Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc.

SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 421 Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-1249. July 2, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un- fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ,exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief and the Respondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this.case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean.] 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Saginaw Furni- ture Shops, Inc., Saginaw, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in surveillance of any union meetings, or of its em- ployees with respect to their attendance thereat, or in the surveillance of any place of union assembly at or about the time of any scheduled meeting. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the pm-pose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 11.8 NLRB No. -55. 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places at its Saginaw, Michigan, plant, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by it, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof,, and maintained for at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 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 writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that Respondent has violated the Act otherwise than as herein found, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, 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." APPENDIX 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 Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT engage or participate in the surveillance of any union meetings, or of our employees with respect to their attend- ance thereat, or in the surveillance of any place of union assembly at or about the time of any scheduled meeting. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,. restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 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. SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 423 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO,' herein referred to as the UFW Union, or as it was referred to throughout the testimony, the CIO Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued the complaint herein against Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc., herein called the Respondent, and also referred to as the Company, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint, together with notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance: (1) that "since on or about February 3, 1955, and continuing to date hereof," Respondent, "by its officers, agents, representatives, and employees," has engaged in conduct as follows: (a) the interrogation of "employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, and activities," and that "of other employees"; (b) "urging, persuading, threatening, and warning employees, by promises of benefits and threats of reprisal to refrain from assisting, becoming" or "remaining members of the Union"; (c) "threatening to discharge employees who engaged in union activity"; (d) "spying upon" and "surveillance" of "union meetings"; and (e) "threatening to close the plant if the employees designated the Union to represent them"; (2) that, "on or about March 7, 1955" Respondent, "by its officers, agents, representatives, and employees," in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, discharged Rose Orosz and thereafter failed and refused "to reinstate and/or permit her to return to work despite her request to return to work . . . for the reason that she joined or assisted the Union"; and that (3) by the foregoing acts, Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. By its answer Respondent denies in full, generally and specifically, each and all of the independent 8 (a) (1) allegations of the complaint, and as to the alleged discharge and failure "to reinstate and/or permit" Rose Orosz "to return to work," denies that it at any time discharged her, and avers that "on the contrary . . . Rose Orosz did resign her job with Respondent on February 24, 1955." The answer then admits that Rose Orosz requested "reinstatement to her former job after her said resignation" and that Respondent "refused reinstatement." Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Saginaw, Michigan, on January 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1956, before me, Charles L. Ferguson, Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner to conduct same. All parties appeared at the hearing: the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the UFW Union, the Charging Party, by an international representative. All parties were accorded full opportunity to be heard, and to produce, examine and cross- examine witnesses, introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues, argue orally at the conclusion of the evidence, and file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oral argument was waived and briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent admits that: (1) it is a Michigan corporation "having its principal office and place of business at Saginaw, Michigan, where it has been at all times pertinent hereto engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of . . . furni- ture"; (2) "$500,000 worth of goods annually is received by Respondent directly from outside of the State" of Michigan; and (3) "annually Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactures and sells finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 85 percent is shipped directly in interstate commerce from its Saginaw plant to points outside of Michigan. Respondent has been at all times mentioned (in the complaint) and is 1 The affiliation of the Charging Union shown in the caption and the body of the com- plaint as CIO is, pursuant to the merger of the AFL and CIO, amended to read AFL-CIO.. 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD now engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act." I find, therefore, that Respondent is, and was at all material times, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and that this proceeding comes within the standards fixed by the Board for the exercise of its jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Charging Party, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent's Operations and Certain Preliminary Facts The testimony was that at its Saginaw , Michigan, plant, which apparently is its only factory, Respondent Company manufactures breakfront secretaries, tables, wall cabinets, and certain types of bookcases. However, the only types of furniture mentioned as having been in production during the period covered by the evidence herein, January through March 1955, were breakfront secretaries and perhaps some expandable tables. Breakfront secretaries of various kinds or designs seem to be the principal item of furniture manufactured by the Company. The Company's Chicago office has charge of the sales, and when the sales office "have patterns . . . they want cut at the factory . cutting orders" for the guidance of the factory are made up. Each cutting order bears "a cutting order number" and shows the amount of the items to be cut or made up-by the factory, the basic pattern number and the finish desired. For example, the 2 breakfront patterns which figure in the testimony were covered by 2 separate cutting orders numbered F-239 and F-240, respectively. Cutting order F-239 called for 750 basic pattern number 6030 breakfronts with mahogany finish, and cutting order F-240, 325 basic pattern number 5180 breakfronts, 250 in a cherry finish, and 75 in a fiat cut mahogany finish. Cutting order F-240 bore the further notation, "all with clocks." During the period involved there were approximately 250 employees working at the factory exclusive of supervisory and office personnel. Around two-fifths, or 100, of these nonsupervisory and nonclerical employees were women. At the time of the hearing, and at all times material herein, a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Saginaw Woodworkers Federation, dated September 29, 1952, and continuing for 5 years thereafter, was in full force and effect. Saginaw Woodworkers Federation is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and at the time this collective-bargaining agreement was entered into, and at all times since, it was, and has been, the duly designated and exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of the Saginaw factory in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining composed of "all permanent employees of the Company in the City of Saginaw, Michigan " excluding "supervisors, foremen, and all salaried employees." The collective-bargaining agreement provides that: All eligible employees shall become members of the Union (Saginaw Wood- workers Federation) within thirty (30) days after the execution of this agree- ment or within thirty (30) days after his hire, whichever is later. All employees who become members of the Union shall remain members of the Union during the term of this agreement. Except as otherwise noted all dates hereinafter mentioned were in 1955. The United Furniture Workers Tries To Organize at the Factory In December 1954 and January 1955, Larry Kneeshaw, an international repre- sentative of the United Furniture Workers, was engaged in organizational, work at Bay City, Michigan. Sometime during December 1954, he went to Saginaw, when or why is not stated. Apparently it was during the latter part of that month. On that occasion Kneeshaw contacted Henry Meyer, one of Respondent's employees, and from Meyer secured the names of other employees. I note here that Kneeshaw was in sole charge of such organizational campaign as was thereafter waged on behalf of the United Furniture Workers to organize Respondent's employees. About a week after the first contact with Meyer, Kneeshaw returned from Bay City and made a second contact at Saginaw but could not recall the name of this second con- tact. Sometime in January 1955, Kneeshaw contacted Erwin Barrett at Saginaw and from him secured the name of Joe Lane, who took Kneeshaw over and intro- duced him to Rose Orosz (at her home) and she went with him to see Aggie Lake. SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 425 It is not said that Barrett was an employee of Respondent. He is not named among those who attended any of the subsequent organizational meetings of the United Furniture Workers, and in fact his name does not again appear in the testimony. Joe Lane, Rose Orosz, and Aggie Lake were all employees of the Company. Lane worked in the rub and trim department, and Orosz on the filler line in the finishing department. It is not definitely said where Lake worked but the indications are that she also worked in that department. Joe Lane had recently retired, or been re- tired, as president of the Saginaw Woodworkers Federation with the election of A. J. Gage, an inspector as president of that Union. Gage's job was, and is, to inspect furniture as it "comes off the assembly line . . . and then put it through to other rooms." He is not in any sense a supervisor. Kneeshaw held, altogether, four meetings for employees of the Company in the period of January, February, and the early part of March. All of these meetings were held at the CIO hall in Saginaw. The first meeting on the night of February 3 was attended by a total of six em- ployees, Joe Lane, Henry Meyer, Aggie Lake, Rose Orosz, Ethel Lane, and Eleanor Denslow. Ethel Lane is the wife of Joe Lane. She apparently also worked in the finishing department. Eleanor Denslow worked on the filler line with Rose Orosz. The second meeting was held the night of February 14. The number in attendance is nowhere mentioned but the inference is that it was not larger than that of the first meeting. Kneeshaw could only recall the names of three who attended, Joe Lane, Henry Meyer, and Pete Olgine, who appears for the first time in that con- nection. Olgine was then, and at the time of the hearing, a lumber handler working in the yard, also referred to as the lumber yard. Orosz said she did not attend this second meeting. The third meeting on the night of February 22 was the largest in attendance, which was estimated at nine employees present. Those specifically mentioned as having attended are Joe Lane, Ethel Lane, Rose Orosz, Pete Olgine, and Beatrice Billy. This was the only meeting attended by Beatrice Billy, who worked with Rose Orosz and Eleanor Denslow on the filler line. The fourth and last meeting scheduled for and held the night of March 2, was attended by only two employees, Pete Olgine and Noverto Casillas. It is my impres- sion that Casillas worked with Olgine in the lumberyard. There is no evidence indicating that any more than perhaps 9 or 10 of the ap- proximately 250 nonsupervisory and nonclerical employees working at the factory during the period involved manifested an interest of any sort in the effort of Kneeshaw to organize the employees on behalf of the United Furniture Workers Union. So far as appears there was no distribution of United Furniture Workers' circulars, literature, or authorization cards among the employees either by em- ployees or any official representative of the UFW Union, and only 1 specific instance of what appears to have been solicitation or attempted solicitation by an employee of other employees is vaguely mentioned, that being some sort of an effort, during working hours and away from their respective places of work, by Joe Lane to talk to 2 women employees about the United Furniture Workers Union, which incident and its aftermath will be later dealt with. As expressed by Gage, the president of that Union, the officers of the Saginaw Woodworkers Federation "did not like the idea" of the United Furniture Workers trying to come into the factory, and Gage, and apparently other officers of the Saginaw Woodworkers Federation opposed the United Furniture Workers' attempt to get a foothold in the factory. Gage personally was openly active and outspoken in his opposition to the United Furniture Workers' attempt to organize there. In that connection he watched the CIO hall on three of the nights Kneeshaw was holding meetings there in an effort to discover who was attending, and along with other officers of the Woodworkers Federation he espoused and promoted the taking of disciplinary action by the Woodworkers Federation against some of the employees who appeared to be allied with the United Furniture Workers, all of whom were, in accordance with the requirements of the Woodworkers Federation contract with the Company, members of the Woodworkers Federation. The officers and supervisors of the company in charge of the operation and man- agement of the factory who testified at the hearing and who were, or were alleged to have been, parties to certain conversations , or involved in certain incidents or events covered by the evidence are: John Neymeiyer, Sr., plant manager, "continuously . . . going on thirty-four years"; John Neymeiyer, Jr., the yard foreman or supervisor, who throughout the evidence was, and hereinafter is, referred to as Jack Neymeiyer. The witnesses not only distinguished the two Neymeiyers, father and son, by referring to the son as 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jack, but uniformly in speaking of the senior Neymeiyer by referring to him as "Mr. Neymeiyer"; Robert Westwood, finishing department foreman; and Rex R. Hamp, foreman of the rub and trim department. Before becoming a foreman, Hamp had been president of the Saginaw Woodworkers Federation. Course of Events Constituting the Basis for the Independent 8 (a) (1) Allegations of the Complaint In the latter part of January, Kneeshaw, the UFW international representative, dis- cussed with Rose Orosz the possibility of her getting in touch with Aggie Lake, and another of the women whose name Kneeshaw could not recall, for the purpose of getting a meeting together and in that conversation the question of a meeting place came up. Orosz told Kneeshaw she had a brother-in-law by the name of Henry Fries who worked at the Saginaw Malleable Iron plant and was a member of Amalgamated Local 455, UAW-CIO, which owned its own hall. Throughout the testimony in respect to events involving the UFW meetings there this hall is referred to as the CIO hall. Orosz called Fries by telephone and he came to the Orosz home and discussed the use of this CIO Hall for meetings by the UFW Union with Kneeshaw and told Kneeshaw that he (Fries) would undertake to make the necessary arrangements for a meeting at the hall on February 3. Fries was a committeeman of Amalgamated Local 455, UAW-CIO. He contacted the proper officers of the Local about the matter and obtained permission for the UFW to hold meetings at the hall, and notified Kneeshaw accordingly. Fries said the executive board of the Local "told me it would be my responsibility to see that they [the UFW] got in and got out and closed up the place," consequently Fries attended all the meetings (the four above mentioned) held by the UFW at the hall, and was the first to enter and the last to leave the hall on each occasion. Fries was called as a witness by the General Counsel. The CIO hall or building, referred to as being on the West Side, is at 110 Florence Street in Saginaw, on the north side of that street, fronting south, near the intersection of Florence and Salte Streets, about 3 miles from downtown Saginaw. The front of the building and the entrance generally used is about 100 feet back and north from the sidewalk along the north side of Florence Street. The hall is a one- story building owned and occupied exclusively by Amalgamated Local 455, UAW- CIO. It has two offices, an auditorium, and apparently a smaller meeting or con- ference room or rooms, a kitchen, and a barroom for private use. The entire premises owned by Local 455 at that location cover almost 4 blocks. There is an- other, but much smaller, one-story building owned by Local 455 on this property, which is leased to an engineering firm. The east side of this building is flush with a line extending south from the southwest corner of the hall, and the front is right next to the sidewalk along the north side of Florence Street. A walkway leads from the sidewalk on the north side of Florence along the east side of this building and after passing the northeast corner it continues north toward the southwest corner of the hall and thence turns east to the main and front entrance of the hall. Back or north of, as well as west of, both buildings is a large private parking area for the sole use of persons attending meetings, having business at, or coming to, the CIO hall or having business with the engineering firm. The principal, if not sole, en- trance to this parking area is through or over a driveway across the sidewalk on the north side of Florence Street, which passes by the southwest corner of the small building occupied by the engineering firm, and continues north adjacent to and past the west side of that building into the parking area. As has been noted Fries was present throughout the four UFW meetings held at the CIO hall. The meetings were scheduled or called for 7:30 p. m., but usually did not get under way until sometime between 7:30 and 8 p. m. Fries would arrive at the hall about 6:45 p. m. On each of the nights these UFW meetings were held Fries maintained a rather close watch from time to time, before the meeting started and throughout the time it was in session, outside the hall to see if anyone was watch- ing or attempting to spy upon the meeting. Apparently Fries detected no suspect on the night of February 3, the date of the first meeting. The second UFW meeting was held the night of February 14. The streets, side- walks, and the parking area adjacent to the CIO Hall were covered with possibly 6 or 8 inches of fresh snow and for that reason the floodlights in the parking area, which are not always turned on when there is a night meeting at the hall, were on. There is a street light on the corner of Florence and Salte Streets which fairly well illuminates the Florence Street entrance to the hall and the street and sidewalk ,directly in front of the hall . It was not snowing or raining that night , and it was "a fairly clear night . . wasn't murky." Those attending the meeting in cars drove into the lighted parking area and parked their cars. None of the employees SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 427 attending the meeting parked on the street. Thus it would appear that employees leaving their cars in the parking area and entering the hall, or any who entered the hall without first going to the parking area, could likely be recognized or identified by persons along Florence Street in a position at the time to observe their move- ments. It is quite evident from the testimony of Gage, the president of the Wood- workers Federation, that on this night, and on two other occasions when UFW meetings were held there, he watched the hall, from either a parked or moving car on Florence Street for the purpose of finding out, if he could , who of the employees attended the meetings and that he saw and recognized certain of the em- ployees going into the CIO hall. According to Fries, and I credit his testimony concerning the circumstance, on this night of February 14, some cars started "circling the block where the CIO hall is located . . . about seven or thereabouts" and continued to do so "until approximately nine," and he "watched" these same "cars make the circle, driving past one way and back the other way and then back" again but only one car "stopped" near the hall, "a yellow Chevrolet" which "parked at the curb [on the north side of Florence Street] next to the driveway" across the sidewalk into the parking area. It was parked "right next to the driveway. It just cleared the driveway" leav- ing "just enough room" so that a car turning into the driveway "could get in." This yellow Chevrolet was parked in this position with the lights turned off so )me- where between 7 and 7:30 p. m., at a time when employees, who attended, were ar- riving for the meeting . I pause here to note that apparently Fries did not on this night recognize and could not identify any of the persons riding in the cars which he said continued to.circle the block where the CIO hall is located for some period of time from 7 p. m. on, but none of which stopped or parked there or near there. Fries went inside the hall when the meeting started but shortly thereafter left the meeting and went outside to see if anyone was watching the meeting. He saw that the yellow Chevrolet was still parked next to driveway where it had been stand- ing before the meeting started. It was the only car parked in the street, the other cars were on the parking lot. Fries walked over to the Chevrolet and saw that there were two men in the car . Standing on the sidewalk at the front of car he flashed a flashlight in the car to see if he knew who they were . He got a good look at the man who was in the driver's seat and recognized him as a man "who belonged to a social club, the Washington Society," of which he (Fries ) was a member. Fries had seen this man at the club but did not know his name. He did not recognize the other man. Nothing was said between Fries and the men and after flashing the light in the car Fries walked to the back of the car, copied the license number, and went back to the hall and into an office there to use the telephone in an effort to find out the ownership of the car. As he entered the office he saw through an office window that the yellow Chevrolet was leaving. After February 14, Fries "saw the man who was sitting in the driver 's seat that night . . . perhaps a dozen times at the club" and "about a week or two after" that date learned that his name was Rex Hamp. As heretofore stated Hamp was at that time foreman of the rub and trim department at Respondent 's factory. -Ramp, as a witness for Respondent , admitted that he was the driver, on the night of February 14, of the yellow Chevrolet described by Fries, and stated that Al Gage, the president of the Woodworkers Federation was the other man in the car. Hamp explained why he drove his car to the CIO hall that night and parked it as described by Fries. Hamp said that "early" that evening Gage called him on the telephone and said that "he [Gage] understood there was to be a meeting of the CIO that night at the Florence Street Hall," that "his [Gage's] car was . . . disabled and was in the garage" for repairs, and requested Hamp "to take him [Gage ] over" to the CIO hall, "so he could ascertain whether a meeting was being held there that night." Hamp assented and driving his yellow Chevrolet "picked" Gage "up," pursuant to pre- arrangement, at a street intersection, "and took him over there." Hamp said on arrival, "we parked in the street . . . in front of the Union Hall." Gage said they parked the car in front of the building occupied as an office by the engineer- ing firm, which puts it at the point described by Fries close to the driveway leading into the parking area . Continuing, Hamp stated that neither he nor Gage got out of the car, and after they had parked "someone" whom he could not "identify came out from the Union Hall" to within "six or eight feet of the car" and "shined a flashlight up in the trees and walked back to the Union Hall and we left." Hamp estimated that his car was parked there altogether not more than "three or four minutes" during which time Hamp said he did not see "anyone go into or come out of Union Hall" except "the man who came out with the flashlight ," however, Gage who did not say how long they were parked at the spot on that occasion, claimed that while so parked he saw employees of the Company "going into the door of the 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CIO Hall." Hamp "supposed" Gage "wanted to go out there" because he was presi- dent of the Woodworkers Federation and "was concerned with the fact that a com- peting union was holding a meeting there that night." Hamp further stated: "I don't think that this man coming out of the Union Hall and up to the car had anything to do with our leaving . . . we left because we had accomplished what we started out to do" which "was to ascertain whether there was a CIO meeting" there that night, and "we found one was in progress." I do not accept as accurate Hamp's estimate that he and Gage were parked only 3 or 4 minutes, and credit rather Fries' testimony that the car was parked at the place described by Fries, and confirmed by Gage, sometime before the meeting started and during that period of time when employees attending the meeting were arriving. Certainly Hamp could have, and must have, seen what Gage saw, and' Gage claimed that while so parked he saw and recognized employees of the Com- pany going into the hall that night for the meeting. From the little Gage said' about the 3 occasions, of which this was 1, he as president of the Woodworkers- Federation watched the hall when UFW meetings were being held there for com- pany employees, the implication is clear enough that he was not doing so merely to ascertain whether a meeting was being held there, he learned in advance that the meetings were scheduled for such nights, but rather to find out, if he could, who among the employees were attending, and that also was undoubtedly why Hamp was there on this night of February 14. It seems strange indeed since Gage's car was purportedly not available that night that he would enlist the aid of Foreman Hamp rather than one of the numerous officers and members of the Woodworkers Federation in carrying on this scouting mission and the conclusion is indicated, as Hamp himself expressed it, that Foreman Hamp and President (of the Woodworkers Federation) Gage had a common objective or purpose namely to ascertain, so far as they might be able to do so, who of the employees of the Company were attend- ing the meeting that night. Hamp described it as a joint undertaking when he said the reason they left at the time they did, which was after the meeting was in progress, and Fries had come up to their car and gone back into the hall, was because, "we had accomplished what we started out to do," which I do not credit was merely to ascertain whether there was some kind of a meeting that night at the CIO Hall, but was in fact, as above stated, to spy on the UFW meeting and learn, if they could, who, of the employees of the Company, were in attendance. Hamp said they left as soon as they ascertained that a meeting was in progress and that they ascertained that solely by the fact that the hall was lighted and "there were cars there." Certainly that the hall was lighted and cars were there could have been ascertained merely by driving past the hall and did not necessitate parking at the driveway for any length of time whatever. It is my conclusion, as already indicated, that Foreman Hamp was, engaged in surveillance of a type falling within Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. On the night of the third UFW meeting at the CIO hall, February 22, the flood- lights in the parking area were not turned on. About seven or thereabouts that night two cars commenced circling the block where the CIO Hall is located and as it got closer to 7:30 the number of cars engaging in this circling maneuver increased to 5 or 6 and this movement by the same 5 or 6 cars around the block and to and fro by and around the hall premises continued throughout the whole time the meeting was in session that night and "until approximately 9 or a little after." Fries watched this movement of the same cars from time to time, and from various vantage points, from its beginning with 2 cars around 7 o'clock until the meeting closed. After the meet- ing started he went outside "perhaps a dozen times" and stayed out there for varying intervals to see if any of the cars came into the parking area where the cars of em- ployees attending the meeting were parked or whether any of the persons in the 5 or 6 cars by that time participating in the circling movement got out and came on the premises. Fries described the plan of operation followed by the cars so engaged. These same cars would move along Florence Street in front of the hall premises, turn on Salte Street, go down that street for three or four blocks and turn around and come back on that street and turn on Florence and after passing the hall premises come back again on Florence Street to Salte Street and turn on that street. While Fries could not actually see the cars turn around he said he saw the same cars come back on the same street on which they had shortly before passed the hall premises and that in the time elapsing they could not have traveled over 3 or 4 blocks at most before turning. In some instances when a car in which an employee , or employees, coming to the meeting was riding turned off Florence Street and through the driveway into the park- ing area one of these cars engaged in the circling movement would drive into drive- way and onto the CIO premises immediately behind the employees ' cars and when SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 429 the employees' cars had pulled or moved down into the parking area "would back or turn and go out to Florence Street" and resume the movement by and around the hall. With one exception Fries was not, or could not get, close enough to identify or get a good look at the person or persons in the cars which followed employees' cars onto the hall premises. Fries testified that at a time when he was standing in the front part of the parking area near the southwest corner of the hall one of the cars; a Buick, which he had previously seen passing to and fro by the hall premises, as above described, turned off Florence Street into the driveway immediately behind another car which had entered the parking area. The Buick, "with the regular driv- ing lights on," crossed the sidewalk by way of the driveway onto the front part of the parking area and stopped with the "back end" about "flush" with the north line of the sidewalk as the car "just ahead" of the Buick moved "further on down" and parked. As the Buick came to a stop Fries emerged from the shadows, it will be remembered the floodlights were not on that night in the parking area, and went "alongside the car [the Buick] on the driver's side and flashed a flashlight on the driver" who there- upon started up the car and backed out into Florence Street. When he flashed the light on the driver Fries "got a good look at his face." The driver of the Buick, who was alone in the car, was Jack Neymeiyer, Respondent's yard foreman or supervisor, son of John Neymeiyer, Sr., the plant manager. Fries did not at that time know Jack Neymeiyer and did not identify the driver of the Buick as Jack Neymeiyer until upon entering the hearing room on the first day of this hearing and before the hearing had started he saw Jack Neymeiyer among those present there and promptly identified ,him as the driver of the Buick on that night and was told that his name was Jack Neymeiyer. In the course of the cross-examination of Fries by counsel for Respondent the following occurred: Q. Did you identify anyone else (other than Jack Neymeiyer) in any of the other cars that you say were in this parade going around the block on that night (February 22) ?-A. Any other people at all, you mean? Q. Yes.-A. Yes. Q. You did?-A. I didn't, but I can. Q. You know who other people were who were going around?-A. Some of them, yes. Not all of them. Fries was not called upon to name any of the "some of them" he said he could identify. Since he was called as a witness by the General Counsel, the inference necessarily arises that none of those "other people" whom he said he could identify were officers or supervisors of the Company. Admittedly Gage was there that night in a car watching the meeting "to see who was coming to the CIO meeting." It may not be material to the issues as framed but as getting the situation in focus the inference is not, I think, too farfetched, that some of the other officers or members of the Wodworkers Federation were also among those in the cars which moved con- tinuously to and fro by the CIO hall premises that night. Sometime in the latter part of January or the early part of February Jack Neymeiyer was in the cabinet room at the factory, and Gage, the president of the Woodworkers Federation stepped over just a short ways from his particular work area, and asked Jack Neymeiyer if he "had heard about the CIO organizational attempts," and stated that he (Gage) "understood they were getting a stronghold." Neymeiyer said he told Gage he "would check into it." Asked if he did check into it, Neymeiyer said: "Yes basically. Certainly I would check into a thing of that nature. I checked into it basically by having a discussion with Mr. Neymeiyer, Sr. [his father], the plant superintendent." Jack Neymeiyer added: "There was not anything else done in that connection on my part." Jack Neymeiyer explained how he happened to be in the vicinity of the CIO hall about or shortly after 7 p. m. of the night of February 22. As he stated it, that after- noon an engineer from an engineering firm "out in Bridgeport that does a lot of engineering work for us, cutting tool wise, picked me up" in his car, a Buick, as "I did not have my own automobile" at the time, and "took me out there" (to Bridgeport), and there "we discussed the possibilities of new carbide cutters." Neymeiyer said it became necessary "to get some measurements off one of our machines . . so I borrowed the engineer's car, the Buick, and went over to the plant and got the measurements." He said he left the plant to return to Bridgeport "somewhere around 7 o'clock in the evening. It was dark." As he related the incident, he was driving east on Florence Street when, as he neared the intersection of Florence and Salte Streets, he noticed Mr. Gage's red Chevrolet headed west parked on the other side of the street in front of the May Engineering Company. This is the same spot, over- looking the driveway into the parking area, at which Gage and Foreman Hamp had 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stationed themselves on the night of February 14 in their effort to learn who were at- tending that meeting. Continuing Jack Neymeiyer said "I thought about it a little bit, and I made a U turn right there at the Salte Street intersection and went back and pulled up behind Mr. Gage and got out of the car and went up and asked him if he was having any trouble." Neymeiyer said the conversation between him and Gage at that time "was something like, `Al [Gage] what are you doing here? Have you got some trouble?' and Al said, `No, I am not having any trouble. I am here to see who is coming to the CIO meeting,' and I said, `Wow, this is no place for me,' and with that I got back in my car. Mr. Gage drove off . . . ahead . and I drove just past the driveway and I backed into the driveway" until "possibly the back end of my car got across the sidewalk, and I turned around and proceeded to get in my easterly direction." Neymeiyer did not specifically so state but apparently meant to imply that he then continued to Bridgeport which "was the destination I had in mind when I left the plant." Taking Neymeiyer's version of how he happened to be in the vicinity of the CIO hall that night it seems a bit unusual and incomprehensible that hurrying, as he said he was, to resume a business conference at Bridgeport, that merely because he saw Gage sitting in his car, parked, in no unusual manner, at the curb on a lighted city street at around 7 p.m. in the evening, he would turn back, stop his car, get out, and go to Gage's car to inquire of Gage if he was having trouble. Presumably he meant car trouble. Neymeiyer did not say what caused him to think Gage was having trouble. Gage was not even out of his car. He was sitting in the car which was parked, as above described, in the manner cars are usually parked on a street, and no mention whatever is made of anything about the appearance of the car or the situation which would indicate trouble and there certainly was nothing unusual or un- seemly about the time, around 7 p.m. If, as he drives along a city street, merely see- ing a friend sitting in a car parked at the curb in the usual manner, with no ap- pearance whatever of any trouble, would move Neymeiyer to halt a business mission and turn his car about and go back to tender his assistance if perchance there might be some trouble, although none was apparent, then his ordinary and day-by-day progress in driving along the streets of Saginaw must frequently be impeded and slowed. Neymeiyer said he did not see "anybody going into or coming out of Union Hall" that night. It is noted here that Gage said he saw employees going into the hall on that occasion. Neymeiyer, who was called as a witness by Respondent, did not specifically deny the testimony of Fries that when the Buick came onto the hall premises and stopped he (Fries) "went alongside the car, on the driver's side and flashed a flashlight on the driver." Neymeiyer did not mention any such occurrence and a denial that such happened may. have been intended to be implied in Ney- meiyer's concluding statement about his "presence" on that night "in the vicinity of Union Hall" that he had "described every thing that happened" in that connection. Fries' testimony. as a whole about the events on the nights of February 14 and 22 tested out well, and I am constrained to credit his statement that: On the night of February 22 he saw this Buick, which he subsequently found was driven by Jack Neymeiyer, among the cars passing to and fro in a systematic movement past and around the CIO hail premises; in one instance it turned off Florence Street and drove forward, not backing, as Neymeiyer said, across the driveway over and across the side- walk immediately behind another car which was entering the parking area to park; his Buick, driven by Neymeiyer stopped just inside the parking area, as the car ahead went on down and parked ; and he (Fries) went alongside the standing Buick on the driver's side and flashed the light on the driver, whereupon Neymeiyer backed the Buick out into Florence Street and moved away traveling west. The foregoing credited testimony leads me to the conclusion that on this night Jack Neymeiyer was in fact checking on the UFW meeting scheduled for that night, and like Gage, and possibly in concert with Gage, was endeavoring to ascertain who of the employees, and in what numbers, were attending. As heretofore mentioned only two employees attended the last UFW meeting at the CIO hall,on the night of March 2, and the meeting that night was held in a small room at the southeast corner of the building. The three previous meetings had been held in a long room on the south and southwest side of the building which is used as a barroom. That room which has 3 or 4 large windows facing on Florence Street was dark on the night of March 2. Fries said he did not go outside at all on that night until he started home after the meeting ad- journed, but that he did go a number of times into . the darkened large room and looked out the windows to see if there was any systematic circling of the premises -by cars as had occurred on the night of February 14 and 22, or if anyone ap- proached the hall, or was watching it, but he did not see any activity of that kind that night. After the meeting adjourned and Fries had reached the west edge of SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 431 the building, facing the driveway into the parking area on his way to his car parked in the parking area, a station wagon came through the driveway from Florence Street and went into the parking area a distance of 45 to 50 feet and stopped. Fries said, "I started walking toward the station wagon" and the driver, apparently seeing him approaching, "started backing out" whereupon Fries started running toward the station wagon. The driver had to stop backing because of traffic coming down the street (Florence) and the lights of the passing traffic illuminated the driver's side of the station wagon and Fries said he recognized the driver as Robert Westwood. Westwood was then, as he is now, the foreman of the finishing depart- ment at Respondent's factory. Westwood owned and drove a station wagon. Fries was introduced to Westwood at a Christmas party in December 1954 at Respondent's plant which Fries attended with his sister-in-law, Rose Orosz, who worked on the filler line in ,the finishing department and was connected with the management of the party. Fries had no recollection of having seen Westwood at any time after the Christmas party until he said he recognized him on the night of March 2 as the driver of the station wagon when it was halted momentarily by the passing traffic as it was backing into Florence Street at which time the lights of passing cars illuminated the driver's side of the station wagon. Westwood categorically denied on direct examination that he drove his station wagon into or onto the CIO premises or that he "stopped in front of or in the vicinity of Union Hall" on that night. On cross-examination he said he was "reasonably sure" he "was home in the evening of March 2," and while he did not specifically so state I take it that he intended to imply that he was home the entire time that night. While Fries' testimony concerning the presence of Company Supervisors Hamp and Jack Neymeiyer at and in the vicinity of the CIO hall premises on the nights of February 14 and 22, respectively, was accurate, in this instance his identification of Westwood as the driver of the station wagon wholly dependent as it is on but a fleeting glimpse of the driver's face as revealed by the light of a passing car or cars, and in view of the fact, as I understand the testimony to be, that Fries had seen Westwood only one time prior to this date, when he met him at the 1954 Christmas party, as against Westwood's denial, leaves a serious doubt of accuracy in this instance, and a high probability of mistaken identification, and I would not be warranted in finding that the driver was Westwood. Conclusion as to Surveillance I credit Fries' testimony as to the systematic movement of the same cars con- tinuously passing by and around the CIO hall on the nights of February 14 and 22, and in some instances on those nights parking near the driveway into the hall parking area and in other instances following onto the CIO premises the cars of per- sons attending the meetings on those nights as they went into the parking area to park. That officers and agents of the Woodworkers Federation were so engaged can hardly be doubted, and specifically as to Gage, the president of that union, is frankly admitted. Whether working in concert with the Woodworkers Union or on their own but with the same objective, I find that at least two of the Company's foremen, Rex Hamp and Jack Neymeiyer, participated in this surveillance. Fries' activities and what he observed and discovered about these attempts to spy on these meetings was undoubtedly known to the employees in attendance at the various meetings. I am compelled to find that the company supervisors named participated and en- gaged in this course of surveillance, and at least as to their activities in that connection the Company must be held responsible. Wherefore, Respondent is held to have engaged, through its said supervisors, in surveillance in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Alleged Interrogation, Threats, and Promises Rose. Orosz commenced working at the factory on September 26, •1952. She worked on the filler line in the finishing department. Robert Westwood was fore- man of that department which is located in a large open room. It may be well to here describe the filler line as it figures prominently throughout the testimony concerning Rose Orosz. During all the time involved herein, the factory was working principally on breakfront secretaries which come through the filler line in two sections, the top and the base sections. They are not intermixed. There will be a run of all base sections or all top sections during one period. In describing the operation of. the filler line the section coming through is referred to as the cabinet. All of the workers on the filler line are women or girls. The cabinet comes to the filler line from the spray booth where it is sprayed with filler. After 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it is sprayed it is pushed 3 or 4 feet out of the spraying booth at which point the first operation on the filler line is performed by one woman alone. This operation consists mostly of painting or brushing filler and while the woman working at this job may do some wiping at times, she uses, for the most part, a small brush. She first opens the doors, and pulls out the drawers, with a puller and then dips the brush in filler and paints or brushes filler on the tops and edges of the drawers and doors, and the inside edge where the door fits. By conveyor the cabinet then moves along the line 4 or 5 feet to where the strictly wiping operation commences. Six women work in pairs at wiping filler. There is a distance of some 5 or 6 feet between the points at which the 3 pairs work. As the conveyor comes out of the spray booth it divides into two conveyors with a space between called the mid- section. As best I understand the operation the lone woman doing the painting or brushing of the tops and edges of the drawers and doors, pulls or slides the cabinets off the conveyor and performs her task and then places them back on one of the con- veyor lines, and the women working in pairs and doing wiping likewise slide the cabinets off onto the midsection, do their work and then move them back onto a conveyor, and they go on to other types of operation. The six filler wipers "using tow." a "ground up" cloth material of some kind, wipe all of the outside of the cabinets. They wipe the filler which has been sprayed on the cabinet into the grain so as to give it a smooth finish. Both the work of brushing filler done by the I woman and the wiping of filler by the other 6 is classed as "wiping filler." Six of the seven women, who, at all material times, were working on the filler line were identified in the evidence. They were Beatrice Billy, Stephine Gallery, Eleanor Denslow, Lorraine Cherwinski, Lelia Main, and Rose Orosz. Rose Orosz testified that on the morning of February 4, shortly after work started (7 o'clock) while she was at work at her "regular job . . . on the filler line," although she did not say what kind of work she was doing, whether brushing or wiping filler, her foreman, Robert Westwood, called her off the line to a point approximately 5 feet from the line and approximately 3 feet from the closest person working on the line. According to Orosz, Westwood then asked her if she was "at the CIO meeting last night" and when she did not answer him he said, "you were at the CIO meeting and so were 5 others . I know how you were seated ... you were in a row, there were Henry Meyer, Eleanor Denslow, you, Aggie Lake, Ethel Lane, and Joe Lane." Orosz said that Westwood correctly listed the names of all employees who attended that meeting and the order in which they were seated. Continuing Orosz said , "he then asked me if I was a CIO sympathizer. I didn't answer ... and he told me that if the CIO got a foothold in the shop that the shop could afford to close down and move south . . . he said that it was just a lot of sales talk and he gave me more credit than to listen to it and also Agnes Lake." Orosz then said that the foregoing was all that was said in that conversation but upon further questioning by the attorney for the General Counsel she said that Westwood also said at that time that "he was going to watch every move I made." Again she said that was all of the conversation, but upon suggestive questioning by the General Counsel she claimed to recall that Westwood further said, " `You are blackballing yourself in the eyes of the old man' and that referred to Mr. Neymeiyer." Again and finally Orosz said that she had stated all that Westwood said in the conversation and that thereafter she returned to work. Orosz stated that she had a second conversation with Westwood that day (February 4), that "before lunch he asked me if I would come into his office" during the lunch period and that she did so arriving there about 12:25. Asked by the attorney for the General Counsel to state what was said on that occasion and how the conversation began she said, "he started off by referring again to the CIO . . he said the Company could afford to and would close its doors if this CIO got in there, and move down south . . . and that the CIO was nothing but a lot of sales talk and I said, `Well, I went down there to listen to what they had to say. Now, you tell me what you have to say' . . . he spoke of the profits of the Company, just things in general. I don't remember . . . he asked me about being on the Christmas party committee and said that I did good work and deserved a pat on the back for that.... Finally I asked him if he were all through and if I could go back to work and I returned to work." Orosz said that throughout this conversation in Westwood's office during the lunch period "just the two of us were present." Orosz claimed Westwood spoke to her a third time on that same day (February 4) concerning the "CIO, about 2 : 30 in the afternoon," while she was working at her job on the filler line and on that occasion he "called me over and asked me to promise not to attend any more meetings , that was all he said," and that she "did not say anything." She said there was no other person "immediately present." SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 433 Orosz did not attend the second UFW meeting held on that night of February 14, but in company with Beatrice Billy attended the third meeting on the night of February 22. Billy's husband drove them to the meeting in the Billy car. Orosz does not claim that Westwood again said anything at all to her about the CIO Union from and after February 4 until February 23, the day after this third UFW meeting. She testified that, "immediately after getting on the job ," on the morning of February 23, Westwood came to where she was working on the filler line and asked her "'Where were you last night?' And I says, `You know where I was. Why should I tell you.' He said, 'You were at the meeting, and I followed you and Beatrice Billy and Mike . from your house to the CIO Hall."' Orosz said she "did not say anything to that," and "he said, 'How rotten can you get,' and also that he would just see that I got fired in one way or another ." Although, as Orosz related the incident, she was working on the filler line and at that time "was running the spinner on top of a cabinet," there was no other person "immediately present" when Westwood came to where she was working and made these purported remarks. Whereas on direct examination Orosz stated that she was "running the spinner on top of a cabinet" at the time, on cross-examination she said , "I was using the spinner on the tops of some tables . at the time he [Westwood] came up to me . . . and started this conversation with me." She admitted that the spinner was not used on breakfront secretaries and that if only breakfront secretaries were being run through the filler line on February 23, and not tables, she would "not have been using the spinner" at all that day . The daily register for February 23, shows only breakfront secretaries were being run that day and no tables are listed . Furthermore according to the testimony of Beatrice Billy, with whom Orosz had gone to the UFW meeting the night before, as well as the testimony of Westwood, Orosz was brushing filler on breakfront secretaries on both February 22 and 23 and the spinner is not used on that job at all. As mentioned, Beatrice Billy, another of the women working on the filler line, and her husband, Mike Billy, who apparently was not an employee of the Com- pany, "picked up" Orosz "at her home" on the night of February 22 in the Billy car, and Mike Billy drove the two women to the UFW meeting which they attended. This is the only UFW meeting Beatrice Billy attended. Beatrice Billy was called as a witness by Respondent. On cross-examination she said that the "next morning," February 23, during a conversation with Foreman Westwood, he asked her if she "had been to the CIO meeting the night before." Later on redirect examination she said that during that conversation Westwood asked her "whether" she "was going to any more CIO union meetings" and that she said, "No, I am not interested in them and am not going to any more meetings." Westwood said the first he heard of any CIO activity was "rumbles about the CIO around the plant," but he did not say when that was, however, he did say that sometime during the day of February 4 he heard "that there had been a (UFW) meeting the night before." I have set out Orosz' testimony about the three separate instances on February 4, she claimed Westwood talked to her about the CIO Union (.UFW) each replete with interrogation and threats by Westwood relating to UFW activity and the possibility that the plant would be moved should the Union "get a foothold in the shop." In each instance she said there was no one present but Westwood and her. The first occurred, according to Orosz, almost simultaneous with the start of work at 7 a. m., when Westwood called her off the filler line, even so she said the closest woman working on the filler line was only about 3 feet away. The attorney for the Respondent quoting from Orosz' testimony about the various interrogations, threats, and remarks about the UFW meeting of the night before which Orosz said Westwood made at that time asked Westwood seriatim whether he made such remarks, statements, interrogations, or threats, as the case may be, "in exact words or in substance," and Westwood categorically denied each. In like manner Westwood denied that he came to Orosz that afternoon while she was working on the filler line and asked her to promise not to attend any more meetings, the third instance on that day related in Orosz' testimony. Asked about the second February 4 incident, described by Orosz, Westwood said he did on one occasion discuss the 1944 Christmas party with Orosz in his office shortly after lunch but that he could not tie that incident right down to Febr.ary 4 although it may have been around that date. Orosz was a member of the im- mittee in charge of the party, and Westwood was in charge of the posters and had also played Santa Claus. Westwood said that on that occasion he mentioned that hereafter when they were having any sort of a party and wanted posters made up more time should be allowed for making up the posters, and that he also told her 450553-58-vol. 118-29 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that his entrance as Santa Claus had not been properly timed and said that should be straightened out in the future. Further, he said he complimented and com- mended Orosz for her work in connection with the party. However, he denied that he made any reference in that conversation to the CIO, or the profits of the Company, or made any threat that the plant "might move down south." Westwood also categorically denied that in any conversation with Orosz on February 23, either "in exact words or substance" he asked her "where were you last night," or told her that he knew that she was at the UFW meeting because he had followed her and Beatrice and Mike Billy to the CIO hall, or that he said to her, "how rotten can you get," or "I will see that you get fired, one way or another," all of which had been attributed to him by Orosz in her testimony concerning a conversation which she said occurred while she "was using the spinner . . . im- mediately after" she started. to work on that morning. Further, Westwood said he had not told Orosz that he had followed her and the Billys when they went to the UFW meeting on the night of February 22, and there is no substantive evidence in the record that he did follow them, while on the other hand, Orosz' friend, Beatrice Billy, said that he had not done so. While denying that in conversation with Orosz on February 4 and 23 he engaged in any of the interrogations or threats, or made any of the statements, in reference to the UFW, which she attributed to him, Westwood said that he probably did have conversations with her on those dates as he conversed with the women on the filler line daily. None of the other women on the filler line appeared to testify that on the dates mentioned by Orosz, or at any other time, they had observed West- wood call Orosz away from, or to one side of, the filler line and converse with her, or had ever overheard him say any of the many things Orosz testified that he did say to her about the CIO Union on those dates. As to a conversation with Beatrice Billy which she said occurred on February 23, Westwood said while he could not "nail it down to February 23," he did have a conversation with her about that date in which he asked her "if she was going to go to any more CIO meetings" and she said "I promise you I won't, or something like that." However, Westwood said he did not initiate the conversation with Billy or the subject of the CIO Union, and instead "she inquired of me about the CIO, which I don't know why she did, and I merely told her `you know the Com- pany has a contract with the Woodworkers Federation . and you being a member of that Union you are supposed to abide by the rules.' " His statement that Billy initiated the matter was neither affirmed nor denied by her. She merely said that in a conversation with Westwood on that date he asked her "whether she was going to any more CIO meetings" and she told him in reply that she "was not interested in them and wasn't going to any more." There was no evidence that Westwood made any threats of any kind or nature to either Beatrice Billy or Eleanor Denslow, who also worked on the filler line. Denslow attended at least the first UFW meeting on the night of February 3, and perhaps the second or third one or both. Late in January Joe Lane took Kneeshaw to the Orosz home and introduced him to Rose Orosz and she went with him to see Aggie Lake. Later Orosz introduced Kneeshaw to her brother-in-law, Henry Fries, and Kneeshaw made arrangements through Fries to get the use of the CIO hall for UFW meetings. There is no evidence indicating, or from which it can be inferred, that such activity on the part of Orosz was known to management. It was not of an open and public type and nature. There is no evidence whatever of any activity on the part of Orosz on behalf of the UFW thereafter other than that she attended 2 of the 4 meetings, the first and the third. There is no evidence of solicitation for, or of talking up, the UFW by her among her fellow employees, at the factory or any other place, or that she ever invited them or any of them to any of the UFW meetings, or that she said or did anything to promote or advance the UFW cause among her fellow employees. The evidence indicates that the relationship of Foreman Westwood and Orosz, as well as the other women on the filler line, had at all times been cordial, friendly, and pleasant. Conclusion about Orosz' Testimony Attributing Statements and Threats to Westwood on February 4 and 23 After much analysis, weighing, and evaluation of the whole of the testimony given in this matter by Orosz and Westwood, respectively, and in the light of my observa- tion of the two witnesses on the stand, I find myself in too much doubt about the reliability of Orosz' testimony concerning the conversations with Westwood on February 4 and 23, whereby she attributed to him various threats and statements, such SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 435 as, that the plant "would be closed down" and "moved" south if the CIO got a "foothold" there, that she was "blackballing" herself "in the eyes of . Mr. Neymeiyer," that he (Westwood) "was going to watch every move" she made, that he would see that she "got fired in one way or another." 2 It will be remembered that on each of the 4 instances related, 3 on February 4 and 1 on February 23, Orosz said no other person was present, or "immediately present," whatever that means under the circumstances given. However, she said .3 of the purported conversations occurred at, or within a few feet of, the filler line while she was working on the line, when at least 1, and the order in which the women worked, in pairs, indicating 2, of the women on the filler line were only from 3 to 5 feet distant from her and Westwood, yet apparently none of the filler line women saw Westwood call Orosz off the line or heard any of the remarks she attributed to him on these occasions. It comes down to Orosz' unsupported and uncorroborated affirmation against Westwood's categorical denial. There is nothing in the evidence indicating any per- sonal animosity on the part of Westwood against Orosz at any time, prior to or after these dates, and admittedly the relations between them had at all times prior thereto been friendly. Throughout his testimony Westwood spoke in highest terms of Orosz and her work, and in respect to her work declared she was "better than the average worker." Nor, other than the testimony of Orosz, is anything to be found in the evidence indicating that Westwood bore or expressed any prejudice against the so- called CIO Union, particularly to the point of threatening or attempting to coerce an individual employee working in his department because such employee mani- fested an interest in that union. As mentioned there is no evidence that Westwood made any statements or threats of a like or kindred nature to any other employees working in his department. In view of the fact, as has been noted, that Orosz was not in any sense a leader in or promoter of the insignificant effort of the UFW to organize there, it is inexplicable to me why Westwood would single out Orosz for such a tirade of threats as she represented he made. Further Westwood's appear- ance and demeanor on the witness stand and his testimony throughout were marked by a frankness and firmness, resulting at times in answers which apparently were not in accord with Respondent's concept of the situation involved, which tended to negate any impression that he might wilfully misstate a matter within his knowledge. To some extent it has, I think, heretofore been indicated and it will further more fully appear in the discussion of later events, and particularly the evidence relating to the 8 (a) (3) allegation involving Orosz alone, that in her testimony Orosz was in many respects inaccurate about things she should have been accurate about, was given to over embellishment, over statement, and dramatization, and prone to rely upon implications which were not valid. Further in weighing and evaluating her testimony I cannot altogether ignore the indications appearing in the evidence tend- ing to show a variability of temperament on the part of Orosz. It follows that I cannot make a Section 8 (a) (1) finding based on Orosz' testi- mony concerning statements and threats she claimed Westwood made to her on February 4 and 23. Incidents Involving Employee Joe Lane, Foreman Hamp, and Plant Manager Neymeiyer Joe Lane went to work for the Company in August 1951. Apparently he worked the entire time of his employment there on the rub line in the rub and trim depart- ment. At the time Lane was employed there were three rubbers working on the rub line, identified in the evidence only by their first names, Leo, Frank, and Martin. These three men had worked on the rub line for some time before Lane was employed. Throughout the time he worked for the Company, Lane was a member of the Saginaw Woodworkers Federation. He was the second employee, named in the evidence, contacted by Kneeshaw when he set out to organize for UFW at this plant. Lane and his wife, Ethel, also an employee of the Company, attended at least 2 and perhaps 3 of the UFW meetings. Lane's employment at Respondent's factory was terminated in June 1955 because of "lack of work." I note here that it was at no time suggested or intimated that his and his wife's interest in the UFW had anything to do with his termination. Apparently his wife continued in the employment of the Company. As of March 3, 1953, Rex Hamp became a fore- man of the rub and trim department. At that time there were 4 rubbers working on the rub line, the 3 men mentioned above by their first names and Lane. 2 As will later appear this purported threat snugly fits the version which Orosz gives, adopted by the General Counsel, to subsequent events upon which the 8 (a) (3) allegation of the complaint is based. 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In January 1955 Mr. Neymeiyer, the plant manager, suggested that all the rubbers be given a pay raise but Foreman Hamp objected to Lane receiving the pay raise because, in his opinion, Lane's work did not merit an increase at that time, and he (Ramp) thought he might be able to use the prospect of a pay increase to induce Lane to improve the quality of his work. Thus at Hamp's recommendation Lane was left out while the pay raise went into effect as to the other rubbers. Hamp was asked whether at the time he "left Lane out" (of the pay increase) he had "heard anything about the CIO business." He said he did not believe he had heard about the CIO Union "at that time" but was "not sure." The rubbing operation is "both a machine and hand operation . . . an air-driven sander is first run over the finish . . . this sander will make . . . jigger marks up and down a case which are removed by hand-sanding straight back and forth with the grain." If the hand- sanding is not "enough or hard enough the jigger marks do not come out." Hamp said, "that was the problem I was having with Joe Lane," and that he (Hamp) "was constantly having inspector trouble" with work "turned out by" Lane because "the jigger marks had not been removed," and while "that happens occasionally with all rubbers . it was not occasional with Joe Lane." Hamp said that over a period of 4 months or more prior to the proposed pay increase he had talked to Lane "con- tinuously" and "daily . . . about leaving these jigger marks on his work" resulting in rejects requiring that his work be done over. In that connection Hamp further tes- tified that Lane's "work was never equal to that of the other rubbers," and he "characterized" it when asked to do so, as being "very poor and below average." On the other hand, Lane said, "once in a while a case" he had worked on would go down the line "with machine scratches . . . and he [Hamp] would tell me I would have to do it over . . . that happened maybe once a month" and that during the last 2 months prior to February 14, a date next mentioned, Hamp did not talk to him "about any machine scratches" and did not "criticize" his work "in any way." The pay raise was given in January. I discover nothing whatever in the evidence from which it must, or even could be inferred, that at that time anyone connected with management knew, or had heard, of Lane's interest in the UFW. There had not even been an UFW meeting, and there is no evidence of any activity of any kind on the part of Lane on behalf of that union at the factory prior to that time. Further as evidencing that the exclusion of Lane from the pay raise was not pursuant to any policy or attitude of the Company relating to the UFW is the fact that the plant manager proposed a pay increase for all the rubbers (including Lane) and that the exclusion of Lane therefrom was only at the suggestion and for the reasons advanced by Foreman Hamp. I credit Hamp's testimony about Lane's work and I am satisfied that the exclusion of Lane from the pay increase back in January was solely for the reasons stated by Hamp and had no relation or connection whatever with the attempt of the UFW to come into the factory, which had scarcely, if it had at all, gotten underway at the time. The foregoing matter of a pay raise seems to have been offered by the General Counsel, in part at least, as background for a purported conversation between Lane and Foreman Hamp on February 14. Lane and his wife, Ethel, had attended the first UFW meeting on the night of February 3. It is not claimed that anyone con- nected with management said anything to Lane about attending that meeting or intimated knowledge of his interest in the UFW until the morning of February 14, when, according to Lane, in a converation with Hamp "right where" he (Lane) "worked on the rub line," Hamp "asked" him if he "knew what" he "was getting into going to these meetings," and that he (Lane) said, "Yes," and that "there was not anything further to the conversation." However, without indicating when, but apparently meaning on the same day, and perhaps at same time and place, Lane said, "then he [Hamp] started talking again to me. He said you know, they tried this once before, and it didn't work. He said the old man [Neymeiyer, Sr.], knew I was talking about the CIO meeting to a couple of women, and if I don't cut it out he [Neymeiyer, Sr.], would fire me. He said if I behaved myself he would try and get me a raise. He said the three other guys on the rub line got a raise, and he said, `I will see if I can get you one.... Think it over,' and he walked away." Lane stated that he did not "say anything" during this so-called conversation. On cross-examination Lane denied that Hamp told him that he (Lane) "ought to get on the ball," and first said Hamp made "no mention about the way" he was doing his work, then that he did not "remember whether" Hamp "said anything about" his "work." Lane further claimed that in this so-called conversation, during which Lane said Hamp did all the talking that was done, Hamp's statement to him that the other rubbers had previously received a pay increase was the first information he had of that. While Lane had said on direct examination that he did not say anything, on cross-examination, he was able to recall asking Hamp "How SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 437 come those three men got a raise and I didn't" but could not recall what he (Hamp) said after that. Lane further said Hamp started the conversation. The following is Hamp's version of the conversation. He (Hamp) "was standing in the aisle" when Lane "returning to his job from the restroom" stopped and "opened the conversation" with the remark, "I understand Leo and Frank [2 of the other 3 rubbera] got a raise. How is it I didn't?" Hamp said, "I told him that his work was not such that I felt he deserved it, and if he would get on the ball, and get his work in line, he certainly would have it. Then he suggested perhaps ... I can't remember the exact words . . . that his activities with the Union [UFW] might have had some influence on the fact he didn't get the raise." Q. (By counsel for Respondent.) Did you say anything to that?-A. (Hamp) I can't remember if I denied that or not. I mean whether I said, "that's not so," or "that isn't the reason." I can't remember if I denied it. Q. Did you say it was so?-A. No, I didn't say that it was so, because it wasn't. Q. You can't remember whether you said anything further to that, is that correct?-A. That's right. Hamp denied that either in exact words or in substance he said to Lane, "You know they tried this once before, and it didn't work" or that "the old man knows you were talking about CIO meetings to a couple of women, and he will fire you if you don't cut it out." He also denied that he asked Lane if he (Lane) "knew what he was getting into going to these meetings." Conclusion About the Lane-Hamp Conversation of February 14 Involved is Lane's version of the February 14 incident as against that of Foreman Hamp. Lane said no one else was present, although the conversation occurred during working hours, at Lane's place of work, and one of the other rubbers, Leo, "worked right next to" Lane. Based upon a number of factors, including the con- sistency of Hamp's testimony about the conversation with the facts affecting the January pay increase, as I have found them to be, certain inconsistencies in Lane's testimony which have been and will be further noted, and my personal observation of the two men in giving testimony, I am constrained to accept and credit Hamp's testimony as more accurately reflecting what occurred and what was said. As noted, Lane stated on direct examination that he did not say anything at all but on cross- examination recalled that he had asked Hamp, "How come these three men got a raise and I didn't?" which Hamp stated was in substance the remark with which Lane "opened" the conversation. Further, after first saying that Hamp made no reference whatever to his work Lane later said he could "not remember" whether he did not not. About all, if not in fact all, I find in Lane's version of the conver- sation, which if credited, might be a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) is the statement which he attributed to Hamp that "the old man knew" Lane "was talking about the CIO meeting to a couple of women" and if he did not "cut it out Mr. Neymeiyer would fire" him. I question the accuracy of Lane's testimony in this vital respect for one reason, as the matter next discussed will demonstrate, the incidents involving Lane's talking to a "couple of women" in the factory, during working hours, about "union activities," did not occur until from 2 to 3 weeks after February 14. Further, as above indicated, I credit Hamp's denial that he said anything of that kind to Lane. In view of the foregoing I cannot adopt Lane's testimony about the February 14 incident as the basis of a Section 8 (a) (1) finding. Lane is the only one who fixed the time of the next incident. He made at most an approximation. Of two things affecting the time he was certain, that is, that the incident occurred after February 22, which date he could recall because he at- tended a UFW meeting that night, and that it occurred "on a Monday" evening. It could have been therefore February 28 or March 7, not likely later than that. Around 9 or 9:30, and during working hours at the factory, on this morning Ney- meiyer, Sr., the plant manager, was in his office when a girl employee, Elizabeth Raysis, came into the office and complained to him that as she reached the landing on the stairway as she was returning to her work on the second floor (where the rub and trim department is located) from a trip to the first aid room on the first floor, she was stopped there by Lane, who would not let her go either up or down the stairs, while he tried "to convince her of some union activities around the fac- tory," but she finally jumped aside and went back down towards the First Aid room, and came directly to Mr. Neymeiyer's office. Raysis told Neymeiyer "she didn't like it." Two days previous another girl employee had come to Neymeiyer "with a similar complaint." When on this morning the Raysis girl complained to Neymeiyer about Lane's actions on the stairway landing Neymeiyer said, "I kind of 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD blew up" and "immediately . proceeded to go up into the rub room where Lane worked "to speak to him" about the RaysiS incident and "see if it was true or not." He said that when he arrived at Lane's place of work he was "irritated" and "spoke in a loud voice." Hamp who was about 15 feet from Neymeiyer while he was talking to Lane said that Neymeiyer appeared to be "perturbed, ... agitated ... he was certainly worked up," and "spoke in an exceptionally loud voice." Lane and Neymeiyer differ materially about what was said. Lane said that there were people working around there" but Neymeiyer came "right where" he (Lane) was working on the rub line" and directed his remarks to him. Lane testified that the following is all that was said or occurred: "Mr. Neymeiyer said to me, `what is the idea of going around and having people sign false statements against the Company,' and I told him that `I wasn't either.' He said I was a liar and had a yellow streak up my back, and I told him, `why don't you fire me for union activities,' and he said `I can't,' and he walked away." Lane said that was all of the conversa- tion, all that was said. If Lane's testimony about this incident be fully credited, and Lane claimed that he related all that was said by either, then what was said by Neymeiyer is so vague as to leave its meaning in the realm of speculation, since there is nothing of a direct nature in the evidence throwing light on, or tending to explain, Neymeiyer's pur- ported reference or interrogation about people signing false statements against the Company. I take it that it is proposed that I infer, from the vague language attributed to Neymeiyer that he was referring to statements of some sort, having something to do with company opposition to union activity of some kind, and then infer that such opposition related to the UFW activity and Lane being connected therewith. Prior to this time the Company had received a copy of the original charge filed herein by the UFW and, inter alia, that charge alleged domination and support of the Woodworkers Federation, Section 8 (a) (2), not included in the complaint herein. Such statements, if any there were, and if left to speculation, may have related to that allegation or some matter not connected with union activity. If the inferences above mentioned be allowed nonetheless it is, in my opinion, doubtful that they would even add up to a Section 8 (a) (1) violation as Neymei- yer's remarks taken as a whole in the light of such inferences can hardly be con- strued as constituting a threat and would at most be no more than a vague and isolated sort of interrogation. It will be remembered that the Raysis girl's complaint moved Neymeiyer to go immediately to see Lane at his place of work. Foreman Hamp was standing about 15 feet from Lane's work position when Neymeiyer arrived there. Hamp con- tinued to stand at that point during the conversation between Neymeiyer and Lane, which Newmeiyer said did not last over "a minute and a half." Hamp said because Neymeiyer spoke "in an exceptionally loud voice" and Lane's replies were "in an exceptionally low voice" he heard what Neymeiyer said but could not understand what Lane said. In substance Hamp corroborated Neymeiyer's testimony as to what he said. According to Neymeiyer he told Lane that "he had reports" that he (Lane) had "been bothering . some of the female employees, on the landing between the First Aid room and the rub room," and "I said, `Joe, if this is true, I think a person who would do that would have a streak of yellow down their back a mile wide'; and he (Lane] said to me, `Well, if you think it is true why don't you fire me' and I said, `Joe if I knew it was true I wouldn't hesitate a moment in discharging you."' Hamp's version of what Neymeiyer said is substantially as Ney- meiyer stated it. As Hamp put it Neymeiyer opened the conversation with "I have had complaints that you [Lane] have been stopping and bothering girls on the stairs in the factory. I want it to stop," and that Neymeiyer's last words were, "If I were sure" or "If I knew you had I would fire you." I credit Neymeiyer's denial that he called Lane "a liar." In that connection Neymeiyer said: "I have never used that expression to any employee in that factory in the 33 years that I have been there." Further Neymeiyer denied that "during this conversation" he asked Lane, "what's the idea of going around having people sign false statements against the Company" or anything to that effect. The testimony of Neymeiyer and Hamp about what Neymeiyer said is consistent with the motiva- tion and purpose prompting Neymeiyer to go to see Lane on this occasion. Mr. Neymeiyer now an elderly man, had at the time of hearing been plant manager continuously for 34 years. He was apparently highly respected by his employees generally and bore a reputation among them for both firmness and fairness. Based upon my observation of Neymeiyer as a witness and the inherent consistency of his testimony about this incident with the setting in which it occurred I accept his version of the matter, and in doing so it follows that such incident affords no basis for a Section 8 (a) (1) finding. SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS1 INC. 439 The Incident Involving Lumber Handler Olgine and Lumber Inspector Kanthack Jack Neymeiyer is, and at the times material herein was, foreman of the lumber- yard, referred to • generally as the yard, and Jack Neymeiyer as yard foreman. There are 10 employees in the yard; 2 lumber inspectors, Paul Kanthack and Jim Davey; 1 dry kiln operator; 6 lumber handlers; and a stick man who carries kiln stickers from the swing saw over to where the lumber handlers are stacking lumber taken from the railroad cars onto the kiln trucks. These sticks or stickers are put between the boards as they are stacked on the kiln trucks. The six lumber handlers, whose work will be later described, are all, as one of them, Peter Olgine, put it, of "Mexican extraction." Olgine, who himself spoke English well said some of them "can't talk English" and "one or two can't read or write." Olgine attended the second, third, and fourth, which was the last, meeting of the UFW at the CIO hall. The matter now under review gets into this case in this way; Olgine said that "about 7:30" on the morning of February 22, the third UFW meeting was scheduled for that night, Lumber Inspector Kanthack came to him in the yard, another lumber handler was with Olgine at the time, and the following occurred; Kanthack said, "'Pete [Olgine] I understand you went to the CIO meeting last week.' I didn't answer him. He repeated it again ... and I said, `Well,' and he said, `I heard you were going again tonight,' and I said, `Where did you get that, Paul? You don't have to ask me such questions, do you? Whoever you get it from, that's where you go to get more information.' He said, `Well, don't you know if you keep going to them meetings you are going to be fired, and if the CIO gets in here the plant is going to be closed.' . . . I just said, `Well, it don't make any difference to me, Paul,' and I didn't tell him no more, and he never said no more neither." Kanthack had worked as a lumber inspector at one place or another, for altogether 30 years. When first hired by this company he worked as a machine helper at which job he continued for a year or a little better. During the time he was working at a machine in the plant he was called out in the yard occasionally to inspect lumber and sometime in 1948 he became a full-time lumber inspector there, at which job he has since worked. The job of lumber inspector was nonsalaried, and was included in the bargaining unit represented by the Woodworkers Federation. Kanthack was at all times a member and at the times material to this incident the treasurer, of that Union. The issue presented is whether Kanthack was, as the General Counsel contends, a supervisor within the meaning of that term as it is defined in the Act and his remarks to Olgine, above set out, those of a supervisor and therefore attributable to the Company, or whether such remarks were merely unauthoritative talk on the part of a nonsupervisory employee and Woodworkers officer seeking to influence Olgine against deserting the Woodworkers and aligning himself with the UFW. The lumber comes into the yard principally in railroad cars although some is de- livered there by trucks. The railroad cars, or trucks, as the case may be, are spotted in the order directed by Jack Neymeiyer at the unloading points, 2 cars are spotted at a time, and the 2 inspectors, Kanthack and Davey, each take a car for inspection, and inspect the lumber board by board, "each piece separately," as to quality and grade, and "whether it measures up to specifications" and "tally each piece separately," which tally on completion is turned over to Jack Neymeiyer, the yard foreman. If a car is billed at a certain grade and the inspector finds any lumber below that grade he "throws it out," rejects it, and reports accordingly to the yard foreman. The six lum- ber handlers work in crews which vary in number from car to car and time to time, and personnel, even in the same day, depending on the size, length, and weight of the lumber to be unloaded, or perhaps the necessity for speed in getting the processing of a certain type of lumber under way to meet the cutting orders scheduled at the factory. Thus the lumber handlers may work 2 at 1 car and 4 at another, or 3 and 3, dependent upon the variations of the situation. When a piece of lumber is passed by the inspector, who works inside the car, a lumber handler or, according to the size, weight, and length of the lumber, 2 lumber handlers shove it out of the car to an- other, or as the case may be, 2 other lumber handlers on the ground who receive it and stack it on the kiln trucks. The handlers, or handler doing the stacking, "put stickers in between" so the lumber on the kiln trucks "is spaced about an inch or inch and a half between each board." These kiln trucks, when loaded, are pushed by the lumber handlers to, and, under the direction of the dry kiln operator, into a dry kiln. There are 7 dry kilns under the supervision of the 1 kiln operator. When his tests show a "kiln is dry" he calls on the lumber handlers "to pull the kiln." The pulling of the kilns has priority over the unloading and stacking of lumber. When the handlers come to work in the morning if a kiln is ready to pull the kiln operator calls them on that job and it takes precedence over the unloading job. Likewise 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at any time during the day when a kiln is ready to be pulled the kiln operator goes to the unloading points and summons the lumber handlers who, at the kiln operator's direction, quit the unloading long enough to pull the kiln . The lumber inspectors at times assist in pulling kilns otherwise they await the return of the lumber handlers to resume their inspection. Usually the evening before, Jack Neymeiyer advises with the two lumber inspectors and the kiln operator about what cars are to be inspected, unloaded, and the lumber therefrom delivered to the kilns on the next day. Jack Neymeiyer said that after he "lays out the unloading schedule," that is, what cars are to be unloaded so as to keep lumber "of the species" required by the factory's cutting orders moving, the cars are spotted by the railroad at the unloading points and the work of unloading and moving the lumber to the dry kilns is "routine . . . every one knows what to do," however from time to time throughout the day Jack Neymeiyer leaves the yard office and goes out over the yard personally checking the work going on there. Jack Neymeiyer said after he tells Inspectors Kanthack and Davey what cars are to be inspected and unloaded he leaves the arrangements or division of the unloading crews to them. The testimony is that if the unloading of a car has not been com- pleted the night before, it is routine for the lumber handlers who were shoving and stacking lumber from that car to go there the next morning and resume the work, otherwise after Kanthack and Olgine have arranged the inspection schedule, at the start of work for the day, Kanthack usually tells the handlers where they are to work, where to go to work, and as Olgine puts it, "Paul [Kanthack] tells us, four goes there and two goes there . . . he tells us to go there and unload. He sends two, three, or four men." Olgine said he works on Davey's "crew might near every day." Asked if the inspector tells the lumber handlers working with him what to do, Olgine said, "he don't have to tell us. We know what to do there. He is scaling his lumber, and we are putting it up. That's all." At another point, speaking of a lumber handler's job, Olgine said, "it is a simple job . they all know how to do their work," and that all Kanthack has to do is to tell the lumber handlers to go to a car and stack lumber or shove lumber there "and they go ahead and do it." Jack Neymeiyer testified that he has the authority to hire, discharge, discipline, reprimand, and lay off the yard employees, and to resolve any "gripes or complaints" they may have, but that neither Kanthack nor Davey possess any authority whatever, direct or by recommendation, consultation, or otherwise in any of those respects, and have never understood or assumed they did or attempted in any manner to exercise any such authority. In that connection Jack Neymeiyer said the only authority an inspector has concerning lumber handlers is to tell them where to work, and to correct their work if he sees they are not doing it properly. What is meant by such a correction is illustrated by Kanthack who said if he noticed, for instance, that the lumber was not being stacked far enough apart he would tell the man or men stacking lumber that "it should be stacked further apart." So far as appears neither Kanthack nor Davey ever undertook to discipline any lumber handlers in any way, not even by a reprimand. Olgine stated he never knew of "any lumber handler being bawled out by anybody for doing something wrong." Kanthack said, how- ever, if a lumber inspector observed that a lumber handler was "falling down" or "loafing on the job he should report it to the yard foreman." Only 2 instances are mentioned in the evidence of Kanthack having made such a report during the 7 years (to the time of the hearing) he had served as a full-time lumber inspector there. In neither instance did he make any recommendation or suggestion nor was he subsequently consulted about the matter. He never at any time made any recommendation to the yard foreman or Neymeiyer, Sr., or anyone about "getting rid of" any lumber handler for any reason. In one of the instances mentioned he made a report to Jack Neymeiyer that a lumber handler was not "producing the right amount of work," and that was all. Jack Neymeiyer did not afterwards consult Kanthack about the case, and the man continued working for awhile, then one morning "he didn't show up" and was later replaced by a new man who is still working there. Kanthack said he never knew what happened to the man, whether he was discharged or quit. Jack Neymeiyer said he had never had occasion to discharge any yard employee. He further said that if an inspector reported to him that a lumber handler was loafing on the job he personally observed and investigated the work of the man in question and if he found the condition reported existed he would "talk with the man . . . if it didn't I forget it." The other instance which was reported by Kanthack to Neymeiyer, Sr., involved Olgine and the explanation of it made by Olgine does not, in my opinion, lessen or mitigate the merits of Kanthack's report and the grounds therefor. Neymeiyer, Sr., talked with Olgine about it, and without advising or consulting with Kanthack acted on his own judgment and laid Olgine off for 2 days. Kanthack made no recommenda- SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 441 lion nor was his advice asked , and all Kanthack knew about the action taken by Neymeiyer, Sr., was that Olgine was off 2 days and returned to work and has worked regularly since. Kanthack stated that about 80 percent of his (working ) time "is spent in the actual inspection of lumber" and the remainder "waiting for" the lumber handlers "to get through what else they are doing , or in helping them push the kiln trucks" into or pulling them out of the kiln. He and Davey are not required to help the men on the kiln trucks but "do that on our own" to expedite the work and get the handlers back to the unloading so they can resume their inspection . Kanthack said that no lumber handlers had ever talked to him about wages , and he did not even know what wage they received, that if a lumber handler wanted time off he had to take it up with the yard foreman as neither he nor Davey had any authority, and had never assumed any , in that respect, and that if a lumber handler comes in to work late, as is -occasionally the case, he (Kanthack ) never said anything to the lumber handler about it nor did he report it to Jack Neymeiyer. Anyway Jack Neymeiyer checks the timecards , and "has sometimes" when a man has "come in late several times" mentioned to him (Kanthack ) that "he had noticed so and so coming in late quite often," but in all such instances Jack Neymeiyer handled the matter himself and never called upon Kanthack or Davey to do anything about it. From the whole evidence bearing on the matter it appears that the foreman alone had and exercised disciplinary authority over yard employees, including inspectors and the dry kiln operator . Absent other supervisory -functions, an inspector's duty ,of reporting defective work is insufficient to constitute supervisory or managerial status. Kanthack has never made any recommendations nor has he ever been consulted about the hiring , 'discharge, layoff, or discipline of any lumber handler or other yard employee. From the foregoing it appears that such direction of the lumber handlers as that given by the lumber inspectors is wholly incidental to the performance of their inspection duties, purely routine in nature, and that they do not possess any real supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. Kanthack and Davey are paid an hourly wage and punch the same clock used by all the yard employees except Jack Neymeiyer, the yard foreman. Kanthack has never attended any of the supervisors' meetings, which are held regularly by the company management, and attended by all supervisors and foremen. Life insur- ance and sick benefits coverage is higher for supervisory personnel than that of rank-and-file employees . In such coverage lumber inspectors are classified as rank- and-file employees, and receive the same benefits as other rank-and-file employees, for instance, lumber handlers . As stated, lumber inspectors are included in the unit represented by the Woodworkers Federation and management, that union, and apparently their fellow employees, have at all times recognized Kanthack and Davey as nonsupervisory employees . Further, if Kanthack is a supervisor then Davey is also a supervisor , and by the same token the kiln operator is a supervisor, as he has authority to halt the unloading, summon the lumber handlers to pull a kiln, supervises the pulling of the kiln, and also directs the lumber handlers in the placement of the kiln trucks when they push same after loading to the kilns. Concededly Jack Neymeiyer is a supervisor so by this process we would have 4 supervisors in this yard over 7 men, the 6 lumber handlers and the stick man, which by any reasonable standard, all facts of the situation considered , is undoubtedly about 3 too many. Conclusion as to the Alleged Supervisory Status of Kanthack It is my conclusion , therefore, that Kanthack cannot be held to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act , and therefore whatever he may have said to Olgine about the UFW-CIO Union must be treated as said by one nonsupervisory employee, an officer of the Woodworkers Union, to another nonsupervisory employee, in his zest to block the UFW-CIO Union, and would not constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Allegations of the Complaint That Respondent Discriminatorily Discharged Rose Orosz, and Thereafter Refused to Reinstate Her, or Permit Her to Return to Work Despite Her Request to Do So As heretofore stated , at all times herein material, Rose Orosz worked on the filler line , she was 1 of the 7 women working there . The filler line is one of the several operations carried on by, and in, the finishing department . Robert Westwood is, and was, at all material times foreman of that department . On February 22, some basic pattern number 5180 breakfront secretaries made their first appearance in the finishing department. This was a new and very expensive breakfront. It 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had never been run before "outside of maybe three samples which had been made up for a show." These new breakfronts were being made pursuant to orders for same received at the factory. The factory cutting order covering them was F-240, dated January 6, 1955. On Tuesday, February 22, 24 base sections and 4 top sections of basic pattern 6030 breakfront, a standard pattern which had long been in production, and 11 top sections and 4 base sections of this new 5180 pattern came into the finishing department. On Wednesday, February 23, only the new 5180 breakfronts came through, 41 base sections and 28 top sections. On Thursday, February 24, again only 5180 breakfronts were processed. That was the heaviest day since the new 5180 pattern had commenced coming through with 37 top sections and 38 base sections, a total of 75 sections or "cabinets" of that pattern. I have heretofore described the filler line operation , and mentioned that all the filler line workers, seven in number, are women, however, without again going into detail I deem it advisable, as explanatory of the testimony next reviewed and dis- cussed, to outline this operation at this point. The cabinet or section comes to the filler line from the spray booth where it is sprayed with filler, after which it is pushed 3 or 4 feet out of the spraying booth, at which point the first operation on the filler line takes place. This operation is performed by one woman alone, and consists mostly of painting or brushing filler, and, while the woman working at this point may at times do some wiping, she uses for the most part a small brush. She first opens the doors and pulls, out the drawers, with a puller, dips the brush in filler, and then paints or brushes filler on the tops and edges of the doors and drawers, and the inside edge where the door fits. This work or job was variously referred to by the witnesses as painting , painting filler, brushing filler, and brush filler. After com- pleting this task, the cabinet is sent along the filler line by a conveyor a distance of 4 or 5 feet to where the strictly wiping operation commences . Six women work in pairs wiping filler. There is a distance of some 5 or 6 feet between the points at which the three pairs work. The wiping operation has been described. After the wiping is completed the cabinet moves on by conveyor to other types of operation. Thursday, February 24 Rose Orosz said that on the morning of Thursday, February 24, she went to the filler line as usual but that Foreman Westwood took me off and put me by myself over painting drawers. At another place she said, "He [Westwood] put me by my- self, isolated me from the others" that morning, by assigning her to the job of painting or brushing filler above described. This is one illustration of the embellish- ment and innuendo running through Orosz' testimony. The implication here as appears from her testimony as a whole concerning the events of that morning was that Westwood put her on the job of brushing filler that morning in order to isolate her from the other women working on the filler line the better to accomplish the sinister design, which she attributed to him, to harass, intimidate, and pressure her because, I assume, she meant to imply, she had attended 2 of the 3 meetings held, up to that time, by the UFW, as that is all the evidence discloses she had done in that connection about which management might have had any knowledge. It is not so stated but the implication is that she was working as 1 of the 6 wipers, working in pairs, it is not said who was brushing filler, at the time Westwood took her off the wiping job and moved her to the isolated job, as she termed it, of brushing filler where in fact she worked only 4 or .5 feet from the first pair of women engaged in wiping filler, and part of the time that morning one of them, Beatrice Billy, worked as close to her as 2 feet. Certain of the women on the filler line were rarely assigned to this job of brush- ing filler and it was alternated among the others, with a woman working for "quite a bit," as Orosz herself put it, when so assigned, and as I understand the "quite a bit" did not mean a few hours in a day but continuously for a matter of days and weeks at a time . Orosz worked more on that job than any of the other filler line women. She said that Westwood used her there often because "he thought I was a fast worker, and I was good on it," with which Westwood agreed. Orosz seems to say that the last time prior to Thursday, February 24, that she worked on the brushing job was some "two or three weeks before" that date, but Westwood said that as he recalls, Orosz had been working that time on the brushing job regularly for "possibly a week and a half before February 24." Beatrice Billy, the only woman working on the filler line, other than Orosz, who testified about the matter, spoke of the painting or brushing job as Orosz' "usual" job, and also said , "As far as I can recall that [brushing filler] had always been her [Orosz'] job." Billy definitely recalled that Orosz was working at that job on Tuesday, February 22, when the 5180 pattern started coming through for the first time, that Orosz continued working SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 443 on the brushing job on Wednesday, February 23, and resumed the job "just as usual" on Thursday, February 24. As I have mentioned the brushing and wiping filler were both classified or denominated as "wiping filler," so the daily work tickets do not throw any light on the matter. I am satisfied that Orosz had been working regularly at the brushing job for some days at least, and probably longer, prior to February 24, and that she merely and routinely resumed that job on this Thursday morning, February 24. As Orosz relates the subsequent events of that morning Westwood took a. posi- tion standing "in front of me about 4 or 5 feet, and every once in awhile he would come and look things over, and he would say, `you dropped something here' .. . he stood there all morning . except he left at intervals . . . probably someone would call him elsewhere and then he would come back . about three times he approached me and came right up to me and pointed his finger to maybe a speck in the drawer and he would say, `watch that, watch that . . . you can't do that,' . He was talking about permitting the filler to go down into the drawers." On direct examination Orosz said that during the morning she "went to the restroom, and he [Westwood] followed me to the restroom, and waited until I came out and followed me back to where I was working." She further stated that "about 10 o'clock" that morning Westwood "came from the direction of the phone booth," she did not say she saw him at the telephone, and that Westwood said that "he had received a notice of charges from the National Labor Relations Board, and `it seems that Rex Hamp and myself have been accused of violating the labor law,' and he says, `you signed statements,' and I said, `I haven't signed any statements as yet."' Orosz said that after telling her about the charge having been filed Westwood "kept watching me . and I got tears in my eyes . and he came up and said, `would you like a stick of gum' and I said, `no, thank you."' She expressed the opinion that at that time "his attitude" was "sneery," and that throughout the morn- ing his attitude was "domineering." Orosz admitted that it was customary and a daily occurrence for Westwood "to stand and watch the work" on the filler line but she opined that he "had never before" maintained such "a constant vigil" as he did the morning of February 24. She admitted that she was "very nervous" and "jittery" that morning and was that way when she came to work which she said re- sulted "from the day before," however it is noted here that Orosz herself admitted that from time to time she underwent nervous and emotional upsets apparently due in part to physical conditions, and her physician, who said he had "known her pro- fessionally for approximately 15 years," said "she had had nervous spells periodically" for some time. On the face of it Orosz' brief testimony on direct examination concerning the rest- room incident appears definitely to refer to only one instance of that kind, but on cross-examination she said she made two trips to the restroom that morning. Her testimony about the incident on cross-examination is too confusing for me to deter- mine whether her claim on direct examination that Westwood followed her to the restroom, waited until she came out, and followed her back to her place of work, relates to one or both of these trips to the restroom, that is whether she claims he followed her in the manner she relates twice. Orosz' description of the purported in- cident, on cross-examination, leaves me in considerable doubt that her conclusory sort of a statement about it on direct examination is warranted. On cross-examination she explained the basis for her statement that Westwood followed her in this way, that after she left her place of work to go to the restroom she glanced back and saw Westwood walking away from the place where he had been standing, alongside the filler line, but she did not look back again and see what direction he took, however she said as she went into the restroom she saw Westwood "near the end of the con- veyor line leaning over a cabinet," one of the breakfronts which had just passed through the filler line, and all the circumstances indicate that he was engaged in looking it over. This position where Westwood was "leaning over" looking at the cabinet was, she said, "off to the side of the door" of the restroom. At one point Orosz said that when she returned to her place of work "he came back too," how much later is not stated. At another point Orosz said that as she was walking back to her place of work "he came up to me and started walking back with me, and I said, `you don't have to worry about my smoking,' and he said, `Well, I can smell it on your breath. You have smoked,' and I said, `I am not smoking,' and he walked back to the job." Later she related the purported conversation about smoking in this way; that as she started back to her place of work Westwood "joined" her, and "I said, `you don't have to worry about me smoking because I am not smoking,' and he said, `I can smell it on your breath if you do."' Orosz explained that "there was a rule against smoking. You weren't supposed to smoke even in the restrooms." Before reviewing what Westwood had to say about the course of events on Thursday morning, February 24, it is necessary to set out certain facts explanatory of the situa- 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion. Until some months prior to the time involved the company practice had been to stain the inside of the drawers and interior area of the breakfront secretaries. At the last preceding "sample time . a changeover was made . . . to leaving the interior of the drawers a natural, with nothing on them at all . nothing as far as color was concerned," that is, to leave the inside of the drawers "in the natural state of the wood." Even when the inside of the drawers were stained if in brushing or painting the filler on the edges some of the filler "seeped over" or trickled down it was "quite noticeable," marred the appearance and inspection required that same be rectified or remedied before a cabinet was passed. After the changeover to unstained interiors this problem was intensified and if filler, which is a "stain-filled combina- tion .. . it has dyes in it . . . and it stains," seeps, trickles, or runs down into and on the white, unstained, interior of the drawers or even a small drop, or, as Orosz put it, "a speck" falls on the unstained interior, it immediately "spreads" and "there is trouble," requiring cleaning, generally even "sanding," to eradicate the stain, and restore the natural appearance. Thus after the changeover even greater care was required in brushing filler on the edges of the drawers than theretofore. The filler is in cans, and in brushing filler the brush is dipped in the can and the filler applied to the edges. It is necessary to keep the liquid in the can well stirred else it settles and the brusher will be using "dye off the top." To avoid running a proper consistency must be maintained, followed by care in the amount on the brush and in the application. The finishing department includes several operations. I am not sufficiently versed to state the order, or even the functions of all of them. However, a cabinet on com- ing to the finishing department comes first out of the spray booth and to the filler line. That line was the last operation back from the entrance into the department from the time clock or registering in for work point. Other operations in the finishing department mentioned in the evidence were "shading ... first coat lacquer booth .. . final coat lacquer booth . . . drying room ... sealer booth ... and seal-sanding." All were under the supervision of Westwood. There were at the times involved from 30 to 32 employees in that department. It is Westwood's daily routine to start, at the commencement of work, 7 a. m., at the last operation, the final lacquer booth, and work back down to the filler line, the first operation, "every day ... to see if every- body is on their respective operations. He checks the timecards before he starts this morning journey through the department. Occasionally "people forget to punch their card ... maybe run in just as the whistle blows" and as he goes along he checks to see if that has occurred. On the way down he picks up the daily time tickets which the workers "have made out and have by their respective stations." Westwood fol- lowed this usual and daily routine on Thursday morning, February 24, which tends to lessen the force of Orosz' testimony, heretofore discussed, that she went to the filler line and commenced work at 7 o'clock that morning, and that "immediately after .. . about 3 minutes after 7" Westwood "came over . and took me off of there [apparently as a wiper] and put me by myself over painting drawers." Westwood said that ordinarily he spent from 60 to 80 percent of his time at the filler line and sealer line, the 2 lines are adjacent, and "it is but a step from one to the other." It will be remembered that this new and expensive breakfront pattern 5180 made its appearance in the finishing department for the first time on Tuesday, February 22, when 15 sections came through along with 28 sections of breakfront pattern 6030; that on Wednesday, February 23, only the new 5180 pattern came through; and that again on Thursday only that pattern was run. Westwood said that because this 5180 breakfront was a new and very expensive cutting being run for the first time he tried from its first appearance on February 22 to watch it as closely as he could get it right, and that on both the 22d and 23d he spent a good share of the time watching the spray booth and filler line operations. However, Westwood received complaints from Rex Hamp, foreman of the rub and trim department, that "we had gotten filler in the drawers" of these new 5180 cabinets which had come through on February 22 and 23, and because of that, on Thursday morning, February 24, he watched the brush filler job more than usual and "paid particular attention" to it, "trying to get the thing straightened out, and find out what was wrong and what was causing the filler to get down inside the drawers." In doing so he took the position at which he usually and customarily stood when observing the spray booth and filler line operations, that is, some 5 or 6 feet from where the brush filler operation is performed, as from that point he can observe the work of the "spray- man ... to see that he is getting an even coat, and can also watch the brushing of the drawers ... and the wipers on down the line ... and see every operation on the line." The morning work hours were from 7 a. m., to noon, or 5 hours. The workday ended at 4 p. m., Westwood estimated that on the morning of February 24, he spent SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 445 from 3 to 3V hours "in the vicinity " of the filler line. During the morning he spent some time at each of the several other operations in his department , and "went several times to check on the shaders ... and see how their shading and highlighting was com- ing because this particular piece [5180 ] was a more expensive piece, and the shading operation was different from that on cuttings previously run." Westwood said that several times during the morning he noticed that Orosz was letting filler get in the drawers and spoke to her about it saying, "let's watch it," or telling her "to put it on a little less thick, a little less heavy, and to keep the material stirred up," and she would usually say, "Sorry, I'll try to do it better." Westwood disclaimed any thought or purpose of harassing Orosz, or "trying to make her nervous," and stated, in effect, that his own conduct and manner and what he said to her was the same as usual under similar circumstances, and that he spoke to Orosz about letting filler get in the drawers because he "just didn't want filler on the inside of the drawers." Westwood said, that he did not at any time that morning speak harshly to Orosz or "raise his voice" in speaking to her. Further he did not observe anything in Orosz' manner in- dicating she was nervous except one time during the morning he noticed "tears in her eyes momentarily, she was not crying," and he offered her a stick of gum and said, "maybe this will calm your nerves." He claimed to have acted pleasantly about it and denied either that morning, or at any time, his attitude and manner toward her, or any of the workers in his department, was "snooty," "sneering," or "domineering." About the gum incident Westwood stated that he always carried gum with him, as he "chewed it constantly," and he "frequently handed out gum" to people in his de- partment accompanied by some remark or pleasantry, and handing Orosz a stick of gum on this occasion, with whatever remark he may have made at the time, was neither unusual nor of any significance whatever. Westwood appeared to be frank about what he did and said that morning, and in view of that, and my observation of him as a witness, I am inclined to credit his statement that he did not during that morning "follow Mrs. Orosz to the restroom" or as she went to the restroom, and that while it is "possible" he "walked in the same direction" she was traveling either when she went to or returned from the restroom he "can't recall" doing so. Westwood admitted that the last part of February, and that it may have been on the 24th he was told by Mr. Neymeiyer, how and where the information was communicated to him is not said, nor was Westwood asked about it, "that charges had been filed with the National Labor Relations Board against the Company." Concerning the charge, he first said he could not "recall any conver- sation" with Orosz about it that morning, or telling her the charge involved or related to Hamp and himself, or that she had signed "statements" in that connection, and then said, "I would say I did not have that conversation with her." The timing is a circumstance which may seem to corroborate, to some extent, Orosz' testimony of the purported conversation as the original charge herein was filed at the Regional Office on February 21, and the registry receipt shows that a copy was received by the Company at 3 p. m., on February 23, which so far as the evidence discloses was the first knowledge anyone connected with management had of such action. The charge does not, however, contain any bases for Westwood's purported remarks to Orosz. The charge was filed by the UFW, and signed by Kneeshaw, the UFW international representative, who had full and apparently sole management of the attempt by that union to organize at this plant. It alleges 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) violations of the Act. The 8 (a) (3) violation is limited solely to the alleged dis- criminatory discharge of Chester Carter, who was also included in the amended charge, but not the complaint herein, and Carter is not so much as mentioned any- where in the evidence. The alleged 8 (a) (2) violation has to do with support and domination by the Company of the Woodworkers Federation, which, although also included in the amended charge (filed June 24, 1955), was not included in the com- plaint herein. No one connected with management, either Westwood or Hamp, or anyone else is named in either charge, nor is Orosz named or mentioned in this original charge. It is therefore most puzzling and a bit incomprehensible to me why Westwood would walk over to Orosz during the morning of February 24 and announce to her, as she said he did, that "he [Westwood] had received a notice of charges from the National Labor Relations Board," that he and Hamp had "been accused of violat- ing the labor law," and that she (Orosz) had "signed statements," although, as she stated, she had not signed any statements at all at that time. Westwood was not asked about the conversation concerning smoking, which Orosz said occurred that morning. However, it is noted, that according to which- ever of the two versions of the purported conversation given by Orosz be accepted she was the one who initiated the conversation about smoking, the one who first mentioned it, brought it up, and that according to neither version was the subject initiated by Westwood or by any accusation on his part that she had been smoking. 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is such a conversation as in substance may well have occurred at any time, and I do not consider it decisive of anything whether it did occur that particular morning. Apparently none of the other women on the filler line noticed anything unusual in Westwood's demeanor or conduct on that morning or his attitude, or manner to- ward Orosz, or his remarks to her. These women were Orosz' friends. That morning Beatrice Billy was working as a wiper only about 5 feet from where Orosz was brushing filler and part of the time Billy worked within 2 feet of Orosz. Another wiper, Lorraine Cherw:*iski, said that while watching the work on the filler line that morning, Westwood stood at the spot where he always stood when so engaged, that is, "by the spray booth," about 5 or 6 feet "from the brush filler," and that from that position he can "see how the cabinet is being sprayed" and also observe the work of the brush filler and that of "everybody down the line." I cannot credit Orosz' testimony that Westwood had "never before" Thursday morning, February 24, "pointed out any defects" in her work if by that she meant to say that he had never before that date spoken to her about letting filler get into the drawer. It is contrary to the whole tenor and effect of all of the other testimony about the operation of the filler line and Westwood's close supervision of that operation. Westwood ordinarily spent a considerable portion of his time watching the way the filler was being applied by the spray man and the women brushing filler, and the way the wipers were doing their work, as cabinets came through the filler line, and in seeking out the trouble when complaints came back to him, and frequently and daily had occasion to speak to the spray man, or the woman who was brushing filler, or the wipers, one or another or some of the workers, on the filler line about something in their individual operation that should be watched or corrected. All the women who had at one time or another brushed filler had at times let filler get inside the drawers. It was not unusual, resulting, as has been mentioned, from several condi- tion, including even a brush which had gone bad not mentioned before. Oftimes defects appear in the work of the wipers and Westwood goes to them, or to an individual wiper, and tells them for instance "maybe they are not patting it in enough." Orosz had worked on the filler line under Westwood for something over 1'/2 years. She had worked elsewhere in the factory before coming to the finishing department. Orosz had spent considerable time on the job of brushing filler. Since the Company quit staining the inside of the drawers complaints came almost "daily . . . from the other end" about filler getting into the drawers and Westwood would try to find the cause and correct it, and would speak to the women doing the brushing about keeping the filler in the can stirred and the amount on the brush, and to "watch" the application "a little closer," the same kind of suggestions he made to Orosz on the morning of February 24. Westwood said he had had occasion before February 24, to speak to Orosz, when she was working on the brush filler job, about letting filler get into the drawers, in the same way he did on that morning. He said, however, that had not been "frequent" with Orosz. Conclusion About Westwood's Conduct on Thursday Morning, February 24 The above facts, as found, and circumstances shown, with the reasonable inferences therefrom, weighed and considered in the light of the burden of proof upon the General Counsel, it is my opinion that same are insufficient to support or sustain the theory seemingly advanced that on Thursday morning, February 24, Westwood, for any reason, whether a motivation which would characterize a violation of the Act, or some other, pursuant to a preconceived design on his part to do so, set about, initiated, and engaged in a deliberate course of conduct toward Orosz calculated to harass, annoy, pressure, intimidate, and coerce her in order to provoke her into quitting her job. Noon on Thursday, February 24 It was Orosz' custom to have lunch with some of her friends, working with her, on the filler line, particularly Eleanor Denslow and Lelia Main. Quite often Orosz' husband, who did not work at this plant, would come to the plant at noon in his car and drive Orosz and "whoever" of these friends of hers "wanted to go" to a restaurant "a short distance from the shop" for lunch, but on days he did not come by Orosz would eat with some of these friends in the cafeteria. They never knew in advance what days Orosz' husband would be there at noon. Orosz said, that "come the noon hour one of us would generally look out the window and see if my husband was there, and if he was whoever wanted to go, we went." Orosz said that at noon on Thursday, February 24, she "looked out to see if he [her husband] might be there and it happened he was there that noon, so I asked Eleanor Denslow and Lelia Main if they wanted to go out for lunch . . one of them told me she didn't have any money, and the other had already SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 447 ordered something from the cafeteria, so I left by myself." An employee is not required to notify a supervisor that he or she is going out to lunch, the employee "just punches out and goes out for lunch," and on returning "punches in again." Admittedly when Orosz left the factory at noon that day she merely intended to go to the restaurant for lunch and return to work after lunch as usual. She left her sweater, which she had worn to work that morning, at the factory. Orosz said, however, that "when I got in the car I broke down and started to cry, and shaking all over, and he [her husband] asked me what was the matter, and I gave him a sort of an idea. I said, `Gee whiz, they are riding me all the time,' so he said, 'Well, you are in no condition to go back,' and he took me home and put me to bed." They went direct to her home and did not go to the restaurant. Orosz did not go back to work that afternoon, nor, although she well knew the custom in that respect and had a telephone at hand in her home, did she call and advise Westwood, Mr. Neymeiyer, or anyone at the factory, that she was ill and would not be back that afternoon. There is no claim that she was too ill to do so, and certainly she was not. Apparently before leaving for lunch Orosz did not say anything to any of the women, working on the filler line, whom she spoke of as her friends, about being ill, or nervous, or upset, or to the effect that Westwood, or anyone else, was harassing or pressuring her or had done so, and there was considerable puzzle- ment on the part of the women on the filler line as well as Westwood when she did not report upon resumption of work after lunch. Westwood went to the time- card rack and found Orosz' card in the "out rack." She had punched out for lunch and "had not punched back in." He then inquired of "each of the wipers . if they knew why Rose hadn't come back to work, or if they knew why she wasn't there . . . they said they didn't know" and that "she went out to lunch and they hadn't seen her since." Westwood then went to Lorraine Cherwinski, one of the wipers, and asked her if she "would take the job of painting the drawers temporarily." Cherwinski "had painted before . but never all the time . maybe a day or a part of a day" now and then. She took over the brushing job and Westwood cautioned her "to be careful," about letting filler get into the drawers. At quitting time Westwood "pulled" Orosz' "card from the rack, and took it down to the First Aid room, and left it there." That was according to Westwood's practice when an employee did not report for work, and "had not asked for time off," or "did not call in," and "their card was in the out rack." The employees in his department knew this practice. The First Aid room was close by the front door and the punching in point for the finishing department. If an employee in that department had been out for any reason without having been granted leave, and came to work to find her or his card was not in the rack they reported to the First Aid room, whereupon Westwood was notified and went there to talk to the employee. Telephone Conversations After Quitting Time on February 24 After quitting time on Thursday, February 24, and between 4 and 5 p. m., four women who worked on the filler line, Lelia Main, Eleanor Denslow, Beatrice Billy, and Stephine Gallery, "girls" whom Orosz said she "was always very friendly with," each from her own home, called Orosz by telephone to inquire why she had not come back to work in the afternoon. Orosz said they called her out of concern for her, and "because they were wondering what happened." The first to call was Eleanor Denslow. On direct examination, by the attorney for the General Counsel, Orosz said that all she could recall of even the "substance" of her conversation with Denslow was, "I think I said I was very discouraged . I know I said I felt like quitting." She then said she could not remember whether she "mentioned" the matter of quitting in her telephone conversations with the "other girls." However, on cross-examination, she admitted that in the conversation with Denslow, "I prob- ably could have said `I have quit.' " Finally, on cross-examination, she recalled that she told each of the four women the reason she had not come back to work that afternoon was, "I was upset, I didn 't feel good, and my husband put me to bed, and thought maybe that would make me feel better," and "I probably could have said I had quit." Later each of these four women affirmed in Orosz' presence that in the telephone conversation with her that afternoon Orosz had unequivocally stated that she had quit. On this occasion Orosz admitted, after some equivocation, that in these telephone conversations she did tell the four women that she "had quit" and then stated that later, after these telephone conversations, she "changed her mind." Beatrice Billy testified , that between 5 and 5 : 30 p. m., that afternoon she called Orosz on the telephone and "asked her what was the trouble that she did not come 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back to work in the afternoon ; was she sick ; and she said no, she had quit, and was going to rest up a week and look for another job." Billy was one of Orosz' immediate friends, and in view of my observation of Billy as a witness, and Orosz' own various admissions and her testimony as a whole about these telephone calls, I fully credit Billy's testimony concerning same. I am taking into consideration the fact that although at the hearing Orosz claimed that her purported nervous and upset condition was caused by Westwood's conduct and attitude toward her, de- liberately designed to provoke her into quitting her job, she did not say anything to that effect, or mention anything of that kind, or mention Westwood or his purported conduct, to these girls with whom she was "very friendly," by way of explanation of why she had not returned to work that afternoon or why she had decided to quit her job with the Company or why she was upset. Orosz admitted that the only explanation she made to them of her failure to return to work was that she was "upset . . . didn't feel good," and that her "husband put her to bed" thinking "maybe that would make" her "feel better." Orosz stated that "late in the evening of February 24" Kneeshaw, the UFW organizer and international representative , "dropped in at the house" (her home). No mention is made of what occasioned this visit of Kneeshaw at that time, whether Orosz summoned him or he just happened to drop in . In relating, on direct ex- amination, the purpose of Kneeshaw's visit on that occasion and what occurred, she merely said that at that time she "had a conversation with" Kneeshaw "with respect to a writeup about what happened after the first UFW meeting on February 3rd." On cross-examination she said she "just told him [Kneeshaw] what had happened that day" (February 24) but "didn't mention the [telephone] conversation with these girls." Further on cross-examination, she said that she conferred with Kneeshaw again on a Saturday night a week or two afterward, which would have been on March 5 or 12, at which time Kneeshaw constructed what had taken place as of February 24, from there on and made notes which he had typewritten and that he went over them with her and later sent her a copy. On redirect exami- nation Orosz said that her discussion with Kneeshaw on the night of February 24 did not have anything to do with her particular experience on that day, and that on that occasion, she "told him [Kneeshaw] what had happened . after attend- ing the last meeting," and that she also told him that she had left the plant at noon on February 24. The last UFW meeting which she had attended was on February 22. Friday, February 25 On Friday, February 25, Westwood was not at the factory. He was ill and confined to his home all of that day. That morning Lelia Main, one of the women working on the filler line, a friend of Orosz, and one of the women who had called her after work the previous afternoon, commenced the "taking up of a collection to buy Rose [ Grosz] a going-away present." Beatrice Billy, another filler line worker and friend of Orosz, who also had talked to Orosz on the telephone late Thursday afternoon, testified, "We understood from what Mrs. Orosz said in the telephone conversations that she had quit, so we took up a collection to buy her a present." The solicitation was not confined to the filler line girls but other people who knew Orosz were also invited to, and did contribute, nor was the solicitation confined to that 1 day, and on Monday, February 28, when he returned to work Westwood was "approached for a contribution" to this "going-away present" for Orosz, and made a contribution . However, due to complications subsequently arising concerning Orosz' change in position Lelia Main did not have opportunity to present the gift therefore purchased to Orosz until about 3 weeks later. Cherwinski, who had taken Orosz' place at the brush filler job on the resumption of work after lunch on the previous day said, "on Friday [February 25] Mr. Westwood was not there and we [the filler line women] returned to the same jobs we left Thursday night ," and she resumed and carried on the job of brushing filler that day . It is not mentioned who supervised the finishing department in Westwood's absence on Friday. Gage, the president of the Woodworkers Federation, said that on Friday morning, 'February 25, he asked Lelia Main, who was one of his committeemen, "whether she had heard from Rose Orosz," and Main said she "had talked" to Orosz Thursday night and Orosz had quit. Orosz was 37 years of age at the time of the events herein, married, and the mother of 3 children, ages 18, 16, and 15. Dr. Irving W. Graw, an osteopathic physician and surgeon, had treated her professionally for 15 years. Between 10:30 and 11 o'clock Friday morning, February 25, she went to Dr. Graw's office. Orosz said that when she got to the doctor's office she "broke down SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 449 and started to cry," and Dr. Graw asked her "what brought that on," and she "explained to him what had been going on." She further said , that "he did riot prescribe anything for me" but "he gave me a shot . . . I told him I should have a statement , and he wrote me out a statement recommending approxi- mately a week off." The statement written in longhand on Dr. Graw's letterhead follows: Feb. 25, 1955 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Because of Mrs. Rose Orosz' present nervous condition, would recommend a leave of absence of about a week . Any further information would be gladly furnished on request. Your truly, I. W. GRAw. About the Orosz visit to his office on that date Dr . Graw said, "she came in and started to give me her complaints . . . and cried and then she explained to me that she was very nervous and that it was the result of pressure and work . I told her that under the circumstances I would recommend she take some time off." Dr. Graw made no physical or other tests, other than to observe Orosz. He stated that based on his "professional knowledge of her . . . over a long period of time" he concluded by merely observing her general demeanor and appearance that she was nervous and emotionally upset. He said he had "known her for a long time . . . she had had nervous spells before . . , she periodically had nervous spells." Orosz was at the doctor's office not over 15 minutes and he "gave her a sedative " and wrote the statement recommending that she take about a week off. Dr. Graw recalled that Orosz had been to see him earlier in February but could not recall whether it was about 1, 2, or 3 weeks before this February 25 call, nor did he say what her trouble was on that occasion . In the context in which his statement concerning that call appears the implication is that a nervous spell or condition prompted it. Leaving the doctor's office Orosz went to the factory, and there direct to the first aid room. Orosz said she arrived there "just before 12 o'clock" (noon). Josephine Foulds, who is in charge of the First Aid room said it was sometime after lunch and sometime after 12:30 p. m. when Orosz arrived, and Mr. Neymeiyer who talked to her immediately after her arrival said it was 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon. When Orosz came into the first aid room she "handed" Dr. Graw's statement to Foulds who read it and then told Orosz that she (Foulds) would have to call Mr. Neymeiyer. Foulds asked the switchboard operator to tell Mr. Neymeiyer he was wanted in the first aid room, and he came there immediately. Orosz relates what then occurred in this way: "She [Foulds] handed him [Ney- meiyer] the statement, and he read it . . . and said, `who is your doctor,' and I said, `Dr. I. W. Graw' and he said to me, `Well, I guess if you are sick you are sick,' and he says, `it will be all right, but when you come back you bring your release,' and I said `I intend to do that.' I said, according to the statement I would be back a week from Monday [March 6], and Mr. Neymeiyer left the room." Foulds was present the entire time and her version and that of Neymeiyer of what was said differ somewhat from that given by Orosz. According to the Foulds-Neymeiyer version, Neymeiyer "read the statement and then told Mrs. Orosz if she was sick obviously she could not work" and, referring to the term "leave of absence" in Dr. Graw's statement, said, "we aren't giving any leaves of absence," and that was all Mr. Neymeiyer said. He returned to his office, Foulds told Orosz, "I hope you get well soon," and Orosz left, whereupon, Foulds put the doctor's statement in a folder which she kept for future reference. Neymeiyer denied that he asked Orosz who her doctor was, He said the doctor's name was set out on the letterhead on which the statement was written, and both he and Foulds denied that he said anything about bringing a relh^Se =hen she came back or that Orosz said she intended to do so, or that Mr. Neymeiyer said anything at all except that above set out in relating the Neymeiyer-rouids version of the incident. It is pointed out here that Neymeiyer did not know, and to this time had not heard until the following Monday, February 28, that Orosz had abandoned her job at noon the day before , and had not called back, or made any explanation of her action, or that the afternoon before she had told the four filler line women, who had separately called her by telephone after work that day, that she had quit and was going to rest up for about a week and get a job somewhere else. 450553-58-vol. 118-30 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is also noted that although she claims to have arrived at the factory before noon, Orosz did not contact any of her friends there, nor later communicate with them in any way, so apparently no one other than Foulds and Neymeiyer knew, until sometime the following Monday, February 28, that she came there that day, nor did she pick up her sweater which she had left there the day before. In complete ignorance of Orosz' purported change of mind about quitting, her friends continued the collection for a going-away present. Neymeiyer was asked if he observed Orosz' appearance and general demeanor at the time she brought the doctor's statement to the first aid room that day. He said, "She always looks very neat ... she appeared to be very well and," alluding to the reference in the doctor's statement to "a nervous condition," "had herself under control, as far as nervousness was concerned . she just looked her usual self. She looked nice." Orosz said that before going to the factory she learned that Westwood was not there that day; that Ethel Lane called her on the telephone that morning and, in the conversation, told her "he [Westwood] wasn't there." The women on the filler line had learned the morning of Friday, February 25, that Westwood was sick which accounted for his absence. After her arrival home after work that afternoon or evening Beatrice Billy called the Westwood home on the telephone "to see how Mr. Westwood was . . how he was feeling," and talked with Westwood's wife. She did not "speak with" Westwood. Billy said, "his wife and I are friends." In this telephone conversation Billy mentioned that Orosz had told her and some of the other filler line women that she had quit. After the telephone conversation Mrs. Westwood told Westwood what Billy had said about Orosz quitting and that was the first information which came to Westwood about why Orosz had not returned to her job after lunch on February 24. Monday, February 28 The factory did not work on Saturday, and of course not on Sunday, February 26 and 27. On Monday morning, February 28, Cherwinski, who had been put on the job of brushing filler when Orosz did not return after lunch on Thursday, and who had worked at that position on Friday, resumed the brush filler job. Cherwinski said that "shortly after starting time" that morning, Westwood came to her and "asked me how I liked the job, and if I would like to do it permanently, and I said, `yes,' and he said, `well, the main thing to watch for is that you have the complete top of the drawer painted, and watch that the filler doesn't run down inside,' " and that she has worked on that job "continuously since that time." After assigning Cherwinski permanently to the brush filler job on that Monday morning, Westwood "took a girl from the sealer sander line and started breaking her in" as a wiper on the filler line to replace Cherwinski who had worked most of the time as a wiper. According to Cherwinski when Westwood was watching the filler line operation, after she took over the job of brushing filler, he would stand at the place heretofore described as his customary and usual position when so engaged, and at such times he would make various cautionary suggestions to her, in effect of the same nature as those made to Orosz prior to and on the morning of Thursday, February 24. It is not clear whether before or after he had assigned Cherwinski permanently to the brush filler job Westwood had a conversation with Gage, the president of the Woodworkers. While this conversation occurred "shortly after the [starting] whistle blew at 7 o'clock" the indications are that Westwood had already been to the filler line and arranged with Cherwinski to take over that job. Gage works at the inspection station, apparently in the finishing department. Westwood met Gage in the aisleway between his (Gage's) work station and the filler line, and the conversation started out about the production on the last previous workday (Friday, February 25), and during the conversation Gage remarked, "I hear Rose Orosz quit"; Westwood said, "That's what I understand," and Gage said, "Did she?" and Westwood answered, "I take it that she did." Later in the morning of Monday, February 28, about 9 o'clock, Westwood saw Mr. Neymeiyer for the first time that day when Neymeiyer, on his customary trip through the plant, came into the drying room while Westwood was there. As Westwood related the conversation, Neymeiyer came over to him and said, "Rose Orosz was in Friday with a slip from her doctor stating that she should have a few days rest," or, as it appears at another point, "with a slip from her doctor saying she needed some rest." That was the first Westwood had heard about Orosz having been to the factory on Friday. He told Neymeiyer that he hadn't heard anything about Orosz being there with a statement from a doctor and that he had SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 451 been told that she had quit, and as far as he was concerned that's the way it was going to stand. Westwood said Neymeiyer was reluctant to let it stand at that and that he told Neymeiyer, "That's the way it's going to be, if I have anything to say about it; it is going to stand as a quit." At that time Westwood told Neymeiyer that he had "replaced" Orosz on the filler line "with another woman." Neymeiyer corroborated Westwood's testimony about this meeting between them that morning and the substance of the conversation. Orosz claimed she went again to see Dr. Graw at his office on the night of February 28. She usually went to his office in the evening. That was so much her practice that Dr. Graw testified, apparently mistakenly, although he adhered to it as his best recollection, that on the occasion he gave Orosz the written state- ment, dated February 25, she came to his office "in the evening . after 7 o'clock." If that call was at night it must have been the night of Thursday, February 24, after the conference with Kneeshaw. All that is said about this call on Monday night, February 28, is found in Dr. Graw's statement that Orosz "said she was feeling much better." Apparently no medication or treatment of any kind was indicated, prescribed, or given. I here interrupt the chronology of events to refer briefly to a sidelight which nevertheless, in my opinion, turns out to have a bearing on this case and Orosz' allusions to, or her illusions about, as the case may be, pressure upon her. The second week in February a special meeting of the Woodworkers Federation was called, the announced purpose being the election of an officer to fill a vacancy that had occurred. Just what, if anything, preceded is not developed in the evidence, but, according to Orosz, at one point in the course of the meeting Gage, the president of that union, named the six members, all present there, who had attended the first UFW meeting on the night of February 4, Joe Lane, Henry Meyer, Aggie Lake, Rose Orosz, Ethel Lane, and Eleanor Denslow, and announced, "I now suspend you from the Union," the Woodworkers Federation. The six people involved indignantly protested that such action was contrary to the con- stitution and bylaws of the Union, and that the procedure prescribed thereby for effecting suspension or expulsion had not been complied with, whereupon the attempted suspension itself was suspended. The matter continued, however, to simmer and on February 28, another special meeting of the Woodworkers was held at which time, as Gage related it, "the members voted to send a letter out to have them up for trial on disloyalty charges," and although such notice was mailed on March 1, apparently later the whole matter was dropped. Friday, March 4 Friday evening, March 4, Orosz went again to Dr. Graw's office. No examination was made, or treatment of any kind prescribed or administered. As Dr. Graw relates it, Orosz merely came in that evening and "said . . . she felt good that day," and he based his conclusion about her condition "upon that statement." Orosz said that she "told Dr. Graw that" she "felt pretty good" and said, "I wonder if I can go back to work Monday" (March 7), whereupon, Dr. Graw gave her what is headed "Certificate of Illness," a printed form, which she called a "release," dated March 4, stating that she had been under his "professional care from February 25 to March 27, 1955, and was unable to work because of illness." Written below the printed portion in longhand was the notation "May now return to work." Monday, March 7 Orosz arrived at the factory about 10 minutes before 7 o'clock on the morning of Monday, March 7, and went direct to the First Aid room where she said, "I gave my release [by Dr. Graw] to Josie [Mrs. Foulds] . . and she read it over and said, `Rose, I haven't a card for you,"' whereupon, Orosz said, "Gee, how come." Westwood had by that time come into the First Aid room. At Orosz' inquiry about the card he told her "to wait in the next room for a few minutes." This room is a sort of a lounge, adjacent to the First Aid room and between it and Mr. Neymeiyer's office. Orosz waited there alone until about "five or six minutes after the seven o'clock whistle blew" at which time Eleanor Denslow, Lelia Main, Stephine Gallery, and Beatrice Billy, all filler line women, came down from the finishing department on the second floor and into the room, followed by Westwood who had summoned them to come there. Westwood asked Orosz if in telephone conversations with these four women on the afternoon of Thursday, February 24, she told them that she had quit. Orosz said she "may have" but she "could not recall," that "she didn't remember," that she was "wrought up" at the time and "may have said some- 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD thing to that effect," and "being upset" she could have said that she "had quit." Westwood asked each of these four women individually, starting with Denslow, to state what, if anything, Orosz had said to her about quitting . Denslow directing her statement to Orosz said , "Rose, you told me you had quit," the other three women made the same statement . I credit Billy's testimony that finally Orosz admitted that "she did tell" each of these four women that "she had quit," but "said that afterwards she had changed her mind ." Orosz then told Westwood, "I didn 't tell you or any other supervisor that I had quit." Westwood said, "Well I am sorry, Rose . that's it . I took it as a quit," and that he was letting "it stand at that." He further told Orosz that he had replaced her on the filler line . The four women were present during the entire conversation . As they left to return to the filler line Orosz also left. Here the statement of events giving rise to this proceeding finally comes to a close. Conclusion as to the Refusal to Permit Orosz to Return to Work Westwood took full, sole, and individual responsibility for the refusal to permit Orosz to return to work, and that was fully borne out by the evidence . It appears that his action in that respect was not taken pursuant to any predetermined company policy motivated by antagonism to the UFW Union , nor was it based upon any specific company rule or practice. The credited testimony is that Mr. Neymeiyer, the plant manager, wanted and suggested that Westwood "take her back," and yielded only "reluctantly " to Westwood's judgment as foreman of the finishing department that she should not be permitted, under the circumstances, to return to work. The credited evidence leaves at most only a remote suspicion that West- wood was, or might have been, actuated in that determination by Orosz' interest in the UFW Union. So far as disclosed by the evidence only 9 of the approximately 250 employees of the Company manifested any interest in the UFW attempt to organize : Henry Meyer, Aggie Lake, Joe Lane, Ethel Lane (wife of Joe Lane), Rose Orosz, Eleanor Denslow, Pete Olgine, Beatrice Billy, and Noverto Casillas. All any of them ever did in that connection , so far as the evidence shows, was to attend 1 or more of the 4 meetings held by the UFW, except possibly Joe Lane who, as has been set out, was reputed to have intercepted 2 different women on the stair landing, during working hours, in an attempt to talk to them about some union activity. As heretofore mentioned the original charge filed by Kneeshaw on February 21, 1955, alleged that one employee, Chester Carter, had been discriminatorily dis- charged "for activity on behalf of" the UFW. The amended and final charge filed by Kneeshaw on June 24, 1955, alleged the discriminatory discharge of the same and mysterious Chester Carter, Noverto J. Casillas, Peter Olgine, and Rose Orosz "because of their memberships in and activities on behalf of " the UFW. It, as did the original charge, also alleged company interference , domination, and support of the Woodworkers Federation in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, which allegation was abandoned as were the 8 (a) (3) allegations relating to Carter, Olgine, and Casillas. The only 8 (a) (3) allegation set out in the complaint relates to Orosz alone . As stated Carter was not so much as mentioned anywhere in the evidence, Casillas was mentioned but once, that is, that he was 1 of the 2 persons who attended the fourth and last meeting held by the UFW. Olgine never was dis- charged and was still working for the Company at the time of the hearing. At one time he was apparently justifiably laid off for 2 days for slacking his work. So assuming, from the charge alone, that Casillas no longer works for the Company, of the 9 employees who at sometime or other attended 1 or more of the UFW meetings all were still working for the Company at the time of the hearing except Casillas and Joe Lane. There is no evidence that Casillas was ever terminated but assuming as above that he was there is not a scintilla of evidence that such termination was in any way connected with his UFW activity such as it was, attendance at one meeting. Lane was terminated June 3, prior to the filing of the last charge but was not included as a discriminatee in the charge . There was not even a suggestion or innuendo that Lane was discriminatorily discharged. He, as a witness, did not so much as imply that. I have found 2 instances in which a supervisor participated in the surveillance of a UFW meeting being carried on by the Woodworkers Federation, but there is no credited evidence tending to show interference , restraint, or coercion on the part of management, within the meaning of the Act, as to any of these 9 employees, who attended UFW meetings, or any other employees, personally or individually. Four, and probably five, of the nine worked in the finishing department under Westwood's supervision: Eleanor Denslow, Beatrice Billy, Ethel Lane (wife of SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 453 Joe Lane), Rose Orosz, and it is my impression Aggie Lake also worked there. So far as the evidence shows Orosz was no more active in behalf of the UFW than the other 3 or 4 women in that department. All the evidence shows that any of them did was to attend 1 or more of the 4 meetings, Orosz attended 2, Denslow I or 2, Lane 3, Billy 1, and Lake at least 1, but there was no substantial evidence offered tending or purporting to show that Westwood threatened, coerced, or discriminated against Denslow , Lane, Billy, or Lake. The relationship between Orosz and Westwood had at all times been cordial and pleasant, and as a witness at the hearing Westwood spoke in highest praise of Orosz' work, character, and conduct, as did Mr. Neymeiyer. It is difficult to believe that Westwood refused to permit Orosz to return to work because of any personal animosity, and still more difficult for me to accept and credit the theory that his motivation, as the General Counsel claims, was her interest in the UFW Union, and the only thing the evidence shows that she did in that connection, of which the Company or Westwood might or did have knowledge, was to attend two meetings held by that Union. In my opinion, the real and most likely explanation of Westwood' s action in refusing to return Orosz to her job was that which he in substance and effect kept reiterating, and which boils down to this, he did not like, and as foreman of the department resolved not to "stand for," what had happened, for which, whether rightly or wrongly, he held Orosz solely responsible, that is, that she had abandoned her job at noon, and although able and in position to do so did not call back to make any explanation, had then unequivocally announced and published to four of her closest friends, fellow employees on the filler line, as an explanation, that she "had quit, was going to rest up a week and look for another job," and that information had circulated throughout the finishing department, and in other departments, accompanied by the collection of money to purchase a going-away present for her, and she had not at any time thereafter contacted any of these friends in any way and had not advised them otherwise, and had not at any time contacted, or tried to contact, Westwood, as she had always done on previous occasions when for any reason she wanted or it was necessary to take time off. It was Westwood's conviction and belief, again whether rightly or wrongly, that Orosz had intentionally and designedly acted in a defiant and disdainful manner toward him, and flouted his authority as head of the department, and that if, in the face of the attitude, which he attributed to her, and the circumstances of the case, he permitted her to return to work it would adversely affect the morale in his department. If the motivation actuating Westwood be considered unreasonable, and not well grounded, and his action in refusing to return Orosz to work stubborn and unfair, nevertheless it would not constitute a violation of the Act. It follows that, in view of the findings I have made, and my conclusions concerning same, I deem the credited evidence insufficient to sustain the allegation of the complaint that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent discrimi- natorily discharged Rose Orosz and thereafter discriminatorily refused "to reinstate and/or permit her to return to work despite her request to return to work." W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, 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 unfair labor practices violative of 'Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that by and through its supervisors, Rex R. Hamp and Jack Neymeiyer, Respondent participated in the .surveillance of union meetings held by the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and the attendance of its employees at such meetings, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in surveillance of any union meetings, or of its employees with respect to their attendance thereat, or in the surveillance of any place of union assembly at or about the time of any scheduled meeting, and that Respondent cease and desist from in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their rights to self-organization. 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a whole,. I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By engaging or participating in surveillance, as aforesaid, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed" in Section 7 of the Act, thereby 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 commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Brown-Forman Distillers Corporation and International Union,. United Plant Guard Workers of America (Independent), Peti-- tioner. Case No. 9-EC-2975. July 2,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M. Kennedy,. hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are- free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean]. 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agree that the appropriate unit is comprised of all the Employer's plant protection employees at its Early Times and Old Forester plants who are conceded to be guards within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. However, they disagree as to whether or not certain persons on the Employer's seniority list who are not presently working should be included in the unit. The em- ployees in dispute fall into two categories : summer replacements and laid-off employees. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of whiskey and other alcoholic beverages. A business rush begins building up in October for the Christmas holidays and at times it is necessary to hire additional employees during this period. At the time an employee is hired, he is placed on the seniority list. The first 60 days is a pro- 118 NLRB No. 50.