Int'l Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO

82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other labor organization , by laying off, discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our em- ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with shutting down our plant or with other economic sanctions , nor will we offer our employees promotion or other economic benefits, to discourage their union affiliation or adherence. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings or activities. WE WILL NOT prohibit or restrict our employees from talking about unions or from engaging in union activities in our plant during nonworking hours. 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 United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic 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 purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer to Earl Gerald McClung immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discriminations against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. RUBBER FABRICATORS, INC., Employer. Dated-- ----------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NoTE. We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap- plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Transit Building, Fourth and Vine Streets, Cincinnati 2, Ohio, Telephone No. Dunbar 1-1420, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Ladies Garment `Yorkers' Union, AFL-CIO and Federation of Union Representatives. Cases Nos. O-CA-7857-1 and P-CA-7923. April 18, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On August 10, 1962, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and had not engaged in others,. and recommending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- 142 NLRB No. 10. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 83 member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by failing to grant wage increases to its employees in accordance with past practice, because of FOUR's recognition re- quest. In prescribing a remedy for this unfair labor practice, the Trial Examiner recommended only that Respondent cease and desist from such practice. We believe that this remedy is inadequate be- cause it looks only to the future and does not in fact remedy the past unlawful withholding of wage increases. Accordingly, in order more effectively to remedy the unfair labor practice found, we shall also order Respondent to make employees whole for loss of earnings suf- fered as the result of Respondent's unlawful withholding of wage increases, automatic or merit, during December 1960.1 The back- pay obligation of Respondent shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per anum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing c6 Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.2 ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications : 9 Revise paragraph 1(f) to read : "Failing to grant automatic annual and/or merit wage increases to its employees, in accordance with its past practices, because of FOUR's recognition request." Renumber paragraphs 2 (a) and 2 (b) as 2 (b) and, 2 (c) respectively and insert the following as paragraph 2(a) : "Make whole its em- ployees for loss of earnings suffered as the result of the unlawful with- holding of automatic annual and/or merit increases in the manner set forth in this Decision and Order." See Peyton Packing Company, Inc ., 129 NLRB 1275, 1276. An award of backpay in order to remedy a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act is appropriate. See N.L.R.B. V. Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative Inc., 285 F. 2d 8 (C.A. 6) ; N.L.R.B. v. Buzza- Cardoza, 205 F. 2d 889 (C.A. 9). In view of our remedy provided herein, we find it unncessary to consider whether or not Respondent's conduct in this regard is also violative of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2 For reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Isis case, Members Rodgers and Leedom are convinced that the award of interest in this case exceeds the Board's remedial authority. While adhering to such view, for the purposes of this decision they are acced- ing to the majority Board policy of granting interest on moneys due. a Amend the notice to all employees by changing the first sentence below the signature line to read : "This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting." 712-548-64-vol. 142-7 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Substitute the following for the sixth paragraph of the notice : WE WILL NOT fail to grant automatic annual and/or merit wages increases to our employees in accordance with our past practices because of Federation of Union Representatives' recognition request. Add the following to the notice following the seventh paragraph therein : WE WILL make whole our employees for loss of earnings suf- fered as the result of our unlawful withholding of automatic annual and/or merit increases. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 161 Stat. 136; 73 Stat. 519), was heard before Trial Examiner George A. Downing in New York City on various dates from December 18, 1961, to March 5, 1962, inclusive . The amended consolidated complaint, issued on Octo- ber 19, 1961, and based on charges dated March 10 and April 25, 1961, alleged in substance (as ultimately amended at the hearing ) that Respondent, as an em- ployer within the meaning of the Act, had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by reason of certain specified conduct, from December 1960 through June 1961 , in relation to its employees, because of or concerning their membership and activities in, affiliation with, or adherence to, Federation of Union Representatives (herein called FOUR), more specifically (1) by interrogations , warnings, directions, solicitations , and threats ; (2) by the transfer and discharge of Constantine Sedares and Theodore Bloom, and by the refusal to transfer Louise Krepshaw; (3) by the reduction and/or elimination of allow- ances for per diem , auto expenses, and telephone calls; (4) by increasing job tasks and duties; (5) by failing to grant wage increases in accordance with past prac- tices; and ( 6) by establishing committees to consider and resolve grievances and to make wage recommendations and by promising benefits to encourage employees to present their grievances to said committees. Respondent answered , denying the unfair labor practices as alleged ; it denied further that it is engaged in commerce , that it is an employer, that its personnel involved in the complaint are employees , and that FOUR is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observations of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Upon facts pleaded in the complaint and admitted by answer , upon the record in the representation proceeding , Case No. 2-RC-11158, (not published in NLRB volumes ) and upon the Board's decision in said case, 131 NLRB 111 , I find that Respondent (herein called ILG) is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it is an employer of employees within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find from .the evidence in the present case and from the record and the Board's decision in the representation proceeding above, that FOUR is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. . III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES , A. Background; the representation proceedings; the issues Respondent is itself an international labor organization consisting of numerous locals, joint boards , district councils, and regional departments, with a membership of over 400 ,000, and it employs numerous business agents, organizers , and educa- INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 85 tional directors, as well as other personnel who do union label and political work. The present proceeding against it, as an employer, arose out of the organizational efforts of some of such persons in forming an organization to represent them, vis-a-vis Respondent, for purposes of collective bargaining. Informal discussions and meetings looking to such an end had gone on for more than a year before December 1960, although the participants were few and well screened and the activities were kept a close secret. The first formal organization meeting was held on December 11, 1960, when FOUR came into existence. Con- stantine (Gus) Sedares, who was one of the leaders in the preorganizational ac- tivities, was chosen as temporary chairman and Marvin Rogoff as temporary secretary-treasurer. On December 18, a telegram was dispatched to President David Dubinsky of ILG in which FOUR claimed a majority and made a formal demand for recognition. On December 27 FOUR filed its representation petition in Case No. 2-RC-1 1158, seeking a unit of staff members on the ILG payroll (as distinguished from its locals), and on April 14, 1961, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election, 131 NLRB Ill, supra. An election was held on May 12, whose result is still nominally in doubt (see Second Supplemental Decision, 137 NLRB 748, issued June 22, 1962, and Third Supplemental Decision, 137 NLRB 1681, issued July 26, 1962), though it seems apparent from the unusual circumstances which the Board refers to in the latter decision that FOUR will ultimately receive a majority of the votes cast. Briefly, the issues in the present proceeding involve the alleged discriminatory transfers and discharges of Sedares and Theodore (Ted) Bloom, an alleged dis- criminatory refusal to transfer Louise Krepshaw, and alleged coercive and discrimi- natory conduct which followed FOUR's demand for recognition and which occurred in various regions and departments of ILG. Except for Sedares' transfer on No- vember 30, 1960, and his discharge on December 9, all of the alleged conduct occurred after FOUR was organized on December 11. As to Sedares, Respondent denies that it had knowledge of his organizational activities and avers that it transferred and discharged him for cause. Respondent also denies knowledge of Bloom's activities in FOUR, denies that he was discharged, and denies that he was discriminatorily transferred. In Krepshaw's case, it denies a discriminatory motivation. Much of the General Counsel's evidence concerning the remaining incidents of coercion and discrimination is disputed, and other portions are defended as privileged under Section 8(c). Respondent's contentions concerning commerce, the employer-employee questions, and FOUR's status as a labor organization were decided by the Board adversely to Respondent in the representation proceeding, 131 NLRB 111, supra, which decision is binding upon the Trial Examiner. There was no relitigation of those questions herein, though the record in the representation proceeding was physically incorpo- rated as an exhibit without objection.' B. The discharge of Sedares; the formation of FOUR 1. Introduction; the Tiny Town campaign The hardest fought and most important issue in this case concerns the discharge of Constantine Sedares, who came with ILG in 1958 as an organizer and who was finally discharged on December 9, 1960. Sedares played a leading part in the activities which preceded the formal organization of FOUR on December 11, 1960. Whether Respondent had knowledge of those activities is one of the two crucial issues surrounding his discharge, the other being whether the discharge was made discriminatorily, as contended by the General Counsel, or whether it was for the causes assigned by the Respondent. Those causes related immediately to certain aspects of Sedares' conduct during the last 2 or 3 months of his employment, though Respondent contended that such conduct was no more than a continuation of similar conduct throughout the course of his employment and that it resulted from, and was an outgrowth of, certain personality traits which Respondent had labored long and unsuccessfully to correct. Much of the voluminous evidence concerning Sedares was devoted to tracing his employment history, step by step. Vice President Kramer, who discharged Sedares, was directly acquainted with portions of Sedares' record and with his 1 Since the present proceeding does not involve'a -refusal to bargain, the record in, the representation case would not, under Section 9(d), automatically become a part of "the record to be included in the present one in review or enforcement proceedings under Sec- tion 10(e) or (f) proceedings. 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD personality traits, and was familiar generally with his reputation and with his performance record. However, in effecting Sedares' first discharge and/or transfer on November 30, Kramer referred only to specific instances of Sedares' conduct during the preceding 2 months or so, and he ordered Sedares' final termination on December 9 on the basis of Sedares' performance for a single week while on the staff of Peter Detlefsen, manager of Newark locals. For those reasons Sedares' employment history prior to October 1960 is relevant mainly as background evidence and as constituting in part the basis for Kramer's overall evaluation of Sedares. Although I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to encumber the body of this report with a detailed tracing of Sedares' career as developed under Respondent's evidence, I have compiled a brief summary of it in the attached Appendix A.2 Before proceeding to the events which led immediately to Sedares' discharge, it will suffice to note here briefly that Sedares was first employed in May 1957 by Local 190 in Philadelphia, that he was then admitted to the Training Institute,3 that he did fieldwork while in training at the Institute on a part-time basis until his graduation in June 1958; and that thereafter he worked full time as an organizer in the following areas and departments: in Virginia and Maryland, with the Upper South Department; in Upper New York and Vermont, with the Northeast Depart- ment; in New York City and Pennsylvania, with the Dressmakers' Joint Council; 4 and finally in the upper Hudson Valley and in Newark, New Jersey, with the Eastern Region. The Eastern Region was under the management of General Manager Edward Kramer, who was also a vice president of ILG, and Sedares' assignment or transfer to that region was made in March 1960. Sedares' tenure under Kramer was in two segments: The first, in the upper Hudson Valley under Walter DeYoung, a former classmate of Sedares at the Institute, ended on November 30, when Kramer dis- charged and/or transferred Sedares to Newark, under Detlefsen. The second ended on December 9, when Detlefsen finally discharged him at Kramer's direction. The General Counsel relies upon the same body of evidence to establish both Respond- ent's knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activities and its alleged discriminatory moti- vation, contending that both are to be inferred 5 from the timing and from certain suspicious circumstances surrounding Kramer's handling of Sedares' termination. The events which led to the November 30 action began early in October, when Sedares was placed in charge of the final stages of the Tiny Town Togs campaign in Troy, New York, which had been going on for some 3 or 4 months. The issues under the evidence involved a minor one as to the tenor of Sedares' instructions and a major one as to the proper evaluation of Sedares' role in conducting the campaign, specifically whether (in the General Counsel's view) Sedares should receive the lion's share of the credit for winning an outstanding victory or whether, under Respond- ent's evidence, it was Kramer's masterminding of the overall strategy which ac- counted for the result. On both points, Sedares' testimony, which furnished the bulk of the General Counsel's showing, was overborne by the preponderant weight of cumulative and corroborative testimony by Respondent's witnesses. Briefly, the evidence showed that because of DeYoung's involvement in the critical stage of another campaign, Kramer decided to place Sedares in charge of getting out the vote at the Tiny Town plant (on which it had been decided to pro- 2 Though Sedares took Issue with Respondent's witnesses as to the details of some of the incidents which they testified to and though he claimed justification as to others, his admissions confirmed both the fact that most of the matters occurred and that there was resultant criticism from his supervisors and complaints from his associates. For example, Sedares admitted that Edward Banyal (director of organization, Dressmakers' Joint Council), Sol Chaikin (assistant director, Northeast Department), and Kramer had dis- cussions with him concerning his alleged irresponsibility ; he admitted engaging in the altercations and assaults which led to his arrest on two occasions (see Appendix A, items 4 and 9) ; he admitted acquiescing in Bloom's bitter criticism of Clifford W. Depin, manager of the Scranton Local (id. Item 9) ; and he admitted other instances of conduct which caused difficulties between him and other supervisors. Though the resolution of conflicts is, therefore, not important, it is to be noted that Respondent supported most of its charges against Sedares by witnesses whose testimony was mutually corroborative. 3 Maintained by Respondent at its headquarters in New York City for selecting and train- ing employees for leadership. 4 The Northeast Department, the Eastern Region, and the Dressmakers' Joint Board of New York combined into the Dressmakers' Joint Council for the purpose of organizing dress plants in their respective areas, serving the New York market. 5There was no evidence of actual knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activities unless DeYoung's knowledge can be found to be attributable to Respondent. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 87 ceed to an election), speculating that Sedares might work out better on an assign- ment which involved greater responsibility. Sedares was accordingly summoned to a meeting in Kramer's office, which was also attended by DeYoung, Sam Janis, Kramer's assistant, Ray Bramucci, then educational director of the Eastern Region, and Julius Topol, assistant general counsel of ILG. Sedares was informed that because of DeYoung's other commitment, Sedares was being placed in charge of the campaign to get out the vote because of his talents for leaflet writing, but that Sedares should clear all leaflets 6 and all major expenses with Kramer. Expressing opposition to checking out such "routine elements" with the vice president in charge of the department and a desire to "run the show" him- self, Sedares suggested that Kramer should put Murray Markoff (another organizer) in charge. Kramer replied that if he had wanted to put Markoff in charge, he would have done so, and finally put it up to Sedares that he should "take it or else." After conferring privately with DeYoung, Sedares announced his acceptance. Sedares testified that he thereafter directed the activities of four other organizers who had been working on the campaign (Joseph D'Agostino, Julius Sippen, Virginia O'Toole, and Murray Markoff) and that he himself drew up all leaflets that were distributed, drafted the letters that were sent to the workers, and engaged in other miscellaneous activity. Acting on his own decision, he arranged through Topol to have the election held away from the shop. The Union won the election, by a margin of nine votes, and was certified. Sedares testified that Topol and Kramer later congratulated him on winning the election; and the General Counsel also introduced a new story in "Justice," Respond- ent's official organ, under date of November 15, which played up the importance of the victory but which made only passing reference to Sedares among the staff mem- bers who had assisted in the drive under DeYoung. Kramer testified (with cor- roboration from DeYoung and Bramucci) that he congratulated both Sedares and DeYoung a day or so after the election, but that he attributed the result in large measure to his own strategy in having directed them to avoid any attack on the Employer. In the meantime Kramer had assumed that Sedares had complied with his instruc- tions regarding the clearing of leaflets and expenditures. No issue arose as to leaflets, but Kramer learned later of two major expense items which Sedares had not cleared with him, and in checking on those, he learned of other misconduct by Sedares, both at Troy and at Newburgh. As all of the foregoing constituted the matters with which Kramer confronted Sedares on November 30, it is necessary to consider them in some detail. (a) The first item (and the one which sparked Kramer's inquiries) was a bill and a check for approximately $250 which reached Kramer's desk in the first week of November and which covered a hotel bill for a dinner for some 50 persons 7 during the Tiny Town campaign. Kramer called Manager Nash of the Troy local, who disclaimed responsibility and who stated that Sedares had made the arrangement, though Nash had tried to get the amount reduced. Nash also informed Kramer that he had "plenty of troubles" with Sedares, mentioning specifically the matters listed in items b and c, infra. (b) Sedares had offered, without authorization from Kramer, to pay the Tiny Town employees for the time they lost while voting in the election, which was held away from the plant. Kramer knew of no such offer being made in some 22 years of his experience with ILG. (c) Immediately following the announcement of the election results, Sedares had yelled at Nash, kicked over a chair, and stormed out of the room when Nash sought to open negotiations with the employer. Nash reported that Sedares' conduct (which was also in the presence of the employer's attorney and a Board agent) greatly embarrassed him, particularly when. the employer asked him about the "kind of people" he was to deal with. (d) Because of Nash's disturbing reports, Kramer decided to check further with Sol Goldberg, manager of the Newburgh office, whose territory, together with Nash's, covered the entire upper Hudson Valley area. Goldberg reported he had "enough experiences" with Sedares, and supplied the following particulars: Sedares had e Kramer's earlier negotiations with the employer and his attorney had convinced him that the employer's attitude was cooperative and that it was strongly advisable to avoid provocative statements which would incite the employer to retaliation. 70f whom only 20 were employees at the Tiny Town plant, the remainder being em- ployees and officers of ILG locals, members of the executive boards, and their respective husbands and wives. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refused to follow office procedures, thereby adding to the burdens of the clerical staff; Sedares was discourteous, extremely rude, and insolent to the clerical staff, particularly to the office manager, Janet Ryan; and he read to Kramer the following note which Sedares had written him on September 27. SOL: The copy and stencil to which this memo are attached comprise the substance of a leaflet which must be ready for distribution tomorrow, (2:30 p.m.) Wednesday, September 28, 1960. Kindly see to it that it is ready and available at the time indicated in the foregoing. I do not propose to argue with, cajole, or in any other way play games with the office staff in Newburg in order to get something done. I suggest that you properly instruct them as to what their function is if you have not done so already. They somehow have the impression that the clerical work required by the organization department is something that they need do only as they so elect. It wouldn't be possible, would it, that they have misinterpreted something you said in this regard. Gus SEDARES. The foregoing reports convinced Kramer that Sedares was running "true to form" as regarded his past record and that his discharge was called for absent a satisfactory explanation. Because of impending Tiny Town negotiations, however, and uncer- tainty as to the bearing which Sedares' status might have on them, Kramer did not take immediate action. Kramer testified to a series of attempts, which he made to reach Sedares, beginning around November 14 or 15. These included unsuccessful attempts by the switchboard operator to get him on the telephone and a series of calls to the Newburgh office to Goldberg and Janet Ryan, the office manager. Ryan in turn called the offices in the vicinity of Newburgh, checked with the hotels, and spoke also to DeYoung and other members of his staff who usually worked with Sedares. Finally, sometime prior to November 23, Kramer instructed his secretary, Jo Krieger, to send Sedares a memorandum to make an appointment to see him. Sedares testified that following the Tiny Town election, he participated in one of some three meetings of the negotiating committee and that thereafter, he worked on various projects under DeYoung's supervision on which the Hudson Valley organiz- ing staff were engaged, as well as on the J. R. McMullen Company retail campaign in New York City. Among the Hudson Valley projects, Sedares mentioned specifi- cally Lily of France and Modern Manufacturing Company, in Newburgh, and a Korell firm and a uniform manufacturing firm in Troy, but he was unable to state what specific projects he worked on at any given time, particularly during the week before November 23. Furthermore, though Sedares claimed that he had left word from time to time where he could be reached at various offices, he could not relate his testimony to any given time, and he was unable to recall the name of anyone whom he called or left word with as to his whereabouts. DeYoung testified that sometime after the Tiny Town campaign, he assigned Sedares to work under Julius Sippen on the Lily of France and Modern campaigns and directed Sippen to get in touch with Sedares. When Sippen reported later that he had been unable to locate Sedares, DeYoung took a hand at it for about a week, around mid-November, but was unsuccessful until some 3 or 4 days before Thanksgiving, when he located Sedares in New Jersey. Sippen testified similarly concerning his attempts to locate Sedares for more than a week, and he denied that Sedares spent any time working on the Lily of France or the Modern Manufacturing situations. 2. The pre-FOUR activities; the meeting of November 22 In the meantime Sedares had been, since October 1959, an active member of a small group of Respondent's employees who were discussing the advisability of forming a union to represent staff members vis-a-vis ILG. Meetings were held from time to time, with Sedares acting as chairman of the so-called organizing com- mittee, and the size of the group was slowly and quietly increased by contacting and bringing in, after careful and close screening, other staff members in whom the original group had complete confidence and who it was felt could be completely trusted not to divulge their closely guarded secret to the ILG leadership. Indeed, there was no evidence that either Kramer or Detlefsen, who alone participated in the dis- charge of Sedares, had any knowledge of the activities which preceded the formal organization of FOUR on December 11, or of Sedares' participation in such activities, unless it can be inferred under the evidence that the secret was leaked to them by someone who had been invited into the group. The leading suspect in that INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 89 regard was Walter DeYoung, to whom the General Counsel points as the source of Kramer's knowledge .8 The pre-FOUR organizing committee had arranged a regional meeting for the Eastern Region staff employees at the home of Business Agent James Amos in East Orange, New Jersey, on the evening of November 22. Sedares invited DeYoung to attend the meeting. DeYoung admitted that he had had prior discussions with Sedares about some procedure to correct the problems of organizers and testified that he understood that the meeting at Amos' home was to form a committee to see what course of action should be taken. Though DeYoung did not attend the meeting, he telephoned Amos' home twice, once to report that Sedares was on the way and later to report that he (DeYoung) would probably not be able to come but could be reached by telephone at Newburgh if it were necessary for him to cast a vote on anything under discussion. Sedares served as chairman of the meeting, at which committeemen were designated by consent of the group, with DeYoung being among those who were so designated. When Sedares later informed DeYoung of his designation, DeYoung made no comment as to whether he would or would not serve. It was against that background that Kramer's secretary sent out the note to Sedares dated November 23 to arrange an appointment. 3. The conference of November 30 Sedares met with Kramer on November 30, with DeYoung and Janis also present at Kramer's request. During the course of the lengthy conference, Kramer proceeded to criticize Sedares severely, particularly concerning the four matters which are listed under section 1, supra. Kramer began by confronting Sedares with his memorandum to Goldberg, item (d), supra, and another memorandum which Sedares had written to Kramer him- self inquiring why Kramer directed the discontinuance of certain activities which Sedares had recommended in connection with the McMullen campaign . Defend- ing Kramer's criticism that the memorandums were snotty, Sedares denied that they were impudent and took the position they were addressed squarely to the issues. Kramer testified that Sedares made no explanation of the note to Goldberg save to acknowledge his signature, and that when he (Kramer) mentioned Ryan's com- plaints concerning Sedares' discourteous conduct toward her and the clerical staff, Sedares simply shrugged his shoulders and made no answer. Kramer then sought an explanation of the hotel bill, item (a), supra, and re- peatedly inquired who had authorized Sedares to make the expenditure. Sedares took the position that he had been placed in charge of the campaign and he regarded that as proper authorization of the expenditure of funds; he defended it further as a necessary and proper expenditure in view of the importance of the election and the small per capita cost if measured by the size of the Local. Kramer retorted that justification of the expenditure was not the point at issue, that if Sedares had sought approval as directed, Kramer might well have given it, but that Sedares had at no time requested approval. Kramer then inquired who had authorized Sedares to pay the Tiny Town em- ployees for time lost in voting in the elemtion (item (b), supra)', asking if Sedares did not know it could be the basis for setting aside the election. Sedares explained he had discussed the matter with Topol, who advised him that the matter could not be so used if the offer were made without discrimination as concerned employees' feelings toward the Union. Kramer inquired whether the clearing with Topol was on the point of legality or whether Topol approved the expense. Sedares admitted that Topol had not approved the making of the expense. 9 Though the pre-FOUR group included others, who were later determined or conceded to be of supervisory ran k(i.e., Frank Lyons, Joseph Shane, and Sol Hoffman), they, like DeYoung, were persons in whom full confidence was reposed and who had been brought into the group on the assumption that they were eligible for membership in a staff union. Their status as supervisors was a matter of considerable doubt at the time and remained so during at least the earlier stages of the representation proceedings. Certainly prior to December 11 their sympathies lay with the organizing group, and, except in DeYoung's case, there is no basis under the evidence for an inference that they divulged to the ILG leadership their knowledge of the pending activities. Even were it possible to impute to ILG their knowledge (again excepting DeYoung) now that their status has been resolved, the evidence does not suggest that such knowledge reached Kramer and Detlefsen, who alone of Respondent's officials participated in the termination of Sedares. 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kramer then turned to the chair-kicking incident (item (c), supra ), which Sedares admitted but which he defended on the ground that Nash should not have intruded into the matter of negotiations at that time, particularly since Kramer was himself engaged in negotiations with the chief attorney for the firm . Kramer agreed that Nash was wrong but pursued Sedares to explain "What has that go to do with screaming and kicking over a chair and storming out of the room?" Sedares' only explanation was that "we were tense" as a result of 2 weeks of hard work; he agreed that if Nash had been near him, he might have kicked Nash or knocked him across the room; but he would not acknowledge that his conduct was wrong or state that he was sorry for it. Kramer testified that at that point, despairing of his attempts to obtain acknowl- edgment from Sedares that his show of violence under the circumstances was im- proper conduct, he informed Sedares that since he could not see that he had done an improper act for a union official who was supposed to be a responsible person, there was no place for him in the Eastern Region, and he was discharged . Though Sedares denied that Kramer discharged him, DeYoung and Janis corroborated Kramer's testimony to the contrary. Kramer and DeYoung testified (with Janis' corroboration ) that Kramer and DeYoung then left the room . DeYoung pleaded with Kramer to give Sedares another chance under a different supervisor , suggesting that he himself may have shared some of the responsibility or blame for Sedares because their personal rela- tionship was such that possibly he had not been able to exert enough influence over Sedares. DeYoung suggested the possibility that Newark might be a better area for Sedares to work in as it was closer to his home ; that Detlefsen, the manager, having a smaller geographical area, kept closer tabs on the organizers, and that they might work out very well together. Kramer acquiesced, and when they returned to the room , Kramer informed Sedares that he would give him a last chance, but that he would be taken out of the Hudson Valley and put to work for Detlefsen, "the last of the old line organizers." Although Sedares expressed a preference to stay in the Valley, Kramer ordered him to report to Detlefsen on Monday morning (December 5) in company with DeYoung, and instructed him to stay in close con- tact with Detlefsen, because Sedares would be working under closer supervision there. Though Sedares continued to protest , Kramer was adamant. Kramer later called Detlefsen , informed him that Sedares was being assigned to him, and gave an appraisal of Sedares substantially as follows: A good capable organizer but one who was not easy to get along with , one who had a tendency to operate on his own and who had no concept of the meaning of money, especially the Union's, one who needed supervision and watching, but if Detlefsen would "run herd" on him, Sedares could prove of great value in the organization drive in New Jersey. There was no evidence that Detlefsen was informed of the events which led to, or the reasons for , the transfer. 4. The Newark assignment; the December 9 discharge Sedares was accompanied to the Newark office on Monday by DeYoung. He made no attempt to report to Detlefsen, but did attend a staff conference in Detlefsen's office around 10:30 a.m., during the course of which DeYoung casually introduced Sedares to Detlefsen . Sedares testified that following a discussion of various organizing situations in which others were involved and of which he knew nothing, Detlefsen assigned him to work with Sol Nesselroth on the Acmi firm in Perth Amboy, and that he and Detlefsen discussed certain features of that situation, including a connection with Fort Lee Knitting Mills, to which Morton Oransoff was assigned. Detlefsen testified that because of Kramer 's instructions to "keep tabs" on Sedares, he made it a point to inform Sedares of the rules and procedures of the office , includ- ing a direction that Sedares was to report either to Detlefsen or his secretary, Constance Woodruff, each morning or evening so that Detlefsen could locate him in the event he needed to do so, because the staff was engaged in an organizing campaign and it was essential that Detlefsen know the whereabouts of the organizers at all times . A telephone call would suffice if the staff member were busy. Detlef- sen testified that Sedares' attitude throughout was one of aloofness and that he did not appear to be paying attention and that he looked away even when Detlefsen was speaking directly to him. Neither did Sedares make any comment when Detlefsen gave him instructions concerning his assignment to the Acmi campaign , which in- cluded a direction to stay away from Fort Lee Knitting (Oransoff's assignment).9 0 Though Richard Kasten endeavored on rebuttal to refute Detlefsen 's testimony as to Sedares' attitude , the grouping in the office was such that he could not accurately have INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 91 Following the meeting, Detlefsen informed Woodruff that Sedares had joined the staff, that his assignment was to Acmi, that Sedares had been instructed to call in at least once each day, and that Woodruff was to note particularly when Sedares called and what he reported.io Though Detlefsen was out of the office much of the time during the remainder of the week (in connection with a visit from his nephew from Denmark) he and Wood- ruff testified that on occasions when he came into the office he inquired what reports Woodruff had received from Sedares (and other staff members) and that during periods of his absence he called Woodruff once or more a day and made similar inquiries. Woodruff reported consistently that Sedares had not called in and that she had not seen him. Sedares in turn admitted that he made no report or call to Woodruff, though he testified that he came to the office on each day during the week and testified further to the work he did each day, both in and out of the office, including assistance to Oransoff on the latter's request at a meeting of Savoy em- ployees on Thursday evening. Though Woodruff saw Sedares sitting in the office lobby on Thursday morning, she did not know who he was until she inquired of someone who the stranger was. Around 10 a.m. on Thursday, Detlefsen also saw Sedares pass by while he was talking with someone else in the lobby but Sedares did not speak. By now thoroughly annoyed by Sedares' conduct, Detlefsen went to his office and requested Woodruff to send Sedares in. Woodruff reported after a few minutes that she was unable to find Sedares and that he must have left. Detlefsen testified that by then he was quite provoked by Sedares' failure to speak to him in the lobby or to report to him in the office and by Sedares' failure to follow the instruction to contact the office as to his whereabouts or to report on the progress of his assignments . Having decided that he did not want Sedares on his staff, Detlefsen called Kramer to request that Kramer take him back. In brief, Detlefsen informed Kramer that Sedares did not fit in on the staff, that he did not have the courtesy of introducing himself, that he did not report or contact the office, that he was annoyed at Sedares' aloofness, that though Sedares might be "very smart" and an excellent man, he was afraid Sedares would spoil his "whole setup," and he wanted Kramer to take him back. Kramer, however, directed Detlefsen to inform Sedares that he was discharged on Kramer's orders. Although Detlefsen stated he only wanted Sedares transferred, Kramer nevertheless repeated the direc- tion that Detlefsen tell Sedares he was through. Thereupon Detlefsen directed Woodruff to locate Sedares and to enlist the aid of other staff members if necessary. Despite repeated efforts, Woodruff was unable to find Sedares, and so informed Detlefsen as he was leaving the office around 6 p.m. Woodruff continued her efforts on Friday morning at Detlefsen's direction, but still without success, and so reported to Detlefsen when he came in around noon. In the meantime Detlefsen, who had not expected that Kramer would discharge Sedares, testified he became concerned about the fact that he himself had become the avenue for the discharge, particularly because he felt there existed on his staff a belief or impression that he was not favorably disposed toward Institute graduates, and he did not want his staff to construe his action as "picking on" Sedares because he was a graduate of the Institute. For these reasons, Detlefsen testified, he called Richard Kosten and Phillip Goodman into his office to be witnesses while he placed a second call to Kramer and repeated the substance of Thursday's call. When he reported, among other things, that he had been unable to find Sedares to fire him, Kramer directed Detlefsen to send Sedares a letter. Either while waiting for the call to go through or after it ended, Kosten made some remark to the effect that determined the extent to which Sedares was paying attention or whether he was looking away when Detlefsenl addressed him. I find, however, that Sedares did join in the dis- cussion of matters pertaining to his own assignment. 10 Beginning in October, with the inception of the organization drive, Woodruff had kept a record, on office forms devised for that purpose, of daily calls from staff members con- cerning their whereabouts. Woodruff testified that she made the entries on the permanent forms usually on a weekly basis, by postings from her notes made daily on office pads, which were thereupon destroyed. Testimony by Kosten that Woodruff made out at his request in January his weekly re- port for the week ending December 9 did not refute Woodruff's testimony, as the General Counsel claimed. Kosten's reports were something separate and apart from the record which Woodruff was keeping at Detlefsen 's direction , and Kosten was obviously in no position to know what office records Woodruff was keeping nor the source or the timing of the entries made thereon. 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it was a shame because Sedares was "a savvy guy." Thereupon Kosten and Good- man left the office together." Kosten and Oransoff testified to a later conversation with Detlefsen during which Detlefsen elicited their opinions concerning Sedares' competence and ended by stating he had to discharge Sedares because Sedares did not fit into the setup at Newark. As late as 2:30 p.m., Woodruff reported that she still had heard nothing from Sedares, and around 4 p.m. Detlefsen called her in and dictated a discharge letter to Sedares, which read in pertinent part as follows: Since I did not hear from you or see you before the end of the day as I had expected to, it leaves me no alternative but to communicate with you in this manner. I wish to inform you that I have come to the conclusion that your affilia- tion and services with our Locals will not work out satisfactorily either with our Locals or for yourself as well. Your manner or working and keeping in contact with the office is not in keep- ing with our policies. I have so informed General Manager Edward Kramer, today. He advises me that if that is the case, that I inform you that he will inform the payroll department of the International that your services are terminated.... Woodruff testified that she typed the letter immediately, that Detlefsen signed it around 4:15, and that it was sent out with the mail around 4:45. Woodruff testified that around 4:30 she answered a call from someone who asked for Gloria Lopez (who was frequently used by staff members as an interpreter and who was currently working with Sedares), and that Kosten stated he would take the call. Kosten testified in turn that the caller, Sedares, asked for certain informa- tion on a knitting mill in the area. As the directory containing the information was in Detlefsen's office, Kosten went in there, informed Detlefsen that Sedares was on the telephone and asked if he wanted to speak to Sedares and whether Kosten should tell him what had transpired. Detlefsen answered both questions in the negative, but directed Kosten to give Sedares the information which he sought. Lopez testified that around 4:30 p.m. she spoke with Detlefsen, who asked her opinion of Sedares, and that she reported in substance that he was not very friendly but seemed okay. She also reported having worked with him 2 nights before and that she was going out with him again that evening. Detlefsen showed her a copy of the discharge letter, and Lopez commented, "Just like that, Pete?" Detlefsen gave her no message to Sedares, and did not tell her either to tell him or not to tell him of his discharge. Sedares learned around 7:30 that evening that he was going to be discharged when he talked on the telephone with Herbert Levitt, who had been told by Good- man and Kosten of the happenings in Detlefsen's office. Though Sedares worked on with Lopez until around 9:30 p.m., neither mentioned to the other what they had heard. Upon receipt of Detlefsen's letter on December 13, Sedares sought out Detlefsen and inquired why he was discharged. Sedares testified that Detlefsen replied that Sedares was riot fitting into his team and his kind of operation and was not working out and that Kramer had advised him to let Sedares go. Detlefsen's testimony was substantially to similar effect, though he added that he referred also to Sedares' failure to call in or to report and that Sedares excused his failure to report on the ground that as "nothing jelled," there was nothing to report. On December 14 Sedares went to see Kramer and inquired the "real reasons" for his discharge. Sedares testified that Kramer replied "You didn't work out in the Hudson Valley, you didn't work out in Newark, I let you go." Sedares pro- tested that that was not the real reason for his discharge, because there had never been any complaint about his work and stated that he proposed to find out the real reason. Kramer testified that he answered Sedares by reminding him that he had spent quite a bit of time with him 2 weeks earlier concerning his behavior and conduct; that against his better judgment and because of DeYoung's intervention, he had 31 Kosten testified that Goodman left first and that while he and Detlefsen were alone, Detlefsen made the statement that, "There are some things you do for the union that you take to the grave with you." Detlefsen denied making the statement, and both he and Goodman testified that Kosten and Goodman left together. I credit their mutually cor- roborative testimony. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 93 given Sedares another chance with Detlefsen; but that no sooner had Sedares started with Detlefsen, than he did "the same damn things all over again ." Sedares pro- tested that was not the real reason for his discharge and that Kramer had fired him for union activity. Amused by that claim, Kramer commented that he had fired Sedares for not enough union activity. Sedares responded that Kramer knew what he meant, and told Kramer that he had all of Kramer's organizers signed up and that Kramer would have to deal with him whether he liked it or not. Kramer testified that Sedares made no reference to FOUR as such, and that that was the first time he had heard anything about union activity among staff members. When Sedares left, Kramer called in Ray Bramucci, repeated to him what Sedares said, and asked Bramucci if he knew anything about it. Bramucci stated that he heard "the boys" met over the weekend, but that he was not at the meeting. Kramer then reported to General Secretary Stulberg the conversation with Sedares. Stulberg laughed and said he did not believe it, but that "we should look into it." We revert briefly to other events between November 22 and December 11 which are relevant to the General Counsel's contention that Respondent had knowledge of the staff union activities prior to Sedares' discharge. 5. The December 11 meeting; the formation of FOUR Sometime following the meeting . of November 22, at Amos' home, three of the leaders of the staff union group (Sedares, Rogoff, and Martin Waxman ) learned that the National Legislative Conference was being scheduled in New York City on December 8 and 9, which would bring in people from all parts of the country, and that by a coincidence the Northeast Department was holding its annual con- ference on December 10 and 11. They decided to proceed with the formal organiza- tion of a staff union on the weekend of December 10 and 11, choosing ultimately the 11th. Sedares testified that he had discussions of those facts with DeYoung and invited him more than once to attend the December 11 meeting. Rogoff testified that he had two conversations with DeYoung on December 6, in the first of which DeYoung was noncommittal to his request for help in arranging a meeting place for the meeting and in the other of which DeYoung not only indicated lack of interest in the meeting but expressed concern about his career should it become known that he was sympathetic toward a staff union because, "You never know who is going to stab you in the back." DeYoung admitted that Rogoff asked him to arrange for a meeting place, asked for his support as a committeeman, and told him among other things that both their names were on Dubinsky's desk as committeemen. DeYoung testified that he told Rogoff that he did not wish to be involved except passively, and admitted he may well have said something about someone stabbing him in the back.12 Rogoff testified further that subsequently during the legislative conference he invited about 20 persons (all apparently qualified for membership ) to attend the organization meeting, again limiting the invitations to those whom it was felt would not reveal the secret to their supervisors .13 Sedares testified that he invited some 15 persons to attend the meeting. The meeting was held in New York City on the morning of December 11, as scheduled , with 25 persons in attendance . Temporary officers were elected, as well as a temporary executive committee, and a temporary constitution and a declara- tion of principles were adopted. A large Christmas party of New Jersey locals was held on the evening of Decem- ber 11 , at which there were discussions between Detlefsen , Kosten, and others of the fact that a group of staff people had met earlier in the day to form a union. See section D, 1, infra. Also relevant on the question of discriminatory motivation were certain subsequent events, to which we now turn. 12 Though it is of no particular significance , the inference can reasonably be drawn that DeYoung's defection from the group may well have been sparked in part by Rogoff's sug- gestion that their names were on Dublnsky's desk. 33 The General Counsel also made an offer of proof through Rogoff that on the evening of December 8, two nonsupervisors (one a reporter for "Justice" and the other a public relations director for the Northeast Department) informed him that they knew about "you guys" forming a union, and that one of them referred to Sedares' connection with it. However, the General Counsel made no attempt to connect their knowledge to ILG, and it is also significant that the offer related to a time after Kramer first ordered Detlefsen to discharge Sedares. 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. Subsequent events; the discharge is reviewed Sedares made no attempt, following his discharge on December 9, to talk with President Dubinsky or General Secretary Stulberg or to seek a review of his dis- charge under ILG procedures . Though he and Rogoff met with Dubinsky on January 9 (concerning FOUR's request for recognition ), it was Dubinsky's sugges- tion which led to Sedares' request that his discharge be reviewed . Sedares' posi- tion as stated to Dubinsky was that his discharge was unwarranted because his performance "was equal to everybody elses," and he admitted on cross-examination that he made no claim at that time that either his transfer on November 30 or his discharge on December 9 was because of his affiliation with FOUR.14 The review committee which Dubinsky specially constituted held hearings on January 16 and 23, with Sedares actively participating and producing witnesses in his behalf. Though considerable testimony was offered on both sides, concerning the conduct of the hearing, the General Counsel makes no reference to the hearing in his brief and Respondent devotes only a few lines to it. What is chiefly signifi- cant is that Sedares sought it and willingly participated in it and that he made no claim and gave no testimony that his FOUR or pre-FOUR activities formed any part of the cause of his transfer and discharge . Though Sedares testified on cross- examination for the first time that he made a statement in summation to the com- mittee on January 23 that Kramer discharged him on December 9 because of his membership in FOUR , both Julius Hochman, chairman of the committee, and James Lipsig (who acted as secretary and who testified from his notes ) testified there was no summation and that Sedares made no such statement . Neither did Sedares' affidavits to the Board make any reference to a summation , though one of them went into the review hearing in considerable detail . I do not credit Sedares' testimony that he made a claim that his FOUR activities were responsible for his discharge. 7. Concluding findings I have found that on November 30 Kramer first discharged Sedares and then, swayed by DeYoung's intercession, transferred Sedares to Newark. There was no evidence that Kramer had actual knowledge at the time of Sedares' pre-FOUR activities , and the record suggests no means whereby he would have learned of them save through the obvious source, DeYoung, who was fully acquainted as early as November 22 with what was going on. But both Kramer and DeYoung denied that DeYoung informed to Kramer on Sedares , and the events of November 30 strongly support their denials. It is significant first that it was on DeYoung's intercession that Kramer revoked the discharge action. As Kramer had already made out a case for a discharge for "cause" and had actually made the discharge before leaving the room to confer with DeYoung, it is incredible that once he was apprised by DeYoung of Sedares ' activities he did not let the discharge stand.15 Secondly, and just as significant, assuming that DeYoung informed on Sedares , it is incredible that Kramer would have transferred Sedares to Newark, a location which to DeYoung's knowledge was a more con- venient one for enabling Sedares to maintain closer touch and more frequent con- tacts with the other leaders in the staff union activity.ls 14 Though the conflicts in testimony about that interview do not concern matters of any particular significance , I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Stulberg and Daniels over the uncorroborated testimony of Sedares ( Rogoff's testimony not covering the interview ). In particular I do not credit Sedares' claim , denied by Stulberg and Daniels, that Dubinsky stated he would not appoint an outside impartial committee to review the discharge. 1E If DeYoung in fact informed to Kramer, the time most reasonably suggested by the record was during their private conference after Kramer had informed Sedares he was discharged. I reject the General Counsel 's "speculation" that DeYoung informed to Kramer on the night of the 22d or on the morning of the 23d and that it was that fact which led to the sending of the Krieger note of the 23d. Kramer testified among other things that he directed the sending of the note a day or two before the 23d. 1e It might here be appropriately noted that at various points in his oral argument on the Sedares and Bloom discharges, the General Counsel advanced the claim that Respond- ent's officials were a shrewd , intelligent, and trained group who knew exactly how to stage the discharge of unwanted employees for "cause ." Were it to be assumed , however, that they acted in fact from discriminatory motivations , their handling of the Sedares-Bloom matters would qualify them, not as shrewd manipulators , within the General Counsel's characterization, but as crude bunglers. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 95 The foregoing considerations offset much of the suspicion which was generated by a number of circumstances to which the General Counsel points. Those included certain inconsistencies in Kramer's explanations of his actions in checking on Sedares' conduct after receipt of the hotel bill, of his delay in sending for Sedares, and of his subsequent attempts to locate Sedares, including his failure to check with DeYoung or Janis. In some respects the record supported the General Counsel's claims of incon- sistency and implausibility, whereas others evaporated upon analysis of the evidence. For example, on the face of it Kramer's explanations concerning his lengthy and unsuccessful search for Sedares seemed plainly implausible if considered alone. It is to be noted, however, that testimony by DeYoung, Sippen, Goldberg, and Ryan corroborated Kramer on significant details, and that Sedares' own testimony as to his whereabouts and doings was not only vague and general, but that it was refuted by Sippen on the claim that he worked in part on Lily of France and Modern Manu- facturing, and that otherwise Sedares studiously avoided committing himself on any detail which might present an opportunity for, refutation. Similarly dissipated was the significance urged by the General Counsel as to Kramer's failure to check with Tyler as head of the Training Institute 17 concerning the possibility of arranging an assignment elsewhere. Thus, with considerable knowledge of Sedares' past record, Kramer had taken Sedares onto his staff on a "last chance" basis and had decided to discharge him rather than to transfer him elsewhere. Secondly, Tyler had informed Kramer prior to the Tiny Town incidents that he had no more places for Sedares and could not use him. (See Appendix A, item 11.) Of course, Kramer's ultimate decision to transfer Sedares to Newark (within his own region) required no contact with Tyler. Finally it is necessary to consider the question whether DeYoung's knowledge can be imputed or attributed to ILG. The evidence showed that by November 22 DeYoung had become intimately involved in the pre-FOUR activities, having been chosen for admission into the inner circle because of complete confidence in his integrity and because it was assumed he would be eligible for membership in the contemplated labor organization. Though it developed later, during the course of the representation proceedings, that DeYoung had such supervisory status as would remove him from FOUR's unit, his status was assumed during the pre-FOUR activities to be such as would not disqualify him for membership. Furthermore his interest and his sympathies lay with the staff group, as was apparent from his discussions with Sedares and from his contacts with the group at Amos' home on November 22. Though it was plain that DeYoung later suffered a complete change of heart and that he abruptly deserted the group, the first evidence of that occurred midweek of December 5 to 9, which was after Sedares' transfer to Newark. Under these circumstances it cannot be found that DeYoung's knowledge. of Sedares' activities must as a matter of law be imputed to Respondent, absent evidence of actual communication of that knowledge. Not only was there no evidence of such a communication, as previously found, but the circumstances of DeYoung's inter- cession and Kramer's change of heart support their denial that there was in fact communication. Thus, certainly as of November 30 DeYoung's sympathies lay with the pre-FOUR group, and his interests at the time lay in concealing, not reveal- ing, what he knew about them.18 I therefore conclude and find under all the cir- cumstances that DeYoung's knowledge of Sedares' activities cannot as of Novem- ber 30 be imputed to Respondent. As the General Counsel failed to prove knowledge of Sedares' pre-FOUR activi- ties-an essential affirmative element of a violation-it follows as a matter of course that he likewise failed to prove that Kramer's discharge and subsequent transfer of Sedares on November 30 were discriminatorily motivated. I also conclude and find that Kramer discharged Sedares on that date and then transferred him to Newark for the reasons which Kramer assigned at the time. When we turn to the final discharge on December 9, we face again the necessity for inferring knowledge, if it is to be found, for here also the General Counsel failed to establish actual knowledge on the part of either Kramer or Detlefsen. What we have again are certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the termina- 17 In that capacity Tyler performed a continuing liaison function in attempting to re- locate institute graduates from one region or department to another. A rather complete illustration of that functioning was shown by the part which Tyler played in effecting Bloom's later transfer. See section C, infra. is Even were it assumed to the contrary that DeYoung's knowledge was attributable to ILG, there would remain the obstacle, not surmounted by the General Counsel's case, of tracing it to Kramer and of establishing that it motivated Kramer's actions toward Sedares. 96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, plus the fact that Sedares and his group were busily engaged in making arrange- ments and preparations for the formal organization meeting which they had set up for Sunday morning, December 11, plus the fact that DeYoung had suffered a change of heart and was backing rapidly away from all association with the organizing group. But the record does not trace to Respondent knowledge of the latter facts nor suggest by what means Respondent would have become aware of them. No con- tacts or communications were shown between DeYoung on the one hand, and Kramer or Detlefsen on the other, following Sedares' reporting to the Newark office on December 5. Indeed, testimony by Richard Kosten and Detlefsen concerning a con- versation at a Christmas party on the evening of December 11 (see section D, 1, infra), indicated strongly that Detlefsen had no prior knowledge of the pre-FOUR activities, no matter whose version of the conversation be credited. In addition, Kosten admitted that Detlefsen had made no reference on prior occasions to any organizing activities on the staff, though on possibly two occasions considerably prior to December he and Detlefsen had had "academic discussions" concerning the ad- visability of a staff union. As to Kramer's knowledge, the record stood where it did on November 30. We consider then the suspicious circumstances, among which the following were of most significance: Though Kramer transferred Sedares to Newark so that he would be working under Detlefsen's closer supervision, Detlefsen's absence from the office for most of the week meant that Sedares got less, not more, supervision. Following Kramer's direction on Thursday to discharge Sedares, Detlefsen directed his secretary to locate Sedares by inquiring of everyone who called in, but he him- self made no inquiry of either Kosten or Oransoff, with whom he talked. On Friday afternoon Detlefsen not only called Kramer again, but proceeded to go through essentially the same conversation that he held on the preceding day, but this time in the presence of Kosten and Goodman, whom he had summoned to be witnesses. Shortly after the discharge letter was dispatched for mailing, Kosten reported to Detlefsen that Sedares was on the telephone, but Detlefsen stated that he did not want to speak with Sedares. Offsetting much of the significance of the foregoing was the following evidence: Despite Detlefsen's absence for a large part of the week, he testified (and was corroborated by his secretary, Woodruff), that he stayed in close touch with Woodruff, made frequent inquires of her concerning Sedares, and was consistently informed that Woodruff had neither seen nor heard from Sedares. Furthermore, Sedares admitted that he at no time reported to either Detlefsen or Woodruff during the entire week. Detlefsen's call to Kramer on Thursday was provoked by Sedares ignoring him in the lobby and by Sedares leaving the office without reporting either to him or to Woodruff; and his report to Kramer was consistent with his complaints against Sedares. The apparently anomalous circumstances of the second call were accounted for by the following: Detlefsen on Thursday had sought only to have Kramer transfer Sedares out of Newark; he had not sought to have Sedares fired, nor had he an- ticipated any such action, being unaware of Kramer's earlier experiences with Sedares. Realizing that he had himself become the avenue for the discharge and being sensitive to a feeling on the part of his staff members that he was unfavorably disposed toward graduates of the Training Institute, Detlefsen "staged" the second ,call to Kramer in the presence of two staff members, and for their benefit went through the act of repeating the substance of his previous call. Kramer's participa- tion at the other end, however, was plainly genuine and unstaged; he simply re- minded Detlefsen that he had ordered Sedares' discharge the day before, and re- peated the direction. The reasons which Detlefsen assigned to Sedares on December 13 were consistent with those which he had given Kramer. Kramer in turn reminded Sedares on the 14th that, against his better judgment, he had given Sedares another chance because of DeYoung's intervention, but that Sedares had proceeded to "do the same damn things all over again." Detlefsen's part in the week's activities was played without knowledge of the background of Kramer's experiences with Sedares and without knowledge of the latter's staff-union activities. The entire' responsibility, therefore, for the ultimate 'discharge (as the General Counsel conceded in argument) was Kramer's. Though Kramer's final action seemed quickly triggered, it was not out of character and it was also consistent with the outcome of the November 30 conference, i.e., a transfer to Newark on a "last chance" basis. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS ' UNION, AFL-CIO 97 The evidence does not support the General Counsel's theory that Kramer sent Sedares to Newark as part of a scheme to set him up for discharge. That theory seems necessarily to rest on an assumption that Detlefsen's part in the scheme was to get something on Sedares to serve as ostensible ground for discharge. Not only was there no evidence that Detlefsen was acting as a conspirator, but, as previously found, Kramer had all the "cause" he needed on November 30, and his transfer of Sedares to Newark on that date was consistent with and supported his claim that he was unaware of Sedares' activities. The foregoing analysis dissipates much of the suspicion which was generated by the handling of Sedares' discharge. What remains does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence, required of the General Counsel, to establish either knowledge of Sedares' activities of motivation based thereon. I therefore conclude and find that by discharging Sedares on December 9, Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. C. The discharge and/or transfer of Bloom As in the case of Sedares, the crucial issues here are whether Respondent had knowledge of Bloom's participation in the organization of FOUR and whether the alleged discharge and transfer were made because of those activities or were for the reasons assigned by Respondent. The General Counsel argues that Bloom's importance in the case is that he was known to be Sedares' best friend, and it is partly on that basis that the General Counsel urges that an inference is warranted that Respondent would know that Bloom was involved in FOUR. Thus, DeYoung (who was in no manner connected with the events concerning Bloom) testified that he could "make a very legitimate assumption that Ted Bloom would be involved in anything that Gus was involved in." Both issues turn in part on disputed testimony as to when Respondent decided to terminate the operation in which Bloom was en- gaged and when Bloom was first informed of that decision. To place the events in proper focus, we review briefly Bloom's employment with Respondent. Bloom was graduated from the Training Institute in June 1957, and was assigned to the Dress Joint Board under the supervision of Edward Banyai. Though late in 1959, Bloom was transferred to the payroll of the Northeast Department, he was simultaneously placed on detached service of the organization department of the Dress Joint Council, where he continued to work under Banyai. From late 1959 through 1960, Bloom was engaged in a single activity, the col- lecting, sorting, and processing of discarded rubbish, which he picked up usually at night from plants of jobbers engaged in producing and selling women's garments. From that debris, Bloom was frequently able to extract records which showed exactly which contracting shops a jobber was using and which would establish both the identity of the contractors in case of a dispute with the jobber and a description of what they were producing. Bloom had arranged for access to such debris in some cases by payments of money to undisclosed "contacts," but only after prior approval by Banyai. In those cases Bloom was reimbursed, by agreement with Banyai, by submitting phony vouchers. There was dispute between them as to whether some of Bloom's other expenditures could also be covered by phony vouchers. Following his sorting operation, Bloom prepared and submitted to Banyai reports which contained the results of his "processing." For some time be- fore the end of 1960, the rubbish was being stored and processed by Bloom in the basement of the Passaic (New Jersey) Local, whose manager was Richard San Fillippo. Bloom testified that around December 13 or 14, Banyai informed him that the rubbish operation was to be ended, though only a scant day or so earlier Banyai had told him the operation was to be expanded. Banyai denied the latter testimony; he testified to the contrary that Zimmerman, manager of the Dress Joint Board, instructed him early in October to terminate the operation by the end of the year, that he informed Bloom of that decision within a few days, and that he and Bloom discussed the matter on three or four occasions in October. What is determinative of this preliminary, but most significant, credibility issue is that (1) neither of Bloom's two written statements furnished to the Board, con- tained Banyai's alleged prediction of expansion, though both of them covered the occasion of his discussion with Banyai; and (2) testimony by Gus Tyler, of the Training Institute, supplied indirect corroboration of Banyai in two respects: First, Tyler had learned from representatives of the Dress Joint Council that the Council was facing insurmountable organizational problems augmented by the Landrum- Griffin Act and the new Taft-Hartley amendments and would have to find new approaches to its work, and second, Bloom had hinted to Tyler on several previous occasions that his work was running out. I therefore credit Banyai's testimony. 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The remainder of the case presents similar credibility issues, with Bloom's testi- mony, corroborated on one point by Charles Lang, being pitted against that of Banyai, Tyler, Sol Chaikin, and Herbert Pokodner. And though it must be noted that the testimony on both sides was unsatisfactory, particularly on the exact time- table of events, the burden was on the General Counsel, of course, to make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence. On that score, it is not only to be noted that Bloom's testimony stands alone except for the limited corroboration by Lang but also in some respects it was in conflict with his statements to the Board, that in certain respects it was inconsistent and improbable, and that in others it bordered on the bizzare.19 For those reasons, and despite certain inconsistencies and con- flicts on Respondent's side, I credit Bloom's testimony only to the extent that it is reconcilable with that of Banyai and Tyler, on which the following summary is based.2° Sometime prior to the week of December 19, Bloom had acquainted Tyler with the fact that the operation he was engaged in with the Dress Joint Council was running out and that he was facing reassignment.21 Tyler, who was unaware at the time of the nature of Bloom's attachment to the Council, mentioned the fact that Local 98 and its manager, Herbert Pokodner, had been pressing him for some time for an organizer, and he sent Bloom to see Pokodner on December 19 22 after first making an introductory call himself. As Bloom's report back to Tyler on the 20th seemed to make it fairly certain that Pokodner wanted Bloom to come with him after the first of the year, Tyler dictated a letter to Pokodner under that date, which confirmed an understanding to that effect. Before mailing the letter, however, Tyler decided to check on Bloom's uni- lateral representations by calling Pokodner. Learning that Pokodner had made no definite decision, but wanted a further look at Bloom, Tyler did not mail the letter, but sent Bloom back for a further interview. In the meantime, sometime after December 12, Banyai had become puzzled about a receipt for $20 which Bloom had submitted for garaging the Council's truck at a filling station in Rutherford, New Jersey, instead of some New York City garage, as customary. About the same time, Banyai learned, during the course of a tele- phone conversation with Richard San Fillippo, manager of the Passaic office, that Bloom's records, which had been stored for safekeeping in the basement, were no longer there. When Banyai called Bloom about the foregoing matters, Bloom replied that he would tell Banyai about the storage receipt when he saw him, and as to the records, Bloom claimed they were in the basement. Banyai thereupon arranged to meet Bloom and San Fillippo at the Passaic office on December 21. When Banyai arrived, he noticed Bloom's truck in front of the office with a filing cabinet on it, and when he asked Bloom what was in the filing cabinet, Bloom replied that the records were in it, and that, "I thought you wanted them there." Banyai ordered Bloom to put the cabinet and the records back into the basement. There- 19E g , Bloom plainly exaggerated the dangers he faced in his job, and his explanation for leaving in the open for several weeks of bitter winter weather the filing cabinet con- taining the fruits of his labors was incredible. Bloom's testimony and his statements contained many variances on dates. For ex- ample, he fixed variously as December 12 or 13, and December 13 or 14, Banyal's first direction to report to Gingold (of Northeast) for reassignment; he fixed variously as December 13, 14, and 16 his visit to Tyler during which he testified he told Tyler he was up for reassignment ; and he fixed variously as December 21, 22, and 23, the date of his Passaic meeting with Banyai. 20 Chaikin's testimony related mainly to the date on which Bloom appeared for reassign- ment, and on that point, I accept Lang's testimony, corroborating Bloom, that the date was the 19Th, rather than the 21st. Though Pokodner's testimony was in conflict with Tyler's concerning the dates of con- tacts with Tyler and Bloom, Tyler's testimony was supported by documentary evidence as well as by Bloom's admission on cross-examination that on December 21, Tyler had already assigned him to Pokodner's Local. Except for the General Counsel's suspicions, there Is no basis in the record for his assertion that Tyler may have fabricated certain documents which he identified. 21 Tyler acted as a short of clearing house, or "marriage broker," for graduates of the Institute, on the one hand, who desired transfers or needed reassignment, and for depart- ment (heads, on the other, who were seeking personnel. His services were available on a purely voluntary basis where desired by the persons involved. 22 It was earlier that day that Bloom and Lang had reported to Chaikin for reassign- ment and had been informed that there were no openings in the Northeast Department. Though Bloom suggested the possibility of a position on Sol Hoffman's staff in Pennsyl- vania ( also in Chaikin's department ), Chaikin denied that there was any such opening. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 99 after, failing to get from Bloom a satisfactory explanation of the garage receipt, Banyai drove to the address of the gas station listed on the receipt and discovered that the firm had gone out of business on November 1 and that there was in any event no space there to store a truck. Suspecting that the false receipt indicated that Bloom had not used the money "for an ILG purpose," Banyai returned to the office and questioned Bloom further about the garaging of the truck. Bloom claimed that he had garaged the truck elsewhere but had submitted a receipt from a false address in line with the custom of covering up other expenditures to contacts for the collection of rubbish. Banyai pointed out, however, that in the latter cases, the expenditures were not accompanied by a receipt and were made only with his prior approval. Banyai turned again to the subject of the records, and after checking the contents of the filing cabinet, learned that certain records were not in the cabinet. Bloom claimed that the missing records were at his home. Banyai then learned from San Fillippo that the filing cabinet had been outside on the parking lot for some 6 weeks and that San Fillippo, not knowing what it was, had tried to get the rubbish collector to take it away. Bloom claimed that he had moved the cabinet there from the basement because of a burglary some weeks before at the Local's office, and that the records had been in the filing cabinet during the entire time. Banyai insisted that Bloom must have had the records at some other undisclosed location, since it was clear from his examination of them and their good condition that they could not possibly have been in the filing cabinet during several weeks of severe winter weather. Having become more concerned about the use which Bloom may have been making of the records, Banyai asked for the name of his contact, but Bloom refused, despite repeated demands, to give Banyai the contact's name. Also at some point during the conversation Banyai criticized Bloom for his personal appearance, i.e., he was wearing dirty pants and was unshaven. Blom's excuse was that he was wearing his working clothes. Deciding that he no longer wanted Bloom working with him, Banyai directed him to report back to the Northeast Department for reassignment. Banyai testified, however, that but for the day's events, he had contemplated assigning Bloom to other work in his department. In the meantime the Bloom-Tyler-Pokodner negotiations had proceeded without interruption. Nor did Bloom's report to Tyler that he had had a "run-in" with Banyai cause any hitch, for Banyai immediately confirmed to Tyler the fact of the run-in and the fact that he had sent Bloom back to Northeast, and he readily agreed that Tyler should get Bloom "out of [his] hair" by proceeding with an assignment to Local 98. Though Bloom expressed to Tyler a positive preference for working either in the Northeast Department or the Eastern Region, Tyler pointed out that Northeast had already eliminated the possibility of an assignment with it, and added that he did not believe the Eastern Region was looking for an organizer. They also discussed the possibility of other non-New York assignments, but Tyler pointed out that in view of Bloom's total family situation, an assignment to Local 98, in New York City, seemed the perfect answer. Further negotiations for Bloom's transfer between Bloom, Tyler, and Pokodner were completed on December 23,23 whereupon Tyler sent to the payroll department the following memorandum under that date: This is to inform you that Ted Bloom who has been on the Northeast Depart- ment payroll will be working for Local 98 starting January, 1961 (Tuesday, January 3rd to be exact). Turning to the question of Respondent's knowledge of Bloom's connection with FOUR, we have already noted DeYoung's commentary concerning the close relation- ship between Sedares and Bloom. Tyler admitted knowing of their friendship, and Bloom testified that during a conversation on December 13 or 14, Tyler referred to Sedares as one who was on the way out and to Bloom as one who was on the way in, and that following a discussion of the Kennedy administration, Tyler com- mented, "I guess you will stick with your FOUR buddies." Tyler denied making the latter comment at any time. He admitted that he had discussed the subject of FOUR with Bloom on a number of occasions after Christmas, but testified that he first learned of FOUR some time after the telegram requesting recognition was received (on December 19). I credit Tyler's testimony, particularly since Bloom's 23 Bloom admitted on cross-examination that as of December 21, Tyler had already assigned him to Local 98. See footnote 20, supra. 712-548-64-vol. 142-8 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reference to the Kennedy administration (which did not begin until January 20) itself indicated that the conversation occurred at a later time than Bloom claimed. The General Counsel also introduced a leaflet which was issued by FOUR, which bore the date of December 21, and which listed Bloom's name among the members of its organizing committee. Tyler admitted that Bloom had shown him some FOUR literature at an Institute party at a much later time than December 21, 22, or 23; he testified that if he saw the December 21 flier, it was some time after its date and that he knew nothing of Bloom's connection with FOUR until after Christmas. His testimony is credited. There was no direct evidence that Banyai or Chaikin had knowledge of Bloom's connection with FOUR at any time before Banyai returned Bloom to Northeast for reassignment on December 19, or before Tyler completed the negotiations to transfer him to Local 98 on December 23. However, the General Counsel elicited from Ray Shore, on cross-examination, testimony that on or before December 13, 1960, while he was Pennsylvania State Supervisor, Chaikin, his immediate supervisor, asked him to find out what he could about a staff organization and that he later made some inquiries in Pennsylvania after literature concerning FOUR was distributed to staff members. Concluding Findings I find preliminarily that Banyai's action in returning Bloom to Northeast for reassignment did not constitute a discharge. The organizational structure of the two departments and the nature of Bloom's attachment to Banyai's staff was such that Bloom remained the employee of Northeast, over whose tenure Banyai had no jurisdiction. Furthermore, Banyai's direction to Bloom to report back to North- east (his employer) was plainly inconsistent with any view that Bloom was dis- charged, as was also the fact that Bloom remained on the Northeast payroll until he went with Local 98 on January 3. Turning next to the question of knowledge I have found that the evidence did not directly establish knowledge by Banyai, Tyler, or Chaikin of Bloom's connec- tion with FOUR. Whether knowledge can be inferred on their part turns on an analysis of the same evidence on which the General Counsel relies in claiming that their treatment of Bloom was discriminatorily motivated. As the General Counsel's brief sums up his argument, the finding is warranted-from the facts surrounding the sudden transfer, the timing, and the fact that the asserted reasons were demonstrably unfounded-that the transfer was effected in order to take Bloom out of the bargain- ing unit sought by FOUR and was intended as an obvious threat to all who might be influenced by Sedares and therefore, was discriminatory. Pointing to inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances in Respondent's case as establishing his contentions, the General Counsel overlooks the weaknesses in his own case. The chief of those were that Bloom's testimony was not corroborated save on a single point by Lang, that Bloom had known for several weeks that the rubbish operation was to be wound up, that he informed Tyler around the 14th that he was up for reassignment, and that he admitted that as early as the 21st Tyler had already assigned him to Local 98. Cumulatively, those weaknesses not only constitute a serious handicap to the General Counsel in making out his own case, but they go far to offset the suspicions which were generated by certain aspects of Respondent's case. Before proceeding further with a resolution of the issues involving Bloom, it is also to be noted, unfortunately, that though dates and time were of great importance, the evidence was singularly unsatisfactory on those matters on both sides. Con- clusions must be reached on the basis of the few dates which were the more firmly established. I find first that Bloom had discussed with Tyler in the week before the 19th, the fact that he was to be reassigned; .and, accepting Lang's corroboration of Bloom, I find that Banyai sent Bloom and Lang separately to Northeast for reassignment on the 19th. I find that the Passaic incident occurred on the 21st. I find on Tyler's testimony, his unmailed letter of the 20th, his memorandum of the 23d to the payroll department, and Bloom's admission on cross-examination, that arrange- ments for Bloom's transfer to Local 98 were effectually completed on December 23. What is surprising about the foregoing timetable is not that Banyai had sent Bloom up for reassignment on the 19th (since Bloom had already invoked Tyler's services), but that Banyai admitted that except for the Passaic incident on the 21st, he intended to assign Bloom to other work in his own department. That statement plainly does not square with Banyai's earlier act in sending Bloom to Chaikin, nor with Tyler's earlier efforts to place Bloom with Pokodner-a match which Tyler originally thought he had consummated as early as the 20th. It is the strongest INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 101 indication in the record that Banyai was motivated by reasons other than those he assigned and that he was seeking to support his jettisoning of Bloom by a belated showing of "cause." We examine the evidence further to determine whether that circumstance of deep suspicion, when added to the other circumstances , resulted in a preponderance of the evidence to establish the General Counsel 's contention that Respondent effected Bloom's transfer to take him out of the bargaining unit sought by FOUR. The difficulty with the General Counsel 's position is that it necessarily rests on the unstated assumption that Banyai , Chaikin, and Tyler acted in a three -way con- spiracy in the Bloom matter. Thus, Banyai's act in sending Bloom back to North- east would plainly not affect Bloom's status in the unit. Chaikin's part in negativing an opening in Northeast similarly left Bloom's unit status unaffected . It was only Tyler's matchmaking which finally operated to remove Bloom from FOUR's unit. The record is silent, however, as to how or when the conspirators were able to plot out their scheme to discriminate against Bloom . FOUR's telegram to Dubinsky (which first specified the unit ) was received sometime on the 19th , but according to both Bloom and Lang it was in the previous week that Banyai had directed them to report to Chaikin for reassignment . Aside from that, it defies credulity to assume that on the very day that FOUR's telegram was received Banyai, Chaikin , and Tyler were able somehow to get together and to concoct a three-step plot to remove Bloom from FOUR's unit, two steps of which had already been completed by lunch time 24 Though the possible theory of conspiracy fails, there remains the possibility that Tyler's actions effected a discrimination . The record stands no better for the General Counsel on that score, for it shows that Bloom himself had already alerted Tyler to his anticipated need for reassignment and was voluntarily availing himself, as customary among Institute graduates , of Tyler's usual services as a matchmaker. We must consider also the question whether Chaikin's conduct established dis- crimination against Bloom. Though it was shown that Chaikin had made inquiries of Shore concerning staff union activities prior to December 13, and that Shore later made inquiries of his staff in Pennsylvania and reported to Chaikin, no attempt was made to ascertain what Shore reported or that he learned or reported anything con- cerning Bloom. It is difficult against that background to infer that Chaikin some- how learned of Bloom's connection with FOUR and to infer further that it was because of that knowledge that he informed Bloom on the 19th that there was no opening in Northeast at the time . Furthermore, no attempt was made to show that Chaikin had any hand either directly or indirectly in collaborating with Tyler in arranging the match which took Bloom out of the unit. The conclusion which must be drawn from the foregoing analysis is that Banyai's statement of his intention of keeping Bloom , though plainly inconsistent with his earlier direction to Bloom to report back for reassignment , does not lift the General Counsel's case to a preponderance of the evidence. Though it was furnished by Respondent's case and though the General Counsel can properly claim it as adding to the weight of his own showing, the General Counsel has yet failed to establish the affirmative elements of a violation (i.e., knowledge of Bloom's connection with FOUR and a discriminatory motivation ), particularly since his theory of the dis- crimination necessarily required proof of some plot or conspiracy, evidence of which was not only lacking, but which was effectually disproved by the time sequences as reviewed above. We conclude, then, with suspicion; but suspicion is not proof, Lo-K Foods, Inc., 134 NLRB 956, even where furnished by Respondent 's case. I therefore conclude and find that the General Counsel did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record that Respondent discharged and/or transferred Bloom with knowledge of, and because of, his connection with FOUR. D. Interference, restraint, and coercion; miscellaneous discrimination The remainder of the General Counsel's case concerned Respondent's conduct after FOUR's existence became known to it and, except for certain incidents of interrogation, after FOUR made its demand for recognition. In order to achieve, as far as possible, both chronological and topical order, the early interrogations will be first reviewed (section 1 , infra), and we shall then move to the conduct which the General Counsel assigns as the most serious of the violations and which is claimed to be coercive because it occurred against a background of opposition and 24 Le., the direction to report for reassignment and Chalkin's negativing of a job open- ing in Northeast. Bloom and Lang had lunch with Tyler after they saw Chaikin. The record does not establish when on the 19th Dubinsky received FOUR 's telegram or that Banyal, Chalkin, and/or Tyler learned of it on that day. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hostility to FOUR as repeatedly expressed by President Dubinsky, by other ILG officials, and in official ILG publications and releases. Initially relevant to the latter contention is the record of ILG's official reaction to FOUR (section 2, infra), and from that we shall move to certain staff meetings held by Respondent's officers (section 3, infra), and to subsequent individual solicitations and miscellaneous peripheral incidents (section 4, infra). 1. Miscellaneous interrogations, etc. Introductorily, we note again Kramer's testimony that when he reported to Secretary-Treasurer Stulberg on December 14 Sedares' claim that he had all of Kramer's organizers signed up, Stulberg suggested that they should "look into it." Whether the interrogations which followed were or were not the result of that sug- gestion, the evidence showed that a number of Respondent's officers forthwith pro- ceeded to inquire into FOUR activities among the staff. We begin with Kramer himself, who admitted that he called in Raymond Bramucci (his education director who voted without challenge in the election), repeated Sedares' claim, and inquired what Bramucci knew about it. Bernard Cohen testi- fied at length to conversations with Kramer on December 14 and 15. In the first, a group meeting with the Union City (New Jersey) staff, Kramer held out the possibility of a promotion for Cohen to an opening in Suffolk County, and in the latter, with Cohen alone, Kramer engaged in a lengthy discussion of, and interroga- tions concerning, FOUR literature and activity and solicited Cohen's assistance in checking on and "evaluating this thing" and in reporting back to him what he had learned, particularly as concerned James Amos. Kramer denied that he made any reference to Suffolk County on the 14th or to the possibility that Cohen would be chosen for that location, and he testified that he sent for Cohen on the 15th because on the preceding day Cohen had expressed ob- jection to doing organization work in New Jersey because of a prior conviction of disorderly conduct in a picket line fracas. Kramer admitted that, following a dis- cussion of raises and promotions, he asked whether Cohen had heard anything "about the guys organizing" and whether he had received any literature from anyone. Cohen reported that he had not been contacted and had received no literature, but suggested there might be some in his mail at home. Cohen asked whether he should call his home to check on the receipt of literature, and Kramer asked him to do so, and was able to determine from Cohen's end of the telephone conversation that Cohen had received no literature. Kramer testified that as of that time he himself had seen no literature, that there was no discussion with Cohen of FOUR as such because he did not know that such an organization had been formed, and that his views and Cohen's were very much in agreement at the time, in that both were very much opposed to a staff union.25 Kramer testified further that at the end of the session Cohen promised to let Kramer know if he heard anything, and that a few days later Cohen called in to report he had received some literature and inquired whether he should send it in. Kramer declined the offer, stating he already had the literature. Kramer entered specific denials to a number of statements which Cohen attributed to him, including his alleged request that Cohen check and report on FOUR and on Amos. In resolving the credibility issue, it is to be noted that witnesses were available who might have resolved the crucial conflict as to the 14th, i.e., whether Kramer discussed the Suffolk County situation in the group meeting and whether he desig- nated Cohen as a likely prospect to fill an opening there. It is also to be noted that, with advance knowledge of Kramer's testimony (through preheating affidavits), the General Counsel did not seek to corroborate Cohen. Under the circumstances, and as I consider Kramer's testimony to be the more reliable, I credit his version of the discussions on the two occasions, and I have, therefore, not summarized Cohen's testimony in detail. Robert Fontaine and Cecilia Leshyk, of the Fall River staff, testified to an occasion around mid-December when their State Supervisor Louis Rona called them into his office and, after telling them they were free to answer or not, questioned them concerning their knowledge of FOUR and whether they had signed a FOUR card, Rona admitted the interrogation, but testified he prefaced it by the statement that his questions were not put officially in his position as State supervisor, but more as a friend and colleague, and that they were free to answer yes or no or to tell 25 Actually Cohen had been a member of the pre-FOUR group since sometime in 1959, and had attended a number of meetings , including the November 22 meeting and the organization meeting on December 11. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 103 him to "go some place." Though denying that he asked whether they had signed a card, Rona testified that he phrased his interrogation as follows: "Do you know anything about FOUR and are you a member?" 26 Michael J. Gross testified that between Christmas and New Year's Ray Shore, State supervisor of Pennsylvania at the time, asked him during a telephone conversa- tion whether he had signed a FOUR card. When Gross replied that he could not say anything, Shore stated that that was all right, because "we have a list of all the people who signed" and "we are just checking." Though Shore denied Gross' testimony, he admitted on cross-examination that sometime in December, Chaikin asked him to find out what he could about a staff organization and that he thereafter spoke with staff people, asking them what they knew about FOUR. Shore also admitted that his affidavit to the Board contained the following statement: I do not remember if I spoke to Mike Gross on December 13, 1960, but I very well might have. I do not recall the conversation but I might have questioned him about labor organizations, about any labor organization organizing our staff. I could have mentioned the name FOUR if Chaikin had mentioned it to me, but if he had not I would not have. Shore also admitted that he reported back to Chaikin after discussing FOUR with his staff. In view of Shore's admissions on cross-examination and the statements contained in his affidavit, I do not credit his denials of Gross' testimony 27 Shore's inquiries were extended to the Shamokin Local, of which Martin Rosato was manager. Velma Haugh testified that in December Rosato informed her, after taking a telephone call, that the call was from Shore, and inquired whether Haugh had joined FOUR and if Louise Krepshaw and John Crowley (other business agents) had done so. Rosato admitted that around mid-December he asked Haugh whether she knew anything about FOUR or whether she was a member, and whether she knew if the other agents on the staff were members of FOUR or knew anything about FOUR. Richard Kosten, who worked under Detlefsen at Newark, testified that on the evening of December 11 (following the meeting that morning at which FOUR was formed) Detlefsen told Kosten that a meeting had been held earlier that day by staff people, who "got together to form a union," and that some 25 people attended. Detlefsen asked Kosten if he knew about it and told him it would be best that he stay away from Herbert Levitt (another business agent), because Detlefsen was sure that Levitt was "a part of this." Detlefsen testified that there was a discussion around him (at a large Christmas party on December 11) of some meeting which had been held that morning and that, confused at first, he thought the discussion related to a meeting which he had held at Passaic. As the discussion continued, he learned he was mistaken, and he inquired whether the meeting was another of the annual "end-of-the-year gripe meetings." Detlefsen admitted asking Kosten if he attended. As the evidence otherwise failed to establish that Detlefsen had any knowledge of the FOUR activities prior to December 11 (see section B, 7, supra), I credit Detlefsen's testimony.28 Bernard Koozman testified concerning a number of coercive statements made in mid-December by Richard R. Cerbone, manager of Respondent's Jamaica office, in which Koozman was a business agent. Though most of the statements were al- legedly made in the presence of other staff members, and though the Trial Examiner observed on the record that there were plainly other witnesses available to resolve the credibility issues between Koozman and Cerbone, neither the General Counsel nor Respondent called a corroborating witness. As Koozman's testimony appeared -re The distinction which Rona attempted to make appears to be without significance in determining whether his interrogation was violative of the Act. The General Counsel did not clearly disclaim as to this incident during oral argument, and it was in any case parallel to, and part of the pattern of the interrogations which are summarized in this section. n I do not credit Gross' other testimony concerning an interrogation and a warning about FOUR by Joseph Horowitz, district manager at Johnstown, which Horowitz denied. 21 The General Counsel disclaimed during oral argument reliance on the testimony of Herbert Levitt concerning alleged statements made by Detlefsen at an office party on December 28, denied by Respondent's witnesses . The General Counsel also dismissed during oral argument an amendment made at the hearing which charged Detlefsen with the solicitation of resignations in April 1961. 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to be somewhat imaginative, and as he admitted that his affidavits prepared with Sedares' assistance shortly after some of the conversations, contained no reference to Cerbone's statements, I am able to credit Koozman's testimony, in the absence of corroboration, only insofar as it is reconcilable with Cerbone's, as summarized below. Cerbone admitted that around December 15 or 16 he received a call from Minna Morton, of his staff, who reported receipt of an application card from FOUR and who asked if others on the staff had also received cards. Thereupon Cerbone inter- rogated Joe Manenti, Howard Kaufman, Jerry Taylor, and Koozman concerning their knowledge of FOUR and whether they had signed for it. Cerbone's exchanges with Manenti bordered on vehemence. Cerbone testified that when he inquired of Manenti, Manenti requested him not to ask him any questions, but when he pursued the inquiry, Manenti stated his intention to sign with FOUR. Cerbone thereupon upbraided Manenti, reminding him that Cerbone had sent him to the Training In- stitute, and stated that Cerbone now had "a revolution" on his hands and that Manenti was not to be trusted. Later when some of the staff brought to Cerbone application cards from FOUR, Cerbone told them to "watch out what [they were] doing." Koozman stated that he proposed to join FOUR, but would discuss the matter with Cerbone if he did so. Cerbone admitted also that Kaufman and Koozman informed him that Rogoff was a leader of FOUR that he commented he thought Rogoff had more sense, that Sedares was just "a bum," who was good only "for picketing schuls," and that if they were smart they would get out of FOUR. Cerbone also testified that he in- formed his staff in January that in his opinion it was a violation of the ILG constitu- tion to be a member of FOUR, and that it constituted dual unionism, and on another occasion he also informed them that he did not "give a damn" whether they joined FOUR or not. Koozman also testified to an occasion when he was called into Kramer's office on February 28, and questioned first about an altercation he had engaged in with other staff personnel which grew out of a discussion of FOUR. Kramer admitted the incident, and his testimony varied from Koozman's mainly on details and in negating the more emphatic and colorful portions of Koozman's testimony. For reasons stated previously in resolving the Koozman-Cerbone issue, I credit Kramer's version. Briefly summarized, and insofar as relevant to the issues, Kramer testified that after reprimanding Koozman for his part in the altercation (which Kramer assumed was related to FOUR), he questioned Koozman as to his reasons for joining FOUR, and subsequently in responding to Koozman's observation that "this is probably going to be a long drawn out business," Kramer agreed that it would be and that ILG felt so strongly about the issue whether its business agents were its officers or its employees that it would take the issue to "the highest court." When Koozman commented further about the holding up of wage increases, Kramer pointed out that a review committee was being established and that it should "come up with an answer" within a couple of months. 2. The official position; the GEB committees FOUR's telegram demanding recognition was received by President Dubinsky on December 19, and on December 27 FOUR filed its representation petition. On December 29, President Dubinsky dispatched to all regional directors a letter which quoted FOUR's telegram and which continued as follows: This development creates a situation never experienced in the history of our union. It therefore involves an important policy decision on our part. I have refrained from making any decision because I have no authority to act in such a situation; this is a matter for the General Executive Board to consider and decide upon. On December 13th the New York Board scheduled the Fourth Meeting of the GEB to take place the week of January 30th. As you are aware, it has been the practice in our union at this time of the Year to review payroll matters. The review of the payroll in every respect will be held in abeyance pending formulation of a policy by the GEB at the end of January. I am sending you this information for your guidance in the event you should be questioned by any of your staff who may have expected a wage adjustment at this time 29 =s The record showed that graduates of the Training Institute on the payroll of the International who earned less than $120 per week received annually automatic increases INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 105 On December 28, Sedares and Rogoff, temporary chairman and secretary respec- tively, wrote Dubinsky requesting a meeting to discuss the matter of recognition and referring in part to "a series of irresponsible and unnecessary acts on the part of certain department heads and managers," including "the discharge of the Chair- man of FOUR, threats of discharge to other staff members, a systematic and methodical interrogation of staff members regarding their membership in and atti- tude toward FOUR, and threats of other reprisals if they join FOUR." Expressing belief that Dubinsky was personally unaware of, and would not condone, such prac- tices, the letter expressed the hope that Dubinsky would remedy the situation. Dubinsky replied by letter of December 30, addressed to Rogoff, in part as follows : Your request to discuss a union within our union concerns an unprecedented matter which involves an important policy decision by the ILGWU. This is a matter upon which only the General Executive Board has authority to act. On December 13th, the Fourth Meeting of the GEB was scheduled to take place the week of January 30th in Atlantic City. The entire matter will be placed on the GEB's agenda. Should any individual or committee wish to appear before the GEB on this matter, I am certain that the Board will, as has been its usual practice, make such opportunity available. During the meeting on January 9 between Rogoff and Sedares and Dubinsky, Stulberg, and Daniels (section B, 6, supra ), reference was made to FOUR's claims of discrimination, as a result of which Dubinsky agreed to send , and later did send, on January 13, the following letter to all regional directors: A question of discrimination was raised in connection with the move to organize a union within our union. To my knowledge, there has been no discrimination against any officer or staff member at any time. You are advised to continue to adhere to this policy of non-discrimination. On February 15, Respondent's official magazine "Justice" contained on its editorial page a reprint of a speech which Dubinsky made to the GEB on January 30. There Dubinsky expressed at length his views on the concept of "a union within a union." Though the General Counsel does not contend that any part of Dubinsky's state- ment was violative of the Act, he relies upon it as support for his premise that Respondent has at all times manifested intense and bitter opposition to FOUR, pointing specifically to the following: that Dubinsky expressed his conviction that "a union is a crusade"; that "the ILGWU has always stood for a missionary concept of the labor movement"; that at least some of those involved with FOUR were "acting out of evil motive," and that FOUR was a group masquerading as a union whose purpose was to win control of Respondent . Thus it is made understandable, the General Counsel argues, how ILG, a union with an outstanding reputation, could have engaged in a ruthless antiunion campaign to stamp out a union of its employees and how, having equated FOUR from the first with evil, it set out with religious fervor to destroy it. In the meantime, the GEB met in the week of January 30 , and rejected FOUR's request for recognition . It did not act to restore the normal year-end wage in- creases which Dubinsky had suspended , but it did set up a group of three com- mittees as follows: One committee was to consider on a continuing basis grievances and suggestions of officers and staff members and to make recommendations on wages and other personnel problems to the GEB. The second committee was to consider whether or not to continue staff people on Respondent's own payroll or to re- distribute them to the payrolls of departments , regions, and locals. The third com- mittee was to consider whether to continue allowing graduates from the Training Institute to become members of Respondent after 1 year and members of its retire- ment fund after 31/2 years. The establishment of those committees is itself claimed as a violation of the Act, the General Counsel asserting that they were created in response to FOUR's request of $7.50 ; that the performances of all other Institute graduates on the International's payroll and of all other staff members on that payroll were reviewed at year end for a possible merit increase; and that staff members of autonomous locals and joint boards involved solely in the dress industry bad their salaries reviewed after the execution of each successive 3-year contract. 'Vice President Kramer testified that normal wage increases were thereafter held up and that he explained to employees who inquired that it was due to "the unique situation of a union within a union" and because "we might get involved in unfair labor practices if we gave increases." 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for recognition and to undercut FOUR. As supporting that claim, the General Counsel points to Dubinsky's letter of December 29, to his speech to GEB, and to an official press release, dated February 6, which, after setting forth Respondent's explanations of its refusal to recognize FOUR, concluded as follows: The General Executive Board has, therefore, instructed the ILGWU legal staff to oppose recognition of a bargaining unit in this category [of business agents]. The Board has also designated a Review Committee on personnel matters, composed of GEB members. On a continuing basis, this committee will con- sider grievances and suggestions of any officer or staff members and will make recommendations on wage and other personnel problems to the General Execu- tive Board. That release was republished in the February 15 issue of "Justice," which con- tained also a news item which reported the establishment of the three committees. Relevant also was the following portion of Dubinsky's speech before GEB as re- printed in "Justice": I am not here discussing the question of whether members of the ILGWU have grievances that deserve redress. I am certain that there are such grievances- real and imagined. And I believe it is one of the responsibilities of the ILGWU to use existing and develop new channels for handling such problems. 3. The staff meetings; group solicitation Respondent's attitude of opposition to FOUR, as officially made known to its em- ployees (section 2, supra), was brought closer home to them, both in a series of group meetings which were held by Kramer, for Eastern Region personnel, by Chaikin, for Fall River (Northeast Department) personnel, and by E. T. Kehrer, for Southeast Region personnel, as well as in individual acts by them and other supervis- ors (section 4, infra) of interrogation, of solicitation to abandon FOUR and/or to submit their grievances to the GEB committees, and of implied and express threats. We start with the meeting of the Eastern Region staff, which was held in New York City on February 17, immediately following the publication of Dubinsky's speech. That meeting, over which Kramer presided, at which Dubinsky spoke, and at which attendance was compulsory, was illustrative, generally, of the conduct of Respondent's other officials and supervisors. The General Counsel accepts Kramer's testimony as supporting his contentions concerning that meeting. Kramer told the staff that the issue of FOUR was one "that the ILGWU felt very strongly about, which I felt strongly about, that we were not employers and they weren't employees . that we were not a business; that we were a movement." Kramer testified that some of his managers took the floor to attack FOUR's ad- herents (a) as creators of an internal faction who "ought to be kicked out of the union," a position which Kramer himself disavowed at that point; (b) as "vicious, because instead of keeping their grievances within the union, they went to the press . . ."; and (c) as "going about it the wrong way. Instead of going to an outside organization ... they should have stayed within the family of the union." Other speakers attacked the leadership of FOUR. Kramer testified that he called out the names of persons whom he thought were members of FOUR, and testified further as follows: I told the men I was interested in knowing what the grievances were, I mean what this was all about, and I wanted them to speak and to voice their feelings about this thing, and I even told them that I was aware that some of these were members of FOUR. There was no concealment as to who was who once the thing was out into the open, and I even named some of the boys and I said . . . the only reason I'm naming you is I want you to feel free to speak because this union is not a union of vengeance against people who are in opposition. I said we have a man who is sitting here, and I pointed to Arthur Stolnick, who in 1926 was a Communist. He was one of the members who fought the ILGWU and today he is an officer of the union and holds a respected position. I pointed out that Mr. Zimmerman, who was the general manager of the Dress Joint Board, was probably the outstanding Communist leader in 1926, one of the outstanding leaders, and that he had seen the light and understood the nature of Communism, and the internal difficulties had been composed, he returned to the union and became manager of Local 22, and became a vice president.... INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 107 The General Counsel also cites the fact that Dubinsky spoke at the meeting, and that he, like Kramer, pointed out "that others had gone out of the fold, had been Communists, and had gone out of the fold and had been taken back and had been forgiven," and that on the other hand, he promised FOUR a long and hard fight up to the Supreme Court.30 On February 20, a meeting of the Fall River staff was held at Chaikin's request after regular working hours and after Chaikin had completed other union business. It ran for some 3 hours up to about 1 a.m., or later. After about half an hour, the discussions concerned only the subject of FOUR and the decisions which the GEB had made in relation to it. Though a number of witnesses testified concerning the discussions, the General Counsel cites and relies on the following testimony given by Ralph A. Roberts, a witness for Respondent: Chaikin outlined the grievance procedure that was in the offing, that the General Executive Board was going to set up some kind of a grievance board, and then there was a discussion between Chaikin and Fontaine as to the question of whether or not FOUR had merit, and Roussos entered into that discussion. By and large it dealt generally with the whole subject of FOUR and it was a give and take propositions. I think what Chaikin was seeking, and he sought and did get responses from some of the people sitting there, particularly Fontaine and Roussos, and I believe Cecelia Leshy made some contributions to the discussion. Roberts testified further as follows: Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting by anybody as to whether or not any person assembled there was a member of FOUR? A. I think it was apparent that some people were members of FOUR, the way they contributed to the conversation, that still belonged. I think it was obvious, for example, that Fontaine, Roussos, Leshy and perhaps the others were members of FOUR by nature of the conversation and discussion. This was a-in my opinion, a really broad discussion. It ranged all over the place on the subject of FOUR, ethics, as to what we were trying to do in the trade union movement. I think Chaikin indicated that he refused to be categorized as an employer in a sense that somebody who ran a dress shop was an employer, and that we and the others had entered this movement for another reason entirely, to-it was a cause to him and he hoped it was a cause to others, and so forth, and a cause for doing good. E. T. Kehrer, regional director of the Southeast Region, held a total of three meetings (January 3, and February 13 and 17) of staff personnel in Atlanta at which FOUR was discussed. Kehrer testified that he held the January 3 meeting in part for the purpose of "laying the whole matter [of FOUR] before the staff if they chose to discuss it"; that he did so at the request of two members of his staff; but that he himself did not participate in the discussions because he was under President Dubinsky's instructions not to discuss that matter with the staff pending a determina- tion of policy by GEB. The speakers included, Kehrer testified, one who made a strongly anti-FOUR statement to the effect that he was withdrawing from FOUR because he had signed a card "under false pretenses," that he had been duped and lied to, and that he was publicly renouncing the organization. Another staff mem- ber spoke of her long connection with ILG, called it her union, and stated in part she could see no useful purpose to be served by having an outside union trying to bargain for her. 30 The General Counsel's bill of particulars did not charge to Dubinsky personally any conduct or statement as violative of the Act, and his brief claimed no such violation. During the course of the hearing the General Counsel expressly disclaimed a violation "based on Mr. Dubinsky's utterances at that meeting [of February 171," and elsewhere he disclaimed any Section 8(a) (1) conduct on Dubinsky's part. During the course of oral argument, However, .the General Counsel while admitting his disclaimers at the hearing, lay claim to a violation on Dubinsky's part by his statements referred to in the text above, interpreting them as a solicitation of resignations. In view of the General Counsel's failure to include Dubinsky in his bill of particulars and his repeated disclaimers at the bearing, I feel that rudimentary standards of fair play (if not, indeed, of due process) preclude the General Counsel's belated attempt to claim, over Respondent's objection, a Section 8(a) (1) violation by Dubinsky personally, and I make no finding thereon. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the subsequent meetings on February 13 and 17, of business agents and or- ganizers, respectively, Kehrer himself took the lead in denouncing FOUR.31 He told his listeners, among other things, that they would have an opportunity to discuss FOUR but that he was going to give his own opinion at the risk of having some of them file unfair labor practice charges against him; that he thought FOUR was a disaster; that membership in it constituted dual unionism and was a fundamental violation of the ILG constitution, from which he read pertinent portions. Kehrer also told the staff that GEB had set up a committee which was considering the ques- tion whether business agents should be elected instead of appointed.32 Kehrer also spoke deprecatingly of the appearance of FOUR's representatives before the GEB, criticizing particularly "the performance" of J. W. Mitchell of his own staff. At the meeting with the organizers he passed around photostatic copies of telegrams of resignation from FOUR by some of the business agents on his staff. Kehrer concluded the meetings by pointing out that even if FOUR should succeed in achieving a collective-bargaining agreement with ILG, his own authority as a regional director would be in no way diminished with reference to hiring, firing, transferring, promoting, or demoting. Individual solicitations and other conduct by Kehrer which followed the staff meetings is set out in the next section. 4. Individual solicitations ; alleged discrimination (a) Chaikin On February 25 (5 days after meeting with the Fall River staff), Chaikin invited to his home for an overnight visit, Marvin Rogoff, who was FOUR's secretary- treasurer and who was attached to the Harrisburg district within Chaikin's North- east Department. Chaikin testified that his purpose was to talk with Rogoff "about the ILGWU and FOUR." The discussions, which ranged over the whole question of FOUR and its relationship to its members and to ILG, lasted until 3 a.m. Rogoff testified that among other things, Chaikin requested him to "drop your petition and leave the whole matter in Dubinsky's hands, let him settle the whole thing," and that he refused to do so. At another point Chaikin stated angrily, "You're stupid, you have made all the wrong moves in FOUR. I once recommended you for promotion. I will never recommend you for a promotion again because you are stupid." Chaikin denied that he asked Rogoff to drop the petition, denied that he told Rogoff to leave the whole matter in Dubinsky's hands, and denied saying that Rogoff was stupid, though he admitted he told Rogoff that some of the actions Rogoff had taken in connection with FOUR were stupid actions and that he would "have to re-evaluate [his] opinion of [Rogoff's] intelligence and the value of the experience he gained. . Chaikin reminded Rogoff that he had recommended Rogoff for a higher position several months before in the belief that Rogoff was a man of intelli- gence and experience, but he continued that Rogoff's actions (vis-a-vis FOUR) con- vinced him that Rogoff did not measure up to Chaikin's belief in him. Chaikin denied telling Rogoff that he would never recommend him for a promotion again because he was stupid. Gus Tyler, of the Training Institute, was present for a brief portion of the discus- sions, but his testimony did not relate to the specific points of conflict between Rogoff and Chaikin. He testified that Rogoff was informed that they were meeting to see whether a rapprochement could be effected between FOUR and ILG, that the "general office" was interested in making some informal explorations toward a settle- ment of the FOUR problem, that neither Dubinsky nor the GEB was looking for blood, and that the first thing to do was to determine what the grievances were and to resolve them without internal warfare. As Chaikin was opening the discus- sion of the nature of the grievances , Tyler was called away. In resolving the conflicts in the Rogoff-Chaikin testimony, there are two points which are of significance. The first is that Tyler's description of the purpose of 3' Although a number of witnesses testified to the discussions at those meetings, the General Counsel relied-as he did as to the January 3 meeting-on Kehrer's own testi- mony when called as his witness under Rule 43(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 32 That announcement was significant in relation to Kehrer 's position that dual unionism (i.e., membership in FOUR) was in conflict with the constitution since it was necessary for an elected business agent to be a member of ILG, whereas ILG membership was not required of appointed business agents. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 109 the meeting tended to confirm Rogoff's version of the nature of Chaikin's proposals.33 Secondly, Chaikin attempted glib evasions of direct questions put by the Trial Ex- aminer before entering denials of the statements which Rogoff attributed to him as quoted above, and on the question of the recommendation for promotion his ultimate answers seemed to constitute, in the phraseology of "double talk," a sub- stantial admission of Rogoff's version, i.e., he admitted referring to his former recommendation of Rogoff for promotion based on his appraisal of Rogoff's intel- ligence, that he criticized Rogoff's moves on FOUR as stupid ones, and that he stated that because of them he would have to reevaluate his opinion of Rogoff. I am therefore convinced and find that Chaikin made the statements substantially in the terms which Rogoff testified to, and that in any case Chaikin plainly implied, if he did not baldly state, the substance of Rogoff's version. (b) Roberts Ralph A. Roberts, district manager of the Southern New England District, and Louis E. Rona, supervisor of Upstate New York and New England, both attended Chaikin's meeting with the Fall River staff on the evening of February 20, and both engaged in subsequent conduct which the General Counsel assigns as violative of the Act. We begin with Roberts. Nicholas Roussos, Cecilia Leshyk, and Robert Fontaine, business agents under Roberts, testified to separate occasions in March when Roberts called them into his office and solicited their resignations from FOUR. Roussos and Fontaine refused, but Leshyk, upon further consideration, sent in her resignation. Roberts denied those individual solicitations, but he affirmed the accuracy of one of Roussos' affidavits to the Board, which the Respondent offered without limitation and which ended with the statement that Roberts said that he "wasn't really asking anyone to resign-that he just wanted to know exactly how everyone felt." The General Counsel disclaimed Roberts' discussion in the group session as a violation, and Respondent attacks the credibility of the three witnesses against Roberts on the ground that their affidavits to the Board contained no reference to the individual solicitations . Leshyk was apparently not questioned about the contents of her affidavit, nor was Roussos. Fontaine admitted that he did not refer to Roberts' individual solicitation in his affidavit, but testified that he told the Board attorney about it sometime later. I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Roussos, Fontaine, and Leshyk as to the individual solicitations. (c) Rona In Rona's case, the General Counsel stands, for one of his charges, on Rona's own affidavit, which was received by stipulation, and which was to the following effect: In February or March 1961, Elliott Klitzman, a business agent subordinate to Rona, reported to Rona during a telephone conversation that he would like to with- draw from FOUR and would like Rona's idea on how Klitzman and others might withdraw in such a way as to save face. Rona suggested to Klitzman that he repeat at a regional meeting of FOUR in Boston on the coming Sunday (of which Klitzman had informed him) exactly what Klitzman had told him on the telephone and that as long as Klitzman and others felt that their primary purpose in joining FOUR was to have an outlet for their grievances and financial problems, "why not take advan- tage of the committees set up for this purpose by the GEB on January 30." Rona subsequently telephoned Business Agent Nicholas Roussos, inquired whether Roussos knew anything about the regional meeting scheduled for Sunday, and Roussos replied that he would be in attendance. Rona thereupon related to Roussos his prior conversation with KIitzman and suggested that if Roussos were sincere in some of his earlier conversations to the effect that he was only interested in a medium for presenting his grievances, then he should listen to Klitzman's proposals at the meeting, which would give Roussos the "out" he' was looking for and still save face, i.e., that they present their grievances to the review committee without resigning from FOUR. 33 In view of Respondent's unremitting opposition to FOUR's recognition demands, it was plain that any settlement without "warfare" would necessarily involve capitulation by FOUR-not by ILG !-and naturally the resolution of existing grievances was an essential prerequisite to moving to that end. At no point during the lengthy debate was there the slightest suggestion that the settlement toward which Chaikin was working would involve recognition of FOUR. 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Roussos testified that at the meeting on Sunday (about which Rona telephoned him), Klitzman and Levine made the statement that so far as FOUR was concerned, "we probably lost the battle," and they suggested that the solution lay in the use of the grievance procedure which the GEB had set up for the consideration of grievances 34 Rona's affidavit also covered the subject of his discussions with staff members while at dinner on various occasions during which, I suggested several times that they contact the Board of Review set up by the GEB at the end of January and place their grievances before the board and see what results they would get. I believe I indicated that if the question of FOUR were resolved, there was the possibility that the Board of review will react favorably to their grievances 35 I told them that the board of review could not act now because of the pend- ing petition. Rona was also involved, along with Martin Rosato, manager of the Shamokin (Pennsylvania) Local, in an alleged discriminatory failure to transfer Louise Krep- shaw, for whom Rona had been a sort of godfather in ILG. Krepshaw testified, and Rona admitted, that at a Christmas party around December 6 (prior to her connection with FOUR), she asked if Rona would give her a job in New England. Rona stated that he might have an opening in a couple of months and promised to keep her in mind. Krepshaw admitted that Rona questioned her seriousness and that he expressed doubt that she was ready to leave Pennsylvania. Rona testified that he did not take Krepshaw's request seriously and that he told her so, pointing to a number of things concerning her family situation in Pennsyl- vania (including certain personal problems which they had discussed) which militated against her moving at the time. Though Rona denied that he had an opening or was expecting one at the time, he testified that he promised to consider Krepshaw's request if in the future her personal problems developed a necessity for a transfer. Krepshaw testified further that in late January or early February, Rosato informed her that he had talked to Rona and that Rona would not hire her. When Krepshaw replied she would believe it only if Rona told her, Rosato placed a call to Rona, who confirmed Rosato's statement. When Krepshaw asked if the reason was that she was a member of FOUR, Rona affirmed that it was. Krepshaw's testimony was sharply disputed by Rosato and Rona, whose testimony was mutually corroborative. They both agreed that the occasion arose after the publication of the Dubinsky editorial in "Justice" on February 15. Rosato testified that it was during a discussion of that editorial that he made one of his suggestions that Krepshaw resign from FOUR and that led, among other things, to a question by Krepshaw as to Rona's opinion of FOUR. When he informed Krepshaw that Rona was opposed to FOUR, Krepshaw expressed disbelief unless she heard it from Rona directly. It was then that he placed the call to Rona, and he testified that after informing Rona of his discussion of FOUR with Krepshaw, Krepshaw came on to the telephone in another office, and Rosato hung up. Rona's testimony confirmed Rosato's as to the initiation of the conversation. He testified that during a lengthy conversation, he discussed the question of FOUR with Krepshaw and that he explained to her his reasons for his opposition to it. Rona denied that there was any mention of a transfer in that conversation and denied that he told Krepshaw that he would not hire her because she was a member of FOUR. I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Rona and Rosato over the uncorroborated testimony of Krepshaw. (d) Rosato Intertwined with the evidence set forth in the preceding section was testimony by Krepshaw and Velma Haugh that on numerous occasions Rosato pressed them persistently to withdraw or resign from FOUR, coupling his solicitations with veiled threats and suggestions of possible reprisals. Haugh testified that finally, unable to withstand longer his importunings, she agreed to resign; that Rosato directed her to send a telegram to Rogoff; and that he dictated to his secretary an outline of the telegram which was sent. 14 In view of the contents of Rona's affidavit, I now overrule Respondent's objection to Roussos' testimony above, on which I reserved ruling at the hearing. 35 I do not credit Roussos' testimony, which Rona denied and which was not corroborated by other witnesses, that Rona stated that the matter of wage increases would depend upon when the question of FOUR was settled, "perhaps favorably." INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 111 Rosato admitted discussing with Krepshaw the question of resigning from FOUR, and he admitted also that he requested Haugh to withdraw and that when she asked for help in phrasing the telegram, he referred her to his secretary. Rosato denied making the threats and suggestions of reprisal which Haugh and Krepshaw attributed to him. As the Haugh-Krepshaw testimony was in a sense mutually corroborative in that it related to similar conduct by Rosato toward each of them, and as Rosato's own testimony itself went far to confirm the truth of the accusations against him, I credit the Haugh-Krepshaw testimony. (e) Kehrer We return now to Kehrer's conduct which followed the staff meetings in Atlanta on February 13 and 17 (section 3, supra). At the conclusion of those meetings, Kehrer scheduled individual conferences with the staff members, at each of which his assistant, Nicholas Bonanno, was also present. According to the testimony of business agents Albert Gross and D. O. Warren and Organizer James S. Temple, the sole topic of their brief interviews was FOUR, with Kehrer either inquiring about, or referring to, the fact of their membership and requesting them (except Gross) to withdraw. The interviews ended abruptly in each case, with Kehrer ordering them to "Get out," and in Temple's case by accusing Temple of being a "traitor" whom he could not trust again. Temple also testified that he brought up the ques- tion of the license plates and the titling of his car, suggesting a preference for Tennessee (where his home was located). Kehrer peremptorily ordered him to title the car in South Carolina, where Temple was assigned at the time, and added, "Let me tell you right now you are not going to work in Tennessee anymore." The testimony of Kehrer and Bonanno was in sharp conflict with that of Gross, Warren, and Temple save for admissions that individual interviews were held and that the subject of FOUR was discussed in each case. Kehrer also admitted that he expressed surprise at Warren's membership and that, having become considerably exasperated at the end of the discussion, he informed Warren that he could leave. Kehrer denied that he ordered any of them to "Get out," though he also admitted telling Gross that he might as well go. Indeed, Kehrer also admitted (as a Rule 43(b) witness) that he had questioned other organizers during the course of their individual interviews as to where they stood on FOUR, naming Ed Sharp as one and Carl Stafford as another. As the testimony of Gross, Warren, and Temple was in effect mutually, though indirectly, corroborative, and as Kehrer's admissions also lent a further measure of confirmation, I credit their testimony in resolving the conflicts with that of Kehrer and Bonanno. Although the General Counsel's bill of particulars also charged Kehrer with various discriminatory acts and practices from January 3 through July 25, his in- ability to procure the attendance of certain witnesses from the Southeast Region apparently dealt a heavy blow to that portion of his case. As a direct result the General Counsel dismissed at the hearing an allegation that J . W. Mitchell was discriminatorily discharged, and during the course of the oral argument he conceded that he had not "sufficiently established" some of the other allegations. Ultimately his claims boiled down to a contention that Kehrer had discriminated against Gross and Temple by reducing their per diem allowances from $3.50 to $1.50 on weekends when spent at home. The General Counsel admitted that the remainder of his case so far as Temple was concerned was "to abstruse" and "too minute" to warrant the effort, but he maintained his contention as to the reduction in Temple's per diem because it paralleled the same alleged discriminatory treatment of Gross. Though the parallel in the fact of the deduction was evident, the difficulty in Temple's case was that the amount was entirely trivial and insignificant when measured against the extremely generous treatment which Kehrer had accorded Temple contemporaneously during a 9-week period of illness and injury when Kehrer (1) continued to pay Temple his full salary; (2) continued to give him his regular rent allowance; and (3) authorized his continued use of the ILG car for personal reasons and the incurring of expenses in its operation. It is inconceivable that Kehrer, if discriminatorily motivated, would have filched from Temple com- paratively trifling amounts of expense money in the face of the readymade oppor- tunity to deal Temple a substantial hurt, and this aside from Kehrer's explanation which I consider in connection with Gross' case. Gross' per diem allowance, like Temple's, had been cut beginning February 17, from $3.50 a day to $1.50 on occasions when Gross was at home. Kehrer testi- fied credibly that the deductions were made to conform to a longstanding rule which had not previously been stringently enforced; that partly as a result of President 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dubinsky's criticism of laxity, he began to enforce the rule more stringently after warning his staff at the meetings that they were to request only a $1.50 allowance while they were at home. Gross in turn admitted that Kehrer announced in the meetings that he had been lax in the matter of the per diem allowances, that Kehrer made specific reference to staff people in Atlanta in stating that those who had been getting $3.50 at home would be cut to $1.50, and that Kehrer also referred to the necessity for cutting expenses and for staff members to tighten their belts on such expenditures as per diem, telephone, hotel, and travel. What the General Counsel points to as establishing a discriminatory motivation is the evidence previously summarized of Kehrer's anti-FOUR utterances in the meetings and of his individual solicitation of resignations from Warren, Gross, and Temple, as well as the subsequent act of assigning Gross to Greenville, of suspending him when he refused to accept the assignment, and of revoking the suspension after Gross informed Kehrer he had withdrawn from FOUR. Although I credit Gross' testimony that Kehrer admitted on the latter occasion that the transfer to Greenville was a part of the pressure Kehrer had used upon Gross to induce his withdrawal from FOUR (knowing as he did that Gross' wife would probably oppose the move), it does not establish that the reduction in Gross' per diem allowance was discrimina- torily motivated, whatever else it might have established.36 Thus, it is plain that when Kehrer succeeded in getting Gross to resign from FOUR, he immediately lifted Gross' suspension and restored him to his former job in Atlanta. That action plainly indicated Kehrer's full satisfaction at the ac- complishment of his purpose. That Kehrer did not immediately revert to his former laxity on the per diem allowance does not establish that any modicum remained either of animus or of coercive intent. In short, the General Counsel's evidence does not establish that Kehrer was moved to enforce the per diem rule in Gross' case by reason of FOUR, rather than by Dubinsky's criticisms of his previous laxity 37 5. Concluding findings It is now definitively settled that, "[W]hen a labor union takes on the role of an employer the Act applies to its operations just as it would to any other employer." Office Employees' Union v. N.L.R.B., 353 U.S. 313, 316. When so acting as an employer, then, a union becomes subject to the provisions of Section 8(a)-just as the Section 8(b) proscriptions apply to it as a labor organization-and no valid basis can be suggested for distinguishing it from any other employer or for calculating on different scales the coercive effect or weight to be accorded to statements and conduct by its officers, agents, and supervisors vis-a-vis its employees. Respondent's main contention is that the conduct complained of occurred only as "philosophical discussions" among "colleagues" of the concept of a union within a union. Certainly discussions which were maintained on such a basis would plainly qualify as free speech and as the kind of "non-coercive anti-union solicitation" re- ferred to in N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U.S. 357, 362, (relied upon by Respondent), which the Supreme Court held would be protected by Section 8(c) of the Act where made "under proper circumstances." But the record here showed the following situations where the acts and conduct of Respondent's officers and supervisors, departing from that protected area, plainly "Neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars assigned Gross' transfer and 806- pension as an unfair labor practice, and the General Counsel made no motion to amend at the hearing when comment was made on that fact. Finally, in oral argument, when the point was again adverted to, the General Counsel asserted reliance on the incident only as part of the solicitation of Gross to withdraw from FOUR. 87 Although it was not entirely clear from the oral argument whether the General Counsel waived his contention concerning the "docking" of the Mitchell brothers during a 4-day period following the January 3 meeting, the evidence does not establish a violation. The Mitchells failed to honor the General Counsel's subpena, and the only evidence suggestive of a discriminatory intent was testimony that during the course of the discussion of FOUR at the January 3 meeting, J. W. Mitchell made some comment to the effect that, "Well, we could all use more money." A reduction was made in the per diem allowance only of the Mitchell brothers for 4 days over the following weekend, although there were three others similarly situated in their five-man group. Kehrer testified without denial that the other members in the group requested and received permission to leave for home dur- ing the period in question, whereas the Mitchells failed to request or to receive such per- mission, and that the reduction was made pursuant to the longstanding policy that when a member leaves his post for a period of 1 or more days without prior authorization, be will not be reimbursed for expenses incurred while he is away from his post. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 113 tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of their right themselves to enjoy what they had so long preached, as Respondent's disciples, to the employees of other employers-to bargain collectively with their own em- ployer through representatives of their own choosing: (a) In the context of Dubinsky's published statements of hostility to FOUR, Re- spondent's officers staged open-forum meetings for the discussion of FOUR during which they stated their own opposition to it and either called for, or permitted, violent attacks on FOUR and its leadership. The staging of such open debates was neces- sarily calculated to result in disclosure to Respondent of the identities both of em- ployees who opposed and those who adhered to FOUR, and the intent to expose was further high-lighted in the New York meeting by Vice President Kramer's open identification of employees whom he knew or thought to be members of FOUR. A further calculated object was the solicitation of defections, as indicated by Kramer's reference to the ex-Communists who had left the fold and who had at- tained high office after returning to ILG and by Kehrer's circulation of telegrams of resignation from FOUR. In addition, at two of the meetings (Fall River and New York) the discussions of FOUR were coupled with the subject of employee griev- ances, with reference also being made to the GEB's action in setting up a committee to handle grievances; and in the Atlanta meeting, Kehrer coupled his reference to the constitutional proscription of dual unionism (vis-a-vis FOUR) with references to the fact that one of the new GEB committees was considering a proposal to have its business agents elected (thereby disqualifying members of FOUR). In short, I conclude and find that the meetings were so staged and conducted that they necessarily constituted a form of coercive interrogation of employees, Trans- Oil, Inc., 86 NLRB 136, 137; of coercive solicitation of withdrawals or defections from FOUR, The Jefferson Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 757, 769; Overnite Transportation Company, 129 NLRB 1026, 1031-1032, 1034, and of the undercutting of FOUR through soliciting resort to the newly created GEB committee for handling grievances. (b) Similarly, against the background of Respondent's official position of opposi- tion to FOUR, Respondent's supervisors, adding their own expressions of hostility, engaged in individual solicitations of employees to resign or withdraw from FOUR. In some cases the employees were subjected to persistent importunings and in one case was given assistance in effecting the resignation. In others the employees' refusals were met with angry and abrupt termination of the interviews. Suggestions of close friendship between Rosato, on the one hand, and Haugh and Krepshaw on the other, plainly could not overcome the coercive impact of Rosato's persistent importunings, particularly in the light of his suggestions of possible reprisals. I conclude and find that the individual solicitations to resign (including Chaikin's solicitation of Rogoff to withdraw the petition) were also violative of the Act, falling plainly outside the scope of the expression of views which is protected by Section 8(c). Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 103 NLRB 341, 353, and cases there cited. Also to be considered are the suspension of wage increases and the establishment of committees by GEB. Respondent defends its suspension of increases on the ground that it feared both a plethora of charges of individual discrimination and that it wished to avoid any claim that it was seeking to affect the outcome of the election (if one were directed by the Board). It is true that Respondent faced a sort of Hobson's choice insofar as increases were to be based on Respondent's appraisal of comparative merit and individual job performances, since charges of discrimination seemed reasonably predictable if it proceeded on those. Its defense was, however, just as plainly invalid as concerned the annual increases which by its normal practice were given automatically in fixed amounts to employees in certain categories (see footnote 29, supra), since the granting of such automatic increases would entail no risk or danger. To withhold such increases while publicly assigning FOUR's request for recognition as an excuse plainly constituted inter- ference with and restraint of the employees in the exercise of their right to join FOUR and to participate in the organizational campaign. By such action I conclude and find that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within Section 8(a)( I). Concerning the three new committees established by GEB during the week of January 30, the General Counsel complains chiefly of the one which was to handle grievances and to make recommendations on wages and personnel problems to GEB. To that committee GEB delegated the handling of the annual increases which President Dubinsky referred to it on December 29 when he suspended such in- creases because of FOUR's recognition demand. Furthermore, insofar as the com- mittee's function involved the handling of employee grievances, it was plain from the publicizing of the committee, from the discussions in the staff meetings (section 3, supra), and from Rona's suggestions to Klitzman and Roussos and to his other staff 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members that they look to the GEB committee rather than FOUR for solution of their grievances and other problems (section 4, supra), that the committee was created and was held out as a device for undercutting FOUR. I therefore conclude and find that its establishment constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As to the other two committees, the General Counsel did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that their creation constituted interference with the FOUR campaign. No reference was made to them, so far as the record shows, either in the staff meetings or in individual discussions by Respondent's officers or supervisors, and there was no evidence that they have functioned at all, or that, if they have done so, it was in a manner which interfered with FOUR. Respondent was free, of course, to appoint committees to consider recommending changes in its constitution and in its fiscal organization, and there was, as to these two com- mittees, no suggestion that they were to function as an instrument for undercutting FOUR. Turning to the incidents of interrogation, most of them occurred prior to announce- ment of Respondent's position of hostility to FOUR, and they must, therefore, be considered without reference to that factor. Respondent's contentions run substan- tially to the following effect: that the interrogations were privileged as free speech under Section 8(c) and were permissible under the Board's doctrine in Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, because there was no showing that they contained promises of benefit or threats of reprisal, or that they occurred in a setting of other conduct creating a coercive atmosphere, or were for an unlawful purpose. There is no merit to those contentions. The tests which the Board applies to determine whether interrogation is lawful or unlawful have been repeatedly expli- cated; they are concisely summarized in the Intermediate Report in The Southland Corporation, Case No. 5-CA-2051, IR-198-62, by Trial Examiner Arthur Leff, from which I quote: Section 8(c) is not involved , for interrogation cannot be classified as the expression of views, argument, or opinion. It is quite true that the Board no longer follows a per se approach which would hold any employer inquiry di- rected to employees concerning union matters a violation of the Act for that reason alone. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591; see also Ainsworth Manufacturing Company, Springfield Division of Precasco Corporation, 131 NLRB 273, 274, footnote 3. But neither does the Board woodenly confine itself to rigidly formulated rules as circumscribed as those the Respondent posits. In determining whether given interrogation is lawful or unlawful, it considers each case on its own facts, each interrogation in its own setting. The broad test it applies is that enunciated in Blue Flash, "whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act." In that con- nection, "the time, the place, the personnel involved, the information sought and the employer's conceded preference must be considered," N.L.R.B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F. 2d 596, quoted by the Board with approval in Blue Flash. Whether the particular interrogation involved is, as here, systematic, rather than a casual, friendly, isolated instance of interrogation is a significant consideration to be taken into account, although not alone conclusive. See, Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc., 135 NLRB 228; cf. Blue Flash. A showing that the interrogation occurred in a context of threats, promises of benefit, or other employer activity creating a coercive atmosphere is, to be sure, highly material in assessing the coercive force of the interrogation involved. But such a showing is not an indispensible prerequisite to a finding of illegality. Where the interrogation itself is conducted under such circumstances as to disclose on its face that it is of a kind which reasonably may be expected to impede and coerce employees in the free exercise of their statutory rights, the absence of independent unlawful conduct does not detract from its otherwise unlawful character. Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc., 135 NLRB 228. Nor under such circumstances does the absence of a purpose to put the interrogation to unlawful use excuse the unfair labor practice. Section 8(a)( I) conduct does not turn on the employer's motive (e.g, Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793; N:L.R.B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811; American Freight- ways Co., 124 NLRB 146). Legitimacy of purpose may in certain situations bear on the factual question of whether the interrogation is such as to have a reasonable tendency to coerce. But even then it can have relevance only where, as in Blue Flash, that purpose is communicated to employees along with assur- ances that the information is neither sought nor will be used as a basis for un- lawful action. For only then can it be argued that the communicated purpose and accompanying safeguards designed to assure employee understanding are INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 115 countervailing circumstances to be weighed in the balance in determining whether the particular interrogation involved reasonably had a tendency to coerce. In the present case the inquiries were not shown to be for the purpose of deter- mining that FOUR actually represented a majority of the employees, as in Blue Flash, supra, nor were they explained to the employees on that basis. Cf. S. H. Kress & Co., 137 NLRB 1244. Indeed, with one exception the interrogations pre- ceded FOUR's demand for recognition; all were made without explanation of their purpose; and Respondent has since suggested none save (in Rona's case) that the questioning was an invitation to the employees to discuss their views on the subject of a union within a union 38 Furthermore the employees were given no assurances against reprisals, and neither was the interrogation limited to the employees' desire to be represented by FOUR. Orkin Exterminating Company of Kansas, Inc., 136 NLRB 630. Though as Respondent contends, the interrogations occurred during friendly con- versations (save for Cerbone's bitter comments to Manenti), they were neither casual 39 nor isolated incidents, but were plainly connected with, and were a part of Respondent's efforts to learn from the employees whether they had become involved in, and what they knew about, the staff union activities. And whether systematic or not, a clear pattern was discernible from the time of Stulberg's suggestion to Kramer that they should look into Sedares' claim that the staff was being organized. The final incident of interrogation, of Koozman by Kramer, was even more plainly coercive. It occurred not only after the publication of Respondent's statements of opposition to FOUR and after Kramer's meeting with the Eastern Region staff on February 17, but also in the context of Kramer's reprimand of Koozman for an altercation which Kramer assumed (correctly) concerned FOUR. Recent court decisions reflect continued enforcement of Board findings based on interrogation which were more limited in scope than those here involved. Thus, in N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co., 304 F. 2d 738, (C.A. 5), the court refused to regard interrogation of employees by supervisors as protected free speech, despite the fact that the employer had no history of unfair labor practices. The court cited as comparable the case of N.L.R.B. v. Mid Western Instruments, Inc., 264 F. 2d 829 (C.A. 10), where in ordering enforcement of the Board's decision, the latter court held as follows: The evidence with respect to violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act is rather meager. There is, however, no conflict in this part of the record. It stands admitted that Superintendent Prister questioned employee Cart as to the identity of the union leaders and that foreman Lowe questioned Navarro as to whether Neuman had tried to persuade her to join the union. Such conduct could well intend to influence the employees and interfere with the free exercise of their organizational rights under the Act. Remaining complaint allegations of warning and threats and of promises of bene- fit require a rescanning of evidence previously adverted to. I conclude and find that Rosato warned and threatened Haugh and Krepshaw in connection with soliciting their resignations from FOUR; that Cerbone's exchanges with Manenti and his statements to staff members that they should watch out what they were doing (Alamo Linen Service, 136 NLRB 1127), and should get out of FOUR constituted warnings and implied threats; that Kehrer warned and threatened Temple in the individual interviews; and that Kehrer's coupling of the constitutional proscription against dual unionism with FOUR and with anticipated committee ac- tion in requiring business agents to be elected, plainly implied a warning and threat as regarded joining or adhering to FOUR. I also find that Chaikin, as part of his solicitation of Rogoff, impliedly threatened not to recommend Rogoff for promotion because of Rogoff's actions concerning FOUR .40 38 As so regarded the questioning would seem plainly intended to create a situation similar to that in the staff meetings as later conducted by Kramer, Chaikin, and Kehrer. Cohen's denial of knowledge and his pretense of cooperation with Kramer were sig- nificant in attesting to some measure of coercive effect; for the concealment by an em- ployee of his knowledge of union activities "would appear to speak more persuasively" than the seeming casualness of the supervisor's questions. N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Company, 199 F. 2d 711, 712 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 344 U.S. 928. I do not find, however, that Detlefsen's Interrogation of Kosten was coercive, because of Detlefsen 's original misapprehension of the subject under discussion. 40 Threats are not less coercive because expressed in veiled or indirect terms. Sunny- land Packing Company, 106 NLRB 457, 461, enfd. 211 F. 2d 923 (C.A. 5). 712-548-64-vol. 142-9 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD One allegation concerned a promise of benefits to encourage employees to present grievances to the GEB committee. Though the meetings and the subsequent individ- ual efforts of Respondent's supervisors established, as previously found, solicitations to abandon FOUR and encouragement to resort instead to the GEB committee for the settlement of grievances, there was no evidence of a direct promise of benefits and little from which such a promise can be inferred. To solicit the taking of griev- ances to an employer committee as a substitute for self-organization is not to promise or to imply either benefits or a favorable disposition of grievances. The closest ap- proach to a promise was contained in Rona's statement to his staff members that if the question of FOUR were resolved, the review board might react favorably to their grievances. Though I find that Rona's conduct was violative of Section 8(a) (1) as a solicitation to abandon FOUR and as an attempted undercutting of FOUR, I do not find that his statement contained a promise of benefit. Neither do I find that Respondent's announcement of April 26, 1961, of increases to employees who were outside the unit constituted either a promise or a penalty to those who were within it. Indeed, in offering evidence of that announcement, the General Counsel specifically disclaimed a contention that it constituted a viola- tion of the Act. Respondent could not at that time have given increases to em- ployees within the bargaining unit without running an almost certain danger of claims that it was thereby seeking to affect the outcome of the election (which was held on May 12). I have previously found that the General Counsel failed to establish that Re- spondent discriminatorily refused to transfer Louise Krepshaw and similarly, that he failed to establish either discrimination or interference, restraint, and coercion through Kehrer's actions in reducing and/or eliminating per diem and auto allow- ances and reimbursement for telephone calls. Though the foregoing findings do not reach every item of the bill of particulars, they do cover all matters which the General Counsel relied upon in his brief and in his oral argument. In any event, I conclude and find that, except as found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, and I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed ex- cept as so found. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the Recom- mended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and 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 and is an employer of employees within the meaning of the Act. 2. FOUR 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, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a) (3) as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommended that the Respond- ent, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating coercively its employees concerning their membership in, ac- tivities on behalf of, and sympathy for FOUR. (b) Soliciting coercively its employees to renounce their affiliation with FOUR, to drop the representation petition, and to resign or withdraw from FOUR. (c) Warning its employees concerning their membership in or contemplated mem- bership in FOUR. INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO 117 (d) Threatening its employees with reprisals unless they resign or withdraw from FOUR. (e) Soliciting and encouraging its employees to submit their grievances to a committee established by its General Executive Board in lieu of and as a substitute for further participation in self-organization and for membership and activities in FOUR. (f) Failing to grant automatic annual wage increases to its employees, in accord- ance with its past practices, because of FOUR's recognition request. (g) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Federation of Union Representatives, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 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 authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post in its offices in New York City, in the offices of its departments, regions, and joint boards, and in the offices of all of its Locals at which it employs or stations employees who are on its payroll, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 41 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, in the aforesaid offices and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.42 I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges viola- tions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and insofar as it charges Respondent with unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) except as concluded and found in section D, 5, supra. 41 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 4" In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX A Summary of Sedares' Employment History 1. Local 190; Philadelphia; May to August 1957 Manager Schwartz concluded that Sedares was too rigid in his approach to em- ployees, did not know how to handle people, and was building up a hostile attitude toward ILG. He severed Sedares' connection with Local 190 in August, when a specific organizing task which Sedares was working on was terminated. 2. Field trip; Local 190; September to December 1957 Field trips were made as part of the program conducted by the Training Institute. At the urging of Director Gus Tyler, Manager Schwartz agreed to take Sedares on his first 3-month field trip. The first business agent with whom Sedares worked found him uncommunicative and difficult to understand, and the second complained to Schwartz that Sedares embarrassed him unnecessarily in front of an employer. Schwartz thereupon put Sedares to work preparing a shop steward's manual, which removed him from any relationship with other persons in the Local. Schwartz later informed Tyler that he did not want Sedares assigned to Local 190. 3. Field trip; Local 91; February 1958 Sedares was assigned to be trained to fill the vacant position of education director. He reported to duty on February 24, and stayed only 1 week. He took the position early in the week that he considered the education program as conducted by the Local 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the International a waste of time and stated his preference for organization work. Manager Greenburg then assigned Sedares to the director of the organization to investigate certain nonunion shops, but neither Greenburg nor the director saw or heard from Sedares again. Greenburg complained to Tyler, "What kind of jerk did you send us over here?" and asked Tyler to relieve Sedares from duty. 4. Field trip; Upper South Department; March to May 1958 Sedares spent the remainder of this field trip in the Upper South Department under the direction of Vice President Angela Bambace, who assigned him to work on a strike at Hagerstown, Maryland. Disregarding specific instructions to staff members, Sedares on the first day of the strike led the workers in an effort to stop a truck and was arrested after a violent altercation with a policeman. Sedares refused to apologize, as suggested by ILG counsel, in order to get his fine or sentence reduced; and when later asked by Bambace for an explanation of his conduct, he made no explanation, stating, "I don't apologize to anyone." At the end of Sedares' field trip, Bambace submitted to the Training Institute an appraisal of Sedares which was in part as follows: This boy has some problems I am sure. . He is a completely withdrawn person & I wonder whether he should be assigned to any function that would put him in contact with people. Seems to be very intelligent. 5. Northeast Department; June and July 1958 Upon Sedares' graduation from the Institute, Tyler assigned him to the Northeast Department, which placed him with Alec Karesky, manager of its Upper New York and Vermont District Council. Within a few weeks, Sedares had embarrassed Karesky publicly by taking a position in a meeting of the District Council which was directly in opposition to one which Karesky had taken and which resulted in Karesky charging Sedares with an act of insubordination. Subsequently, Hedy Ferreira, a business agent in charge of a strike at Burlington on which Sedares was assisting, called Karesky to come up to straighten things out, reporting to him that Sedares "couldn't get along with people. Bill Karker was quitting, Steve Kakle wouldn't work with him, and he had Ferreira in tears." Karesky informed Sedares he would either have to toe the mark and get along with everyone, or he would be sent back to New York City. Having received the same sort of reports a week later, Karesky ordered Sedares back to New York. 6. Northeast Department; July and August 1958 A few days after Sedares returned, Tyler persuaded Karesky to give Sedares another trial until Tyler could reassign him. Karesky again placed Sedares with Ferreira at Burlington, but after a short time he began to receive the same sort of complaints as before concerning Sedares' conduct. Finally, on August 29, Karesky informed Sedares he could not cope with him and ordered him back to the North- east Department for reassignment. Contemporaneously, Karesky wrote to Jack Halpern, assistant director of the Northeast Department, stating in part: This young man I cannot use in our organization up here. While he is a hard working boy he does not know how to take orders. He seems to be of the opinion he knows more than anyone working for the International. . I don't know what they teach these young men at the school, but it is not for this area. Please place him elsewhere. Karesky also set forth certain bills which Sedares had incurred, termed them outrageous, but stated he had no choice but to pay them. Tyler informed Sedares on his return to New York that it was becoming difficult to place him because he had not worked out in four previous assignments, that people did not want him, and that he always ended up "out." However, Tyler agreed not to stand in Sedares' way if he could get a job on his own. 7. Dressmaker's Joint Council; New York City; August 1958 to October 1959 Before accepting Sedares, Edward Banyai, director of organization, checked with Karesky, who reported that Sedares acted on his own, did not know how to follow instructions and "rubbed everyone the wrong way," but that if Banyai could straight- en Sedares out, he would have a very good employee. Deciding to take Sedares, Banyai explained to Tyler he thought he could handle Sedares because, "He is a tough customer but so am L" In January 1959, Sedares was assigned to work closely with the staff of Local 99, whose manager was Douglas Levin. Around March, Levin requested Banyai to take Sedares off, because he had generated a substantial amount of antagonism on the part of Local members , union officials, and employers. Levin reported that INT'L LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, ArL-CIO 119 Sedares "just rubs people the wrong way. He does not know how to talk to my members, he does not know how to talk to my employers, he acts in the office as though he is taking over." Thereupon Banyai put Sedares to work on union label promotion. He then noticed that Sedares had become cynical and bitter; that he was criticizing the conduct and attitude of many officers of ILG, usually ignoring the possibility of honest mistakes or inability to handle problems, and going so far as to impugn the integrity and honesty of those whom he criticized. By the fall of 1959, Banyai decided that he might accomplish more with Sedares by sending him to a different environment, and sent him to Scranton, Pennsylvania. 8. Scranton; October to December 1959 Banyai assigned Sedares to participate in organizing work, specifically to organize the Jay-Cee plant in Carbondale, and also to survey other nonunion shops in the Scranton area. Though Sedares was thoroughly briefed as to his relationships with the Scranton Local, its manager, Clifford W. Depin, and his staff, and the procedures for clearing expenditures, Sedares' conduct in ignoring those instructions shortly made him persona non grata both to Depin and to his office manager, Ann McGraw. Depin was finally provoked into seeking Sedares' removal by Sedares' attempt to in- duce Ben Turnabe, one of Depin's organizers, to go behind Depin's back to make a secret investigation in a union shop for which Depin was responsible. Banyai re- called Sedares to New York City, but soon found it necessary, because of develop- ments in the Jay-Cee strike, to send Sedares back to Scranton after enlisting the aid of Sol C. Chaikin, assistant director of the Northeast Department, to obtain Depin's acquiescence. 9. Scranton; December 1959 to February 1960 Though there was no substantial improvement in Sedares' conduct toward the office personnel, it was his conduct in connection with the Jay-Cee strike, which led in February to Banyai's second demand for Sedares' removal. Among his actions were: engaging in violence with a policeman on the first day of the strike; failing to set up a strike kitchen as instructed to feed strikers in order to avoid high restaurant costs; increasing strike benefits without authorization; and paying unauthorized sums for assistance and for picket duty during the strike. Shortly before the strike ended Banyai briefed Sedares concerning the status of negotiations and instructed him that he was not under any circumstances to provoke any incident with the employer and that if the employer provoked him, he was to walk away. Almost immediately Sedares engaged in an altercation with and an assault upon the employer, and was arrested. When Depin, who arranged for Sedares' release from jail, asked Sedares why he struck the employer, Sedares replied that he wanted to give the employer something to remember him by. Deploring such an attitude, Depin referred to an incident on the first day of the strike when Ted Bloom (who was assisting in the strike) had called Depin "a coward, a scab, and a strike breaker." Sedares expressed acquiescence in Bloom's description. Depin called Banyai at once, described Sedares' attack on the employer and Sedares' explanation, and demanded Sedares' removal. 10. Salvage interlude; Kramer checks Despite his prior failures with Sedares, Banyai persuaded Vice President Zimmer- man (who headed the Dress Joint Council) to let him make a final effort at "salvage," and in a subsequent interview informed Sedares that if he wished to stay with Banyai, he would have to follow orders. Noncommittal at the time, Sedares later informed Banyai he preferred to work elsewhere, and still later, that he had a chance to work in the Eastern Region under Vice President Kramer. Banyai agreed, but gave Kramer a complete report on Sedares' background and performance and suggested that the only possible way of salvaging Sedares was under very close supervision. Kramer also checked with Chaikin, who reported that Sedares had capabilities but had a tendency not to respond to discipline or to orders, and he informed Kramer of Sedares' conflicts and difficulties with Karesky and Depin. Kramer also noted in Sedares' file kept by the Institute Bambace's appraisal as quoted under item 4, supra. Going even further back, Kramer made inquiry of an attorney for IUE (with whom Sedares had served as shop steward before coming with ILG) who had repre- sented Sedares in connection with the arbitration of a disciplinary action resulting from his striking of a foreman. The attorney described Sedares as "a capable guy, intelligent, bright, but on the wild side," and stated that "if he could be bridled, brought under some form of discipline, he would be a very effective person in the trade union movement." 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kramer also discussed with Sedares his problem of getting along with people and suggested to him he was unfairly critical of the union officials with whom he worked. Sedares' view was that it was not he who was at fault. Deciding that he might nevertheless accomplish something with Sedares, Kramer decided to accept Sedares, but told him he would have to learn how to take orders and execute them in accord- ance with instructions and would generally have to behave like a disciplined trade union officer. He thereupon assigned Sedares to work under the supervision of Walter DeYoung (a classmate at the Institute) in the upper Hudson Valley area. Approximately a week after Sedares' transfer, Banyai and Chaikin also joined in an interview with Sedares in an effort to point out his good points and his bad points and to straighten him out if it was at all possible. During that interview Chaikin analyzed Sedares' difficulties (and so informed him) as arising not from intelligence and ability but from "arrogance of mind, where he superimposed his judgment on the judgment of his superiors and to a large extent on the judgment of his associates." 11. Upper Hudson Valley; March to October 1960 Kramer informed DeYoung that Sedares had had difficulties in three or four other departments, that he wanted to give Sedares a last chance in the Eastern Region, and he requested DeYoung to do what he could to fit Sedares in. DeYoung in turn re- ported Kramer's statements to other staff members and asked them to help Sedares work into the group and to get him acclimated. Within a few weeks other staff members began complaining to DeYoung about various facets of Sedares' conduct, as for example, the taking upon himself of the supervising of his associates, the issuing of orders in a rude and imperious manner, and the shirking of distasteful tasks such as house visiting. On one occasion in April, Sedares peremptorily ordered D'Agostino not to pick up Virginia O'Toole in his car as he had promised, with the result that O'Toole was left stranded without transpor- tation to a Board election in a matter that they were working on. As a result O'Toole informed DeYoung she would refuse to work with Sedares on another campaign.' DeYoung gave his first hint at a union label convention in Albany at the end of May that he was unhappy with Sedares. Kramer had noted during the course of the convention dinner that Sedares was not acting cordially toward important rank- and-file members and asked DeYoung what was wrong with Sedares. DeYoung replied that that was the way that Sedares was, and that maybe it was tough on him as a single man to be away from home in small towns, and that "quite possibly he would be better off working closer to his home in Jersey." Complaints from other staff members continued to reach DeYoung during the Little Tots campaign in July and August, particularly concerning the shirking of distasteful tasks and his inability to work in harmony with the staff. When DeYoung finally confronted Sedares with their critcisms and their view that he was acting like "some type of privileged character," Sedares retorted angrily, "What are you doing comparing me with those schmucks?" Deciding that some other type of work might be the solution, DeYoung later suggested to Sedares that because of his abilities as a writer, he edit a local newspaper for the entire Hudson Valley, but Sedares summarily rejected the idea. Later making explicit his disillusionment with Sedares and the fact that he was not compatible with other organizers on the staff, DeYoung suggested to Kramer that because of Sedares' abilities as a writer, he could do a good job with Tyler in the educational department. Tyler, when approached, expressed doubt on that score, feeling that Sedares had already been in so many places there were few places left. Tyler nevertheless inter- viewed Sedares, explaining that a job in his department would require Sedares to make drastic changes in the points of his personality where his chief weaknesses lay. Ignoring Tyler's inquiry whether he could make the changes, Sedares walked out and did not return.2 Tyler later informed Kramer that, "If you have difficulties with the man, I have no more places for him, and I certainly cannot use him." 'In the meantime Kramer had, at Secretary Stulberg's insistence, sought an explana- tion from Sedares of certain excessive expenditures incurred during the Jay-Cee strike. Sedares claimed that the picketers had held him up and he denied that he had acted con- trary to instructions in making the expenditures. When Kramer reported back, Stulberg commented that Sedares would have to be watched and should have some supervision be- fore expenditures of that sort were made. 2 News of DeYoung's efforts to effect Sedares' transfer apparently reached Ted Bloom in the form of a rumor that DeYoung had sought Sedares' dismissal. When Bloom questioned DeYoung about it, DeYoung denied it as a lie. LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC. OF NEW JERSEY 121 APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively our employees concerning their member- ship in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy for Federation of Union Repre- sentatives. WE WILL NOT solicit coercively our employees to renounce their affiliation with Federation of Union Representatives, to drop the representation petition, and to resign or withdraw from Federation of Union Representatives. WE WILL NOT warn our employees concerning their membership in or con- templated membership in Federation of Union Representatives. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals unless they resign or withdraw from Federation of Union Representatives. WE WILL NOT solicit and encourage our employees to submit their grievances to a committee established by our General Executive Board in lieu of and as a substitute for further participation in self-organization and for membership and activities in Federation of Union Representatives. WE WILL NOT fail to grant automatic annual wage increases to our employees in accordance with our past practices because of Federation of Union Repre- sentatives' recognition request. WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Federation of Union Representatives, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 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 authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or to refrain from becoming members of the above union or any other labor organization. INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office 745 Fifth Avenue, New York 22, New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Liebmann Breweries, Inc. of New Jersey and Salesmen's Divi- sion Local 153, Office Employees International Union, AFL- CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-1825 April 18, 1963 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 'The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 142 NLRB No. 9.