The Rhyne Co., Inc.

THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 787 WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the D. L. Harrison Company to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of the above-named Employer in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a'condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as, modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL make whole Buford C. Kinder, Dwight Taylor, John Petty, Ray- mond W. Craft, Robert Scheper, Theodore Watson, Eugene Warner, Kenneth Burgess, Charles Hickey, Albert C. Kramer, James C. Turner, Hobart Hollo- way, Alfred Leroy Walker, William Stanley, and Ralph Gulley for any loss of pay they may have suffered,as a result of the discrimination against them.' LOCAL 347, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. 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. The Rhyne Company, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 991, Ind. Case No. 15-CA-1903. November 28, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 4,1961, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist' therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached thereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board I has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' 'Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated Its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [ Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Trial, Examiner 's1 inadvertent error , in referring to "Christmas 1960" as "Christ- mas 1961" In the fifth paragraph of the Intermediate Report entitled "Contentions of Parties, and Concluding Findings " is hereby corrected. 8 Member Brown would reverse the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent did not violate the Act by its president's volunteered announcements to the drivers of a wage increase for plant workers, while advising them at the same time that similar pending 134 NLRB No. 74. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, The Rhyne Com- pany, Inc., Marianna, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, affiliations, or activities in a manner constituting interference, re- straint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (b) Threatening its employees that it would close its plant or ter- minate its business before it would negotiate with the Union in vio- lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (c) Threatening its employees with loss of employment or any other reprisals if they join the Union or if the Respondent discovered who had joined it in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 991, Ind., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, to to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right maybe affected by an agreement' requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its plant at Marianna, Florida, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps raises for them would be withheld because of "negotiations with the Union." In Member Brown's view, Respondent may have had the right to withhold actual payment of the- wage increase in the circumstances . But, its announcements , occurring , as they did, in the context of Respondent's other antiunion remarks found coercive by the Trial Examiner and the Board, were reasonably calculated to cause the drivers to believe that they were being penalized because they joined the Union and to discourage continued adherence to the Union . Member Brown considers such conduct clearly violative of Section 8(a) (1). A 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." THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 789 shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union sympathies, affiliations, or activities, or threaten our employees with loss of employment or other reprisals if they join Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 991, Ind., or any other labor organization, or threaten our employees that we will close our plant or terminate our business before we will negotiate with the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a. labor organi- zation as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. THE RHYNE COMPANY, 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE The issues in this case are whether Respondent , The Rhyne Company, Inc., inter- rogated employees regarding their union activities, and threatened them with loss of employment and other reprisals because of such activities , in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, etc. (herein 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called the Act). The issues arise on a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the Board on May 3, 1961, and answer of Respondent thereto which admits juris- diction but denies the commission of any unfair practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the issues was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on June 20, 1961, at Marianna, Florida, in which all parties partici- pated by counsel or other representative, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to make oral argument and file briefs. All parties waived oral argument, but Gen- eral Counsel and Respondent have filed written briefs which have been considered by the Trial Examiner. Upon the consideration of the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses on the stand, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of business located in Marianna, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of manufacture and wholesale distribution of promotional furniture. In the past 12 months, Re- spondent has made, sold, and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Marianna plant directly to points outside Florida. I find that Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 991, Ind. (herein called the Union), is a -labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Early in January 1961 the Union began an organizing campaign among Re- spondent's truckdrivers. On January 11 it advised Respondent by letter that it represented a majority of the drivers and desired recognition as their bargaining representative. On January 18, 1961, the Union filed a petition with the Board in Case No. 15-RC-2328 seeking certification as statutory bargaining representa- tive of a unit composed of the drivers. Shortly after, Respondent received notice of the filing of the petition. A hearing in that proceeding was scheduled for Febru- ary 17, 1961, at Marianna, Florida, but was postponed and actually held on March 8, 1961, at Marianna, Florida. The representation case is still pending and undeter- mined before the Board.' The Union's bargaining request was received early on the morning of January 11 by Jeff S. Rhyne, president of Respondent and admittedly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, who gives orders about deliveries daily to the drivers either at the office or on the telephone when they call from distant points for instructions. The letter made Rhyne "very much emotionally upset"; he was disappointed and hurt that the drivers, whom he had always considered his "friends," had affiliated with a union, and he felt there was some "great misunderstanding at some point," and wanted to find out whether he had done anything "terribly wrong" to the drivers. Hence, when he learned that drivers Durwood F. Hill and W. Harvey Ross had returned to the plant unexpectedly that morning after a truck breakdown, he called them into the office individually to talk about the Union. He talked to Ross first, telling him about the Union's letter, and asked him if "anything was wrong." Ross' answer, if any, does not appear. Rhyne told him that, while he did not care who joined or did not join the Union, he could not afford to pay the drivers higher wages, regardless of whether the Union organized the plant, but that if he had to pay more wages, he could not afford to operate and would have to close the plant. When he called Hill in, he said he had received the Union's letter, and then asked Hill what he knew about the Union. Hill replied that he had talked to a man who had tried to get him to sign a union card. Rhyne said that neither the Union nor anyone else could come in and tell him what to pay his men or how to run his place, and before he would let that happen he would close it down. He also told Hill that 1 These facts are based on credited testimony of Rhyne and various Board witnesses, and the Board's file in Case No. 15-RC-2328 (not published In NLRB volumes), of which I take official notice. I ' THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 791 he had given plant employees a 10-cent an hour raise, but since "we were negotiating with the Union," he could not give it to the drivers. Later that morning, when driver Noel L. Gillespie telephoned the office from New York, New York, for pickup instructions, Rhyne told him about the Union's letter, said he was in a "lot of trouble," and asked him if "anything was wrong," and if Gillespie knew anything about "the union mess that was going on." Gillespie replied "no" to both questions. Rhyne then asked him if he "knew anything" about driver Roy C. McDowell (who was on the trip with Gillespie and standing beside him during the telephone conversation). Gillespie replied that, as far as he knew, McDowell had not signed a union card. Rhyne then said he considered Gillespie one of his best men, and that "if there is anything you can find out," Rhyne would appreciate any help Gillespie could give him. Gillespie replied that he would "do anything I can." Rhyne also told Gillespie that Respondent could not afford to pay the wages paid to drivers in the New York area who were members of the Teamsters, and that if the Company was forced to pay such wages, it could not operate and would be forced to go out of business. When Gillespie returned from his trip a few days later, and reported to Rhyne, the latter again discussed the Union, saying "life was too short," and that he would close the plant before he would negotiate with a union . He commented, "You know how the union works, they throw acid in your face." He also told Gillespie that production workers in the plant had received a raise and he had planned to give the drivers a raise, but he could not do it "now that the Union was in," because of "nego- tiation withthe Union." 3 When driver Angus O'Brian returned from a trip on January 12, Rhyne told him in the plant yard that if the drivers wanted 'a union, they should vote it in, that it was "entirely up to them," that he could not advise them "one way or the other as to the effect of it," but that he would liquidate the business before he would let the Union tell him what to do and what not to do. He also said the plant workers had received a raise, and he had planned to give the drivers a raise, but could not do so, because "we were negotiating a contract" with the Union, and it was unlawful for him, to raise them.3 When driver McDowell returned from a trip on or about February 1, Rhyne asked him in the office what he thought about the Union. He replied that he did not think "too much of it" because he had had trouble with it when he was driving a truck up north. Rhyne told him that before he would let theUnion come in and tell him what to do, he would close down the plant. This conversation is based on credited and uncontradicted testimony of McDowell, which is corroborated in ,part by Rhyne's admissions of his attempts to find out from the drivers "what was wrong," after receipt of the Union's letter. Other testimony of Rhyne in conflict therewith is not credited. Hill, Gillespie, and O'Brian attended the February 17 hearing in ,the representation case, under subpenas issued by General Counsel of the Board. Rhyne also attended it. When it was adjourned, and the three drivers were leaving the hearing room, Rhyne told Gillespie and O'Brian that he was "sorry you boys got pulled into this mess," and that he "felt for them." The three drivers decided to, make it clear to Rhyne why they appeared at the hearing and see how he reacted, so when they got back to the plant, they visited Rhyne in a group in the office and told him they had no choice about attending the hearing because they had been subpenaed, and were "trying to protect our jobs." Rhyne said he knew about the subpenas. Hill then asked if there was not some way all the drivers could get together and "stop the Union, vote it out" by a petition or other document. Rhyne replied that he could not advise them about that, that they should see a lawyer and get his advice. Atone point in the discussion, Rhyne said that he did not know who was in the Union, but if he found anybody who was connected with the Union, he would "get rid of them." Gillespie asked how he would do that, as he would not know who was connected with the Union. Rhyne replied that he had "ways of finding out." Gillespie asked him if he would be "as hard on the non-union men as on the others," 21 find the above conversations on credited testimony of Ross, Hill, and Gillespie, which is corroborated in substantial part by admissions of Rhyne. I do not credit Rhyne '8 formal denials of certain portions of the conversations, because he was vague about the details of each, although admitting much of what the three drivers stated 31 find this conversation from credited testimony of O'Brian, which is corroborated in large part by Rhyne's admissions of numerous talks about the Union with the drivers in which he discussed his inability to give the drivers a raise for the reasons stated by O'Brian . I do not credit his general denials of the threats to close the plant. 792 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if the Union came into the plant. Rhyne replied that "it would go hard on them, too," that "they would be all alike." 4 Contentions of Parties and Concluding Findings In the light of Rhyne's emotional upset on receipt of the Union's letter and great urge to find out if he had done anything "terribly wrong" to his "friends," the drivers, "that would cause them to do it," as he testified, I am satisfied that his queries of Ross whether there was "anything wrong," of Hill as to what he knew about the Union, of McDowell as to what he thought of the Union, and his similar interroga- tion of Gillespie, including questions whether he knew anything about the "union mess" and about McDowell, with three of the inquiries following mention of the Union's letter, and occurring in the space of a few hours after its receipt, were clearly far from casual interrogations, but were deliberate attempts by Rhyne to find out the drivers' reasons for affiliating with the Union, and whether McDowell at least had joined it. I find that these questions were unlawful interrogation about employees' union sympathies and concerted activities which were well calculated to coerce and restrain employees in the exercise of their statutory rights, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. That the interrogation was in fact coercive is shown by testimony of Gillespie that he deliberately lied to Rhyne when telling him he knew nothing about the Union or McDowell's affiliation with it, that he did this to "protect his job," and that of McDowell, as both had been among the first to join the Union. The deliberate and illegal purpose of the interrogation is further shown by Rhyne's attempt to persuade Gillespie to find out "anything" he could, and thus "help" Rhyne, which was a clear request to an employee to act as informer and report to his employer anything he learned about the union activities. Although not alleged specifically in the complaint, this is the type of conduct which the Board has often found violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Citizen's Hotel Company, d/b/a Texas Hotel, 131 NLRB 834.5 Rhyne's remarks to Hill on January 11, O'Brian on the 12th, and to Gillespie a few days later, that he would close the plant and the business before he would let the Union tell him how to run the plant, or would negotiate with the Union, were clearly coercive threats of reprisal against employees in retaliation for their union affiliation, of the type which the Board has often found violative of the Act. I find that by such remarks, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In crediting testimony of Hill and Gillespie on .this point, and discrediting Rhyne's specific denials, I have con- sidered Rhyne's agitated state of mind, his overwhelming desire to probe into the reasons for the apparent union activity which induced his unlawful interrogation, and the significant fact that he made these threats to two of the drivers after they yielded specific information to him about the union activity in response to his questions. Rhyne's statements to three drivers on February 17 that if he found out who was connected with the Union, he would get rid of them, was a clear and coercive threat of reprisal for union activities, which was clearly violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. However, I find that Rhyne's remarks to Ross and Gillespie on the 11th, to the effect that he could not operate but would be forced to close the plant, if he had to pay union wages, were not a coercive threat to close plant and business because of the advent of the Union, but merely a legitimate opinion as to the possible eco- nomic consequences to Respondent (and hence to the drivers) if recognition of the Union compelled Respondent to pay high wages. The Board has held that this type of prophecy as to possible economic consequences of unionzation is not violative of the Act.6 ' I find the above conversation on credited testimony of Gillespie, Hill, and O'Brian, as corroborated in part by that of Rhyne Testimony of the latter specifically denying cer- tain of the remarks, and otherwise in conflict with the findings, is not credited, in view of his prior remarks to the drivers found above B Rhyne's own admissions of much of the interrogations, the reasons therefor, and his state of mind, afford such corroboration of Gillespie and Hill on the talks, as to render ambiguities and inconsistencies in Gillespie 's testimony on other circumstances, which are cited by Respondent in its brief, insignificant, and insufficient to affect his testmony which I have credited. E Bilton Insulation, Inc, 129 NLRB 1296. THE RHYNE COMPANY, INC. 793 General Counsel argues that Rhyne's volunteered announcement to the drivers of a wage raise for plant workers, with the advice that a similar pending raise for drivers would be withheld because of the union campaign, was coercive in that it led employees to believe that they were being penalized because they joined the Union. His remark to Hill on January 11 that, since "we are negotiating with the Union," he could not give the raise to the drivers which he had given to plant em- ployees, is susceptible of the coercive interpretation that he was withholding that benefit from drivers because they had "associated" with the Union, and this is a fair inference in the light of his other ceorcive remarks found above which show his hos- tility to the Union.7 However, his remark on the subject to Gillespie a few days later indicated that he could not (not "would not") give the raise because the Union "was in," and because of "negotiation with the Union"; the quoted phrases, from Gillespie's testimony, indicate clearly that Rhyne was being compelled, against his previous desires, to withhold the raise because of the advent of the Union, and the necessity of negotiations with it .8 He gave the same reason to O'Brian on the 12th, using the phrase "we were negotiating a contract with the Union," and specifically pointing out that he would violate the law by giving the raise in such circumstances. According to McDowell, Plant Supervisor Odell Folsum told him once, while he was warking sometime in January in the plant, that the drivers were due for a raise, like that given plant workers, but "since this union started coming in," he did not think "you all would get it," or "you got this union coming in, and Mr. Jeff Rhyne could not give it to you." Both versions of Folsum's remarks are equivocal, and do not clearly impel the view only that Respondent deliberately would not give the raise because of the advent of the Union. The drivers' testimony on this subject must be considered in the light of Rhyne's uncontradicted testimony that: just before Christ- mas 1961, Rhyne had told all employees, including the drivers individually in the office, how well Respondent's business had done, how much each employee had made, how much Respondent was putting into his retirement account for the year, and that Respondent hoped to do better in 1961 and felt it could give the employees a raise shortly.9 After examining its books at yearend, Respondent concluded it could give a raise to all employees sometime in January. The plant workers got theirs some- time after January 11, but Rhyne refrained from giving it to the drivers, after re- ceiving advice from counsel that such action, after a union demand for recognition, could be and had in the past been considered an unfair labor practice. Rhyne told this to various drivers during January and February whenever the wage raise came up in discussion. While this testimony comes from a prejudiced source, it is corroborated specifically as to the motive for the withholding by O'Brian and otherwise to some extent by testimony of the drivers in which they all use the term "negotiation with the Union," which phrase in common labor parlance refers normally to employer negotiation with a union, not to relations between employees and a union. All of this testimony, considered together, in my opinion constitutes substantial proof that Re- spondent postponed the wage raise for drivers in reliance upon advice of counsel and was motivated by a desire, openly expressed to at least one driver, to avoid pos- sible violation of the Act, rather than a desire to penalize the drivers for their pro- tected concerted activity. I recognize, as General Counsel points out, that Rhyne, not the drivers, brought out the fact of postponement of the pay raise, in his talks which included other coercive remarks found above, so that it cannot be said that he was merely answering questions of the employees about the lack of a raise, hence it is arguable that the reasonable effect of his remarks was to cause employees to be- lieve their failure to get the raise was due to their affiliation with the Union, and his remarks were reasonably calculated to discourage continued adherence to the Union. However, giving due weight to this circumstance, along with the timing of the an- 7 At the -time of that talk, he was admittedly agitated, and had not yet had the benefit of counsel's advice to refrain from any interrogation, threats, or promises to employees regarding or based on their union activities. He did not receive this advice until late that afternoon 8 On direct examination, Gillespie used the words "negotiation with the Union" ; on cross-examination, he has Rhyne saying "on account of us negotiating a settlement for the Union, with the Union " Both phrases are equivocal, but more consistent with the interpretation that Respondent realized the necessity of dealing with the Union, than with the view that the drivers were "negotiating with the Union " 8-Gillespie admitted having such a conversation with Rhyne, but could not recall all the details. 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nouncement, Respondent's other unfair labor practices, and its clear antiunion animus, but keeping in mind also that the Union had just requested contract negotia- tions, and that Rhyne repeatedly used the phrase "negotiations with the Union" in stating why he could not give the raise, and gave his reasons after receiving advice of counsel, I am constrained to conclude from all the pertinent evidence that the reason openly stated by Rhyne was a legitimate one, and was expressed to the drivers in such terms that it clearly tended to advise them that Respondent was withholding the raise, not because it wanted to, but because it desired to avoid conduct which could be construed as a violation of the Act, and that his remarks were not reasonably calculated to convey the impression to employees that their union affiliation caused Respondent to withhold the raise. While the issue is a close one, I must conclude that General Counsel has failed to sustain the ultimate burden of proving by the requisite preponderance of proof from the record considered as a whole that Respondent's remarks in this respect violated the Act. I shall therefore grant Respondent's motion to dismiss paragraph 9 of the complaint. See Standard Coil Products Inc., 99 NLRB 899, 902, 903; The Lux Clock Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc., 113 NLRB 1194, 1199-1201; Ward Body Works, Inc., 103 NLRB 680, 710; and cf. Soerens Motor Company, 106 NLRB 652, 663.10 IV. 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 described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The above-named Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act to the extent found above , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (a)( I) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent has not unlawfully told employees that wage benefits were being with- held because of the Union's organizational campaign , as alleged in paragraph 9 of the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 10 In reaching this conclusion, I have considered carefully Western Cottonosl Company, 95 NLRB 1433, and Telechron, Inc, 93 NLRB 474, cited by General Counsel, but find them distinguishable on the facts I have also noted General Counsel's argument that the signing and filing of "dis- affiliation" petitions by at least four drivers at a later date was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices, including its alleged coercive withholding of the wage raise. The complaint does not allege that Respondent an fact coerced drivers to sign these documents, and the record shows, to the contrary, from their own testimony, that some of them brought up the subject of "voting the Union out" in talks with Rhyne. that he refused to discuss that or advise them, and they later voluntarily took "disaffiliation" action because they concluded that,they did not want the Union. Hence, I make no finding of an un- fair labor practice based on their later actions, nor do I consider these facts as any sub- stantial indication that the withholding of the wage raise had a coercive effect.