Price's IGA Foodliner

PRICE'S IGA FOODLINER 599 object thereof is to force or require them to cease doing business with Dierickx Vending Co., Inc. LOCAL 575, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Union members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No. Market 4-6151, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provision. Robert Price and Glen Price, Co-Partners d/b/a Price's IGA Foodliner and Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1612, AFL-CIO. Case No. 36-CA-1169. March 19, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On December 18, 1962, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There- after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief,' the Charging Party filed a brief in opposition to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondents filed a brief in sup- port of the 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Re- port, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] i In its brief, the General Counsel moved that the Board either remand this case to the Trial Examiner to take evidence from Edna Copeland or to reopen the record to receive a deposition from Copeland, on the ground that it is "expected" that Copeland will give testimony adverse to the testimony of Glen Price which the Trial Examiner credited. In our opinion, the grounds advanced by the General Counsel in support of his motion are Insufficient to warrant reopening the record for receipt of Copeland's testimony. The motion is accordingly denied. 2 The Trial Examiner Inadvertently found that the Union had demanded recognition as bargaining representative of Respondents' employees on April 22, 1962, rather than April 21, 1962, and that Glen Price rather than Harold E. Carlson testified concerning the wage in- crease which Respondents accorded to employees In the bakery department. While we correct these inadvertencies, they in no way affect the Trial Examiner 's ultimate findings and conclusions or our concurrence therein. 141 NLRB No. 55. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE The charge in this case was filed by Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1612, AFL-CIO, on May 24, 1962, and complaint herein was issued by the Regional Director of the Board (Thirty-sixth Region) on June 26, 1962.1 The Respondent filed a timely answer and thereafter this proceeding came on regularly to be heard by Trial Examiner David F. Doyle at Walla Walla, Washington, on July 31 and August 1, 1962. At the hearing, the parties were represented by the counsel who were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present arguments and briefs on the issues. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY The pleadings establish that Robert Price and Glen Price are copartners doing business as Price's IGA Foodliner with their only office and place of business at 105 N. Columbia, Milton-Freewater, Oregon. The Company engages in the operation of a retail supermarket, selling groceries, produce, and meat, and a bakery, which sells bakery products. In the year prior to the issuance of the complaint the Company had retail sales in excess of $800,000. During the same period the Company's pur- chases exceeded $400,000 of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Oregon. It is conceded, and I find, that at all times material herein the Company was and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings likewise establish that at all times material herein the Union was and is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Issues The complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by certain statements made to employees in early May 1962 in which of- ficers of the Company ( 1) threatened to sell the store if the Union came in; (2) informed an employee that he would not be permitted to continue working on his second job if the Union came in; and ( 3) announced a wage increase to employees The complaint also alleged that the Company had refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by ( 1) refusing to recognize the Union until it proved its majority in an election and by using this delay to dissipate the Union's majority by unfair labor practices ; and (2 ) making unilateral changes in wage rates, overtime, and holiday pay at a time when the Union was conducting an organizational campaign. In its answer the Company denied the commission of unfair labor practices. At the hearing it offered testimony denying the making of any coercive statements , and offered affirmative evidence to the effect that all changes in the working conditions of the employees were made pursuant to an agreement between the Company and its employees , which antedated the Union's organizational campaign. The Testimony There is very little conflict in the testimony of the witnesses in this proceeding. The General Counsel's case consisted, in the main, of uncontradicted testimony estab- lishing that the Company in May 1962 made certain changes in working conditions. The Respondent's case, on the other hand, consisted of uncontradicted testimony establishing an adequate explanation for its conduct in changing working conditions The sequence of events hereafter related sets forth all the essential facts of the controversy. 1 In this report the Charging Party, Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1612, AFL-CIO, is referred to as the Union ; Price's IGA Foodliner, as the Company or the Respondent, and the individual partners by their proper names or as the partners; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board ; and the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended, as the Act; the General Counsel of the Board and his representative at the hearing, as the General Counsel PRICE'S IGA FOODLINER 601 The Old Store; Working Conditions for Four or Five Employees; the Transitional Period; the New Supermarket; the Raise in Pay to the Bakery Department Glen Price, one of the partners, testified in this proceeding, and his testimony is undisputed on all salient points. I credit his testimony. Price said that for over 20 years prior to the hearing, the partners had engaged in the grocery and meat business at Milton-Freewater, Oregon Prior to October 1961, the Prices had con- ducted a small grocery and meat market which sold the conventional merchandise of such an establishment. At that time the partners employed approximately four outside employees, a force which was expanded by hiring an additional clerk for holidays or busy periods. Price said that these employees were hired at varying rates of pay for their various jobs, consistent with the going rate of wages in the Milton- Freewater area. For the first 6 weeks of employment the employees were considered probationary employees. At the end of 6 weeks, if they were deemed satisfactory, they were given a 10-cent an hour increase in pay and became permanent employees. Thereafter the pay of these employees was reviewed approximately every 6 months, and if the business and the employee's performance of duty warranted an increase, the employees were given additional raises of 5 or 10 cents an hour. Price testified that on the rare occasions when the employees worked overtime they were paid time and a half therefor, and when they worked during a holiday, they were paid for that service also. Price explained that all of these arrangements between the partners and their employees were most informal because the partners and the employees worked side by side in the daily operation of the store. The business of the grocery-meat market prospered, and sometime prior to October 1961 the partners decided to expand their business. To do this they built a modern supermarket of 16,000 square feet in the town of Milton-Freewater. The new super- market had a bakery which manufactured baked goods and bread for sale. The supermarket also had departments for the sale of meat, produce, and groceries. The supermarket was of the self-service type, but each department had some clerks who served the customers. Thus, in the meat department there were butchers, not here involved, but there were "wrappers" who wrapped the meats, arranged their display, and to some extent waited on customers. The bakery department had bakers, not here involved, but it also had clerks who sold, wrapped, and boxed pastry, etc., for customers. The produce and grocery departments had some clerks. A group of checkers performed the duties of cashiers. Glen Price testified that the new store approached completion around September 1, 1961. At that time he explained to the four employees of the old store that, when they moved into the new store, they would be engaged in an enterprise with which none of them were familiar. He asked them if they would give their best attention to setting up the new store and if they would work whatever hours were needed to launch the new enterprise, without pay for holidays or overtime. He further ex- plained that after they were in the new store for a period of approximately 6 months, he would review the profitability of the new store and, if the business warranted it, he would give the employees an increase in pay of approximately 10 cents per hour, and would restore to them their previous rates of time and a half for overtime and their holiday pay. According to Price, and there is no contrary evidence in the record, this arrangement was agreeable to the employees. The new supermarket opened for business during the last week of October 1961. Price retained the services of his former employees but in addition he hired approxi- mately 25 new employees. In the supermarket the partners devoted their time to management and supervision and not to the serving of customers. Price testified that the new supermarket was successful and its operation was without incident until ap- proximately New Year's Day, 1962.2 The supermarket stayed open on New Year's Day, and, a few days thereafter, employee Sigsbee came to Price and asked him if the employees who had worked on New Year's Day were to be paid holiday pay. Price told Sigsbee that he planned to pay the employees straight time for the holiday and would add this holiday pay to the pay which they received with their vacation pay. When other employees asked Price if he had made this arrangement, as reported by Sigsbee, Price confirmed the arrangement and everyone appeared satisfied Glen Price further testified that in the week prior to April 15, he reviewed the operations of the supermarket and on that date he announced to the hourly employees in the bakery department, exclusive of the bakers, that they would be given a 10-cent an hour raise effective April 15. Price testified that this raise was given pursuant to the promise to the employees which he had made prior to the opening of the supermarket. O Hereafter in this report , all dates are in the year 1962 . unless noted otherwise 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD One other factor in the operation of the supermarket should be noted at this point. It is undisputed that the supermarket was affiliated with the Independent Grocers Alliance which is an association of independent supermarkets for the purpose of conducting chainstore operations . The new supermarket was under the supervision of the Round-Up Grocery Co of Spokane, Washington. The supervisor for that company, A. Raleigh Godfrey, had advised the partners to institute a policy of having periodic meetings of employees for the purpose of keeping employee- management relations on a current basis. He pointed out to the partners that with some 30 employees they could not expect to have the informal and intimate em- ployee relations which they had enjoyed with the small staff in the small store. God- frey urged the partners to institute policies which would stabilize wages and work- ing conditions for all employees so that there would be a base for future employee relations , merit raises , etc Godfrey and Price both testified that they had discussed this subject on several occasions and on or about April 7, they decided that on the next routine visit of Godfrey to the supermarket the partners would have an employee meeting for the purposes recommended by Godfrey. The Organizational Campaign of the Union This was the situation on April 19, when Dorothy Harrold, secretary-treasurer of the Union, and Bobbie J. Ledford, one of the Union's organizers , launched a campaign to organize the sales personnel of the supermarket . A few days before that date a member of the Union employed at a Safeway store at Milton-Freewater had told Harrold that Price's IGA Foodliner presented an opportunity for organiza- tion . Harrold went to Milton -Freewater and spoke to one of the company's em- ployees, Jean Copeland , on April 19. On that evening, 11 employees of the super- market gathered at the home of employee Liane McGuire . Harrold explained the operations of the Union to the employees , and they signed union authorization cards Later Harrold went to the Starlight Theater, where employee Sigsbee was employed in a second job as a motion picture projectionist, and obtained an authorization card from him. On April 21, 1962, Harrold, on behalf of the Union, addressed the following letter to Price's IGA Foodliner: GENTLEMEN: This will serve to notify you that Retail Clerks Union, Local 1612, represents the majority of the employees in your store in the Grocery, Produce, and Bakery Sales personnel. We request an early appointment with you for a cross-check of our signatures with your payroll. This is to be done by a minister , judge or qualified dis- interested party. Hoping we can agree on an early arrangement , I remain, Very truly yours, DOROTHY HARROLD, Secretary-Treasurer. On April 22, Harrold and Ledford went to the supermarket. They introduced themselves to Glen Price who asked them to step into his office The union representa- tives then informed Price that the Union represented a majority of his employees and they requested a card check. Harrold also handed a copy of the above letter to Price. Price asked if the Union represented the butchers and bakers, to which Mrs Harrold replied in the negative. She explained that the Union represented only the sales personnel in the grocery , produce, meat, and bakery departments . Price said that he had no objection to the cross-check but he felt that the employees would want to have an election. Also, he wanted to discuss the situation with his brother and with his labor relations adviser before he committed himself. The union representatives said that this was reasonable , so they all agreed to meet again on April 27. When the union representatives left the supermarket Glen Price phoned Harold E. Carlson, the executive secretary of the Oregon Independent Retail Grocers Asso- ciation, of which the Company was a member. Carlson, as secretary of the Associa- tion, advised the members on labor relations and often acted as the representative of members in labor negotiations . Carlson agreed to attend the meeting with the union representatives on April 27. On that date, Carlson and Glen Price met with Harrold and Ledford at Bicks' Cafe in Milton-Freewater. At this meeting Price said that he preferred that an election be held among the employees. He said that some of the employees had PRICE'S IGA FOODLINER 603 religious scruples against joining unions and he felt that an election would "take the bind off him," if the employees voted the Union in or not .3 Harrold said that she had no objection to an election. Carlson said that the "union security clause" and the "sole bargaining clause" of the Union's area contract, a copy of which the conferees had, might present a problem, but he thought that it could be worked out. Harrold then said that she would file a petition requesting that an election be held. Carlson said that he too would file a petition for an election on behalf of the Company. At that point, Price said that he had promised the employees a raise in pay, to be effective on May 1, 1962, and he asked the conferees what he should do about it. He told them that he had already granted an increase of 10 cents an hour to the employees in the bakery department pursuant to his promise to them prior to the opening of the supermarket. Carlson at that point asked Harrold if she had any objections, if the promised increase was given to the employees in the other depart- ments. According to Carlson, Harrold said, "If it had been agreed to and it was not in any conflict with regulations, or if it had been promised in good faith, and if the employees had anticipated such wage increase, ..." that she would not object to it .4 Carlson then said that he would confer with a representative of the Board as to whether or not such a wage increase would be permissible. On that note the meeting adjourned. Harrold and Ledford in their testimony gave a different version of their reaction to Price's inquiry. They testified that Price explained that he had promised a raise in pay to the employees on May 1 and asked the conferees what he should do about it. According to the union representatives they made no answer to the query, but Carlson said he would consult with a representative of the Board on the subject. It is undisputed that on the next day Carlson went to the office of the Board at Portland, Oregon, and conferred with Hedges, counsel for the General Counsel. Hedges informed him that Harrold had already filed a petition seeking an election in an appropriate unit. Carlson testified that in furtherance of his agreement with the union representatives, he too filed a petition for an election on behalf of the Company in approximately the same appropriate unit. He then acquainted Hedges with the facts concerning the prospective raise in pay of employees on May 1 and asked Hedges if the raise in wages could be legally effected. Hedges told Carlson that, as a Board agent, he could not advise Carlson in the matter, that Carlson should consult his own lawyer. But, in the course of the conversation Hedges said that, if the raise had been promised prior to the Union's organizational campaign, and the raise was made effective in good faith, that "an employer would be justified in con- sidering it, and would have to use his own judgment." Carlson testified that from his conversation with Hedges he gathered the impression that, "if the circumstances were such as [he] I outlined them that it [the raise] could not be condemned He did not say it that way, but that was my understanding . . ." 5 The Meeting of May 7, 1962 A. Raleigh Godfrey, supervisor for the Roundup Grocery Company, the IGA franchisee, testified that it was his duty to counsel and advise the owners of affiliated stores on operational problems, policies, and procedures. He testified that he made routine visits to Price's IGA Foodliner on February 23, March 1, April 19, and on May 7, 1962. On April 19 he discussed with Glen Price the advisability of holding an employees' meeting to bring about a better operational atmosphere in the store. They agreed that such a meeting would be held at the time of his next regular visit on May 7. On that date a meeting of the employees was held at 8 p.m., the hour at which the supermarket closed. According to Godfrey, he first gave the employees a "pep talk," complimenting them on the new store and their efficient operation. He then turned the meeting over to Glen Price. Price and Godfrey both testified that Price told the employees that Price was very grateful for the fine cooperation that they had exhibited and that the results of the s Employee Ophie 0. Heyden testified herein that she had notified Glen Price that she had religious convictions against union membership and that if the Union came in the supermarket she would have to quit. Employee Sigsbee also testified herein that he had notified Price that if "he (Price) went Union, I would have to give him my two weeks' notice . . ." and that other employees shared Sigsbee's feeling. However, it should be noted that Sigsbee signed an authorization card for the Union on April 19 , which in the course of his testimony he attempted to disavow. 4 Transcript, page 193. 5 Transcript, page 194. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD new supermarket had exceeded his expectations. Price then told the employees that the hourly personnel in the bakery department had been given a 10-cent an hour raise and that he was giving a raise of the same amount to the hourly personnel in other departments He also said that the Company was restoring to the employees their rates of time and a half for overtime, and pay for all holidays. He pointed out to the employees that by these decisions, all the benefits the employees had enjoyed in the old store were restored. Some of the employees then asked Price what he was going to do about the Union, and he told them that the Company was not con- cerned with the Union, that the Union presented a question for the employees alone. He said that the Company did not care what the employees decided to do. One of the employees then asked why employees of Safeway, which was a union store, applied for jobs at Price's IGA Foodliner, if the union working conditions at Safeway were so good. One of the employees then said that Safeway and other union stores allowed sales personnel to work for approximately a year, but when they went into the higher brackets of the union scale pay, the stores fired them. This statement precipitated an acrimonious discussion about the Union among the employees, in which neither Price nor Godfrey engaged. Sometime thereafter, the meeting adjourned. Price and Godfrey both denied that Price had threatened to replace the employees after a year, if the store was organized, or that Price had promised to give the employees a raise in pay every 6 months Alleged Coercive Statements Employee Sigsbee testified that he was employed at the store stocking shelves He also worked as a projectionist at the Starlight Drive-In Theater in the evening. Sigs- bee testified that he had a conversation with Glen Price about 3 weeks after he signed a card for the Union. In his conversation Price said that "he did not know the exact policies of the union or anything like that, but he did not believe that the union would allow a person to hold a second job and that after . if we were to go union and he had to pay us union wages, he did not believe he could afford to pay me union wages and let me have a second job. He said he didn't believe I could put out the efficient work." According to Sigsbee, he made no comment to this statement of Glen Price. In the course of his cross-examination, Sigsbee admitted that at a time prior to his conversation with Glen Price, as related above, he had told Glen Price that he did not like unions and that "if he (Price) went Union I would have to give him my two-week notice," and that everybody in the store felt the same way. On being cross-examined further, Sigsbee admitted that he had signed an authorization card for the Union, but he said he had signed the card because the union representatives "said very clearly when we signed the cards there before them that I was giving them power to come in and discuss the matter with Glen and Bob Price, and then after, I think it was six weeks or something like that, we would have an election and we would vote to see if the Union came in." 6 In the course of his cross-examination, it appeared that Sigsbee held some animosity toward Robert Price. Employee Liane McGuire testified that in a conversation with Glen Price, he said that Albertson's and Safeway replaced their help every year or so because they could not afford to pay top union wages; then he said that he might have to replace some of his help for the same reason if they went union However, McGuire seemed to be very hazy about the date upon which this conversation occurred and seemed to be unsure about other points in her testimony. The Employee's Authorization Cards The General Counsel introduced into evidence the authorization cards of the em- ployees obtained by Harrold and Ledford on April 19, 1962.7 It has been noted previously that Sigsbee indicated in his testimony that he did not realize the purport of the authorization card which he signed for the Union. Other witnesses who attended the meeting at McGuire's home testified that they did not understand the nature of the authorization cards either. Transcript , page 49 These authorization cards are General Counsel's exhibits in evidence numbered Gen- eral Counsel's Exhibit No . 2(a-n). Employees : Opal Adams ; Billie A Anderson: Edna Jean Copeland ; Marciel Fordice ; Melva Mae Jones ; Effie Lubbes ; Liane A. McGuire ; Robert Andy Miller, Jr.; Larry Alan Palmer ; Helmut Poths ; Richard L Sigsbee ; Roscoe Skold : Margaret Temple, Victor L. Wiese-14 cards. The card of Lubbes is dated April 24, 1962. PRICE'S IGA FOODLINER 605 Helmut.Poths testified that before he signed his authorization card the union or- ganizer told him "how much they would get if they were with the Union." The union organizers told the employees that they would have to sign cards so the union representatives would have something to start with, and then there would be an election and everybody could vote as he wanted to. If the employees "would like to go in or if they didn't" that was everybody's business.8 Employee Billie Anderson testified that the union representatives said that "sign- ing the card would not mean that it would be union, but that was to start the proceedings for the Union and the store manager to have a conference, and, then, we would be able to vote for which way we would like it later . . . by a secret ballot." 9 Employee Melva Jones testified that the union representatives said that with the signatures on the cards they would go to the store, an election would be held, the em- ployees would know within 5 minutes after the election how it turned out, and the election would determine whether the store would be union or not. The purport of her testimony was that she did not understand that her signature on the authoriza- tion card meant "anywheres near as much as it seems." 10 Marciel Fordice testified that at the meeting the union representatives handed out the cards and said if the employees signed the cards they would bring about a general vote of all the employees whether they wanted to go union or not. Fordice said that the union representatives told them to sign the cards "with the understanding that it would be brought up for a vote from all the employees, more or less to give the Union a chance to go in and talk to the Price brothers, and then we would vote on it later to see whether we wanted the Union or not." 11 Dorothy Harrold was recalled in rebuttal and questioned about what was said to the employees at the meeting at McGuire's home. Harrold said that the employees "were told before the Union could help them or before they could go to management that we must show a majority representation and that after this representation there were two courses, either a cross check or a National Labor Relations Board election. And we explained to them how a National Labor Relations Board election was handled. It was strictly their choice and it was a secret ballot as to whether they wanted the Union to represent them or not." 12 The Election; the Impounded Ballots As noted previously, both the Union and the Company filed petitions requesting that an election be held among the sales personnel of the supermarket.13 When the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge on May 24, it requested that the election, then scheduled for May 28, not be held. However, the Company requested that the election be held as scheduled, and since the Company had filed a petition, the Regional Director directed that the election be held, but the ballots impounded without a count until the determining of this proceeding. The summary set forth above covers the highlights of testimony in this proceed- ing. It is not an exhaustive or detailed summary of all testimony but it is sufficient to afford an understanding of the issues, the contentions of the parties, and the impor- tant relevant testimony. Although mention of certain testimony has been omitted in the interest of brevity, the Trial Examiner wishes it understood that all testimony and exhibits have been considered and evaluated in arriving at his concluding findings hereinafter expressed. Concluding Findings Upon a consideration of the undisputed evidence it is found that Glen Price had promised the employees a raise in pay, and the restoration of overtime and holiday pay, long before the initiation of the Union's organizational campaign. The testimony of Glen Price, Godfrey, and Carlson, which I credit, clearly established that fact, and the testimony of those witnesses finds support in the testimony of the Union's representatives that, at their meeting with Price on April 27, he asked their advice on the propriety of giving the promised raise to the employees. Furthermore, Carl- son's testimony that he sought advice from Hedges, counsel for the General Counsel, O Transcript, page 72. O Transcript, page 155 10 Transcript, page 158. 11 Transcript, page 162. 12 Transcript, pages 208-209. 13 The union petition was docketed as Case No. 36-RC-1753, filed May 1, 11962; the Company's petition was docketed as Case No. 36-RM-272 , filed May 3, 1962. General Counsel's exhibits in evidence, 4a and 4b 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the same subject is not denied in the record. The significance of these last-men. tioned items of proof, lies, not in the reply or lack thereof by the representatives of the Union, or the reply of Hedges in the awkward situation confronting him, but in the acknowledged fact that all representatives of the parties, at that early date, knew that the employees had been promised a raise for approximately May 1. In the factual situation, thus established, the changes in working conditions announced and put into effect around May 7 were not unfair labor practices. The Board and the courts have uniformly held that the granting of a wage increase or other benefits to em- ployees at a time when a union is engaged in organizational activity is not an un- fair labor practice, where the employer had promised the increase in pay or benefits to the employees prior to the advent of the Union in the plant 14 Therefore, upon that undisputed evidence and the authority of the cases cited, I hereby dismiss all allegations of the complaint based upon either the announcement, or actual payment of the increase in wages, overtime pay, or holiday pay. Nor am I persuaded that either Robert or Glen Price made the alleged coercive statements to employees which are set forth in the complaint. An examination of the transcript of testimony discloses that there is absolutely no evidence that Robert Price at any time threatened to sell the store if the Union came in. While employee Sigsbee attributed to Glen Price statements which could be deemed coercive, I am not persuaded that Sigsbee was a reliable witness. Sigsbee, according to his own testi- mony, seemed to be much more concerned with the effect that unionization would have on his holding two jobs, than was Glen Price. Sigsbee, originally brought up the subject of the Union with Glen Price, telling Price he would have to quit if the Union came in the market, but, thereafter, he signed an authorization card for the Union, and on the witness stand claimed he did not understand the purport of the card. Sigsbee also exhibited some animosity toward Robert Price in the course of his cross-examination As a witness, Sigsbee seemed more interested in protecting what he considered his own self-interest than in presenting a fair and accurate recital of facts. Employee McGuire appeared to be a pliant and uncertain witness. Throughout her testimony she appeared to need some suggested guidance from the General Counsel, even on purely preliminary questions With some suggestion she testified that in a private conversation with Glen Price he discussed the fact that Albertson and Safe- way replaced their help every year or so, because they could not afford to pay top wages. Then in answer to a leading question proposed by the General Counsel, she added that Price said he might have to replace some of his employees, too, if the market went union. I do not accept this testimony of McGuire, because it sounds entirely out of harmony with all other evidence in the case. The original meeting of the employees for the purpose of organization was held at McGuire's home, and she signed a union card at the meeting She was not at the employees' meeting held at the store on May 7. It seems clear from all the testimony relative to this meeting that the employees dis- cussed the firing practices of Albertson and Safeway, and not Glen Price or any other company official. It appears to me that in her testimony McGuire has attributed to Price, in a private conversation, the substance of the same charge which was dis- proved as occurring at the employee meeting In my judgment McGuire is confused or mistaken on this point. Upon all the credible evidence, I find that the General Counsel has failed to estab- lish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Because of the above findings, it is unnecessary that I consider and decide the issue raised by Respondent as to the validity of authorization cards of certain employees, and the Union's majority status in the appropriate unit.15 For the purpose of completing my findings herein, I shall state that on this point I credit the testimony of employees Poths, Anderson, Jones, Fordice, and Union Representa- tive Harrold. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the complaint herein be dis- missed in its entirety. 14 Campbell & McLean, Inc., 106 NLRB 1049 ; Cherry Rivet Company, 97 NLRB 1303 Of similar purport see: N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Company, 208 F. 2d 710 (CA 4), N L.R.B v. The Newton Company, 236 F. 2d 438 (C A 5) ; NLRB v. Cleveland Trust Co, 214 F. 2d 95 (C.A. 6). is Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394 ; Morris & Associates, Inc, 138 NLRB 1160; Harold W. Koehler, et al, d/b /a Koehler's Wholesale Restaurant Supply, 139 NLRB 945.