Lawson Printers, Inc.

LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 771 tion 8 (b) (4) (D), to force or require Falstaff Brewing Corpora- tion to assign the work of operating the grain-dryer and pelletizer to employees represented by it at the Employer's Galveston, Texas, brewery. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determi- nation of Dispute, the International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 347, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring Falstaff Brewing Corporation, by means pro- scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. Lawson Printers, Inc. and Southwest Michigan District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-5194 and 51941(2). June 21, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On January 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond- ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and rec- ommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed certain exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 1 Of the violations found by the Trial Examiner, the finding of the discriminatory dis- charge of Bewley alone is excepted to by Respondent. 159 NLRB No. 75. 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE These cases, heard before Trial Examiner Owsley Vose in Battle Creek, Michi- gan, on October 11 to 14, 1965, pursuant to charges filed on the preceding May 7, June 7 and 14, and July 26, and a consolidated complaint issued on July 29, 1965, present questions as to whether the Respondent discriminated against seven of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)( I) of the Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief and proposed findings and conclusions filed by the Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the commercial print- ing business at Battle Creek, Michigan. During 1964, a representative period, the Respondent delivered printed materials to numerous customers, including" $175,000 worth of printed materials to Clark Equipment Company, which during 1964 pur- chased from out-of-State sources and had shipped to its Battle Creek, Michigan, plant, greatly in excess of $50.000 worth of raw materials and which shipped more than $50,000 worth of finished products to customers located outside the State of Michigan. Upon these facts, I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Southwest Michigan District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction It will be helpful in understanding the conduct alleged to constitute unfair labor practices in this case to set forth, at the outset in broad outline, the sequence of events here involved. After thus summarizing the Respondent's course of conduct as a whole, the individual incidents relied on by the General Counsel will be con- sidered in greater detail. The Respondent employs approximately 16 nonsupervisory employees. For the first 31 years of its existence its employees had not been organized by any union. In late March 1965 the Union initiated efforts to organize the Respondent's press operators, compositors, and bindery and maintenance employees, about 13 in num- ber. Within a few days a substantial majority of these employees had signed union cards. On April 6, the Respondent was notified of the Union's claim of majority status and right to recognition both by letter informing the Respondent of the filing with the Board of its petition for an election and by the personal visit of Robert D. Obenour, the president of the Union, to the Respondent's plant. Early the next morning the Respondent's assistant plant superintendent sum- moned Robert Reynolds, a bindery employee, to the office. There, after accusing Reynolds of advocating the Union, the assistant superintendent threatened him with a possible layoff and a wage cut in the event the Union organized the plant. Later that day the Respondent abruptly laid off a second union adherent, Beverly Riggle. The next day, April 8, 1965, two other union card signers, Antonio Fer- reira and Helen Taylor, were notified that their 60-day probationary periods, which were about to expire, were to be extended to 120 days. On April 23, a little over 2 weeks after the Union requested recognition, the Respondent laid off, and a week later discharged, John Kewley, one of its press operators. Kewley had been the Union's most active advocate in the plant. On April 19, 1965, the Respondent signed an agreement for the holding of a consent election which, after later being signed by the Union, was approved by LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 773 the Board's Regional Director on April 29, 1965. Subsequently, the election was scheduled for May 28, 1965. In the period between the signing of the consent elec- tion agreement and the election the Respondent's officials and supervisors had numerous conversations with employees in which they expressed their opposition to having a union in the plant. In some of these conversations supervisors threat- ened that various adverse consequences, such as layoffs, a cut in wages, or the loss of benefits might follow the unionization of the plant. In a communication with the employees 2 days before the election the Respondent marshaled its arguments against having a union in the shop and concluded with an appeal "to vote `no' in the bargaining election." In the election on May 28, eight votes were cast in favor of the Union, three were against the Union, and two votes were challenged. Ten minutes after the results of the election became known, the Respondent posted a notice stating that hereafter the Respondent "will no longer provide hos- pitalization, paid vacations or paid holidays." Less than an hour after the election, Foreman Harvey laid off Antonio Ferreira; a few minutes later Harvey rescinded this layoff and changed it to a layoff for the rest of the afternoon. That same afternoon the Respondent notified Paul Emerson, a compositor with 10 years' serv- ice with the Respondent, that his hours would be drastically reduced commencing immediately. Thereafter, for the next few weeks Emerson's hours were cut almost in half and he was not recalled for any work after July 13. On June 4 the Respondent terminated Kenneth Gray, its truckdriver and janitor, and Ralph Wat- kins, whom it had hired to help out with cleanup duties in the plant. On June 8, about a week after the election, the Respondent discharged Antonio Ferreira and Helen Taylor, both of whom were given an extended probationary period on April 8, 2 days after the Respondent received notice that a majority of the employ- ees had joined the Union. Thus in the interval between the advent of the Union and June 8, a week and a half after the election, the Respondent had gotten rid of 6 of the 13 employees in the appropriate unit and had cut almost in half the working hours of the seventh employee. As above indicated, this seventh employee, Emerson, was in effect terminated completely on July 13, for he was not recalled after that date. B. Sequence of events 1. Events of April 7 and 8 a. Assistant Superintendent Jolin's threats to Robert Reynolds Preliminarily, it should be stated that Robert Reynolds was employed by the Respondent in November 1963 and was assigned, among other duties, to operating the cutter in the bindery. Two women also worked regularly in the bindery. At some time during Reynolds employment, he was designated as bindery foreman. Reynolds' wages remained the same despite his new title, as did his duties. He continued to operate the cutter, as before, and he relayed to the two women in the bindery instructions which he received from General Foreman Harvey. Reynolds was one of the early supporters of the Union. On the morning of April 7, he informed Eva Hall of an impending union meeting. Within a half hour, after Reynolds observed Hall in a conversation with William Lawson, the Respondent's president, Robert John, the Respondent's assistant superintendent, summoned Reynolds to the office. There John informed Reynolds, as John him- self testified, that "it was very obvious that [he] was advocating the union, and we felt he could not play roles-the part of Management and the part of labor." For this reason, as John further testified, he informed Reynolds "that he would no longer be the bindery foreman; that he would work in the bindery as an employee only." Reynolds retorted that he did not want the job anyway. John told Reynolds on this occasion that the Respondent was "considering hiring a bindery foreman to run the department," that the Respondent "would consider a journey- man . . . and that [Reynolds] would not meet these qualifications. He would be an apprentice." John went on to say, as he testified, that in the event of a "work slowdown" the "journeyman would remain on the job and the apprentice would be subject to layoff." In addition, John told Reynolds at this time that if the Union came in to the shop "all wages would be negotiated, and perhaps he would suffer a decrease in wages." The discussion ended with Jolin relieving Reynolds of his keys to the shop. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD b. The layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7 Beverly Riggle had been hired originally as an extra employee in the bindery in September 1964. After being laid off early in November she was recalled later that month. In February Assistant Superintendent Jolin notified Riggle that she was now a full-time worker and would receive hospitalization benefits. The Respondent concedes that Riggle was a good worker. On the morning of April 7, as he was driving Genevieve Andrews to the plant, Vice President Ernest Drew asked Andrews if she knew about "a petition being brought into the shop for a union." Andrews replied that she "knew nothing of it, until Beverly Riggle spoke of it just before quitting time, the night before." As Drew and Andrews entered the shop, Drew remarked to Andrews that "he would go back in the shop and see if there was enough work for Beverly Riggle." During the noon hour that day, April 7, Robert Reynolds notified Riggle that he had been informed by Foreman Harvey that she was to be laid off that day. Shortly thereafter Foreman Harvey stopped Riggle and asked her if she knew of any union talk going around the shop. Riggle replied that "it didn't matter one way or another because [she] was already laid off" and walked off. After Riggle's layoff on April 7 she was recalled by the Respondent and worked for a day or so about April 15. She was recalled again at the end of June and worked about a week at that time. c. The extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor from 60 to 120 days Antonio Ferreira was employed by the Respondent on February 11, 1965, and Helen Taylor on February 15. Both worked as press operators. When Ferreira and Taylor were hired it was the Respondent's established policy to keep new employees on probation for a 60-day period. At the end of this time, as stated in the Respondent's written statement of employment conditions, employees were entitled to be covered, at the Respondent's expense, with hospitalization insurance. On April 8, Ferreira and Taylor were notified by Foreman Harvey that their pro- bationary periods were being extended from 60 to 120 days. A notice was posted on the Respondent's bulletin boards dated April 9, amending the Respondent's earlier statement of working conditions to provide for a 120-day probationary period for all new employees and for employee coverage for hospitalization insur- ance at the end of the probationary period. As stated more fully below in connec- tion with the discussion of their discharge on June 8, the Respondent's supervisors had not seriously criticized the work of either Taylor or Ferreira prior to the time of the extension of their probationary periods. 2. The discharge of John Kewley on April 23 John Kewley was hired by the Respondent in February 1964 and was assigned to operate a small offset press called a Chief 15. According to Foreman Harvey, Kewley did a "very creditable job on the Chief 15." In November, Vice President Drew and Foreman Harvey inquired whether Kewley had had any experience in photographic work. Kewley informed them that he had some experience when he was in the Army. After this conversation, Kewley was transferred to the darkroom, where the Respondent had recently installed a new camera. The Respondent had decided to make its own metal plates which are used in the offset printing process. The camera plays an important role in this process. Previously the Respondent had had its platemaking done by out- side contractors. Kewley performed all the work done in the darkroom including the making of the zinc plates. In January, without any solicitation on Kewley's part, he was given a 25-cents-per-hour raise in wages. At the time he was given the raise, Foreman Harvey told Kewley that he was doing a good job and was working hard. Late in March or early April (before the Respondent received information con- cerning the union activities then going on in the plant) Harvey told Kewley that he was shorthanded in the pressroom, that he had been able to hire a new man for the darkroom, and asked Kewley to tarnsfer back to the pressroom. About this same time Assistant Superintendent John commented to Philip Hurley, one of the Respondent's journeymen press operators, that the Respondent did not have anyone LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 775 "any better than Kewley and they were going to put him back on 15, the offset 15 and hire a new camera man." i Kewley worked with Ron Abbey, the new photographer, for a few days showing him the equipment and teaching him how to strip the negatives and make the zinc plates. Abbey, although an experienced photographer, had not done this type of work before. After thus breaking in Abbey, Kewley worked on the Chief 15 press for a few days. Then Harvey transferred Kewley to operate its Chief 20 offset press, which he had not previously operated. As President Lawson testified, the Chief 15 is a "very simple" machine compared with the Chief 20. Kewley at first demurred about accepting this transfer without a wage increase, but when Harvey insisted, commenced operating the Chief 20. Kewley was operating the Chief 20 at the time Union President Obenour came to the plant on April 6 and conferred with Respondent's officials about recognition of the Union. President Lawson testified that it takes from 5 to 7 years of training for an apprentice to become a journeyman in the graphic arts trade and that in the big printing plants an apprentice is just a helper for over a period of years. A journey- man is a craftsman in the trade who can take a job order and turn out a competent job with a minimum of supervision from the general foreman. On April 23, after about 3 weeks on the Chief 20 press, Foreman Harvey came to Kewley and asked him to take a few days off. At that time Kewley had about 2 days' work ahead of him. When Kewley asked Harvey why, Harvey told him that he did not have enough work for him and asked Kewley to check with him the middle of the following week. When Kewley checked with Harvey the follow- ing Wednesday afternoon, Harvey told him to take the rest of the week off and report the following Monday. On Saturday afternoon, May 1, Kewley received a letter from the Respondent saying that his employment was terminated for "ineffi- ciency-and low production." 3. Conversations between the Respondent's supervisors and employees in the preelection period a. General Foreman Frank Harvey Harvey was the general foreman having direct supervision over the Respondent's press operators, compositors, and bindery and maintenance employees. Harvey admitted having talked about the Union to all of the employees at one time or another before the election. Gerald Ives, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Robert Reynolds, and Paul Emerson all gave testimony about conversations which Harvey had had with them concerning the Union. Shortly after the Union requested recognition, Harvey went over to Ives' press and asked him if he had attended a union meeting. Ives replied he had. Harvey said that he did not think the Union was a good idea. However, when Ives declared that he did not want to argue about the matter, Harvey dropped the subject. On another occasion about this time, Harvey told Kewley, Reynolds, and Fer- reira that the Company had operated for about 30 years without a union, that "things had been going fine, and if the union came in it would hurt the business." Harvey further declared on this-occasion that "if the Union came in he would hire all top-notch pressmen, journey [men] pressmen , and get rid of all the people 1 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Harvey had at any time expressed to Kewley any dissatisfaction with his work in the darkroom. Kewley denied that Harvey had done so . Harvey testified , in response to a question as to why Kewley had been transferred back to the pressroom , that Kewley 's work "started to decline a little bit" and that he had been reprimanded for it on one occasion when he had to have some of Kewley's negatives restripped , saying to Kewley, "John, you were doing a good job. I don't know what is happening but we are getting into trouble somewhere along the line " In view of Hurley's testimony concerning Assistant Superintendent Jolin's comment above quoted about Kewley's transfer back to the pressroom , which tends to corroborate Kewley's testimony in this regard , and the fact that Harvey had earlier complimented Kewley on his work in the darkroom and given him an unsolicited wage increase, I find that Harvey in his testimony exaggerated Kewley's deficiencies , in the darkroom. Under all the circumstances, I find that the Respondent transferred Kewley back to the press- room not because of dissatisfaction with his services in the darkroom but because it needed a press operator ( Bill McMillan, a press operator, quit about this time ) and it had found a photographer whom it believed could satisfactorily take over the darkroom operations. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that were left in the shop." At this time, none of the three employees had had sufficient experience to qualify as a journeyman on their operation. Kewley and Ferreira were press operators and Reynolds, as above noted, was a bindery worker.2 Another time in April, Harvey told Reynolds, Ives, Kewley, and Phillip Hurley that "if the union got in that we wouldn't gain nothing; that we would probably lose; and he didn't know why we wanted it." 3 As the date of the election, May 28, approached, Harvey spoke to Ferreira sev- eral times about voting in the election. About 3 weeks before the election, while Harvey was talking to Ferreira, Kenneth Gray, the Respondent's truckdriver and janitor, came up and Harvey told Gray that he also should listen to what he was saying. According to Gray's credited testimony, Harvey told them that "manage- ment would know pretty much which way the employees voted in the election, and if the employees would go with the company, they would be taken care of, and the employees that didn't go with the company would be taken care of too." As put by Ferreira, Harvey warned them as follows on this occasion, "If you stay on our side you have everything, and if you go for the union you have nothing." 4 About a week before the election, Harvey asked Ferreira if he had yet made his decision about the Union. When Ferreira said no, Harvey told Ferreira to make it "a good decision" and offered as follows: " ... If you need some help about the Union I can help you." 5 b. Assistant Superintendent Robert Jolin At the time of the events involved in this case Robert John acted in the dual capacity of the Respondent's sales representative and assistant plant superintendent. In the latter capacity he was responsible to Ernest Drew, the Respondent's vice president. Before the hearing in this case in October, John had left the Respond- ent's employ. John had various conversations with employees in the weeks preceding the elec- tion . The same theme is repeated in a number of conversations with different employees, namely, that in the event the Union was voted in, the Respondent "would take away hospitalization and paid holidays and paid vacations," and what benefits they later received would depend on the outcome of the negotiations.6 Helen Taylor, Philip Hurley, and Robert Reynolds each testified that John had similar conversations with them. John admitted informing Taylor, who operated one of the smaller presses, that if the Union came in "we would without a doubt have a press breakdown in wages. That is, a smaller press man would get a lesser rate than a bigger press man, on a bigger press." John further told Taylor on this occasion, according to Taylor's credited testimony, that if the Union came in Kew- ley would be laid off before she would because of greater experience on the Chief 15. In the above-quoted conversation with Ives, John also remarked, with respect to Reynolds, that in the event the Union came in that "they would hire a journeyman bindery man to take his place, and in case of a slack that they would lay Reynolds off and keep the journeyman." 7 John further told Ives on this occasion that the Respondent would hire a journeyman pressman to take the place of John Kewley. 2 The above-quoted testimony is that of John Kewley which is corroborated , in part, by that of Antonio Ferreira. 3 This is the testimony of Robert Reynolds It is corroborated by that of Ives and Kewley. Harvey testified that he could not recall any such conversation . Reynolds' testimony is credited. 4 Harvey admitted having several conversations with Ferreira about the Union during this period and did not specifically deny the above-quoted testimony. However, Harvey's versions of these conversations with Ferreira omit any reference to any threats. The testimony of Gray and Ferreira is consistent with the actual events in this case , for, as found below, as soon as the Union won the election the Respondent announced the with- drawal of valuable employee benefits and shortly thereafter discharged several employees. The testimony of Gray and Ferreira is credited. 5 Foreman Harvey in effect admitted having this conversation with Ferreira. 6 This finding is based on the credited testimony of Gerald Ives Jolla testified that he made it clear to employees with respect to existing benefits "that all issues-if the union was to be voted in-would be negotiated . . . [f]rom the point of zero." 7 This is Ives' credited testimony . As above indicated , Jolin testified that he had told Reynolds himself the same thing. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 777 c. President William Lawson and Vice President Ernest Drew Phillip Hurley credibly testified that he was summoned to Lawson's office about May 1 where Lawson questioned him as to how he felt about the Union. When Hurley gave a noncommittal reply, Lawson said that he did not think that the Union was "the type of union that he wanted in his shop," and that "the way the shop had been run for so many years he felt the union wouldn't be any good for the type of people he has working there, and ... if the Union does go through we will have to lay some people off, get rid of some people ...." According to Hurley, Lawson named Helen Taylor and said "her work was a little slow and he thought he should have journeymen pressmen." Hurley further testified that Tony Ferreira was also named by Lawson, who said "he would have to go if the Union went through." 8 Paul Emerson, one of the Respondent's compositors, had worked for the Respond- ent for 10 years. About 2 weeks before the election, according to Emerson's unde- med testimony, President Lawson said to Emerson, "If the Union came in he would discharge Helen Taylor and Tony Ferreira . . . because they hadn't had enough experience" to qualify as journeymen. Emerson testified that a day or two before the election Lawson came up to him at his work and engaged him in a con- versation about union strike benefits. In the course of the conversation, according to Emerson, Lawson asked him "if [he] could live on unemployment," and added that "[he] might get the chance " 9 As appears more fully below, Ralph Watkins has been employed to work around Lawson's home for several years. In February 1965 Watkins was hired to work full-time for the Respondent. He continued, however, to do yard work for Lawson at his home. On one such occasion during April, when Lawson was driving Wat- kins home, Lawson asked Watkins whether he had heard any "talk about a union." When Watkins replied, "No, sir," Lawson told him as follows: "Well, if you do, anybody comes up to you and says anything about it, just tell them you can't afford to pay union dues." Watkins replied, "Yes, sir." 10 Ralph Watkins testified that Ernest Drew, the Respondent's vice president, told him on the day of the election "to be sure and vote no" in the election. When asked whether Drew had told him why, Watkins answered that "he told me that I wouldn't be able to pay union dues."" 8In order to understand Lawson's testimony about this conversation, it should be stated preliminarily that Hurley had been hired by Lawson at the request of Hurley's father in 1956 or 1957. When young Hurley started working for the Respondent he had been wearing leg braces. It was at Lawson's suggestion that Hurley removed the braces in an effort to strengthen his legs. Lawson admitted speaking to Hurley about the Union after receiving a copy of the Union's petition for an election and certification Accord- ing to Lawson, he "spoke to Mr. Hurley of his incapacities and told him [he] didn't know if it would do him any good or wouldn't do him any good , and [he ] asked his opinion, what he thought for his own benefit of his . . . physical condition . . [he] asked him to think over what was best for the Company and best for him." Lawson never specifically denied Hurley's testimony quoted in the text above. In my opinion Lawson understated the substance of his conversation with Hurley on this occasion. Hurley's version is credited. 9 Although Lawson was questioned about the portion of the conversation dealing with strike benefits, he was not asked about suggesting to Emerson that he might have a chance to live on unemployment compensation. Consequently Emerson's testimony in this regard is undenied io Lawson testified that be had a conversation with Watkins in which Watkins asked him what NLRB meant and also what the union dues were. According to Lawson, he told Watkins that he understood the dues were $8 a month, to which Watkins replied, "I couldn't begin to afford that." It is not clear from the record whether both Watkins and Lawson were referring to the same conversation. In any event, I credit Watkins' testi- mony As appears below, Lawson was confused, to say the least, in other portions of his testimony, and Watkins impressed me as testifying sincerely n Drew testified that he had never had any conversation with Watkins before the elec- tion about how he might vote. Drew's own testimony establishes that he was very much concerned with the outcome of the election. It is wholly consistent with such a concern for Drew to have spoken to Watkins, as testified to by Watkins. I credit Watkins' testimony. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Respondent's letter of May 26 appealing to the employees to vote "No" in the election On May 26, 2 days before the election , the Respondenttgave personal letters to each of the employees in which it stated its position as to how the employees should vote in the election. The letter given Robert Reynolds is quoted in full below: Undoubtedly, representatives of International Printing Pressmen and Assistant Union of North America, of which Mr. Obenour is the representative, has discussed with you the impending election to be held pursuant to N.L.R.B. regulations whereby that union seeks to become the sole bargaining agents for the employees here in Lawson Printers, Inc. The Union has every right to present its side of the case and we have a right to present ours. I am writing you this letter because I am of the opinion that the interest of our employees and our mutual relationship will not be advanced by the intervention of a union between management and labor in this small plant, and I think that such a union, with us, could only destroy our relationship. As you know, Lawson Printers, Inc. is a small company. We have been in business for 30 years and we have had very little labor difficulty. We like to think that our employees enjoy working for us, appreciate their working condi- tions and are contented . We also like to think that the employees can talk to us about their problems on an individual basis and that every employee is treated as an individual and not as a member of an impersonal group. That is one of the advantages of being a .small plant. We try to help the employees and we hope that the employees have a personal pride in Lawson Printers, Inc. I suppose that the union has told you many things that they will do if certi- fied as your sole bargaining agent. Perhaps they have not told you other things, but no union can promise the employees that, as a matter of fact, they will receive any particular thing if they join the union because every union contract is arrived at only after negotiation and bargaining , which are often long and difficult and this small business cannot possibly be compared to large plants where the union may have contracts which are similar to one another. Furthermore, the union probably has not told you that, for instance, in its contract with St. Regis Paper Company, Crowell Carton Co. Division, at Mar- shall, Michigan, the employees are required by the contract to contribute to the insurance benefit as follows: employees without dependents, $1.17 per week, employees with dependents, $2 29 per week. Your individual plan is entirely paid for by Lawson Printers, Inc. I am reliably advised that union dues will be $8.00 per month. This amounts to $96.00 per year to belong to the union and this is $96.00 less that you will have to spend for what you need and actually for the $96.00 the union cannot guarantee you a single thing but everything is subject to collective bargaining. Bob, you are now making $2.00 per hour. We are paying all employee con- tributions to the insurance program. You have no union dues. If you have a grievance you do not have to go through the complicated grievance pro- cedure set forth in most union contracts which is almost always hard to under- stand and takes a long time through the various steps. I believe it would be advisable for you to check the union scale, for your job, in plants of our size and type to see if it would be to your advantage to have a union . You would be subject to all of the provisions of the contract , you would be making con- tributions to the insurance program, and you would be paying union dues. You would also be subject to the seniority provisions of the contract which might make it possible for an employee with longer service than you to "bump" you off your job under certain circumstances. You would also be expected that any complaints or problems that you might have would have to go through the union and there might be long delay in solving your individual problems. I am afraid that if the union is successful in organizing this little business all of our personal relationships will be destroyed and you will not be able any longer to take up your problems with me as you have done in the past. You LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 779 will be subject to all kinds of rules and regulations that the union imposes upon its members and you will be subject to union discipline for breaking their rules under certain circumstances. We have tried to be fair with every- body that works for us. We would like to continue the personal relationships which have always existed between the company and its employees. If you agree with us, we urge you to vote "no" in the bargaining election of May 28, 1965. Very truly yours, LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 5. The election on May 28 and the events of the afternoon after the election a. The election The election was held at 12:45 p in. on May 28, as scheduled. There were 13 employees in the agreed-upon appropriate unit on April 2, the date chosen to estab- lish the employees' eligibility to vote in the election. All 13 employees voted in the election. The tally of ballots shows that eight votes were cast in favor of the Union, three votes were cast "no" and two votes were challenged. b. The notice announcing the withdrawal of employee benefit Within 10 minutes after the results of the election were made known, the Respondent posted the following notice on its bulletin board: May 28, 1965 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT FROM AND AFTER THE DATE HEREOF LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE HOSPITAL- IZATION, PAID VACATIONS OR PAID HOLIDAYS. LAWSON PRINTERS; INC. (S) W. S. Lawson - May 28, 1965 Since under the Respondent's statement of working conditions the Respondent nor- mally grants a Friday or a Monday off when a holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday (Memorial Day fell on Sunday, May 30, 1965), one effect of the Respond- ent's action in abruptly rescinding holiday and other benefits on May 28 was to deprive the employees of a day's pay in the following workweek. At 1:10 p.m. on May 28, just after the election, Foreman Harvey told Ferreira that he did not have sufficient experience on the press on which he was working and that he was laid off. However, about 5 minutes later, before Ferreira had left the plant, Harvey rescinded the layoff in part and instructed Ferreira to take the afternoon off and to return on next workday, which was Tuesday, June 1 (because of the Memorial Day holiday). Paul Emerson was a compositor who had worked for the Respondent for 10 years. He had never been laid off in all this time. Emerson served as an observer for the Union in the election on May 28. About the middle of that afternoon, Vice President Drew, in the presence of Henry Clay, Emerson's immediate supervisor, informed Emerson that from that day on all of his time must be chargeable time and that he would be laid off whenever no work was available which could be charged to a specific customer. For several years, at least, almost half of Emer- son's time had been spent in nonchargeable work. As found below, as a result of Drew's edict, Emerson suffered a drastic curtailment of working hours commencing the very next week. 6. President Lawson's questioning of Watkins on June 1, as to how he voted in the election Early on June 1, the first workday after the election, Vice President Drew sum- moned Watkins to Lawson's office. There in the presence of Drew, President Lawson asked Watkins why he had voted for the Union. Watkins replied that he 780 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had not voted for the Union. Drew remarked at this point, "well, now, somebody is lying .... We know the three that voted against the Union." 12 7. Vice President Drew's abrupt discontinuance of the riding arrangement with Genevieve Andrews on June 1 At the time of the hearing Andrews had worked in the Respondent's bindery for 3 years. From the very first day of her employment Drew had picked Andrews up at her home in the morning and driven her to the plant. Around December 1964, Drew moved from the vicinity of Andrews' home and it became necessary for him to go several miles out of his way to pick Andrews up. Nevertheless, Drew continued this arrangement , without commenting on the inconvenience it caused him. However, on Tuesday morning June 1, the first working day after the elec- tion, Drew failed to show up. Drew did not call her and let her know he was not going to step by for her, although he previously had told her he would let her know if he could not pick her up. Andrews was 40 minutes late for work that morning as a result of having to take the bus to work. Andrews' time sheet was missing from the rack by the timeclock when she arrived. When she asked Foreman Harvey what to do about it, he told her to see Drew. When Andrews saw Drew she told him that "[she] thought he would be man enough to call [her] if he wasn't going to pick [her] up." Drew responded, "After what you did, you went against us and let us down." Andrews denied it and asked Drew about "the third vote, who did he think that was." Drew replied, "the colored boy's" (Watkins is a Negro). Andrews again denied voting for the Union . Drew rejoined that "when he found out different he would apologize to [her]." 13 8. The discharge of Kenneth Gray and Ralph Watkins on June 4 As found below, the discharges of Gray and Watkins are interrelated and hence they will be discussed together. Gray and Watkins are young men, about 19 years of age. Both were hired by the Respondent in February 1965. Gray, who had a chauffeur's license, was hired as a truckdriver and was given miscellaneous other duties around the plant, including janitorial work, to do when he had no truck- driving assignments. The Respondent's plant is located near a residential area and for this reason the Respondent attempts to keep its building and grounds in good condition. After hiring Gray, the Respondent found that he had insufficient time to keep the build- ing and grounds in good condition. Consequently, President Lawson had Ralph Watkins, who had worked around his home for several years part-time, come and work full-time for the Respondent. At the plant Watkins was assigned to washing windows, cutting the grass , weeding the shrubbery and keeping it trimmed, and helping Gray with his janitorial duties. President Lawson testified that when Watkins was hired he intended to keep Watkins on the payroll only until the extra work on the building and grounds became caught up. According to Lawson, he told Watkins at the time he was hired that he was being hired only temporarily . Watkins did not recall being told any such thing. Foreman Harvey credibly testified that Watkins was not under his supervision but under that of Lawson . This suggests that Watkins was not in the 19 The finding that Lawson questioned Watkins as to why he had voted for the Union is based on Watkins' testimony which is corroborated in part by that of Drew Lawson, after twice denying that he had questioned Watkins about the way he had voted in the election , when confronted with an affidavit he had previously given to a Board investiga- tor, admitted that he had done so. Lawson's unreliability in connection with this incident has caused me to scrutinize his testimony very closely wherever conflicts in the testimony have arisen. Both Drew and Lawson denied that Drew had remarked that "somebody is lying " As found below, Genevieve Andrews' credited and uncontradicted testimony establishes that Drew made a similar statement to her that same morning . It is logical and consistent with the established facts for Drew to have made the above quoted state- ment to Watkins Under all the circumstances I credit Watkins' testimony. 13 The foregoing finding is based on Andrews' credited testimony . An affidavit of Drew which was received in evidence in this case fully confirms Andrews ' testimony about Drew's reference to her having let Respondent down. In the affidavit Drew used the term "dirty deal" in referring to Andrews ' vote in the election. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 781 category of a regular employee who normally would have been responsible to Har- vey, the general foreman of the whole plant. Under all the circumstances, I credit Lawson's testimony that when he hired Watkins he intended him only to perform the extra work around the building and grounds and so notified him. Gray, the truckdriver, was spoken to frequently by the Respondent's supervisors concerning mistakes which he had made in performing his work. Gray admitted being spoken to about losing delivery slips. Gray testified that he lost these on three occasions. Gray also admitted being spoken to twice about having made deliveries to the wrong places. Gray also admitttedly forgot to take packages to the post office several times . One time his failure to remember a trip to the post office with a rush order necessitated a special trip by Foreman Harvey to the post office. Complaints were repeatedly made about Gray's failure to file the job tickets in numerical order. Foreman Harvey testified that Gray was sloppy and inefficient and had a completely indifferent attitude toward his work. Gray was notified by Foreman Harvey on May 27 that he was to be terminated at the end of the following week. On May 10 his hours had been reduced to 4 hours a day. Vice President Drew had told him at that time that the Respondent was having trouble keeping him busy on deliveries. When Harvey notified Gray of his termination on May 27 Gray asked him why he was being discharged. Har- vey's answer, according to Gray's testimony which I credit, was that he would receive a letter explaining the reasons. On June 4 the Respondent sent Gray a letter, the text of which was as follows: This is to notify you your services at Lawson Printers, Inc. are terminated as of Friday, June 4, 1965. We have on file and have given copy to our attorney the reason for employment termination here. Your probation period has not terminated therefore it is necessary for us to hire competent employees. Although Gray was confused about the last day on which he worked for the Respondent, having testified that he was discharged on May 28, the Respondent's timecards for Gray establish that Gray worked throughout the week ending June 4. With respect to Watkins, the Respondent concedes that his work was satisfac- tory, but points out, as Watkins admits, that he was often tardy and that his attendance was irregular. On June 4 Vice President Drew informed Watkins as follows: "Well, Ralph, you have got everything cleaned up around the plant pretty nice ... there is noth- ing more here you can do .... Mr. Lawson wants you to keep his grass cut ...." 9. The discharge of Ferreira and Taylor on June 8 As stated above, Ferreira was hired by the Respondent on February 11, 1965, and was assigned to operate the Respondent's Heidelberg press, an automatic press, and also two hand-feed letter presses. Ferreira had but 3 months' experience in the printing industry when he was hired. As Harvey testified, he "took a fancy" to Ferreira after he hired him and sought to help Ferreira develop his skill on the various presses. Although he was slow at first, Ferreira progressed and seemed to have the ability to learn, as Harvey further testified. Foreman Harvey testified that after Ferreira's probationary period was extended he noticed that Ferreira was not progressing as well as he should, that he was having trouble setting up his press, and that he was getting sloppy in his "imposi- tion," the placing of the type in its proper position. According to Harvey, he spoke to Ferreira two or three times about his work, but he could not remember what he said in this regard. Ferreira testified that his work was criticized by his supervisors on only one occa- sion and that was 2 weeks before the election, after his probationary period had been extended to 120 days. On this occasion, Ferreira testified, Vice President Drew told him that he was not doing a good job, that he had low production, and the Respondent's records showed that it was losing money with respect to his services. After Drew left, Ferreira asked Foreman Harvey why Drew had criticized his work. Harvey assured him that he was "a good workman" and added, "don't worry about that . . . he [Drew] is mad-because of the Union . . . that G damn union." 14 14 The above-quoted testimony is Ferreira's and is not denied by Harvey. In fact, Harvey's version of this conversation is substantially the same as Ferreira 's Ferreira's version is credited. 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As above noted, a few minutes after the votes were counted in the election on May 28, Foreman Harvey notified Ferreira that he was being laid off, but shortly thereafter told Ferreira that he should come back the following Tuesday, which was the next workday. Ferreira, as his testimony indicates, doubting that the Respondent would permit him to return to work, registered for unemployment benefits with the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission. On June 2 or 3 President Lawson went up to Ferreira in the shop and told him that he should not have gone to the unemployment office to register for unemployment benefits after only being laid off for one afternoon. Ferreira explained that he feared that the layoff might turn out to be an indefinite one because of various things that had happened to him, such as the extension of his probationary period from 60 to 120 days and the elimi- nation of hospitalization insurance and other benefits. Whereupon Lawson inter- jected that if Ferreira thought he was going to receive $3.75 per hour for operating the hand-feed machines he worked on,, he was mistaken. Lawson then queried Ferreira, "Why don't you quit." Ferreira replied that he did not know any place to go and that if Lawson "want[ed] to get rid of [him to] have [him]." 15 Taylor was hired by the Respondent on February 15, 1965, and assigned to work on the. Chief 15 offset press which, as stated above, is a duplicating machine similar to a Multilith. She had had experience on such machines in her previous employment. Taylor testified that the quality of her work was not criticized in any way by the Respondent's supervisors before May 1965. Her testimony further indicates that the first time she was spoken to was about May 21, after she had requested and obtained the assistance of Phillip Hurley, one of the Respondent's senior press operators, in adjusting her press. After Hurley had left on this occasion, Vice President Drew came up and told her that if she had any further questions on mak- ing adjustments on her press she should speak to Foreman Harvey. Drew added at the time that she knew more about her press than Hurley did. On June 1, the first working day after the election, Vice President Drew again spoke to Taylor. At this time Taylor was waiting for instructions from Foreman Harvey about the number of prints of each of two plates she was to run. Drew told Taylor that she was taking too much time on the job. Taylor explained that she was waiting for instructions and that she could not help the delay. Drew replied that Taylor "would have to help it." Although, as appears below, Harvey gave testimony concerning his opinion of Taylor's alleged shortcomings as a Chief 15 operator, his testimony is very vague about communicating to Taylor this opinion of her work. In fact the most specific testimony of Harvey in this regard appears in the following portion of the record: Did you have frequent discussions with Miss Taylor-did you have any dis- cussions witth Miss Taylor regarding the subject of her work, especially with reference to adjustments on the press and things of that kind? A. Considerable, yes. Q. How frequently were these? A. Oh, quite frequent for a person of supposedly her capacity. Quite fre- quent. Well, maybe one or maybe two or three times a day. Sometimes maybe a day or two would go by and I wouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, Harvey testified that he believed that he remembered John and Drew remarking to him about a month after Taylor was hired that "she was doing such a wonderful job they wished they could get more like her." On June 8 Foreman Harvey notified both Ferreira and Taylor that they were being discharged. Harvey told Ferreira that he was sorry but he had to let him go. When Ferreira asked why, Harvey replied that he would receive a letter in the mail. Harvey went to Taylor at 4:30 p.m. and said that "he had some bad news for [her], and he hated to do this, but as of five o'clock [she] would be terminated from Lawson Printers." Harvey added that "if there was ever anything he could do for [her], he would be happy to do so." The next day Taylor received the following letter from the Respondent in the mail: Owing to inefficiency in the trade and excessive costs contributed to you in our plant plus the fact that you are still on probation we find it necessary to terminate your employment at Lawson Printers Inc. as of this date. 15 Lawson denied Ferreira 's testimony above quoted . However, as stated above, I have found Lawson not to be wholly reliable as a witness . Ferreira's testimony is credited. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 783 10. The Respondent's reduction in Emerson's hours on May 28 and its refusal to recall Emerson for any work after July 13 As stated above, on the afternoon of May 28, Vice President Drew informed Emerson that he would be called for work only when chargeable work was available for him to do. In the 2 weeks following May 28, Emerson was called for work only 2 days each week. Emerson was not called to work at all the third week after the election. Thereafter Emerson worked short weeks until July 13, and after that time Emerson was not recalled for work at all.16 C. The Respondent's contentions; conclusions 1. The Respondent's threats, 'warnings, and other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion a. The Respondent's threats to Robert Reynolds and its extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor As found above, the Respondent's almost immediate reaction upon being informed of the Union's assertion of bargaining rights, was to warn Reynolds that in the event that the Union organized the shop, he might be replaced with a journeyman and that a cut in his wages might result from union negotiations. Such threats of reprisals because of a union constitute acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, even though not couched in positive terms. The test of a violation is whether "it may reasonably be said" of the con- duct in question, that "it tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act." N.L.R.B. v. William H. Ford, d/b/a Ford Brothers, 170 F.2d 735, 738 (C.A. 6). In my opinion the Respondent's threats to Reynolds meet this test. At the same time, the Respondent threatened these reprisals the Respondent took away from Reynolds his title as bindery foreman. Although, as pointed out in the footnote below, this title was not a very meaningful one because Reynolds at no time exercised the responsibilities which normally go with such a title, the Respond- ent's action nevertheless worked a detriment to Reynolds in connection with the prestige attached to his job. Since this action was taken against Reynolds because of his advocacy of the Union, it constitutes an act of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.17 Two days after the Union presented the Respondent with its request for recogni- tion, the Respondent extended the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor from 60 to 120 days. The Respondent contends that this was done because the work of both employees was below par and did not warrant their retention as permanent employees, and that it desired to give them a further chance to bring their work up to par. The Respondent, however, has not cited any testimony to the effect that either Ferreira or Taylor were told this at the time their probationary periods were extended.18 Aside from Taylor's testimony referred to in the footnote below, which is inconclusive, the record fails to show that prior to the advent of the Union the Respondent ever communicated to either Ferreira or Taylor in any meaningful way its dissatisfaction with the way in which they were performing their work.19 18 The finding that Emerson was not recalled after July 13 is based upon Emerson's testimony President Lawson testified that Vice President Drew called Emerson to come back and that he did not return Drew was not questioned about this subject matter. In view of Emerson's explicit testimony that he was never recalled after July 13, I cannot accept Lawson's hearsay testimony to the contrary. 17 Upon the facts of this case Reynolds cannot be regarded as any more than a leadman or straw boss who is entitled to exercise all of the rights of a nonsupervisory employee. Reynolds was an hourly paid employee. He at no time had the right to hire or fire, or discipline or reprimand employees, or independently to direct the other two bindery em- ployees in the performance of their work. At most, as Assistant Superintendent John testified, Reynolds passed along instructions from higher authority in the plant 18 When Taylor was asked whether Harvey had not told her that her probationary was being extended to give her a chance to bring her work up to par, Taylor first answered that she did not remember, then when asked whether this could have been told her, Taylor answered in the affirmative. i9 While Harvey testified that he was dissatisfied with Taylor's work at this time and .recommended against her retention, he did not testify that he told Taylor about her short- comings as a worker. 784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The testimony of Harvey himself reveals how unfounded in fact is the Respond- ent's claim that it was merely seeking to give him a further opportunity to prove himself. Thus, Harvey testified as follows: When I hired Tony Ferreira, as I did with all of the employees that I myself hired-I notified them of working conditions in the shop, working rules and regulations that we have in the shop. I specifically told him he would be on a probationary period of 60 days. I specifically told him that. Now, Tony did a good job and his time of probation was coming up. He was doing a good job. At the termination of his probation I would say that Tony would have gone on to a permanent employee with us, and I notified him that-well, maybe I shouldn't probably answer that right now. It is not directed to the question. s # # ! i t n The WrrNESS. Tony's probation period, his date was coming up, and I don't know what time that was, but I know he was close to it, and I had discussed this situation, his situation with Mr. Drew and Mr. John and explained my views on it. I thought he was doing a creditable job and as far as I was concerned, we would go along with him at that moment. It was my intention-I cannot speak for Mr. Drew or Mr. John, but it was my intention to keep him. Now this is-I just wonder if I am getting confused here with another issue which I was going to bring up in relationship to another employee. Any way, let me say this: As you know, the probationary period was extended, and I was using that more or less as a time factor as far as dates were concerned. From that point on I seemed to notice that Tony was not progressing as well as he should. In view of Harvey's testimony above quoted I have no hesitancy in rejecting the Respondent's explanation for extending the probationary period in Ferreira's case and conclude that his probationary period was extended to give the Respondent more time to find a plausible explanation for getting rid of him. With respect to Taylor, I conclude, in view of the entire sequence of events in this case and the Respondent's failure prior to the extension of her probationary period to inform her of its alleged dissatisfaction with her work, that the Respond- ent's motivation in her case was the same as the case of Ferreira, i e., to give the Respondent an opportunity to build a case against her because of her suspected union activities. Respondent's extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor for the reason hereinabove found, in my opinion, interfered with, restrained, coerced them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Since a consequence of the Respondent's action against Ferreira and Taylor was, at least to deprive them of hospitalization benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled, an act of discrimination, the Respondent's conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as well. The Respondent contends in its proposed finding and conclusions that it had no knowledge of the union activities of any of the employees, excepting Reynolds and Emerson. From this it argues that no finding of discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act can be made. The fact that the Respondent accused Reynolds of advocating the Union the very first morning after the Union requested recognition suggests that the Respondent was not unaware of what was going on in its plant. Moreover, Respondent knew that the Union was claiming to represent a majority of its employees. Under all the circumstances of the case, I conclude that the Respondent suspected that Ferreira and Taylor were union supporters and that Respondent's resentment against the employees' decision to affiliate with the Union was such as to impel it to attempt to get rid of all suspected union supporters, regardless of whether it had proof of the extent of a particular employee's union advocacy. b. Threats and warnings of President Lawson, Assistant Superintendent John, and Foreman Harvey; the cancellation of hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits President Lawson, Assistant Superintendent Jolin, and Foreman Harvey all threatened employees on one or more occasions that if the Union was successful in organizing the employees , the Respondent would hire journeymen and would let go those of its employees who could not qualify as journeymen. The Respondent argues that its officials were merely pointing out that if the Union was successful in organizing the employees and expected to obtain journey- LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 785 man wages, it would have to hire journeymen workers. However, this is not what the Respondent's officials said; the Union had made no demand for journeyman wages for apprentices; and, in any event, qualified journeymen were very difficult to obtain even at journeyman wages, as all parties agree . In these circumstances, I conclude that the Respondent, without justification therefor , was attempting to con- vey to a majority of its employees (journeymen were in a minority in the Respond- ent's pressroom and bindery ) that the unionization of the plant would place their jobs in jeopardy . Such statements , in my opinion, constitute threats of reprisals, and therefore violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Assistant Superintendent John and Foreman Harvey also threatened various employees that less advantageous working conditions would result from the union- ization of the employees. Jolin repeatedly warned that if the employees voted the Union in, the Respondent would take away the employees' hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits , and that the employees might or might not gain these bene- fits back later through collective-bargaining negotiations . Such threats constitute a clear-cut invasion of the employees ' rights to be free from employer interference, restraint, and coercion. The Respondent carried out these threats as soon as it received word of the Union's victory in the election. Such action violated not only the prohibition of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act against employer interference , restraint, and coercion but also the ban of Section 8 (a)(3) against employer discrimination with respect to terms and conditions of employment. Neither the Respondent's threats nor its subsequent cancellation of benefits can be justified upon the ground that Union Representative Obenour stated at the April 6 conference that hospitalization insurance, paid vacations, and paid holidays "would be subject to negotiations" and that it would be "all right" to "stop [them] until the negotiations were completed." The quoted testimony is that of Lawson. Obenour was not called as a witness . Consequently Lawson's testimony in this regard is undenied. It is almost inconceivable to me that an experienced union official like Obenour could have stated in effect that the Respondent could suspend existing benefits pending the outcome of collective-bargaining negotiations since the law prohibits such action by employers. Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as it has been uniformly construed by the Board and the courts , prohibits an employer, once a majority of his employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have selected a collective- bargaining representative, from unilaterally changing any of the terms or conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit. However, assuming that Obenour stated that it would be all right to suspend employee benefits pend- ing the outcome of the negotiations , the right to be free from employer interference with the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act is vested in the employees, and Obenour had no right to waive the protection of the Act so as to render lawful employer conduct having an obviously coercive effect. It cannot be doubted that a threat, even temporarily to suspend employee benefits , has a coercive impact. c. President Lawson's questioning of Watkins concerning his vote in the election; the incident between Vice President Drew and Andrews As found above, the first working day after the election, Lawson asked Watkins why he had voted for the Union in the election. This elicited from Watkins a denial that he had voted for the Union. The protection of Section 7 of the Act also covers the right to vote by secret ballot in a Board-conducted election. Any con- duct such as Lawson's here, the normal tendency of which is to destroy the secrecy of the ballot, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf. Staub Cleaners Inc., 148 NLRB 278, 279. In any event, in the context of events in this case, Lawson's questioning of Watkins had coercive implications, and therefore violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act for this reason also. As stated above, Vice President Drew had given Andrews a ride to work every day of her 3 years' employment at the Respondent's plant. The first working day after the election Drew failed to show up to give Andrews her ride. When Andrews arrived late at work and berated Drew for failing to let her know he was not com- ing, Drew, in explanation, declared "After what you did, you went against us and let us down." As the ensuing conversation makes clear, this remark had reference to Andrews' vote in the election. This remark, coupled as it was with the com- plete discontinuance of the longstanding riding agreement, a valuable privilege, in my opinion, had a strong coercive impact and therefore violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 243-084-67-vol. 159-51 786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel contends that Drew's discontinuance of the riding arrange- ment also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I would agree if the record ade- quately showed that the giving of such transportation to Andrews was a term or condition of her employment . The record does not show the circumstances under which this riding arrangement was entered into, including whether it resulted from a neighborhood acquaintance or was purely a business arrangement to insure the prompt arrival at the plant of a valued employee. In these circumstances, I am unable to find that Drew's discontinuance of the arrangement with Andrews also violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act. The 8( a)(3) allegations of the com- plaint in this . respect are hereby dismissed. 2. The layoffs and discharges in alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act a. The layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7 As found above, Riggle was laid off on April 7, the day after the Respondent received the Union's request for recognition and bargaining. This was the same day that Vice President Drew ascertained , upon inquiring of Andrews whether she had heard'anything of a union petition, that Riggle had mentioned the petition to Andrews the night before . Thereupon Drew had remarked that he would see if there was enough work for Riggle. The Respondent contends that Riggle was laid off because there was insufficient work for her to do in the bindery. However, the Respondent adduced only the vague general testimony of Vice President Drew and Foreman Harvey in this con- nection . Drew testified that Riggle was a temporary employee who was laid off when she had cleaned up the little miscellaneous bindery jobs which the Respondent had for her to do. Drew could not remember whether he personally gave direc- tions for her layoff. Foreman Harvey, Riggle's immediate supervisor, when asked to give the circumstances of Riggle's layoff, at first could not recall, but later testi- fied that "there was no sufficient work." However, on cross-examination Foreman Harvey admitted that Reynolds had told him at the time he-gave instructions for Riggle's layoff that there were 2000- 3000 units of the plastic binder on which Riggle was working still to be assembled. The layoff of Riggle, and all of the other 'discharges and layoffs here involved, must _be considered against the background of the Respondent' s entire course of conduct in 'this case. As found above, the Respondent reacted to the Union's request for bargaining rights with threats to Robert Reynolds, the layoff of Riggle, and the extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor. After agree- ing to the holding of a consent election, the Respondent 's supervisors repeatedly threatened that loss of benefits, layoffs, and other adverse consequences would follow the unionization of the employees. Two days before the election, the Respondent gave the employees a letter in which it frankly appealed to the employ- ees to vote against the Union in the election . As soon as the votes in the election were counted the Respondent openly displayed its strong disapproval of the out- come by canceling the employees' hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits, as it had threatened to do, laid off Ferreira , as it had also threatened, and drastically cut back Emerson's hours. The next workday Vice President Drew discontinued his longstanding practice of giving Andrews a ride to the plant and frankly attrib- uted his action, to use his own words , to the "dirty deal" which Andrews had given the Respondent in the election . The discharges of Ferreira and Taylor and the termination of Emerson followed. Viewing the layoff of Riggle in the light of this background , I conclude the Respondent would not have laid off Beverly Riggle, concededly a valuable employee, at this particular time had it not been for the union activities then going on in the plant, activities in which the Respondent knew Riggle had some interest . Accord- ingly I find that the Respondent 's layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7, 1965, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. b. The layoff and discharge of John Kewley As found above, Foreman Harvey first laid Kewley off assertedly for lack of work, and then during the period of his layoff the Respondent sent Kewley a letter notifying him he was being discharged because of inefficiency and low production. Foreman Harvey had previously warned Kewley and others that the less experi- enced employees would be let go if the Union came in. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 787 Foreman Harvey testified that after Union President Obenour's visit to the plant on April 6, Kewley's work was "mediocre, not up to . . . what he was capable of doing." Harvey mentioned specifically an incident occurring on the afternoon of April 6, in which Kewley declined Harvey's request to work overtime, saying he had other plans. Pressman Hurley subsequently declined also for the same reason. When Harvey later attempted to run Kewley's press the plate became wrapped around the press, ruining it. Harvey, according to his testimony, attributed this to Kewley's negligence. This caused Harvey to become critical of Kewley's work. He discussed the matter of Kewley's work "and other factors" with Drew and Jolin on several occasions but they did not decide to discharge Kewley during these discussions. Later without further consultation with Harvey, the decision was made higher up to discharge Kewley. According to President Lawson, Kewley was laid off because the cost of his opera-- tion of the darkroom was excessive, and because after his transfer back to the press- room he lacked sufficient experience to operate the Chief 20 press satisfactorily. However, I have found that Kewley's transfer back to) the' pressroom was not due' primarily to dissatisfaction with his work in the darkroom, but rather to the Respondent's need for a press operator. After Kewley's return to the pressroom, the Respondent assigned him only briefly to operate the Chief 15 press, upon which he was experienced, and then assigned him to the larger and much more compli- cated Chief 20 press upon which he had had no experience. Then the Respondent learned its employees had become interested in the Union.2° Two and one-half weeks later, the Respondent laid off Kewley and during the layoff purportedly decided that Kewley would not work out on the Chief 20 press. This was after Kewley had worked on the Chief 20 only about 3 weeks, although, as President Lawson testified, it takes years for a man to become an experienced press operator. Under all the circumstances, including the Respondent's demonstrated hostility to the Union, I conclude that but for its suspicion that Kewley was a union supporter, it would have given' him time to develop his skill on the Chief 20 press, and that the Respondent's discharge of Kewley on May 1 was motivated by its animosity toward the Union. - c. The discharge of Kenneth Gray and Ralph Watkins on June 4 The Respondent contends that Gray was discharged for gross inefficiency and that Watkins was discharged because he had completed the extra work which he was temporarily hired to perform and because the Respondent had decided to hire one man to perform the work of both Gray and Watkins. It will be remembered that Gray was only working 4 hours a day at the time of his discharge. Watson was not considered for the combined job, according to the Respondent, because of his poor record with respect.to absenses and tardiness._ With regard to this latter point, Watson admitted that he "missed a lot of time at work" and that he was "late frequently." The Respondent did, in fact, hire one replacement for both employees. It had been the Respondent's practice in the past to have one employee handle both'the truckdriving and janitorial duties. Gray's own testimony concerning the numerous mistakes which he made on the job tends to confirm testimony of the Respondent's supervisors as to Gray's many shortcomings as an employee . Under all the -circumstances I conclude that Gray was a very unsatisfactory employee. While the record contains abundant evidence of the Respondent 's hostility to the Union, in my opinion, in the cases of Gray and Watkins, such hostility was not a 20 As indicated above, the Respondent contends that the record fails to show knowledge on its part that Kewley was active in the union movement . In addition to the circum- stances alluded to in the discussion of the Respondent 's discriminatory extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor , it should be noted, as the Respondent states in its proposed findings of fact, that during the interim between the filing of the Union's petition and the election "that many members of management , particularly Lawson, Drew, Harvey, and John, indulged their natural curiosity by asking questions of the employees concerning the union ." In view of this questioning it would be surprising if the Respond- ent did not learn something of the identity of active union supporters. Harvey's various conversations with Kewley about the Union early in April strongly suggest that he, at least, believed Kewley to be a union supporter. Under the circumstances, I conclude in Kewley's case, as in the cases of Ferreira and Taylor, that the Respondent suspected that he was a union supporter. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD factor in their discharges . In fact, in the case of Watkins, I believe that President Lawson took him at his word when he denied having voted for the Union in the election. Hence, Lawson had no reason to take retaliatory action against him. In sum, I accept the Respondent's explanation for having discharged Gray and Watkins. Accordingly, the allegations of the complaint based upon their discharge are hereby dismissed. d. The discharge of Antonio Ferreira and Helen Taylor Respondent contends that both Ferreira and Taylor were discharged because of the excessive costs of the jobs done by them and because they failed to become sufficiently proficient on the presses operated by them to warrant their retention after the expiration of their extended probationary periods. With respect to Fer- reira, there is no evidence that any of the Respondent 's supervisors ever seriously criticized his work during his original 60-day probationary period. Foreman Har- vey's own testimony , quoted above, reveals that he regarded Ferreira as a satis- factory employee at the end of his original 60-day probationary period. Ferreira's undenied testimony is that the first time his work was criticized was 2 weeks before the election on May 28. This was the instance in which Vice President Drew criticized. Ferreira's work, after which Foreman Harvey reassured Ferreira that he was a good worker and expressly attributed Drew's citicism to his animosity toward the Union. Regarding Taylor, Foreman Harvey was more articulate with respect to her alleged shortcomings as a press operator. However, Harvey's testimony fails to show that he effectively communicated to Taylor his dissatisfaction with her work. While Harvey testified in response to an extremely leading question that he fre- quently discussed with Taylor the making of adjustments on her press, Harvey's testimony fails to show whether these discussion were of such a nature as to bring home to Taylor his dissatisfaction with her work. Nor does Harvey's testimony indicate whether these discussions were before or after the advent of the Union. In these circumstances I credit Taylor's testimony that the first time her work was criticized was a week before the election. In Taylor's case , as in the case of Fer- reira, it was Vice President Drew, rather than Foreman Harvey who was much more familiar with the quality of her work, who reprimanded Taylor for seeking the assistance of Hurley in adjusting her machine. I have found that the Respondent's extension of the probationary periods of Fer- reira and Taylor from 60 to 120 days was an act of retaliation against them, like the layoff of Beverly Riggle, because of the employees' decision to seek collective- bargaining representation . I conclude that the Respondent's discharge of Ferreira and Taylor was of a piece with the Respondent 's extension of their probationary periods and was motivated by the Respondent 's resentment against the fact that the employees had chosen the Union to represent them in the election. With the discharge of these two press operators, the previous discharge of Riggle and Kewley, and the Respondent's failure to call Emerson for further work dis- cussed below, this made a total of five employees terminated one way or another by the Respondent after it learned of the employees ' organizing activities. Taking into' consideration also the discharge of Gray and Watkins, the Respondent in the 2-month period after the advent of the Union effected the removal of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. While Foreman Harvey gave some testimony. concerning the faults of Ferreira and Taylor in the later stages of their employment, as found above, no complaints were voiced to them by him before the advent of the Union . Particularly in a trade like the printing trade where it takes 5 to 7 years to become a thoroughly experienced operator , it is easy for a supervisor, in retrospect, to point out deficien- cies in the work of employees having only a year or two of experience . And Fer- reira had only several months' experience in the trade . While I do not discredit Harvey's testimony concerning the difficulties which he had with the work of Fer- reira and Taylor in its entirety, I conclude in view of the abundant evidence of the Respondent's union hostility , that Harvey exaggerated the shortcomings of these two employees in an effort to cloak the antiunion motivation which lay behind these discharges . Under all the circumstances of the case I conclude that the Respond- ent's discharge of Ferreira and Taylor violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. e. The termination of Paul Emerson As found above , commencing on June 1, the Respondent drastically curtailed Emerson's working hours and discontinued using his services altogether after LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 789 July 13, 1965. Emerson, a journeyman compositor, had worked for the Respond- ent for 10 years without ever having been laid off. The Respondent contends that as a result of the development of the offset print- ing process there gradually became less and less work available for compositors, and that by the time of Emerson's termination the volume of work had dropped to such a level that one man, Henry Clay, the working foreman in the composing room, could handle it all. This contention is based solely on the general testimony of President Lawson. No records of the comparative volume of work in the com- posing room in 1965 and previous years were produced at the hearing. The only records offered were records showing the number of hours each week Emerson had spent in the last 3 years on composing jobs which could be charged to a specific customer, called chargeable or productive time, and the number of hours spent on nonproductive time The 3-year totals show that slightly less than half of Emer- son's time during this period was spent on nonproductive or nonchargeable work. These figures further show that despite the fact that a relatively high proportion of Emerson's time was consistently devoted to nonchargeable work, the Respondent nevertheless had Emerson work some overtime in about 1 week in 4 The amount of overtime worked by Emerson in March and April 1965 was greater than that in any other 2-month period coveted by the Respondent's records. In view of this fact I cannot accept at face value the Respondent's claim that the situation in the composing room suddenly got so much worse on May 28 as to warrant drastically cutting Emerson's hours, and ceasing to use his services altogether 6 weeks later. 1 conclude, in view of timing of the Respondent's action against Emerson and the Respondent's manifest hostility to the Union, that but for Emerson's role as observer in the election, which singled him out above all others for the Respondent's atten- tion, the Respondent would have found work for this experienced compositor, as it had been doing for a number of years, even though it did not have sufficient composing-room work to keep him busy full-time doing chargeable work. Respond- ent's reduction in Emerson's hours and its refusal to call him for any work after July 13, were violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 By threatening employees with layoffs, cuts in wages, and the loss of employ- ment benefits, by withdrawing hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits, by extending the probationary periods of employees from 60 to 120 days, by taking away from Robert Reynolds his title as bindery foreman, and by discontinuing its transportation arrangement with Genevieve Andrews, all because its employees decided to seek representation by the Union; and by questioning Ralph Watkins concerning his vote in a Board-conducted election, thereby interfering with Board processes, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2 By laying off Beverly Riggle on April 7, 1965, by extending the probationary periods of all employees from 60 to 120 days on April 8, 1965, by laying off John Kewley on April 23, 1965, and discharging him on May 1, 1965, by withdrawing the employees' hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits on May 28, by laying off Antonio Ferreira for a half day on May 28 and discharging him and also Helen Taylor on June 8, 1965, and by reducing the working hours of Paul Emerson on May 28, 1965, and failing to recall him for any work after July 13, 1965, the Respondent has discouraged membership in the Union by discrimination in regard to their tenure or terms and conditions of employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, my Recommended Order will pro- vide that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that the Respondent laid off or discharged Beverly Riggle, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, and Helen Taylor, and reduced the working hours of, and later failed to recall, Paul Emerson for any work, all in violation of the Act. To remedy these unfair labor practices, my Recommended Order will provide that 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondent offer each employee immediate and full reinstatement to his or her former, or a substantially equivalent, position without prejudice to his or her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earn- ings he or she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716. Since I have found that the Respondent further unlawfully discrim- inated against employees by extending the probationary periods of all probationary employees from 60 to 120 days and by withdrawing the employees' hospitalization -insurance, and vacation and holiday benefits, my Recommended Order will also provide that, to the extent that the Respondent has not already done so, it shall reinstate these benefits at least to the level prevailing before the Union requested recognition and post notices to this effect, except to the extent that provision for such benefits may be included in a collective-bargaining contract covering the employees in question which has been executed in conformity with the Act. In addition, my Recommended Order will provide that any employees who suffer financial loss as a result of such discriminatory withdrawal of benefits be made whole for such losses. Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices herein found, my Recommended Order will provide that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Lawson Printers, Inc., Battle Creek, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, Southwest Michigan District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily laying off, discharging, or refusing to recall employees, by withdrawing employment benefits or otherwise adversely changing terms or conditions of employment because its employees have decided to seek union representation, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening employees with layoff, discharge, or other reprisals because its employees have decided to seek union representation. (c) Questioning employees as to how they voted in a Board election. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions to Beverly Riggle, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Helen Taylor, and Paul Emerson, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he or she may have 'suffered as a result of the discrimination, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify any of the employees named in the preceding paragraph, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni- versal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 791 (d) If it has not already done so, reinstate its hospitalization, vacation and holi- day benefits, at least to the levels prevailing before the Union requested recognition on April 6, 1965, and reduce its probationary period for new employees to the former level of 60 days, all as set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy," and post notices concerning these changes for at least 60 days, if it has not already done so, on all bulletin boards in the plant where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. This requirement shall become inapplicable as to any term or condition of employment which is specifically covered by a collective-bargaining contract executed in conformity with the Act. (e) Make whole employees who suffered any loss as a result of the Respondent's change of any of the terms and conditions of employment mentioned in the pre- ceding paragraph for their financial losses resulting therefrom. (f) Post at its Battle Creek, Michigan,- plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly-signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 22 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is 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." :a In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Southwest Michigan District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union by laying off, discharging, refusing to recall any employee, by adversely changing the terms and conditions of employ- ment of our employees, or by otherwise discriminating against any employee because our employees have decided to seek union representation. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with layoffs, discharge, or other reprisals because our employees have decided to seek union representation, question employees as to how they voted in a Board election, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer to Beverly Riggle, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Helen Taylor, and Paul Emerson immediate and full reinstatement with backpay. WE WILL notify the above-named emloyees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as- amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL, to the extent that we have not already done so, reinstate our hos- pitalization and vacation and holiday benefits to at least the level prevailing before the Union's request for recognition on April 6, 1965, and will revert to a 60-day probationary period for new employees. 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make whole any employees for their financial losses resulting from our changing for the worse the terms and conditions of employment stated in the preceding paragraph. LAWSON PRINTERS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi- sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 226-3244. Northland Industrial Plastics Co. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-5334. June 21, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended that such allegation of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision,' the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and 1 We correct certain statements in the Trial Examiner's report which are not supported by the record. However, these corrections do not affect our agreement with his ultimate findings herein : (a) The Trial Examiner stated that after the layoff of Boguth and Sie- benaller, Foreman Johnson cautioned the Koechles to be certain to punch in and out, whereas the testimony revealed that such warning was issued to Diana Koechle and Siebenaller; (b) the Trial Examiner's finding that the Koechles' practice of leaving the plant without punching out was known to management is not supported by the record ; and (c) the further finding that the employees met with Respondent's top officials on September 20, whereas the record shows that this meeting occurred on September 21. 159 NLRB No. 71.