision and Order On April 9,1954, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in 110 NLRB No. 51. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in a copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended the dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union filed exceptions and briefs in support of the exceptions. The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Alma Piston Company, Alma, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning attendance at union meetings, their membership in or activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UA«W-CIO), or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (1). (b) Threatening to reduce wages or working hours, or to remove its plant to another location by reason of the organizational activities of its employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW- CIO), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended. I Pnisuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a thiee-member panel [Mem- bers Peterson, Rodgers , and Beeson] ALMA PISTON COMPANY 341 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant in Alma, Michigan, copies of the notice at- tached hereto as Appendix A.2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by, the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative be posted by Respondent, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from date of this Order what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by conduct other than that specified in this Order, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEâIBER PETERSON, dissenting in part: I dissent from so much of the decision of the majority as adopts the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent's layoff and subsequent refusal to rehire Becker was not in violation of 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The record shows that the Respondent knew that Becker was 1 of the most active promoters of the Union among the employees, and discharged him on February 25, 1952, 6 days after the first union meeting. Shortly before the union meeting, Foreman Courter told Becker that he had heard of Becker's attempts to "try to get the Union in" and that such efforts would result in the Respondent's withdrawal of certain economic benefits theretofore granted the employees. The clay after the union meeting, Courter again approached Becker and interrogated him with respect to attendance at the union meeting and made threats that, as a result of union activity, the Respondent would take adverse economic action against the employees. A few hours before Becker was discharged, and while Becker was return- ing from a work duty in a part of the plant other than his usual place and had stopped to talk to a fellow employee, Departmental Supervisor Archambault gave Becker an angry order to return to his place of work with the comment that "it's guys like you that get this God damned plant in the fix it's in now." Shortly thereafter, Archambault told another employee that Becker was "poison", and advised the employee to "stay away" from Becker. 2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap- peals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Coon, the Respondent's works manager, discharged Becker at the eild of the working day following the above Archambault incident with the explanation that things were getting slack and that some of the men were being let go.3 Coon refused Becker's concurrent request for consideration for a job in the production department, where he had previously been employed for many years at a variety of jobs, with the comment that he would "keep" Becker "in mind." Several months later when the Respondent advertised for help, not- ing that there were "several jobs available" for men who would be trained on the job, Becker applied for work and after about a week's delay in considering the application, the Respondent's Personnel Manager Newberry refused- Becker"s application with the remark that the Respondent's office did not feel that Becker "would be happy" with it job other than the one he had held theretofore. At the hearing, the Respondent claimed that Becker's initial dis- charge was the result of an economic decision to have the automotive maintenance functions then being performed by Becker clone by in- dependent business concerns, and thus to abolish Becker's job. It explained its concurrent refusal to retain Becker at a production job on the basis of a seniority policy operating on a departmental basis. The Respondent further claimed that its subsequent refusal to rehire Becker was dictated by a general industry policy, followed at the Respondent's plant, not to hire "skilled" workers for unskilled jobs, as experience had shown that skilled workers became dissatisfied in "unskilled" positions. For the reasons set forth below, I am unable to find merit in these explanations of the Respondent's treatment of Becker. There are a number of undisputed record facts which, in my view, point strongly to a conclusion that the Respondent's claimed eco- nomic reasons for its action in Becker's case were either nonexistent or were not advanced in good faith. Most significant among these is the Respondent's attempt to justify its refusal to rehire Becker for available work requiring no "skill" on the ground that Becker's previous employment was in a "skilled" job classification. At the time that Becker, a satisfactory employee of several years' standing, was transferred from the production department job to the main- tenance department job from which he was discharged, he was earn- ing $1.20 per hour, as distinguished from the $1 per hour offered by the Respondent as the starting rate in its advertisement for inexperi- enced, unskilled workers. This slight differential in pay (clearly explainable on the ground of the length of Becker's employment) manifestly shows, in my opinion, that the Respondent did not regard 'As a result of curtailed production orders, the Respondent laid off a large number of production workers at about the same time. Only two maintenance workers were laid off-Beckei and one Jones These two were the ringleaders of the union movement in the plant. ALMA PISTON COMPANY 343 Becker's maintenance job as falling in the "skilled"' job category to which its alleged recruiting-for-unskilled-work policy was applicable. I note, moreover, that, apart from the uncorroborated testimony of Coon as to the existence of such a recruiting policy, the record is utterly devoid of any of the usual kinds of business forms tending to show adoption or existence of the alleged recruiting policy. No office memorandum, notation of a plant rule, or any other documen- tary material was presented on the record. Moreover, the failure of the Respondent's officials to cite the policy to Becker at the time lie applied for rehire, and their mention of it to him some several days and some several visits later, strongly suggest that the Respondent's true reason for its refusal to rehire Becker was not the one it offered. Also tending to support my view is Coon's admission that the Respond- ent considers some of the jobs in the production department of a kind similar to that Becker had previously performed, as ,"semi-skilled" jobs for which it may have hired some new employees at the time of Becker's application. It is my firm conviction, on the basis of the foregoing analysis, that the Respondent's failure to rehire Becker at a time when it was recruiting help was based upon its opposition to the Union and its knowledge of-Becker's prominence in the promotion of the Union's cause. I am persuaded, moreover, that the Respondent's initial removal of Becker was likewise bottomed on discriminatory considerations. The timing of the discharge action, the antiunion atmosphere in which it was effected, and the antiunion character of the remarks of Archambault to Becker and to another employee about Becker a few hours before the discharge action, acquire added significance in light of the Respondent's discriminatory refusal to rehire Becker. In ad- dition, it appears that, although the Respondent claimed that it abol- ished Becker's job following a decision that its automotive needs could be fulfilled at less cost by independent business concerns, no cogent evidence was offered to establish what savings, if any, were effected by the change. Whether or not any substantial savings were in fact effected or anticipated at the time of Becker's discharge would seem dubious, in any event, in view of the fact that the Respondent was paying Becker a moderate $1.20 per hour for maintaining seven pieces of automotive equipment' and for other maintenance work around the plant. Nor was there any showing that the subcontracting of the automotive maintenance work had been considered as a possi- bility at any time prior to the advent of the Union. I am unable in these circumstances to accept as valid the Respondent's claim that it abolished Becker's maintenance job purely for reasons of economy. I believe, rather, that the Respondent abolished Becker's job so as to 6 The equipment which Becker was assigned to maintain consisted of 3 light trucks, 3 dump trucks, and a jeep. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL° LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remove from its ranks this active and prominent proponent of the union movement the Respondent so strongly opposed. Upon the basis of all the foregoing, I would conclude that by dis- charging Robert Becker on February 26, 1952, and by refusing there - after to rehire him, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 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: AVE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning attendance at union meetings, their membership in, or activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reduction in wages, hours of work, or other emoluments, or threaten to remove our plant to other locations by reason of their organizational activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the said Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent- atives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, 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. ALMA PISTON COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ALMA PISTON COMPANY Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE 345 This proceeding brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 , and 65 Stat. 601-602, herein called the Act, is based upon a charge filed on March 7, 1952, in Case No. 7-CA-727, by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO ), herein called the Union, against Alma Piston Company, herein called the Respondent.' Pursuant to the charge, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by and through the Regional Director for the Seventh Region issued a complaint against the Respondent on December 16, 1952, alleging that Respondent engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.2 Copies of the charges, the complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent. With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance that Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by conduct including but not limited to the following: (a) Interrogation concerning their membership in, sympathies re- garding, and activities on behalf of the Union ; (b) threatening economic reprisals and promising benefits to induce its employees to refrain from assisting , becoming mem- bers of, or remaining members of the Union ; (c) promulgating and enforcing a plant- wide rule to prohibit discussion of or solicitation of membership in the Union on company premises at all times ; and (d ) granting wage increases and pension benefits for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. The complaint also specifically alleges that Respondent discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union by discharging one Robert Becker on or about February 26, 1952, and thereafter refusing to rein- state or grant him new employment because he joined or assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Respondent filed an answer admitting jurisdictional allegations of the com- plaint, but denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted at Alma, Michigan, on February 3, 4, and 5, 1954, before the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex- aminer All parties were represented by counsel , and a representative of the Charg- ing Union was present . All parties participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to intro- duce evidence pertinent to the issues involved. At the close of the hearing , motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor matters such as proper names, dates , etc., was granted without objection . All parties were given an opportunity to argue orally upon the record , and to file written briefs and/or proposed findings and conclusions . Oral argument was waived by counsel for all parties. In due course , only the Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with a supporting brief, which have been given due consideration. Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Alma Piston Company is a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, having its principal office and manufacturing plant at Alma, Michigan, where it engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automotive products. In the due course of business operations during the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, which are representative of all times herein material, Re- spondent annually purchased, transported, and caused to be delivered to its Alma, Michigan, plant supplies and raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which +il The Regional Director for the Seventh Region with concurrence of the General Counsel in Washington, D C, refused to issue a complaint based upon additional charges in Cases Nos 7-CA-758 and 7-CA-763; and no evidence was introduced during the hearing in sup- port thereof. Motion of Respondent for the severance and dismissal of those cases is hereby gianted 2 Whenever used herein the term Geneial Counsel will in appropriate circumstances in- clude his counsel at the hearing or the Regional Director. The term Boaid separately designates the National Labor Relations Board. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD approximately $200,000 in value was transported from various States other than the State of Michigan. During the same representative periods, it annually manufac- tured and sold finished products valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which more than $500,000 in value was shipped from its Alma, Michigan, plant to points outside the State of Michigan, and products valued in excess of $500,000 were sold and shipped to customers within the State of Michigan, each of whom in turn shipped products valued in excess of $25,000 from their respective plants within the State of Michigan to points outside that State. I find, therefore, and Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background evidence3 At Christmas time each year the Respondent customarily distributed to employees a cash bonus or gift in addition to regular wages based primarily upon length of service and profits of the Company. In January 1951, Graydon Belleville (em- ployee) circulated in the plant and submitted to Respondent a petition from certain employees requesting that the bonus be eliminated by increasing weekly wages proportionately to include the annual distribution. Respondent did not approve the petition, but in January 1951, shortly before Wage Stabilization Regulations became effective, President E. E. Tracy addressed a meeting of employees and proposed a general wage increase of 10 percent without prejudice to the Christmas bonus. A majority of the employees including Belleville indicated approval of the proposed increase, and it was thereupon put into effect. Within a week or two thereafter the employment of Belleville was terminated. In his testimony at the hearing, Marnel William Christopher recalled that he was the 28th signer of the petition circulated by Belleville; that Foreman Glenn Courter remarked that Belleville was going around with the petition, that it would not help him any, that he could not get a raise anyhow, and that President Tracy was the only man that could get us a raise. President Tracy at the meeting in January 1951, with the petition in hand, said "This won't get you a raise-I am the only one that can get you a raise here." Then following a discussion with employees concerning pro- duction in which he urged them to work a little harder, President Tracy announced a general wage increase Employees including Belleville indicated approval of the action taken by Respondent at that time. Later when Belleville was terminated, Christopher heard Personnel Manager Newberry tell Belleville that he could have been a foreman (or words to that effect). B. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Respondent published a monthly periodical entitled "APCO NEWS," which was customarily distributed to all employees. Personnel Manager Val Newberry (editor) requested President Tracy to prepare and submit a Christmas message to employees to be published in the issue for December 1951. When the president failed to submit a timely article, Newberry suggested that he be permitted to revise and publish along with a picture of the president. an article written and published in that periodical in the year 1946. President Tracy approved the suggestion, and the following statement appeared on the front page of Apco News in the issue for December 1951: During this month of December the 'Alma Piston Company will complete its eighth year of operations in Alma, and as I look over our list of employees I am surprised at the number of men whom I do not personally know. In 1943 when we started operations and for several years thereafter, I personally kne4v every employee, but due to the necessity of spending so much time in Detroit I am sorry to admit that I have been unable to contact and become acquainted with all of our men. i Not to be considered as the basis of any findings of unfair labor practices herein ALMA PISTON COMPANY 347 Several years ago a group of new men were curious about the origin of our company, the permanency of its operation in Alma, and the possibility of its continued operation in the future. At that time I prepared a few facts for distribution to all interested and at this time there have been several requests that we reprint this information for the benefit of the many new employees. Consequently at this time we will reprint this information, which although writ- ten a long time ago is still very true today. 1. Who and What is the Alma Piston Company? The Alma Piston Company is a Detroit Corporation, operating a plant in Alma, Michigan. 2. Who owns the Alma Piston Company? E. E. Tracy and family are the sole owners. 3. When and why was the Company organized? The Company was organized in October 1943. It was organized by E. E. Tracy to assist the Ford Motor Company produce Service parts, as the Ford Motor Company plants were so crowded with war work that they did not have sufficient space or men to operate the machines, and car owners were unable to get the necessary clutches, discs, and timing gears. 4. Why is the Alma Piston plant in Alma and not in Detroit, if it is a Detroit Corporation? That is a question that is of vital importance to all employees interested in a permanent future, steady employment, or more stable yearly income, and not just high hourly rates and uncertain annual or weekly income. The original name of the Alma Piston Company, was the Tracy Detroit Manufacturing Company and a plant was rented in Detroit. However, before we had actually moved the machines from the Ford Motor Company to this plant, the Government discovered that it was needed more for a war job than for service parts and I started to look for another location in Detroit, but, due to war conditions, every building had been rented for making war materials. I found a building in Alma that was available for occupancy at once, and I decided to move the machinery to Alma and start operations at once. It was recognized that the cost of trucking parts 140 miles from Detroit to Alma and 140 miles back to the Ford Factory would be very expensive, but these were war times and there was no other solution. 5. Is there still a shortage of space in the Ford plant and are there factory buildings now available for sale or rental in Detroit? There are many fac- tories now available in Detroit and Michigan for rental or purchase at attractive prices. Ford Motor Company has 22 small factories throughout Michigan in addition to their Detroit plants, and at the present time 2 of these very fine factories have been vacated and are being offered for sale at a fraction of their original cost. Several already have been sold or rented, we have been offered the 2 plants mentioned, and last Wednesday I in- spected both of them. 6. How long does the Alma Piston Company intend to operate in Alma? The Alma Piston Company intends to operate in Alma as long as it is more profitable to operate here than in another location, and as long as there is available a realistic group of employees, who understand what fair treatment is, appreciate it, and give the same kind of cooperation in return. There are a great many disadvantages in operating a business such as ours at a distance of 140 miles from the source of our suppliers and the destination of our completed products. For example, it might be interest- ing to know that our freight bill last month was over $10,000. It takes the best efforts of a satisfied loyal group of Alma employees, who feel that they are being treated fairly, working together as a team to offset the various disadvantages involved. With this kind of an attitude on the part of the employees, the Company can continue to operate for years, increasing in size, and afford opportunities for advancement and increased wages for all, with the proper loyalty to the Company's interest. It should be remembered that if the Alma hourly wages, the workers' demands, the daily output of each man, the loyalty to the Company, or lack of loyalty, the interest in the Company's success, or lack of interest were the same in Alma as in Detroit, there would be no advantage of operat- ing in Alma, and by returning to Detroit the huge freight bills would be avoided. Personally, the operation in Alma has many disadvantages for me, which I am perfectly willing to overlook as long as I have the loyalty and confidence of the bulk of the employees, particularly the men with longer service records, but if this should ever falter, then the effort naturally 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would not be worth the reward, and I would govern myself accordingly and move to a more desirable location closer to my home and our customers. There is so much bickering and fighting between employer and employees throughout the world today that it has been about universally accepted that there can be no such thing as industrial peace between employer and em- ployee, and there always seems to be a never -ending fight carried on by each party to survive. I am trying to prove that fair treatment will receive fair treatment in return from most people, and I want to say that most of the men here have not disappointed me. It's up to you men by your actions to determine how long this Company will remain in Alma and what the opportunities for yourself and all other employees will be. This is the way I think you all want it to be, so let's keep it this way. Through the cooperation and loyalty of everyone we have grown beyond our greatest expectations and on this Anniversary I want personally and sincerely to thank everyone that has contributed even a small amount to our present growth and hope that our confidence in each other will continue through the years to come. In February 1952, the Union initiated a campaign to form a labor organization at Respondent's plant in Alma, Michigan, and arranged to hold a meeting of employees at the Wright Hotel on the night of February 20, 1952.4 During working hours that day Gilbert Jones, Robert Becker , and others discussed the Union and invited em- ployees to attend the meeting. At shift change about 3:30 that afternoon all employees were assembled in the plant to hear a speech by President Tracy. Tracy did not mention the Union,5 but made cash awards to certain employees for sug- gestions received from the suggestion box, and announced a general cost-of-living wage increase of 4.6 percent, as explained in his written speech appearing in the record as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 15, as follows: Two weeks ago when I was in Alma it was my intention to call you men together to award the cash prizes for suggestions recently received and adopted. Due to a difference of opinion of the Suggestion Committee it had to be post- poned until today. The cash awards are as follows. When I call your name come up and get your check: 1. Charles Shutt-$500 .00 for an armature testing machine and other valuable suggestions. 2. Neil Litweller-$100 .00, Polishing device for Gears. Actual suggestion not practical but improved basic idea workable. 3. Earl Roberson-$75 00, Carburetor Testing Machine attachment. 4. Dewey Havens-$50.00, Safety Top for Lift Trucks. 5. Wilbur Tester-$50 .00, Improved layout in repair department of GPD. 6. Carl Mininger-$25.00, Safety Warning Signs. 7. Art Courter-$25.00, Surplus Paper Rack. 8. Warren Earhart-$25 .00, Pallet Holder while banding. There are several other suggestions recently received that are being investi- gated and awards will be made when the final decision as to their value has been determined. We are always glad to make these cash awards which is a tangible evidence of our appreciation of the fact that we are all working together for the same purpose namely making the Alma Piston Company a better place for all of us. I want to again urge everyone to make more use of the suggestion system as it is an easy matter for you to get a decision on anything that you think would be of personal interest or profit to you or the company. I occasionally hear rumors of some new or changed manner of operation that someone thinks might be an improvement for the workers if adopted but never have I received any suggestion along these lines since Suggestion System has been in use. It is difficult to discuss the merits of a rumor of which the basic principles are vague or uncertain but if someone has any good suggestion which would be in * Testimony is conflicting, but I am convinced from a preponderance of the evidence that this first union meeting was held Wednesday, February 20, 1952. 5 Testimony of E. E. Tracy that he knew nothing at that time of union activities or the scheduled meeting is credited for the reason that he lived in Detroit, spent little time at the Alma plant, and there is no evidnce to show that he had been notified by anyone of such activities until 4 or 5 days later when Resident Manager Robert Hicks reported to him by telephone at Detroit that some man was distributing union buttons to employees. ALMA PISTON COMPANY 349 the interest of the employers if it would be put on a suggestion blank and mailed to me, it would be given due consideration. Let me again restate that it is not necessary to sign these forms as unsigned forms are given as much consideration as the signed ones as the signature is only required if you are desirous of winning a cash award as we must know who to pay the money to. There is also another subject which seems to be generally misunderstood, possibly due to conflicting statements appearing from time to time in the news- paper. This subject is the freezing of all wages both hourly and salary on Jan- uary 25, 1951, by a governmental bureau called the Wage Stabilization Board. In plain everyday language the law states that the wage in effect on January 25, 1951, is the highest wage that can be paid until further notice. The Wage Stabilization Board now recognizes that the cost of living has increased since Korea and have approved the payment of wage increases amounting to 14.6 percent provided the total of all wage increases since January 1950 (Not Jan. 1951) have not exceeded 14.6 percent. Applying this most recent change (and it has been in effect only twenty days)' to our business we would be permitted to increase wages 4 6 percent as we used up 10 percent of the total 14.6 percent on January 25, 1951 in the last general increase of 10 cents per hour. When I suggested that we consider giving this 4.6 percent increase 1 was advised by the Certified Public Accountant that pos- sibly we could not give this amount as we would first have to consider the sixty dollars which we had given to some employees when they went on their vaca- tions. As of today there is still some doubt as whether this amount must be deducted from the 4.6 percent increase permitted by the Wage Stabilization Board, but I have decided that while it is being determined that I am going to put in effect an hourly increase of 4.6 percent per hour effective February 14, which is the maximum amount allowable. This 4.6 percent increase is certainly not going to make anyone wealthy, but it is the maximum amount we can pay you per hour unless the present law is changed which probably will occur someday. When I say this is the maximum amount we can increase wages I mean exactly that and if any of you men have friends, relatives or acquaintances that are well versed on this subject I would suggest that you discuss this with them and satisfy yourself. Don't accept the statements of someone who claims to be an authority because he has a brother-in-law that has a friend that works in the employment office of a big company in Saginaw or Lansing. If you want to get the facts see your banker or lawyer, the U. S. unemployment office, or write your news- paper Editor and ask them to get the information for you. Another subject that pops up now and then is the question of a 40 or a 47 hour work week. I have advised on several occasions that the 47 hour week is not for the company's benefit and that the $1.50 or $1.65 per hour that we pay for those extra 7 hours increased the weekly hourly wage rate. Despite the fact that we have asked several times whether everyone wanted to change to a 40 hour week we would like to again determine your wishes. There is another rumor that seems to circulate every now and then as some- thing that would be good for the workers but when we discuss it we can never get any good reasons why it would be an improvement on a yearly basis and we can never get too excited about the people who are not going to work here at least one year. This is the idea that a higher hourly rate be paid throughout the year instead of a voluntary Christmas present or cash distribution. Last year I believe I asked this group whether they favored the discontinuance of the cash Christmas distribution and I am sure the majority were in favor of not making a change. I would like to again ask that if it were possible at present to put into your weekly pay 1/5oth of the yearly cash distribution how many would favor the discontinuance of the Christmas distribution Those in favor of the discon- tinuance raise their hands. Everyone that has raised their hand move over to the left and those who did not move to the right. Well, it looks as if there were many more if not all in favor of the con- tinuance rather than the discontinuance of the Christmas Distribution. This is a very fortunate state of affairs as the Wage Stabilization will not permit the increasing of hourly wages even if yearly cash distribution or other fringe benefits are discontinued and don't ever make the mistake that they will ap- prove this; because they have already gone on record as opposed to any such change. It is therefore most gratifying that a change is not desired, as I would have to tell you that it was not possible. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Are there any questions ? Maybe some of you have some good questions which you would like answered but you don 't want to ask them in public. If so why not make use of the suggestion forms and I will try to answer them directly if you sign them or thru the Bulletin Board if they are unsigned. Gilbert Jones credibly testified in substance that he was first employed by Re- spondent in September 1948, and worked in the maintenance department until discharged in February 1952. Having been in contact with the Union , he arranged for the first meeting with 30 or 35 employees at the Wright Hotel . Jones says that Supervisor Barney McGuire 6 came to him next morning after the meeting and in- quired whether he attended and how many were there. Group Leader Marnel William Christopher was first employed by the Respondent in September 1946, and worked in the spinner department under Foreman Glenn Courter. He voluntarily quit his job in May 1952 to accept other employment. While employed by the Respondent , he became interested in forming a labor or- ganization, and attended the first union meeting in February 1952. Christopher credibly testified that next morning after the meeting Supervisor Dave Boomer came to him and inquired whether he attended , who and how many were there, and what the Union had to offer. In the course of conversation Christopher men- tioned some things the Union expected to obtain , and Boomer said , "Well, they can't do that. They can't come in here and tell us what we're going to do . No, Chris, you don't even have to give the bonus out. It is a gift." Thereafter, Christopher had conversations with other supervisors concerning the Union . Foreman Art Courier 7 told him that if the Union came in they would cut out the bonus right away, "You will be out of that." When Christopher expressed the opinion that the Union could probably get the bonus paid on a weekly basis, Art Courter said, "No, you can't get that-in fact the guys wouldn't go for it anyhow." Foreman Roy Harms told him also on another occasion that Respondent would not give a bonus if the Union got in. On one occasion Foreman Glenn Courter inquired whether he knew who was ringleader for the Union , and said , "Well, we know who it is-Jones is on top of it, Gilbert Jones." Then Glenn Courter inquired , "Well, who is in charge of that other second line over, I don't know, on the other side on the right across from the clutch line?" In the latter part of April 1952 , because of some difficulties with Foreman Art Courter, Christopher voluntarily sought an inter- view with and complained to Resident Manager Robert Hicks. The conversation with Hicks developed into a general discussion about the Union and grievances against the Respondent concerning wages, hours , bonus, personal affairs, etc . Chris- topher wore a union button and remained in Hicks' office for about 8 hours. The conversation remained on a friendly basis throughout , and Christopher suffered no loss of pay for time spent in the office. About 1 week later , • Christopher was called to the office for an interview with President E. E. Tracy, who had just ar- rived from Detroit . There is little conflict of testimony as to the ensuing conversa- tion, and from the composite testimony I deduce the following facts. President Tracy told Christopher that complaints had been received that he had been circulat- ing around the factory, talking with other people, neglecting his job , and passing out cards. Christopher admitted that he had been talking about the Union as he went about his duties in the plant in the same way he might discuss a baseball game or anything else the employees were interested in; but denied that he passed out union cards or literature on company time. It was his contention that he had a right to talk about the Union with other employees during working hours. Upon this ad- mission President Tracy instructed Personnel Manager Newberry to discharge Chris- topher, but at that moment was called to the telephone to speak to his attorney. The attorney advised Tracy that he had a right to discharge Christopher for viola- tion of the rule against solicitations on company property,8 but suggested that he be given a warning and another chance to comply with the Employer 's instructions. Thereupon , President Tracy withdrew instructions for discharge , and warned Chris- topher in substance , as follows: 8 Barney McGuire supervised the fabrication of discs and gears at the Alma plant. 7 Art Courter supervised and directed the work of a group leader and approximately 11 men in the inspection department , and is, therefore , found to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, despite Respondent's contrary contention 8 Resident Manager Robert Hicks and Works Manager Claude Coon both testified in sub- stance that the rule prohibited solicitations of any kind during working hours , but was not intended to prohibit talking or discussion between employees if it did not interfere with their work Solicitation of money on company premises was prohibited at all times, unless permission from management was first obtained. ALMA PISTON COMPANY 351 Well, here, you don't xnow me. You have only been here 3 or 4 years. Other fellows have been here a lot longer than you have. You don't know me, but I am telling you one thing now; that you are not supposed to do that. If you do it again I know you are not going to be working here. It may not make any difference to you. We would like you to work here, but you can't do that. I have told you something and you say another man has told you something different than that. I say that somebody must be wrong, either me or the other party. One says you can do it and one says you can't. Why don't you find out from-a disinterested party whether what I am telling you .is correct or what the other man is telling you, and then guide yourself accord- ingly? You can go down to the USES office and ask somebody down there. I think they can tell you. It is even worth a couple of bucks to go and ask a lawyer if your job is worth anything to you, because I'm making you a promise. If you leave your job and circulate around this plant any more you just ain't going to be here. I am sure that the legal advice I just got isn't wrong. If you do find out I am wrong I would like to hear it, because we had better get another lawyer then. The conversation ended by Christopher agreeing to make further inquiry concern- ing his rights to discuss union affairs on company time. He did thereafter discuss the situation with union representatives, but shortly thereafter went on his vacation and never returned to work with the Respondent. Otis A. Brown, an employee on the assembly line, attended the first union meet- ing in February 1952, and other meetings every week or 2 thereafter for a period of approximately 4 months. Approximately 30 employees attended the first meet- ing, but at the last meeting approximately 10 employees were present. The organiza- tion was never completed. In the beginning he handed out union cards in the plant, but was told by his group leader (Simko) that it would not be permitted on com- pany property. Brown credibly testified without contradiction that Foreman Art Courier in a kidding manner frequently inquired of him whether he was attending the union meetings, how the Union was coming on, and who was there. On one occasion Art Courter wore a union button on the fly of his overall pants, and said, "This is the way I think a union button should be worn." Robert Becker, maintenance employee, credibly testified that Foreman Art Courter came to him in the plant about I week prior to the first union meeting in February 1952, and stated in substance: Say, I hear you're going to try to get the Union in. What you guys want the Union in here for-you are just spoiling it for yourselves. What do you mean, if you guys get the Union in here, Tracy is going to knock you down to 40 hours a week, he's going to take our vacation pay away from us, he is going to take our bonus away from us. Where is that going to help you? On the day after the first union meeting, February 21, 1952, Foreman Art Courter again approached Becker in the plant and said. Well, did you go to the union meeting? Were there many there? Do you think you guys are going to get anything in here9 You are just hurting yourselves. I can't see where you think it is going to do you any good. The first thing you want to do is, maybe you are going to get your hourly rate up-you get 10 or 15 cents an hour-you have been here a long time, now you will get four or five or six hundred dollars bonus. You are going to lose that. Is that nickel, dime or fifteen cents that you are going to get, is that going to make up for that bonus? Besides the vacation pay. You're wrong-You'll find out. Eugene Wright was employed by the Respondent as a machine operator and de- partmental bookkeeper at the foreman's desk for a period of 2 or 3 years. He be- came dissatisfied with his employment and voluntarily quit immediately after Memorial Day, in 1952. Upon return from vacation, he attended a union meeting on February 28, 1952, and other meetings thereafter. Wright credibly testified with- out contradiction that during the organizational campaign he was frequently engaged in conversations concerning the Union with supervisors of the Respondent, usually at the desk where he worked. On the next day following the meeting of February 28, 1952, Foreman Glenn Courter inquired whether he attended the meeting, where it was held, who and how many were there. Thereafter, this foreman made similar inquiries following other union meetings. About the same time in the first part of March 1952, Department Supervisor Harold Archambault told Wright that if the Union came in President Tracy would cut down work to a 40-hour week, that he didn't have to pay the bonus unless he wanted to, and that he might move the plant 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back to Detroit. Foreman Art Courier stated that a union was all right in a large plant but in a small plant he didn't think that it was any good. He also said that if the Union came in Tracy would not pay the bonus and that work would be cut down from a 47- to 40-hour week, and that the plant would probably be moved back to Detroit. On one occasion, Department Supervisor Damon Tilden inquired how many attended the union meeting, and Wright told him there were a lot of people there. A few minutes later Tilden came back and said he had talked to an- other fellow who said there weren't very many there at all. Tilden also stated that Mr. Tracy didn't have to pay the bonus if he didn't want to-he was just giving it out of the kindness of his heart. In March or April 1952, Wright was called to the office for an interview with President Tracy, in the presence of Supervisor Tilden, concerning his employment record. In that conversation Tracy compared wages at Respondent's plant with those paid at other plants in the area, and told Wright that he didn't want any employees to work for him who were not willing to work under' his standard pattern at the plant. At that time President Tracy was calling all em- ployees in for individual interviews, but did not mention the Unions President E. E. Tracy credibly testified that for several years since 1948 he had toyed with the idea of a pension or retirement plan for employees. In June 1951 he discussed the matter with his attorney and insurance brokers, and sought informa- tion as to the cost of such a program. In April or May 1952, he found an inquiry about pensions from some employee in the suggestion box, and decided to bring the subject up for discussion at a meeting with all employees. He prepared and dis- tributed a proposed retirement plan for comparison with similar plans at other plants in the area, which indicated the superiority of his plan. The subject was discussed in open meeting and submitted to a vote of those present. By a show of hands the employees indicated their approval. After clearance with the Treasury Department and the Wage Stabilization Board, the pension plan became effective in December 1952. C. The discharge of Robert Becker Robert Becker was first employed by the Respondent in February 1947, and worked in production on the assembly line for about 4 years. At his own insistance he was, in the spring of 1951, transferred to the maintenance department as a mechanic to maintain and repair motor vehicles He was the only full-time employee assigned to vehicle maintenance. Respondent considered him a satisfactory employee. Becker promoted a union organization by inviting other employees to attend the first meeting on February 20, 1952. At that meeting he joined the Union, and there- after solicited the membership of other employees. His union activities were well known to supervisors of the Respondent, because at least one of them (Foreman Art Courier) discussed the matter with him, as herembefore set forth. Art Courier re- quested and received from him an application card for membership in the Union. On February 26, 1952, Robert Becker passed through the inspection department in the plant en route from the too] crib, and stopped there for a conversation with William D. Freed, a salvage inspector. Department Supervisor Harold Archam- bault came up and angrily ordered Becker to leave the inspection department and go to his own place of work. Archambault said to Becker in substance- What the hell you doing here? Don't you know where the hell you belong? It's guys like you that get this God damned plant in a fix it's in right now. Get your ass back there where you belong and stay there. Becker left without making any reply. Then Archambault told Freed to stay away from Becker-that he was poison On another occasion Archambault criticized Freed for passing out union cards in the plant, and expressed displeasure that he had done so. At quitting time on the afternoon of February 26, 1952, Robert Becker was called to the office and discharged. Several other men were laid off at the same time, including Gilbert Jones. Works Manager Claude Coon explained that things were getting slack, and he was having to let some of the men go. Becker tried to claim seniority by reason of former employment as a production worker, and requested consideration whenever hiring was resumed. Coon said, "Well, I'll keep you in mind." Works Manager Claude Coon credibly testified that because of a curtailed pro- duction schedule in the plant 55 production workers and a proportionate number of nonproduction employees were laid off between February 24 and 26, 1952, accord- ing to department seniority; that Becker's job as vehicle repairman was abolished, and 0 President E. E. Tracy testified that he had no recollection of the conversation with Eugene Wright. ALMA PISTON COMPANY 353 vehicle repairs were thereafter accomplished by contract with outside agencies at considerably less expense to Respondent; and that Becker lost his seniority in produc- tion when transferred to the maintenance department and was not qualified for other work in that department. In the issue for September 18, 1952, Respondent carried a large size advertisement in Gratiot County Herald, Ithaca, Michigan, reading in pertinent part as follows: "MALE HELP WANTED-No experience required. Several jobs are available for men who will be trained on the job." Within a day or two thereafter, Robert Becker applied to Personnel Manager Val Newberry for one of the jobs offered. Newberry deferred the application until he could look up Becker's personnel file, and told him to return later. A day or two later Becker returned to the plant, but the personnel manager was absent. He spoke to Supervisor Damon Tilden, who said, "Well, I sure would like to have you back, I'll put in a word for you. That's all I can do." About 1 week later Robert Becker and Lyle Becker (his brother) went to the plant and found Personnel Manager Newberry in his office, who said in substance, "Well, we looked over your file and seen that you had experience in that line of work, we don't feel that you would be happy with any other job outside of that." Robert Becker said, "I was here five years, I worked better than four years on the assembly line. I don't want to give that all up. I want a job. I need a job." Newberry said: Well, I'm sorry but it has been our experience in the past that when we take a man off of one job and place him onto another, he'll work two or three days a week-and then he just goes and that's it. Then his brother, Lyle Becker, applied for a job, and Newberry said "Your chances are worst yet." Works Manager Claude Coon testified that it was a general policy in the industry and at Respondent's plant not to hire skilled workers for unskilled jobs, because they soon become dissatisfied and demoralized at work in a classification below their quali- fications, and they never stay after they have once been accustomed to working in a higher skilled operation. The Respondent had advertised for nonskilled employees for whom the hire-in-rate was $1 per hour. Robert Becker had worked for Respond- ent in a skilled job as an automotive mechanic, and had been laid off when his job was abolished. The Respondent follows a policy of departmental seniority, but Robert Becker had forfeited any seniority he might have had in production when he was transferred to maintenance. After discussing the application of Robert Becker, Respondent decided not to hire him for an unskilled job, and no skilled job for which he was qualified was available. The fact that Becker had engaged in union activities had no bearing on the decision. CONCLUDING FINDINGS The Belleville incident occurring in January 1951 is too remote, and in any event may not be made the basis of a finding of unfair labor practices herein, because it occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing and service of the original charge on March 7, 1952, and falls, therefore, within the limitation of Section 10 (b) of the Act. In the absence of organizational activities by employees prior to February 1952, there is no presumption that the article published by Respondent in the Decem- ber 1951 issue of Apco News was calculated or intended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It contains a history of the Respondent corporation, the reasons for establishment of a plant in Alma, Michigan, the advantages and disadvantages of operations at the present site, and appeals to employees for their continued loyalty and cooperation in making the enterprise profitable under somewhat unfavorable circumstances. I find no language in the article expressing a threat to remove the plant in economic reprisal or retaliation to forestall or discourage employees from engaging in protected activi- ties for their own mutual aid or protection. Organizational activities by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, do not imply disloyalty to the employer, and it is a declared policy of the United States to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce and prevent labor disputes by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of repre- sentatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and condi- tions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. With respect to the cost-of-living wage increase of 4 6 percent to employees on the afternoon of February 20, 1952, there is no evidence that President Tracy had prior information or knowledge that organizational activities were in progress or that 338207-55-vol. 110-24 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the first union meeting was scheduled for that night at the Wright Hotel. He arrived from Detroit on that date with a prepared written speech in which he announced cash awards to employees for suggestions adopted from the suggestion box and the maximum wage increase permitted by Wage Stabilization Regulation No. 8 issued August 24, 1951. Nothing was said about organizational activities or the Union. Having credited the testimony of E. E. Tracy that he had no prior knowledge of organizational activities or the union meeting of February 20, 1952, I cannot find that his speech and the announcement of a cost-of-living wage increase constituted interference, restraint, or coercion of Respondent 's employees.10 It has been shown that approximately 30 employees attended the first union meet- ing on February 20, 1952, and that at subsequent meetings the attendance dwindled to approximately 10 persons at the last meeting. Inasmuch as Respondent employed more than 300 workers, it is apparent that the Union fell far short of obtaining a majority representation, and never made any demands upon Respondent for recogni- tion or otherwise. Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be presumed that President Tracy proposed a pension or retirement plan in April or May 1952, to undermine the Union and discourage the formation of a labor organization. Em- ployees themselves expressed interest in such a plan, discussed it at length in open meeting, and voted their approval. More than 6 months thereafter was required for actuaries to develop the plan and obtain the necessary approval of government agencies before the plan became effective in December 1952. Although not free from doubt, I cannot find from a preponderance of the evidence and the record as a whole that announcement of a proposed retirement plan constituted interference, restraint, or coercion of employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. The Respondent established a rule prohibiting solicitation of any kind during work- ing hours. It prohibited the solicitation of money on company property at all times, except when specific permission was obtained from management, and posted the names of certain individuals under whose supervision such solicitations must be con- ducted. The rule did not prohibit conversation or talking by employees, except when it interfered with their own work or the work of others. In my opinion such a rule was not unreasonable within a plant operating assembly lines, inspection lines, and other departments, which required the uninterrupted attention of employees. There is no evidence that the rule was discriminatorily enforced, or that it unduly restricted employees during lunch periods or other nonworking hours. With respect to the interviewing of Marnel William Christopher by Resident Man- ager Robert Hicks and President E. E. Tracy in April and May 1952, it appears that both Christopher and the Respondent were sincere in their contentions concerning the no-solicitation rule. Christopher was disturbed about his status with the Respondent, and contended that he had a right to discuss union affairs during working hours. Respondent contended that the conduct of Christopher interfered with his own and the work of others in the plant. Respondent considered that he was violating the rule, and President Tracy warned him that "If you leave your job and circulate around this plant any more you just ain't going to be here." The warning was directed at interference with work and was not a threat to discharge for engaging in legitimate and protected organizational activities. I cannot find, therefore, that Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization within the meaning of the Act." Although unduly harsh in interrupting a conversation between Robert Becker and Bill Freed in the inspection department, and ordering Becker to return to his own place of work, I cannot find that the conduct of Supervisor Harold Archambault on that occasion constituted interference, restraint, or coercion of employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Having credited the testimony of Works Manager Claude Coon that Respondent on February 24-26, 1952, for economic reasons laid off 55 production workers and a proportionate number of nonproduction employees, I cannot find from a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent deliberately abolished the job of Robert Becker because he engaged in union ac- tivities. It appears without contradiction that Respondent at that time established the policy of contracting with outside agencies for the repair and maintenance of its motor vehicles, and has since continued that practice at considerably less expense than the prior system. I credit the testimony of Works Manager Claude Coon that it was contrary to policy of the Respondent and the industry in general to hire skilled workers to fill unskilled jobs, and that in September 1952 it declined to rehire Robert Becker because no skilled job for which he was qualified was available. Under 10 Cherry Rivet Company, 97 NLRB 1303, 1324-1326. 11 Dixie Furniture Company, Inc.. 101 NLRB 1205 1200 ALMA PISTON COMPANY 355 such circumstances I cannot find from a preponderance of the evidence that refusal to hire Robert Becker was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Independently of other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, it appears without contradiction that Supervisors Barney McGuire, Dave Boomer, Damon Tilden, and Foremen Glenn Courter and Art Courter interrogated employees con- cerning their attendance at union meetings and other concerted activities. Super- visor Harold Archambault and Foreman Roy Harms made statements to the effect that the annual bonus would be discontinued if the Union came in. Archambault said that working hours would be reduced to 40 hours per week, and that the plant might be moved back to Detroit. Foreman Art Courter persistently inquired of employees concerning their union activities, Wand repeatedly warned that if the Union came in, vacation pay and the bonus would be discontinued, working hours would be reduced to 40 hours per week, and that the plant would probably be moved back to Detroit. President E. E. Tracy himself in the presence of Supervisor Damon Tilden told Eugene Wright that he did not want any employees to work for him unless they were willing to work under his standard pattern at the plant. It would be un- realistic to classify the foregoing composite conduct of supervisors during an or- ganizational campaign as isolated instances of coercive behavior; and I am, there- fore, constrained to find that Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.12 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent herein found to be unfair labor practices, as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Re- spondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist from such or similar conduct herein found to be a violation of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interrogating its employees concerning attendance at union meetings and other concerted activities on behalf of a labor organization, threatening to reduce wages and working hours, and threatening to remove its plant to another location, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Respondent did not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employ- ment of Robert Becker by terminating his employment for economic reasons, and thereafter refusing to rehire him for unskilled work contrary to Respondent's policy and practice in the industry. 13 [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 12A. J. Siris Products Corporation of Virginia, 90 NLRB 132; Marr Knitting, Inc., 90 NLRB 479 "It is therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.