The General Industries Co.

712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in these cases. The Respondents in this consolidated hearing are independent 2 automobile dealers engaged in the business of selling new motor cars, trucks, parts, and accessories, and also in the repairs of motor vehicles, locally in the city of Montrose, Colorado, or within the State. Hart- man deals in Dodge and Plymouth cars and trucks; Carrington in Chevrolet and Cadillac cars ; Dozier Motors, in Ford vehicles and Gilbert Motor Company, in Pontiacs and Buicks. The purchases of new cars by the first three Respondents for the year ending June 1952, amounted to approximately $200,000 each and for Gilbert Motor Com- pany, the purchases were approximately $100,000.3 Each of the Re- spondents purchases its stocks of nationally advertised makes of cars, which are manufactured outside the State of Colorado, under a non- exclusive dealer's selling agreement with the manufacturer. Although the Board has, in the past, asserted jurisdiction over auto- mobile dealers on the basis of franchise agreements for the distribu- tion of nationally advertised products, we find, for reasons stated in the Wilson-Oldsmobile case,4 in which the Board reexamined its policy in this respect, that the existence of a franchise agreement alone is insufficient to warrant a finding that the Respondent's operations have such an impact on interstate commerce as to justify the assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. As no other basis exists under the Board's present jurisdictional standards for asserting jurisdiction, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 There is no evidence that the Respondents are members of an employers ' association or that they function as a single integrated enterprise. 9 See Carrington Chevrolet Company, et at., 101 NLRB No 34 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) There are no new additional jurisdictional facts in the instant proceeding 4 William T. Wilson, etc., d/b/a Wilson-Oldsmobile, 110 NLRB 534. THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK- ERS OF AMERICA , CIO. Case No. 8-CA-880. November 3, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a charge and amended charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW, the General Counsel 110 NLRB No. 112. THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 713 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel 1 and the Board, respectively, through the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint, dated September 28, 1953, against The General Industries Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that it had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing 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 complaint, the charge and amended charges upon which the complaint was based, and notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and the UAW. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent (1) discharged the following em- ployees on or about the date shown alongside each of their names, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them because they had joined and assisted the UAW, wore union buttons or insignia, and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection : June Rifenburg______________________ August 11, 1953 Zelda Gregg------------------------- August 10, 1953 James Bursley_______________________ August 12, 1953 Thomas Greco_______________________ August 12,1953 Harriet Wilson______________________ August 19,1953 (2) from on or about July 26, 1953, continuously to the date of the complaint, through its officers and agents, (a) interrogated its em- ployees concerning their union activities, affiliation, and wearing of union buttons or insignia; (b) threatened and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming, or remaining members of the UAW; (c) warned its employees to refrain from wearing union but- tons or insignia in the plant and threatened them with loss of their jobs or other disciplinary action if they continued to do so; (d) warned its employees to refrain from any union activity in the plant, and threatened them with loss of their jobs if they continued such activity; and (e) threatened and warned its employees not to engage in activities for and on behalf of the UAW in the plant while per- mitting employees to engage in activities on behalf of the Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local 18, and to engage in other activities in the plant. Respondent's answer denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices, and alleged affirmatively that the five named individ- uals were discharged for cause. 1 The term specifically includes the counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elyria, Ohio, on Novem- ber 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11, 1953, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce rele- vant evidence, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs. A brief was received by the Trial Examiner from Respondent, and has been duly considered. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on objections to the admissibility of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committeed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. After the conclusion of the hearing, Trial Examiner Ruckel became unavailable to the Board for the purpose of preparing an Intermedi- ate Report. Thereafter, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 102.36 of its Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, issued an order that the case be transferred to and continued before the Board, that no Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report be issued in the case, and that proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order be issued. On July 14, 1954, the Board issued its proposed findings of fact, pro- posed conclusions of law, and proposed order in this proceeding. Thereafter, the UAW and the General Counsel filed exceptions thereto, and supporting briefs. The request of the UAW for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. The Board has considered the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, is engaged at its Elyria, Ohio, plant, in the manufac- ture and distribution of plastic products and small electric motors. In the course of its business, it annually ships finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000 to customers outside the State of Ohio. We find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, and Mechanics Educational THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 715 Society of America, Local 18, referred to herein as MESA, are labor organizations as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. UAW organizing activities Respondent's production and maintenance employees have been rep- resented by MESA, Local 18, for approximately 15 years. The bar- gaining contract in effect between Respondent and MESA during the period involved herein, July-August 1953, contained the following provision : It is agreed that there shall be no solicitation or collection of dues by union representatives at the plant during regularly scheduled working hours. Any violation of this clause will subject the em- ployee to appropriate discipline. The UAW began to organize at the plant on or about July 26, 1953. An organizing committee of employees was formed and the usual ac- tivities, such as soliciting memberships, signing authorization cards, and passing out union buttons and insignia was immediately begun. The peak of the campaign was reached by the second week in August. According to Board records the UAW filed a representation petition covering the plant's employees on September 17, 1953, which was dis- missed in the Region on December 17, 1953, for lack of a sufficient showing of interest. The five dischargees were all members of the UAW organizing com- mittee and wore at all times in the plant a large badge which bore the legend, "Vote-Join UAW-CIO Organizing Committee." Other UAW adherents wore a smaller badge, easily distinguished from the committee's badge, which read : "Let's Make it 100 Percent UAW- 'CIO." Gregg and Rifenburg, two of the dischargees, were appointed to the committee late in July, and Bursley, Greco, and Wilson, the other dischargees, the first week in August. All participated more or less actively in soliciting members and in getting signatures on author- ization cards during their free time at the plant, that is, before and after their shifts, on their lunch time, and during the official rest periods. The extent of solicitation by UAW organizing committee members at the plant during periods other than their free time is one of the major issues in the case, and is the subject of conflicting testimony. Zelda Gregg, an inspector on the second shift, 4 p. in. to 12: 30 a. m., testified on direct examination that she had limited here organizing activities to the official rest periods and to her supper time. On cross- examination, she admitted that she had signed up or solicited fellow 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees during other breaks which she took during working hours, to go to the restroom. She said it was customary for employees to take additional breaks whenever they were caught up with their work, and during the organizing period she might have gone to the restroom 6 or 7 times per day. Gregg also admitted on cross-examination that she had talked to employees at their jobs about the UAW, but still denied that she had signed up anyone on company time. Rifenburg, an inspector on the first shift, 7: 30 a. in. to 4 p. in., testi- fied that she had signed up about five people in the UAW, all on her own time. She denied that she had ever been warned about taking ex- cessive restroom breaks or being away from her work. Her super- visor, Varner, testified that he had watched her during the organizing period, that she had been spending a lot of time in the restroom, and that he had warned her about it once. Since she continued talking in the department and leaving frequently for the restroom he had told' Walsh, the factory manager, and Hamner, his own supervisor, about his warning to Rifenburg. Bursley testified that he had passed out authorization cards during his lunch and rest periods. He denied that his supervisor, Bodman, had warned him during the organizing campaign to stop running around and leaving his job, but admitted he had been warned at least once about his laxity at work before the campaign started. On cross- examination, Bursley could not recollect whether he had solicited cer- tain named employees during working hours, but admitted that in his visits to the restroom during the period of the campaign he had passed out campaign material. Greco's testimony was similar, that he had limited his UAW activity to his lunch and rest periods, and before and after work. He denied that anyone had ever complained to him that he was slowing up production on his assembly line by leaving his lathe. Wilson testified that the extent of her organizing activity had been to pass out one card in her department. James Newell, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that he had been on the UAW organizing committee during the campaign and had passed out authorization cards both during his free time and on company time, but had spent no more than 5 minutes passing out cards in his own department. Newell was a maintenance electrician whose work took him into various departments of the plant. On cross-exam- ination, he admitted that he had passed out cards and buttons in other departments, and that he knew that one foreman had asked that he stay out of his department because he had been bothering the employees there. To rebut the testimony of the organizing committee members that their solicitation activities at the plant had been confined to their free time, Respondent produced many witnesses who testified that they had been solicited on company time by the dischargees. Frawley, who THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY ' 717 had himself been active in organizing during working hours, testified that he had been solicited by Gregg and that she had spoken to him 4 or 5 times at work about signing an authorization card. Smith, a foreman in Gregg's department, said that he had received reports from employees on her shift that Gregg was organizing for the UAW dur- ing working hours. Moore, one of those who had reported to Smith, testified that Gregg had told him she was organizing for the UAW, that she had spoken to him about 5 times during working hours as to the desirability of joining the UAW and had spent approximately 5 minutes each time, but had never asked him to join. Another em- ployee, Rising, said that Gregg had asked him on working time what he thought of the UAW, and on a second occasion had asked him if he had changed his mind. These conversations lasted only a few min- utes, but Rising also said that he had seen Gregg in conversation away from her place of work approximately 8 or 10 times a day during the campaign. Other employees also testified that Gregg had solicited them or had engaged them in conversations about the UAW either at their work places or in the restroom. Greco operated a lathe on a progressive assembly line turning out armatures. They were wound at the head of the line and passed through various operations until they came to Greco, who turned them on his lathe, and sent them on for cleaning and inspection. Accord- ing to his supervisors, Greco frequently kept the line off balance by leaving his machine and letting the work coming in to him pile up. On his return he would quickly turn out what had accumulated, there- by flooding the employees behind him on the line. Three or four supervisors in Greco's department testified that Greco was an average worker, but his lackadaisical attitude had created problems even be- fore the start of the UAW campaign. Production on Greco's line fell off during the period of the campaign, but the testimony of Respond- ent's supervisors indicates that this was due as much to the disruption which the UAW campaign allegedly caused as it was to Greco's per- sonal dereliction. But whether or not Greco's habits during the cam- paign caused a drop in production on his assembly line, there is other testimony that Greco engaged in solicitation activities on company time. Three or four nonsupervisory employees testified that Greco had been passing out badges in the restroom and had been observed talking to different people in departments other than his own. Three or four other employees testified that Rifenburg had actively solicited them and other employees to join the UAW in the restroom and on the plant floor during working time. One of these employees reported Rifenburg's activities to two MESA officials and a foreman. Four additional employees testified that they had been contacted by Bursley about joining the UAW during working hours at the drinking fountain or at their assigned work areas. 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A number of nonsupervisory employees testified that Wilson had stopped them while they were at work and had engaged them in con- versation about the UAW. Although none of these conversations lasted very long, they were certain that Wilson had initiated the con- versations and that she had tried to find out how they, or their fellow employees, felt about the UAW. Tapper, chairman of the MESA shop committee, testified that most of his time at the plant was spent on union affairs, and that his work required him to visit throughout the plant. Employees had become jittery, he said, because of continued UAW solicitation at work places. Walcott, secretary-treasurer of the MESA local, also testified that employees had complained to him that they were being bothered at work by the UAW campaigners. Walsh testified that practically every supervisor in the plant had complained to him about the effect of the UAW campaign on the employees. Lenhart, industrial rela- tions manager, said that he had received complaints from supervisors and MESA officials as to the UAW activities, that whenever he walked into the plant he saw people talking in little groups and wandering around the departments, and that he felt an atmosphere of tension. Findings as to UAW Solicitation at the Plant Except for Dahl, foreman of Greco's department, who testified that production on Greco's line fell from a normal quota of 1,350 motors per day to an average 900 or so during the period July 24 to August 20, Respondent's witnesses did not blame the dischargees alone for the alleged fall in production. They testified generally that production at the plant was impaired by the upsetting effect of the UAW cam- paign on MESA members and other employees. Whether production was seriously affected by the conduct of the campaign is no more than a subsidiary issue in this case, only relevant as one factor in the deter- mination as to whether the dischargees had been engaged in soliciting for the UAW during regularly scheduled hours in violation of the contract provision against such solicitation. On that point, the dischargees admitted that they engaged in cam- paigning for the UAW at the plant, but only on free time and without affecting production . The Respondent does not dispute their right to solicit at the plant for the UAW on their own time. It does, however, take sharp issue with the General Counsel on the extent of UAW activities at other times . On direct examination , all the dischargees testified that they limited their union activities to what is admittedly nonworking time, that is, the regular rest periods , lunch periods, and pre- and post-shift time. On cross-examination, however, all but Rifenburg admitted to more. Gregg said she had done some soliciting during her visits to the restroom . She also admitted speaking to at THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 719 least two employees about the UAW while they were at work, justify- ing her action by saying that she did not try to sign them up. One of the employees to whom Gregg spoke referred to two separate oc- casions when Gregg had approached her at work and had spent 5 to 10 minutes each time talking about the UAW. Bursley at first said that his solicitation was limited to lunch and rest periods, but on cross- examination admitted going to the restroom 6 or 7 times daily, and further admitted as a possibility that he may have talked about the UAW at other times. Greco quibbled a good deal on cross-examina- tion. When asked whether supervisors had complained about his leaving his lathe frequently during the period of the organizing cam- paign, Greco answered that there had been remarks made to him but he did not know if they were complaints. Wilson admitted that she had engaged in "general conversations" with a number of employees about the UAW on company time and had talked to at least one employee about attending a union meeting. Witnesses for the Respondent, on the other hand, who testified as to solicitation by members of the organizing committee, or who had observed the activities of the dischargees in the restrooms and in working areas, did not have their stories substantially shaken on cross- examination. Although many of Respondent's witnesses were still employed at the plant and were also MESA members, presumably op- posed to the attempt to supplant their union, we are nevertheless impressed by their straightforward, detailed recollections which cumulatively establish a continued disregard of the no-solicitation provision on the part of the UAW organizing committee members. We credit their testimony as to the extent of the dischargees' activities on behalf of the UAW during regularly scheduled working time. We find, therefore, that Gregg, Rifenburg, Bursley, Greco, and Wilson each violated the contract rule against union solicitation during regularly scheduled working hours. B. The warning interviews and the discharges We are satisfied that Respondent had, in the violation of the no- solicitation rule, sufficient grounds for discharging the five members of the organizing committee. The basis of the complaint is, however, that the discharges were motivated by other considerations, namely, by Respondent's opposition to the fact that the dischargees had joined and were assisting the UAW, that they wore union badges, and were engaged in other protected concerted activities. We have already noted that the five dischargees each wore a large badge identifying him as a member of the organizing committee. These were worn con- tinuously at the plant by each member after his appointment in late July or early August 1953. In each case, the dischargee was warned 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the factory manager or another supervisor, and was then dis- charged the following day or soon thereafter for failure to heed the warning. The purport of the warning is in dispute, the General Counsel contending that it was against wearing the union badge, and the Respondent asserting that the warning was to cease interfering with other employees during regularly scheduled working hours. Gregg testified that on Friday afternoon, August 7, just before the beginning of her shift, she was approached at her work station by Walsh, the factory manager, who said to her, "Don't you know we have a union here?" Gregg replied that the CIO was trying to or- ganize in the plant and Walsh rejoined, "Don't talk back to me. I told you to take the button off or you won't have a job." Walsh then walked away. Gregg did not remove her badge, but asked her fore- man for permission to leave the plant so she could find out if she had a right to continue wearing it. With his permission, she punched out and went to union headquarters, returning in about an hour. She then worked the rest of her shift until 12:30 a. in. She testified fur- ther that the following workday, August 10, she was approached by Walsh and Lenhart at her bench. Gregg testified that Walsh said to her, "You're still wearing the button. Come with us to the personnel office." She asked why she was being fired and Walsh said that it was for union activities and for wearing the union button. Gregg then said that she had not done anything on company time, and Walsh replied that wearing the button was enough for him. As to this incident, Walsh said that he had told her on August 7 that she would have to quit running around the plant and interfering with people during working hours; that her badge was like a red flag to the rest of the employees and her production was falling off; that he did not care which union they had in the plant but they were not going to interfere with production, and he would not have turmoil around there with the CIO trying to organize on company time. Walsh denied telling Gregg that she would be discharged just for wearing a UAW button. His version of their conversation the fol- lowing Monday was that he had told her that she had not quit her union activities on company time and he was going to have to let her go. He does not intimate that he was discharging her because she had left the plant to visit the outside organizer, although his testi- mony shows that he may have considered that as an indication that Gregg did not intend to discontinue her union activities. Rifenburg testified that Walsh approached her at her work station about 2 p. in. on August 10, and the substance of their conversation was that she would have to take her badge off or be fired. She re- turned to work the next day still wearing the badge. That morning about 8: 30, her supervisor, Varner, told her that she was through and to go to the personnel office. She denied that she had ever been THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 721 warned about engaging in union activity on company time, or that Walsh had told her that wearing the CIO badge and going around to other employees in the plant was interfering with production. As for Rifenburg's discharge, Walsh testified that he had had complaints about her production falling down, that he had gone to her and told her in substance what he had told Gregg. Bursley testified that his supervisor , Bodman, had come up to him on August 11, just before the end of the shift , had asked him why he was wearing the CIO button, and said that he did not like him to wear it because it was bothering the other people in the depart- ment. Bursley asked what would happen if he continued to wear the button and Bodman is supposed to have said , "Wait and find out." The next morning, according to Bursley, Bodman and Walsh ap- proached him, and Walsh said , "You're all through, boy." Bodman and Walsh both testified that it was the latter who had warned Bursley on the afternoon of August 11. Walsh said that in Bodman's company, he had told Bursley in substance that he could not run around the plant and interfere with production and leave his machine as he had been doing. Bodman corroborated Walsh and also testified that he had not noticed Bursley's badge during their first conversa- tion, that it was not until later in the afternoon when he had a chance to speak to him alone and repeat Walsh's warning that he saw Bursley's badge and asked him what it was. Bodman said it would be better if Bursley left it off , it was bothering the help too much. The next morning Bursley went to the restroom twice in the first hour after the beginning of the shift, so about 8 : 30 a. in. Bodman called Walsh who came down and discharged Bursley. Greco testified that the afternoon of August 11 Walsh and Dahl came up to him and Walsh said that if he did not have his button off by the next morning he would be fired . Greco said, "Do I have a choice?" and Walsh reportedly said, "You can pick your check up now." Greco then said , "Well, I have the rest of the day." The next morning Dahl came up to him and said, "Okay, this is it." Greco was wearing his union button when he was discharged . Dahl testi- fied that Walsh had told Greco it was a violation of the contract to solicit on company time , and that Greco's habit of leaving his machine frequently was interfering with production. Walsh said that he had had more complaints about Greco than anyone else and in their talk on August 11 he had in effect told Greco that he was neglecting his work and interfering with production . He admitted that he had probably referred to Greco's union badge. Wilson testified that a day or so after she began wearing her or- ganizing committee badge her foreman, Sharkey, asked her if she understood the full responsibility of what she was doing and if she 338207-55-vol. 110-47 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knew it was a serious thing. Wilson said that she was not taking it lightly, that she understood her rights as to when they were to cam- paign, having been instructed the previous evening. Sharkey then asked her if she was sure she wanted to go through with it and she replied that she was. Later that day Lenhart stopped her to ask why she was wearing the badge. She was discharged on August 19 by Sharkey who said that her behavior in the last few days had been unsatisfactory and that he had to let her go. Sharkey admitted speaking to Wilson on Augustr 11 about whether she was serious in continuing her organizing activities. Two or three days later he had another talk with her after Tapper, a MESA official, had complained to him about Wilson and had told him there might be a work stop- page if she did not end her soliciting. Tapper gave him the names of two employees whom Wilson was supposed to have solicited on company time, and Sharkey questioned them. When they confirmed that Wilson had been after them to join the UAW, Sharkey went to Wilson and warned her to stay at her work or be discharged. Sharkey denied that anyone had instructed him to discharge or discipline any particular person. The day before Wilson's discharge, Foreman Cliff Smith had complained to him that Wilson was again leaving her department frequently. Sharkey told him to keep a record of Wil- son's activities the following day and it was on the basis of that check, which showed that Wilson had left her work for a total of an hour and 45 minutes between 7: 30 a. m. and 3 p. m., that she was discharged. Four employees testified that they had been warned or questioned about UAW activities in the plant, but had not been discharged. Charles Weibling testified that he had begun wearing a number of small CIO buttons the first week in August. On August 12 or 13, his foreman, Clifford Hamner, said he understood that Weibling was wearing a CIO button. Weibling admitted he was and Hamner then told him that he had been ordered by Walsh to contact everyone wear- ing a CIO badge and tell theirs to remove the buttons or be discharged. Weibling said he told Hamner he could see no harm in just wearing the badge and not organizing or talking about it, but Hamner said he was under orders to warn such people and also said, "I have already had to let two of my best help go, two women working in my depart- ment, because they refused to remove their badges." Weibling there- upon removed the CIO button he was wearing. Ten or 15 minutes later Walsh and Hamner came up to him and Hamner said, "I be- lieve everything is all right, he just got his badges off." According to Weibling, Walsh then said that everyone wearing a CIO badge would be contacted, given fair warning, and if they refused to remove their badges they would be discharged; and that he had fired up to that time five people who had refused to remove their badges. Weib- THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 723 ling also stated that Walsh had said that in his book wearing a badge was agitating and it interfered with production. Weibling did not again wear CIO buttons openly at the plant. Hamner contradicted Weibling's testimony that Walsh had told him to warn his people to take their buttons off during working hours. Walsh had told him, he said, that as long as they had bargaining rights with MESA he wanted the campaigning stopped; that he was to warn his people about conducting union activities on company time and to stop it. Hamner specifically denied that Walsh had told Weib- ling that the wearing of the CIO button was wrong in itself. Hamner admitted on cross-examination that he had received no complaints about Weibling's activities in the organizing campaign but had merely talked to him because he wanted him to stop. He did not remember how he knew that Weibling was a UAW supporter and he could not answer when he was asked why he talked to Weibling about union activities since he had received no complaints about him. Walsh's version of this conversation with Weibling was that he had asked him if he was going around trying to organize on company time, and that Weibling had told him that he was not an organizer but was just going along with the crowd. James Newell testified that he had been a member of the UAW organizing committee, had passed out authorization cards during com- pany time, but had spent no more than 5 minutes passing cards out in his own department. He said he had been approached three times by supervisors about his union activities, in all of which he had been warned to remove his button. His last conversation was with Walsh who asked him why he wanted to wear the CIO button and hold up production. This induced Newell to remove his badge and end his organizing activity. Walsh testified that he had had reports that Newell was the leading organizer in the plant, and had called him to his office to ask him what it was all about. Newell admitted that he had been organizing on company time but, according to Walsh, said that he now saw the error of his ways and would stop organizing if he could have another chance. Of the other two supervisors who allegedly warned Newell, one was not called as a witness while the other denied generally that he had warned anyone against wearing the union button. Mildred Hennes, an inspector on the second shift, was a member of the UAW organizing committee and began wearing her badge at work on July 27. On August 10, Foreman Hamner spoke to her at her bench saying, "If you like your job you will have to remove your but- ton or be fired. Those are my orders from my boss." Hennes testified she removed her button immediately and never wore it again. The next day she began her vacation. Hennes denied that Hamner had said to her that her organizing activities were interfering seriously 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with production or that he had told her anything about wandering around and going to the restroom too often. As to this incident, Hamner testified that he had told Hennes about his instructions from Walsh that the UAW campaign had been creating confusion and that union activities on company time had to cease. He could not recall whether he had said anything to her about wearing the UAW badge. Charles Greer, a MESA steward during these events, but a secret UAW adherent, testified that Bodman had told him that there were 3 or 4 girls wearing CIO buttons in the department and if they did not take them off they would be fired. Although Bodman was called as a witness by the Respondent and testified on other matters he was not asked about a conversation with Greer. Frawley had signed a UAW authorization card early in August at Gregg's solicitation, and had thereafter become active in organizing. Testifying for the Respondent, Frawley said that Walsh had spoken to him about his organizing activities, saying that he had heard that Frawley was campaigning for the CIO on company time and had made some threats. Frawley denied threatening anyone but admitted that he had been organizing at the plant. After his conversation with Walsh he stopped all further activities. Frawley admitted on cross- examination that Walsh had told him that there would be no more buttons worn in the shop. We have noted previously that Bursley was discharged the day fol- lowing his warning after his foreman noticed that he had gone to the restroom twice within the first hour, and that Wilson was discharged by Sharkey on the basis of a report given him by Foreman Smith as to the amount of time Wilson had been away from her work area the previous day. Witnesses for the Respondent also testified as to the activities of Gregg, Rifenburg, and Greco between their warnings and discharges. In substance, the testimony as to all three was that they continued to absent themselves from their work stations, contacted others who were at work, and showed no intention of changing their ways. Specifically and directly denying this testimony, the dis- chargees testified that they solicited no one, stayed in their work areas,2 and performed their usual duties between the time of the warning and that of their discharge. Findings as to the Warning Interviews and Discharges The witnesses for the General Counsel and Respondent are in con- flict as to whether Respondent's supervisors warned the dischargees 2 Gregg was excused by her foreman shortly after her talk with Walsh to permit her to visit UAW headquarters for an hour or so. THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 725 about wearing UAW buttons or about soliciting on company time. The General Counsel's witnesses contend the former, Respondent's the latter. We have found above that the dischargees were engaged in soliciting support for the UAW on company time. There is also credible testimony that as a result of the campaign activities produc- tion declined and that MESA officials made strong representations to Respondent's top officials about the UAW's organizing activities on company time in violation of the contract provision against such con- duct. In these circumstances, it seems improbable that Respondent would warn the dischargees about wearing UAW buttons rather than about the soliciting on company time which was causing disturbances, complaints, and loss of production. Moreover, with two exceptions,3 all the employees warned by Respondent either admitted that they had, or were proved to have, engaged in union activities on company time. Finally, the witnesses for the General Counsel who testified to the warning were for the most part the same witnesses who denied carrying on organizing activities for the UAW on company time. We have not credited these witnesses on their organizing activities, and we perceive no reason in view of the foregoing for crediting their ac- counts of the warning. Accordingly, we credit Respondent's witnesses who testified that the warnings delivered to the dischargees were to the effect that the latter were to stop organizing on company time or be discharged. As the alleged discriminatees ignored Respondent's warning and as Respondent discharged them for this reason, we find that the discharges were for cause and were lawful. Our Order will therefore provide for dismissal of the allegations of the complaint which relate to Section 8 (a) (3). C. Interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint alleged that Respondent (a) interrogated its em- ployees concerning union activities and the wearing of union buttons, (b) warned its employees to refrain from such activities and from wearing union buttons, and ( c) permitted employees to engage in activity in behalf of MESA in the plant while denying the same privi- leges to those who favored the UAW, all in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Allegations (a) and (b) are bound up with the cred- 3 Walsh had warned Weibling about engaging in union activities on company time, although Weibling was, in fact, inactive in the CIO campaign. Walsh was apparently misinformed about Weibling. Hennes, a member of the organizing committee, who worked on the second shift, admitted that she had signed up some employees at her bench before the beginning of her shift. Although this may have been on company time if the em- ployees solicited were working on the first shift, there is no evidence connecting her solici- tation activity with Hamner's warning She appears to have been warned as part of Respondent's campaign to put all members of the organizing committee on notice that further union activity on company time would lead to discharge. 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ibility determinations made in disposing of the allegations of dis- criminatory discharge. In view of such determinations and the ab- sence of other substantial evidence to support these allegations, we find that they have not been sustained. There remains for consideration the allegation that Respondent threatened and warned its employees not to engage in activities on behalf of the UAW in the plant, while permitting employees to engage in activities on behalf of MESA. The facts relating to this allegation are that about the time of the warn- ing interviews and discharges, MESA officials took action to oppose the UAW efforts to supplant it as bargaining representative. It dis- tributed handbills outside the plant, and its members took to wearing MESA badges at the plant. Weibling and Newell testified without contradiction that MESA stewards passed out such badges to em- ployees at the plant during working hours. Greer, who was then a MESA steward, said that about this period he had been given a boxful of MESA badges by another steward and told to distribute them in his department. He spent 20 or 30 minutes on 2 separate days passing out the badges in view of his foreman who smiled and said nothing. Uniform application of the no-solicitation contract provision re- quired that Respondent accord MESA no greater privileges, even as the incumbent bargaining representative, than it allowed the UAW. On the other hand, it did not require that MESA should be held to a stricter standard than its rival. We have found that the dischargees were terminated for continuous, protracted violation of the contract rule in behalf of the UAW, after they failed to heed warnings to desist. Balancing the course of the UAW's conduct against the lapse from the contract rule in which MESA was indulged, we do not be- lieve, even assuming that this constituted disparate treatment of the two labor organizations, that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to issue a remedial order based solely on a violation so trivial in nature. In accordance with the foregoing our Order will dismiss the com- plaint in its entirety. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, The General Industries Company, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. It has not been established that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Zelda Gregg, June Rifenburg, James Bursley, Thomas Greco, or Harriet Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, or engaged in acts of interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. [The Board dismissed the complaint.]