Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners Inc.

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in part 148 NLRB 866 and remanded, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, relying on Local 761, International Union of Electrical Workers v. N.L R.B., supra, wrote: An illegal "object" is something more than a result, even an inevitable result, of a work stoppage for a legitimate reason. Otherwise the right to strike would for practical purposes be nullified, a result which Congress clearly did not intend. See Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. N.L.R.B., 296 F.2d 368, 373 (C.A.D C.). The distinction to be drawn, as best one can, is between an object and a consequence. Accord N.L.R.B. v. Inteinational Union of Operating Engineers (Layne Western Co.), 317 F.2d 638, 643-644 (C.A. 8). See also National Mmitime Union of Ameiica, AFL-CIO v. N.L R.B., 342 F.2d 538, 543 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 284 F.2d 887, 889 (C.A. 2). Therefore, on the facts herein and on the authorities above cited, I find that the Respondents did not engage in forbidden activity in pressing their dispute with Jess Edwards, Inc. The complaint herein should be dismissed. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I make the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Jess Edwards, Inc., is a Texas corporation, engaged in commerce and in activities affecting commerce and is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 1224, 1225, 1241, and 1245, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The said local unions, Respondents herein, have not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. 4. The complaint herein should be dismissed. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners Inc. and Gulf Linen Service Inc. and Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers' Interna- tional Union, Local 218. Cases 15-CA-2690 and 15-RC-3076. August 06,1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On May 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig 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 Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended such allegations of the complaint be dismissed. In addition, the Trial Examiner found merit in certain objections to the election in Case 15-RC-3076 and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 160 NLRB No. 60. CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 747 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 recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] [The Board set aside the election conducted on July 14, 1965, in Case 15-RC-3076 and remanded Case 15-RC-3076 to the Regional Director for Region 15 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 1 We agree with the Trial Examiner , but for the reasons stated in Federal Envelope Company, Omaha, Nebraska, 147 NLRB 1030, 1039-41, that when considered as a whole and in the context of the total election campaign , the "Dead Plant" leaflet and the July 13 speech contained actual or implied threats of retaliation , and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a) (1). Also, like the Trial Examiner , we regard Respondent's conduct in withholding fictitious union dues, fines , assessments , and contributions from each em- ployee's paycheck on a payday shortly before the election as interference with the labora- tory conditions necessary for the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election. In so finding, we view Respondent's conduct as exerting an undue pressure upon the 'voters not only by the misleading method utilized in making- the, deductions but' also by the intimidating manner in which it was carried ' out. This, Respondent fictionalized an itemiza- tion of "union costs" in an amount which would absorb practically the whole paycheck of some employees and deducted that amount from each employee' s pay. When employees received their paychecks from the plant superintendent , discovered the deduction, and voiced their questions and protests , he remained silent, refusing to answer, and by previous arrangement employees were called to where the Respondent president was waiting to give each his refund , thus requiring each employee to go to a high ranking company . official to receive his refund of "union costs ." Even though the money was refunded, there remained the erroneous inferences that in the event of unionization a like amount would be required, would be appropriated from their pay without authorization , and would be taken at one time so as to leave them unexpectedly with little or no pay We have found that similar utilization of dues deductions oversteps the bounds of legitimate electioneering See Peach- tree City Warehouse, Inc, 158 NLRB 1031, and we so find in this case TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE These cases involve unfair labor practice charges and objections to conduct affecting the results of a stipulated consent election held on July 14, 1965 .1 A con- solidated proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Marion C . Ladwig at Pensa- cola, Florida , on February 25 and March 1 and 2 , 1966, pursuant to a complaint dated December 16; an order dated January 6, 1966 , directing a hearing on the 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1965. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD objections timely filed by the Union (Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Work- ers' International Union, Local 218); and an order of consolidation dated Janu- ary 12, 1966. The primary issues are (a) whether the Respondent (herein called the Company) discriminatorily discharged two union leaders, made unlawful threats and promises, and illegally interrogated employees before receiving legal advice; (b) whether the preelection campaign conducted thereafter included threats to close the plant, rewards for opposing the Union, and coercive interrogation, speeches, and literature; (c) whether the Company, after a 40 to 3 election victory, informed a terminated prounion employee that the Company did not want any union supporters in the plant; and (d) whether the election should be set aside. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the wit- nesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Company, and the Union, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Company, constituting two separate corporations operated as a single, inte- grated business enterprise at Pensacola, Florida, is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of performing laundry, linen and uniform rental, and cleaning services. It annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside that State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The advent of the Union and the discharge of union leaders In the middle or latter part of March, the Company was advised by employee Alvin Godwin that a union organizer was bringing clothes to the east call office to be cleaned. Godwin told President Gray Whigham, Jr., that the organizer was trying to organize the employees at another laundry (American Laundry) in Pensa- cola, but had inquired how Godwin would feel about being organized himself. President Whigham notified his "partner," Secretary-treasurer George A. Belleau, who in turn advised Plant Superintendent George W. Boren that a union was "look- ing us over" and asked him if he knew of any discussion about the Union. Boren had not, but he thereafter interrogated employees about "what they knew about this union that was trying to get in." According to Boren, everybody he questioned denied knowing anything about it. (This interrogation, which preceded the April 16 discharges, was not alleged as a separate violation.) Also, Whigham, talked to Belleau about the union organizers living one-half block from the plant at the Crosby Motel, and about "keeping an eye open" when the organizers were around the motel. Meanwhile, the, Union held meetings with employees on April 5 and about April 10. Both meetings were attended by Lois Farrow and Ethel Gordon, who were discharged on April 16. The 10 or 12 employees who attended the April 5 meeting (at which Farrow and Gordon signed authorization cards) included Emma Lewis, who subsequently passed out invitations to the Company's election-eve party and announced the activities at the party, and Jeanette Johnson, who worked with Farrow and two other employees in the linen room, and who subsequently helped make the "This Is Mr. Union" dummy which was hanged in effigy at the plant before the election. At the April 5 meeting, the union organizer, Spann Rountree, asked for names of the other employees. Gordon proceeded to get names from the telephone directory, and the next day, asked women employees at the plant their names and addresses. She delivered the names and addresses to the union organizer that evening at the Crosby Motel (where the union meetings were held). One of the names she fur- nished Rountree was that of Ula Hubbard. Rountree went to Hubbard's home on Friday evening, April 9, and, gave her an authorization card to sign. She did not sign it, but asked him to stop by again. When he talked to her later, she said she had misplaced it. The following week, Hubbard asked Gordon what she thought about the Union, and Gordon said, "Well, it's a good idea. We are not making anything and we would be making a little bit more money." (Gordon's wages were CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 749 55 cents an hour.) Then Hubbard commented that she had talked to three other employees about the Union, and "we are not going to have anything to do with it because we work by the piece and that wouldn't involve us." This is the same Hubbard whom Plant Superintendent Boren admittedly interrogated before the April 16 discharges, although the exact date of the interrogation was not given. A week or two after April 16, Hubbard gave the unsigned union card to Plant Superintendent Boren, stating she did not want "anything to do with it." Farrow had talked to Organizer Rountree several times before the April 5 meet- ing and, in an effort to get names and addresses of the employees, had (with Gordon) suggested to different employees in the plant the giving of a party. She also passed out union cards before the meetings, and she talked to other employees "between times at work," asking them if they would be interested in a union. Sometime during the week of April 16, the Company was told by the manager of American Linen that the Company was "going to be organized next." Before that, as President Whigham explained, "We knew that they [the union organizers] were looking us over," but "We thought that they were after the American Laundry first." Also before the discharges, Whigham told a "loyal" employee in the east call office, Stacey, to check on employees talking at lunch to a union organizer at the grocery store across the street from the plant. (Surveillance was not alleged.) Whigham admitted that she reported back to him which employees she saw talking to the organizer there, but first claimed that he could not remember any of the employees seen there. Thereafter, though, he recalled several employees mentioned by Stacey. (The list did not include either Farrow or Gordon.) However, Gordon credibly testified that at lunchtime on Wednesday, April 14 (2 days before their discharges), she and Farrow were standing outside the door of the grocery store with Organizer Rountree-within view of Stacey-talking about the union meeting planned for the following Monday. Stacey was not called to testify. On Thursday, April 15, employee Blanch Marvel told Gordon at the plant, "Someone told me that you have some union cards." Gordon said she did not have any with her, and said that she would go to the motel and get some. She left the plant, found Organizer Rountree outside the Crosby Motel (one-half block from the plant), talked with him there, returned to the plant, and found Plant Super- intendent Boren standing in the doorway. He did not say anything to her. 1. Discharge of Lois Farrow On the next morning, Friday, April 16, when Farrow reported to work at 6:45 (15 minutes before her starting time), she saw President Whigham, Secretary- treasurer Belleau, and Plant Superintendent Boren standing near the east call office, talking. She walked through the plant, within their view, and walked up to three or four other women employees on the way, telling them not to forget the upcoming union meeting. A few minutes later, as she was leaving the linen room (where she worked) to see when the shirts would be ready to add to a load, Secretary-treasurer Belleau (who was also President of Gulf Linen Service Inc.) approached and dis- charged her for not finishing the folding of smocks before leaving the plant the day before. According to her: "He spoke in kind of a rash voice and says, `Lois, how come you didn't fold up the smocks?' and I said, 'I had plenty of time to fold up the smocks . . . There's not any of the shirts that are ready and we need quite a few other things ironed first"' Yet, he proceeded to complain and discharged her, handing her her check. According to Belleau's testimony, "I told her about the work not being assembled and I was tired of having to follow up and make sure everybody did everything and she had been told before to get this up and to get her job done and I wasn't going to put up with it any more.... She said she didn't feel well the night before." Explaining the reason for the discharge , Belleau testified that on Thursday eve- ning, April 15, he noticed 45 or 50 smocks, which were needed on the Fort Walton route, hanging on the line , unfolded, "and this is what held this truck up that morn- ing." He checked, about 6 p.m., with "strawboss" Bob Goodwin, and was told that the linen room employees "had left without the job being done so I had a few words with them about it and he said that no one checked out with him. So the next morning I felt that after having repeatedly told people what to do, I just wasn't going to put up with it any more and I released Mrs. Farrow for not com- pleting her job." He further claimed that when Goodwin was made strawboss, the 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD linen room employees were told that they "would have to answer to him before- they left of, why the work wasn't done so he could report to me." This explanation does not bear up under scrutiny. There were four employees working in the linen room, under Goodwin. Jeanette- Johnson and another employee were the seamstresses; a third employee made up the loads for the uniform routes; and Farrow made up the starch work for the differ- ent routes. She determined the number of the various garments needed by the route men; inspected and folded smocks and other starch work; and placed coats, pants, shirts, and smocks in baskets for the drivers to load. When inspecting the garments, she sewed on missing buttons, but placed ripped and snagged garments in a basket for the seamstresses to repair. However, despite these primary duties of the linen room employees, Secretary-treasurer Belleau admitted that "everybody has helped everybody else do different jobs," including the folding of smocks; that the four employees worked as a "team"; that if the job was not completed and they had to work over, they "pretty well all worked over"; and he did not "find just one staying with all of the others going." Yet on this occasion, it is undisputed that the three other employees had quit working and were waiting outside the linen room for her when Farrow left work and checked out at 5:17 p.m. (Her regular hours were 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Moreover, Belleau gave varying versions of what instructions had been given to the linen room employees, raising a serious question about whether the Company made a firm requirement that the employees check with a supervisor before leaving any work undone. He testified: "All I knew is that he [Goodwin] did state that they would have to get the work done . . . ;" that the substance of what was said "was that the work should be done that night before we left if we had to . . . work overtime to do it"; that Goodwin "said that the work would be done and that they would have to check with him if it wasn't completed before they left so he would, be able to tell me why it wasn't done"; and "we had a meeting to let everybody know that work would be completed the day before or a reason give to myself or Mr. Goodwin." [Emphasis supplied.] Even if there had been a firm require- ment, none of these versions indicated that Farrow's work was singled out at the meeting, to the exclusion of the work of the seamstresses, who Belleau later admit- ted on cross-examination were "hardly ever" caught up. Strawboss Goodwin was not called to testify. While testifying on the point, Belleau gave me the impression, from his demeanor, that he was more interested in justifying the discharge than accurately recounting what was said at the meeting. I find that no firm requirement had been made, and credit Farrow's testimony that the linen room employees did not make a practice of checking with anybody before leaving, and that she was never instructed not to leave after 5 p.m. without checking with somebody when there remained work to be done. Farrow also credibly testified that all three mem- bers of supervision, Whigham, Belleau, and Boren, were present in the plant when she and the other linen department employees left that evening; that the employees had not been told to stay late and to work up the Fort Walton order; and that on previous occasions when she was told to stay late to work up a particular order, "Mr. Belleau or either Mr. Goodwin would ask if we could . " Belleau further appeared to be fabricating facts when he was asked on cross- examination if he had given Farrow a specific reprimand about this before. (He had not mentioned any such reprimand on direct examination, even though Farrow had previously testified that she had never been reprimanded or cautioned about holding up trucks or anything else.) He testified that he had reprimanded her, tell- ing her: "We were going to have to get our work done and get everything folded up and get everything billed . . . ." When asked more specifically what was said, he gave the answers: "I couldn't actually remember the exact words. I am sure that I said that it' liad'to be done-" . "I couldn't tell you exactly. I would have to be an assumption." He appeared to be seeking a plausible response, but was uncer- tain what might improve the Company's position. In addition to his demeanor, and the circumstances cited above, there were other reasons for discrediting Belleau's testimony concerning, the cause for discharge. He did not know if Goodwin had told Farrow to stay that specific evening ; he did not think anything was said in his conversation with Goodwin about the truck being held up because of the unfolded smocks; he did not check with Goodwin to see if everything was finished on the Fort Walton order; and even though he looked at the order that evening himself, he could not say whether or not everything else was CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 751 finished? When questioned about what Farrow should have done, if she had contin- ued to work and had found a number of smocks needed repairs (inasmuch as the two seamstresses had already left), Belleau answered: "I couldn't answer that." He did not dispute the testimony of Farrow that when she came in Friday morning, he was standing, talking to President Whigham and Plant Superintendent Boren. Yet, Belleau remembered that he decided to discharge her Thursday evening, without mentioning his decision to Strawboss Goodwin, and did not tell President Whigham about the decision until after the discharge. Such secretness, in the circumstances of this case (including the discharge of two union leaders within about 30 minutes that morning), seems most unlikely. In addition to Farrow having the responsibility for making up the starch work on the different routes, the Company relied on her count for paying the pieceworkers for laundered garments. She had been employed at the plant for over 5 years, and was being paid 55 cents an hour. In sharp contrast to Belleau's demeanor as a witness, Farrow appeared to be a frank, forthright witness, very cognizant of her oath to tell the truth. She credibly testified that on the Thursday afternoon before her discharge, about 2 o'clock, she handed Belleau a list of the items on the Fort Walton route which were not ready, and told him that they were very short on shirts, pants, and smocks for that load order. He replied: "Well, come on and help me pick out the pants." (When ques- tioned on cross-examination about whether he helped her pull some pants to be pressed, he replied- "I can't recall." He likewise testified that he did not recall her making a report to him of the status of the loads. However, he did acknowledge that when Goodwin was made strawboss, Belleau told the linen room employees in the meeting that if things on the next morning's load were not ready, the employees were to check with Goodwin or Belleau about 2 p.m. concerning the status of that load. This she did.) When she mentioned to Belleau that the shirts were not ready, he said they would be ironed the first thing Friday morning. (Belleau first denied making such a statement, then testified that he did not recall, and later denied it again. I discredit his denial.) Before leaving that afternoon, Farrow checked and found that none of the 50 or 60 shirts on the Fort Walton order were ready for her to add to the load. It was past quitting time, and the other linen room employ- ees were already outside the door, waiting for her to finish what she was doing. She knew that the truck could not leave on time anyway, because the shorts were not finished in the shirt unit. (On similar occasions when the load was not ready, the Fort Walton truck waited, as late as noon.) Under these circumstances, Farrow left 15 or 20 smocks hanging on the line, to be folded the next morning, in less than 10 minutes, while awaiting the shirts. She denied telling Belleau that she left because she felt bad. 2. Discharge of Ethel Gordon About 30 minutes after Belleau discharge Farrow, Gordon reported to work and was promptly discharged by President Whigham. Whether, in discharging her, Whigham acted spontaneously, or after consultation with Plant Superintendent Boren (and perhaps Belleau), became an issue early in the hearing. Whigham testified at first that he decided to discharge Gordon when he went to her work area. However, he admitted that he did not customarily dis- charge employees without first consulting with Boren, and that he had talked with Boren and Belleau before going to Gordon's work area that morning. He became obviously flustered on the stand when queried about the timing and content of his discussion with Boren, as partially revealed by the following excerpts from his, testimony: Q. Did you discuss Mrs. Gordon's discharge with Mr. Boren . . . 7 A. Yes. 2 The Company argues in its brief : "Actually, if the shirts had been missing this would not have delayed the departure of the route truck, because a relay truck carrying industrial uniforms to Fort Walton was scheduled to run that day. Anything short could have gone on it" This argument ignores the undisputed testimony that the truck waits, sometimes until noon, if the material is not ready, and that it was not a common practice to have a relay truck on the Fort Walton load. Moreover, as argued by the General Counsel in his brief, if Belleau "had another 'relay' truck going to Fort Walton that same day with other 'shortages,' it would have been a simple matter to 'relay' the unfolded smocks that purportedly caused the delayed departure of the Fort Walton truck." I find that the Com- pany's argument is without merit. 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Did you ask him whether he thought you ought to keep her on a little longer? A. I don't remember the exact details of the discussion. Q. When did you talk to him? A. (No response.) Q. When did you talk to Mr. Boren about this? A. When did I talk to him? Q. Yes. A. That morning. Q. Before you discharged her? A. Yes. Q. That was before you went in her work area? A. No. TRIAL EXAMINER: Pardon me. I don't quite understand your testimony. When was it that you talked with Mr. Boren ; was it before you went to where Mrs. Gordon was working or after you saw the bundle, or just when? The WITNESS: (No response.) TRIAL EXAMINER: Would you tell me how it happened? The WITNESS: After I saw the bundle there, I told him that I had fired her. [Emphasis supplied.] I discredit Whigham's denial that he discussed Gordon's discharge with Boren before going to her work area. A further indication that Gordon's discharge had been discussed earlier in Whig- ham's conference with Belleau and Boren, was the fact that when Gordon arrived that morning about 7:30, she saw Belleau, at the east call office, nod toward Whig- ham's office. Shortly thereafter, Whigham went over to Gordon's checking table, where she had a bundle of personal laundry. According to Whigham's version of what happened, he noticed the bundle underneath her table when he walked up to where she was standing, and "I asked her if it were hers and she said `Yes.' I asked if it were a deadhead and she didn't answer me. I asked her again if it were a deadhead and she said, `Yes.' I then said that she was through . . . She asked me why I was firing her and I said, `Because of deadheading."' I credit this version, as far as it goes. However, I find in accordance with Gordon's testimony, that the fol- lowing also occurred: Whigham told her, "Well, I keep telling you about deadhead- ing and you continue to do so." She said "Well, Mr. Whigham, you know that I have been deadheading," and she asked, "That's the only reason that you are firing me?" He responded, "Should there be another reason?" She answered, "I don't know; that's why I am asking you." There is a sharp conflict in their testimony over whether or not Whigham had her paycheck ready and handed it to her immediately upon discharging her. Based on the manner in which they testified on the point, and the probabilities of the situ- ation, I discredit Gordon on that point and credit Whigham's testimony that he did not have her check with him, but that he returned to the office to have it prepared after the discharge. "Deadheading" referred to employees sending laundry or drycleaning through the plant without a ticket, in violation of company policy. The policy did not apply to the supervisors , routemen, drycleaning checker, and certain employees in the call office, whom the Company permitted to have their laundry and drycleaning done without charge. Other employees were instructed to have a ticket on their laundry and drycleaning, and to pay one-half price for all items, except for diapers which would be done free for women employees with small children: The Company did little to dispute the evidence that a large number of employ- ees at the plant engaged in deadheading. Plant Superintendent Boren testified that deadheading "was probably being done," and frankly admitted, "I didn't go out of my way and inspect it. I wasn't concerned with that as much as I was getting the work out.. ... (This admission is significant, in view of the evidence that laundry and drycleaning taken from the plant without tickets were obviously deadheads.) Boren further testified that President Whigham had never given him any instruc- tions about deadheading other than that it was not permitted-contrary to Whig- ham's testimony. Whigham claimed at first that he would expect Boren to discharge a person caught deadheading, and that he so instructed Boren. Thereafter, Whig- ham testified that he told Boren to warn employees first, and left it up to Boren's discretion about how many times to warn before discharging them. I do not credit these claims of specific instructions to Boren . In fact, at one point in his testimony, CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 753 Whigham indicated some knowledge of the considerable amount of deadheading taking place in the plant. When pointedly asked whether he knew "that quite a few employees down there do deadhead," Whigham answered, "They do on occasions." Gordon gave a credible account of the extent of deadheading which had been permitted by the Company. This account appears to indicate a definite relationship between the wage scale being paid and the condonation of deadheading. Gordon was a wearing apparel checker, with 5 years of service, being paid 55 cents an hour. She gave details of how the employees helped each other in putting their personal laundry and drycleaning through the plant without tickets, and within open view of the supervisors. In describing the situation, she commented: "We weren't making a fortune so we were kind of looking out for ourselves." She credibly testified that almost all of the employees deadheaded, "except the girls on the flat work irons .. . Mr. Whigham . . . was more stern with them because they acted like they were afraid to speak up. If you acted like you would speak up he wouldn't give you such a hard time ." (This testimony is partially corroborated by President Whigham's account of what happened in 1964 when he intercepted a red coat which Gordon was deadheading . He recounted that "she was furious because I had intercepted it.") Gordon admitted that she regularly deadheaded, at least once or twice a week, but only when her laundry bill became too high. "I only deadheaded when I thought I had gotten enough that I could afford to be taken out that week. . . . I have five children-and I couldn't afford to pay for everything that I brought . When asked if President Whigham had said anything to her about it in the 6 months before her discharge, she credibly answered: "No. He has even passed by while I was pressing my children's clothes. My little boy started to school last year and I would be pressing his pants and he [Whigham] wouldn't say anything." I also credit her testimony that she never tried to conceal from Plant Superintendent Boren her deadheaded laundry and drycleaning which she would by carrying from the plant when Boren would give her rides home. The Company had never posted a rule strictly prohibiting all deadheading, and (I find ) had made only sporadic attempts to curb the practice. The Company had reprimanded individual employees, and, from time to time, had required them to pay full price for deadheads. Whigham claimed that there had been a previous instance of an employee being discharged for deadheading . According to him, that occurred 2 years earlier, when an employee was discharged after "numerous" warn- ings (which Whigham changed to "several" warnings ). Whigham gave no details, nor offered any supporting documentation of the discharge for that purported reason. Gordon had been charged full price for deadheads on one or two occasions, and had been reprimanded two or three times. The Company makes no contention that she was ever told that she would be discharged if she did not stop doing so. Despite the fact that she continued to deadhead regularly each week, and assisted others also in doing so within the view of the supervisors, there was nothing (as I have found) said to her personally about such actions during the 6 months preced- ing her summary discharge. Gordon appeared to be particularly alert and intelligent. Whigham agreed that she was a good employee. It seems significant that the Company did not deny knowledge that she had con- tinued to deadhead. Early in the hearing, President Whigham hesitated to answer a question which might have referred to such knowledge: Q It is your testimony then that you didn't know she was deadheading until you walked up to her and saw this pillow case, is that correct? A. (No response.) Q. On the morning? A. Yes, that's correct. He paused, and did not answer the question about his knowledge of her deadhead- ing until the question was limited to that particular morning. At various other times, while he was testifying, I noted that he hesitated, or gave evasive answers. Examples, in addition to the excerpts quoted above, are: Q. (By Mr. Orr.) Has anyone ever told you that Mrs. Gordon was active in the union? A. Not to my knowledge. 257-551-67-vol. 16 0-4 9 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. What about Mrs. Farrow, did you ever know anything to lead you to believe that she was active for the Union? A. (Shakes head, "No.") Q. (By Mr. Orr.) Have any of the other bosses in the plant ever discussed Mrs. Farrow's or Mrs. Gordon's union activities with you whether it was for or against the union? A. I don't remember the occasion. Whigham gave me the impression, as I watched him testify, that he was bearing in mind both the Company's defenses and his oath to tell the truth, and that he was endeavoring not to give knowingly false answers if he could avoid doing so without undermining the Company's position . I concluded from his demeanor on the stand that despite his other positive denials, he did recall hearing about Gordon's and Farrow's union activities, and that he did recall discussing their union activities with other supervisors. 3. Concluding findings The reasons assigned for summarily discharging the two union leaders early Fri- day morning, April 16, shortly after the Company was advised that it was going to be organized next, and about 2 hours before President Whigham made a coercive antiunion speech (discussed hereafter), were clearly pretextual. The Company contends in its brief- "Farrow's specific instructions were to com- plete the work on hand before departing. She failed to follow these instructions and was discharged therefor." However, as found above, there were no such specific instructions. And even if such instructions had been given, the instructions applied to all four members of the linen room "team," the other three of whom left work that Thursday afternoon before she did, without finishing the work in the depart- ment. I find that she had never been reprimanded during her 5 years of service in the plant, and that absent a discriminatory motivation, Secretary-treasurer Belleau would not have singled her out for discharge. I further find that Belleau, seeking an excuse to discharge her, discovered after the linen room employees had gone home that some of the smocks had been left unfolded; that he met with President Whigham and Plant Superintendent Boren early the next morning; and that they decided to use the unfolded smocks as the excuse for discharging this union leader. I find that the three members of supervision, Whigham, Belleau, and Boren, decided in the same early morning conference that the best way to conceal a dis- criminatory discharge of the other union leader, Gordon, was to discharge her for bringing in a deadhead, as she customarily did several times a week; that Bel- leau was to signal Whigham if Belleau saw her bringing in a bundle; and that upon receiving the signal (a nod of the head), Whigham proceeded to Gordon's work area and summarily discharged her, within 30 minutes after Belleau had discharged Farrow. I also find that despite earlier reprimands (more than 6 months pre- viously), the Company had condoned Gordon's continued deadheading because of her 55-cent-an-hour wage scale and her value as a good employee. The Company makes the further contention that the General Counsel failed in his effort to prove that the Company had knowledge of Farrow's and Gordon's union activities . To the contrary, I find for the following reasons, and from the record as a whole, that the Company had knowledge of their union activities: (a) Both Farrow and Gordon signed union cards in the presence of employees Lewis and Johnson, who subsequently engaged in antiunion activities. (b) Gordon talked in favor of the Union to employee Hubbard, who refused to sign a union card, mis- represented the facts when she claimed she had lost the card, and later turned in the card to the Company, and who admittedly was interrogated by Plant Superin- tendent Boren before the discharges. (c) Farrow passed out union authorization cards before the union meetings and asked employees "between times at work" if they would be interested in a union . (d) Both Farrow and Gordon assisted one of the union organizers in getting the names and addresses of plant employees, by suggesting a party to the employees; and Gordon, by looking up names in the telephone directory in the presence of employees Lewis and Johnson, and by obtain- ing from women employees in the plant their names and addresses, which she delivered to the organizer at the motel one-half block from the plant. (e) Both employees, on the week of their discharges, advised other employees in the plant of the upcoming union meeting. (f) President Whigham instructed employee Stacey to check on employees talking at lunch to a union organizer at the grocery store across from the plant ; Stacey did so and reported back to him the employees she CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 755 saw talking to the organizer; and at lunchtime, 2 days before their discharges, both Farrow and Gordon were standing outside the door of the store talking to the organizer, within view of Stacey. (g) When an employee in the plant asked Gordon for a union card on the day before the discharges, she left the plant, talked to a union organizer on the outside of the motel (where Officials Whigham and Belleau admittedly had discussed "keeping an eye open" for organizers), and returned to the plant, where she found Plant Superintendent Boren standing in the doorway. (h) Boren admittedly interrogated employees before the discharges, asking them about "what they knew about this union that was trying to get in." (i) President Whigham's demeanor on the stand, when he gave not-to-my-knowledge and don't- remember answers to questions on the subject, indicated to me an attempt to con- ceal his knowledge of the discharged employees' union activities. (j) The timing and abruptness of the discharges, and the clearly pretextual nature of the reasons assigned for making them, further indicate an illegal motivation. (k) Whigham told employee Eugene Walker, in a conference with him immediately after the April 16 speech, as discussed under "Interrogation" hereafter, that Whigham knew who were members of the Union. Under well-established Board and court precedent, company knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Wiese Plow Welding Co., 123 NLRB 616, 617-618 (1959). B. Alleged threats, promises, interrogation, and inducements 1. The April 16 speech a. Threats to close down or sell out About 2 hours after the officials, Whigham and Belleau, discharged the two union leaders, President Whigham gave a speech to the plant employees. Accord- ing to his version, be mentioned their close knit organization, their loyal customers, and that "we also had good loyal employees which also make possible for us to stay in business ... and that we understood that a union organization was looking us over; that we did not intend to be any part of that union . . . that it was possible for the plant to be closed since,we did not intend to operate a union shop." He did not mention anything about strikes or picketing. He had prepared notes, but they were not introduced into evidence. Plant Superintendent Boren confirmed the fact that Whigham "made the remark that he would probably have to sell out, close up, if the union came in, voted in." In the words of employee Judy Coston, "Mr. Whigham said before he would have a union in the plant, he would close it down," and that "couldn't nobody tell him how to run his plant." Employee Eugene Walker likewise testified that Whigham said "we do not intend to work with the union. We can either close up or sell out." (I discredit Walker's version to the extent that he testified that Whigham also said in this meeting that he knew who belonged to the Union. Walker appeared to be endeavoring to recall accurately what was said, but I find that he became confused between what was said in this meeting and in Walker's conference with Whigham a few minutes thereafter, as discussed below under "Interrogation." I further dis- credit former employee Ozell Ethridge to the extent that he testified that at this or at any other meeting, Whigham "said he had fired two people on account of the union and if he found out that any more had signed up for the union, that they would follow them.") I find that in the April 16 speech, Whigham definitely threatened to close down or sell out if the Union was voted in, and that this threat violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In this connection, I note that the Company conceded as much, when its counsel stated at the hearing: "I don't intend to go into the whole speech. Certain elements in that speech I admit were made and were probably violations of the Act." b. Promise to increase wages Elsewhere in the speech, Whigham told the employees, in effect, that the Federal wage-hour law would soon cover laundry workers, that the Company would com- ply with the new law, and that therefore the employees did not need a union because they would be getting shorter hours and higher wages anyway. I find that these statements were privileged free speech under Section 8(c). 2. Preelection campaign As part of its defense of the case, the Company introduced evidence of advice it received from the law firm of Kullman & Lang on Monday, April 19. (That 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD firm, which was contacted on Saturday, April 17, after the Company received a bargaining request from the Union, supplied the Company with campaign posters and leaflets, and participated in the planning or preparation of other preelection propaganda and conduct.) According to President Whigham, the attorney "told us that we were not to question, coerce, intimidate our employees over the question ,of the union . . . that we should not promise them anything, but that we could make a flat statement and listen to any comments that were made." Concerning what the attorney said about the April 16 speech, Whigham testified: "He said that what was done was done and that we would hope that it was not :too bad." (Whigham did not contend that the attorney advocated any actions to -dissipate any coercive impact of the threats in the speech to close down the plant -or sell out if the employees voted for the Union.) Thereafter, about a month before the July 14 election, President Whigham arranged for outsiders to come into the plant for the ostensible purpose of buying -or renting the machinery and the building. One person was the owner of Gulf -Coast Mercantile Company in Pensacola. While this outsider was walking around the plant with Plant Superintendent Boren, an employee overheard him tell Boren: "Now, if I rent this place," the Company would have to fix the roof in the dry- -cleaning room where it was leaking at the time. Either on this same day, or several days later, Whigham spent 11/z or 2 hours, while the plant was in full operation, walking around the plant with a photographer and another man from the General Laundry Machinery Company, of Montgomery, Alabama. The photographer was taking pictures of the machinery, and the other man was estimating the cost of the machinery on a large sheet of paper, bearing the word "LIQUIDATION" at the top in large, red letters. One employee, describing how it "upset all of us," testified that the red letters were large enough to be seen from a distance of about 12 feet. By stating that he and the labor relations counsel "collaborated" on this idea of bringing in the "liquidation" men, Whigham implied, and I find, that these actions were planned solely for whatever effect they might have in connection with the pre- election campaign. (These actions were not alleged as separate Section 8(a)(1) violations.) a. Speeches, posters, and letters In the meantime, the Company was carrying on its preelection campaign, reading prepared speeches to the employees, issuing posters or leaflets, and mailing letters to the employees and their families. Much of this propaganda was protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. "It is well settled that under 8(c) the employer must be regarded as a rightful contestant for his employees' loyalty in a union election. This section permits an employer to state his legal rights under the Act and to predict that dire economic consequences will follow from a union victory. . . . It is only when the employer goes further and threatens to himself take economic or other reprisals against the employees that an 8(a)(1) violation may be found. Thus, a prediction that competitive conditions will force a plant to close if a union con- tract is signed is protected, whereas a threat to close down in retaliation to union- ization is beyond the pale." Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (C.A. 5). The mere fact that antiunion statements are patterned after phrases or formulas approved by the Board or the courts as mere predictions of the consequences of union representation, does not mean that such statements have not been expressed in such a way as to convey coercive implications of employer reprisals. However, as I view this case, it is not necessary to rule on whether the professionally-drafted propaganda, when considered by itself, constitutes coercion of the employees. Instead, I consider it appropriate to consider the effect of the propaganda (both its form and its substance) in the context of the total election campaign, including the discriminatory discharges of union leaders, the forceful threats to close down or sell out-made on the same morning as the discharges, the faked maneuvers to rent or sell the plant and the machinery, and the interrogation and inducements discussed hereafter. The next speech, after the April 16 speech threatening the sale or shutdown of the plant in the event of unionization, was on June 1. Early in the speech, as shown by the verbatim wording in evidence as a company exhibit, President Whig- ham stated: "It is our sincere belief that if this union were to ever get into the plant, it would not work to your benefit but to your serious harm." This statement was contained in a paragraph which indicated no specific reason for such "serious harm." Nothing is said which unequivocally limits the reference to "serious harm" in that paragraph, or to "serious danger" in the first sentence of the following CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 757 paragraph, to the consequences of union strikes or other union actions. The two sentences in that following paragraph read: "The union is a serious danger to your job and the security of this plant. This same union that is after you has caused' hundreds of other men and women to lose their money, lose their benefits, and even lose their jobs in the strikes and other troubles they have caused." Later in the speech, Whigham (who made the threats to close down or sell out in the April 16 speech), used the expression, "as long as the doors of this plant stay open," in the following sentence: "Let's get something straight right now-as long as the doors of this plant stay open, we are going to run it--not the union." The paragraph concluded with a reference to "if you continue to work here" in the sentence reading: "The Company gave you your job here, and if you continue to work here it will be because the company keeps you on the payroll-not the union." Finally, without retracting his April 16 threats, Whigham concluded the speech: "Believe me when I tell you that this is no game that you are playing. You had' better wake up before it is too late." A few days after "Liquidation" man, the photographer, and the other outside bidder made their appearances in the plant in the presence of the employees, the Company mailed out a leaflet bearing the title: "THIS IS A DEAD PLANT." The leaflet showed pictures of a closed plant in Memphis, Tennessee, and related' that nonunion employees there had good jobs and steady paychecks: THEN those workers made a terrible mistake. They voted for the SAME union that is after YOU now. - WHAT HAPPENED? Just ONE year after the company signed the first union contract. It CLOSED this plant PERMANENTLY, and went out of the family laundry and dry cleaning business. 250 WORKERS LOST THEIR JOBS! The leaflet closed with "Don't let this union endanger your job' Vote No." The leaflet does not explain whether the laundry was closed because of economic con- siderations, or in retaliation against the Union. (The latter explanation was at least implied in Whigham's July 13 speech, discussed below.) But before discussing the reiterated threats to close or sell out in that election- eve speech, I note that on July 7, the Company mailed a two-page question and answer letter to its employees. Near the end of the letter, in answer to the tenth question, "Will the plant close down if the union gets in?" the Company had the opportunity of disavowing any closing threat. Instead, it equivocated, answering: "We certainly hope not. Union strikes, unproductive work restriction and other union troubles have caused other plants to shut down. We intend to operate this plant as long as it is successful and will do all we can to keep union trouble or anything else from forcing this plant to close." [Emphasis supplied.] The Company stopped short of promising not to make a retaliatory closing. Then on July 13, the evening before the election, President Whigham made another speech. Again he referred to the closing of the Memphis plant, and while blaming the Union, he at least implied that the closing of that and the other plant mentioned were employer retaliations against unionization: Third-this union has a record of destroying other people's jobs. You are going to make a mighty bad mistake if you let it destroy yours. We showed you the actual pictures of the Memphis Steam plant that was closed down shortly after this very same union got into the company. Remember, we are not talking about some other union-we are talking about the same one that is after you. You also heard Mr. Duke, who spoke to you Monday. Mr. Duke had his own plant and his own business destroyed by a union. You remember, he said that after he was shutdown those employees begged him to open back up, but it was too late. Years later he had old employees meet him on the street and ask him to go back in business, but there was no chance then. Thereafter in the speech, Whigham made clear his threat if the employees did not remain "loyal": I want you to know how proud of you I am and how proud George Belleau is for the way you have stood up right out in the open against this union. We appreciate that kind of loyalty. The law doesn't let us make any promises to you about changes in wages or benefits, but I do want to make this pledge to you. When we see the kind of loyalty you are showing us, we want to assure you in return that we are going to continue to operate this plant. We 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have had several good offers from national companies to buy this equipment and move it away from here. We have also had offers for this building because it is new and can easily be used for many other purposes. If we thought that we were going to have a serious union strike, we would seriously consider these offers. However, with your solid support, we are looking forward to our future with a lot of enthusiasm. . . . [Emphasis supplied.] I find that the "Dead Plant" leaflet and the July 13 speech, when considered in the context of the total election campaign , constituted repetitions of the April 16 threat to close down or sell out in retaliation for unionization, in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a)(1). In making this finding , I have considered the speech as a whole, and have concluded that the permissible arguments in the speech concerning the consequences of strikes and other union actions do not dispel the actual or implied threats of the Company 's retaliation against unionization . (The June 1 speech was not alleged as a separate Section 8(a)(1) violation.) b. Election-eve "Vote No" prizes On the evening before the election, the Company gave a party at the plant for the employees. Their attendance was voluntary. After food and drinks were served, President Whigham read the above-mentioned July 13 speech, and promised "good prizes" in the bingo game to follow . Thereafter, Whigham had bookkeeper Arlene Lerch explain the rules of the game. She stated the requirement that in order to win a prize, employees must say "Vote No," instead of "Bingo." As the game pro- ceeded, one or more employees were denied bingo prizes because they refused to say "Vote No." When this happened, the prize was not given out until a winning employee would give the antiunion plea. The Company furnished the prizes, con- sisting of watches, radio, coffee pots , wallets, necklaces, and costume jewelry. In addition, all employees were given umbrellas. I find that the game, played in such a manner, with such prizes, constituted an unlawful inducement to influence votes against the Union, and to reward employ- ees for indicating opposition to the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). c. Interrogation Soon after President Whigham gave the threatening speech on Friday morning, April 16, he called employee Eugene Walker into the office. Plant Superintendent Boren also was called in. Whigham told Walker: "Eugene, I know that you are not a member of the union and I do know who are members of the union." Walker stated that he was against the Union. Then Whigham said: "I want you to try to help us to fight to keep the union out"-to talk to the employees and to see if Walker could convince them to go the Company's way. Walker promised to cooperate and try to keep the Union out, and to report to the Company "anybody that was working for the union." Whigham said he could not fire the union mem- bers, "but he would find ways of getting rid of them." (This finding of what tran- spired is based largely upon a composite of the testimony of Walker, who appeared to be giving as accurate an account as he could. However, despite his recollection that only he and Whigham were present, I credit Plant Superintendent Boren's testimony to the extent that he testified that he also was present. I cannot credit Boren's claim that Walker "just wanted to clear himself," and that although the conference lasted "maybe ten minutes," to the best of Boren's knowledge, neither he nor Whigham said anything to Walker. Such a version would not account for Walker's subsequent reports on those he suspected were supporting the Union, as acknowledged by Boren, nor would it accord with Whigham's testimony that in this first conversation with Walker, Whigham asked if he knew of anybody that was for the Union . In so testifying, Boren must have had in mind other employees who were induced to come in and "clear" themselves, as discussed below. Also, I cannot credit Whigham 's version, that this conversation occurred when Walker approached Whigham in the drycleaning room and disclaimed any interest in the Union. Whigham, who gave both evasive and conflicting testimony about his interrogation of employees, denied early in the hearing that Walker gave him the names of employees suspected of being for the Union-contrary to both Walker's and Boren's subsequent testimony .) I find that Whigham's interrogation of Walker, including the threat to get rid of union supporters , and the request that Walker "help us to fight to keep the union out," were coercive and constituted "an imper- CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 759 missible intrusion into the statutory free will of fellow employees in the selection of the bargaining agent." Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 106 (1963). Whigham also admitted that he interrogated another employee, Robert Dunson, on April 16 following the meeting. Whigham testified that he went up to Dunson in the work area and asked him if he had signed a card, and if he knew that any of the other employees had signed cards. On further examination, Whigham admitted that he also asked Dunson to report on anything that he heard about the Union. In view of all the circumstances of this case, I find that this April 16 interrogation of Dunson was also coercive, and violative of Section 8(a)(1). It was on the following Monday, April 19, when the labor relations counsel met with the Company's key supervisors, told them not to question employees about the Union, but told them they "could make a flat statement and listen to any com- ments that were made." According to the Company's brief, "Following this con- ference . . . , there was no evidence of any interrogation . . . ... In support of this contention, Whigham testified (when questioned by the Company's counsel): Q. Now, let me ask you this. Subsequent to receiving that advice on April 19, did you question any employees about their union affairs or the union affairs of other employees? A. No. I have had considerable difficulty trying to reconcile this categorical denial, given on the last day of the hearing, with Whigham's own earlier testimony. On the first day of the hearing, Whigham had been called as an adverse witness. Then he testified about a number of conversations he had with employees about the Union. Thus, after Whigham testified about his first conversation with employee Dunson on April 16, he recalled that on a second occasion, he went to the work- room and asked Dunson if he had any news about the Union. Also, "occasionally" thereafter, he admitted asking Dunson if he had any such news. Inasmuch as the April 19 legal advice was received on the first work day after Whigham's first conversation with Dunson on April 16, Whigham undoubtedly was referring to con- versations after April 19 when testifying about the interrogation of Dunson on the second and subsequent occasions. Likewise, Whigham testified that his conversation with Jeanette Johnson (one of the employees who made the "This Is Mr. Union" dummy) occurred "a matter of days" after his first interrogation of Dunson. This conversation also undoubtedly occurred after April 19, the first workday following Dunson's interrogation. (Con- cerning this conversation with Johnson, Whigham testified that she came to his office, said that she did not want to take part in any union activity and "That wouldn't she look funny walking in a picket line, crippled up as she was?"-to which he agreed. He then testified that he could not "recall the rest of the conversa- tion," and that he did not "remember specifically" asking if she knew of any other employees that were for the Union. Upon observing Whigham's evasive manner as a witness; hearing him first state that he could not recall "at this time" speaking to anyone except Dunson about the Union, and then confirming that he talked to Eugene Walker and Ula Hubbard about the Union; and later testifying that "I didn't specifically ask anyone if they had signed a union card," shortly after he testified that he had asked Dunson if he had signed a card-I concluded that Whig- ham was being somewhat less than candid in denying that he remembered "spe- cifically" asking Johnson about other employees' union support.) Then also to be considered is Whigham's general testimony about interrogating employees: Q. Do you recall any more employees that you went around and talked to about the Union? A. I discussed it with several, but I don't specifically- •Q. Now, Mr. Whigham, would it be a fair statement to say that after you became aware that the union was attempting to organize the plant that you went out and discussed the union with the employees to find out about the union? A. I did discuss it with some of them, yes. * * * * * * * 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Could you say it was both prior to and after Mrs. Gordon 's and Mrs. Farrow's discharge ; that was on April 16th? A. Not prior to the 16th.3 If this testimony is to be credited, it would seem that at least a portion of the interrogations "on occasions" occurred after April 19, as undoubtedly Whigham's continued interrogations of Dunson did. However , Plant Superintendent Boren likewise testified that subsequent to receiving the legal advice , he (Boren ) did not question any employee about his union activity or the union activity of any other employee. Despite the conflicts in testimony, I cannot believe that these managers of the business completely ignored the advice. My conclusion about what actually happened is based partially upon other evi- dence. After receiving the advice that they should not question employees, but that they could make flat statements and listen , the Company resorted to flat statements to induce employees to come in and "clear" themselves. Already, President Whig- ham had made the April 16 speech, threatening to close down or sell out if the Union came in. Then, as shown above, he made a speech on June 1 about the Union working "to your serious harm," and being a "serious danger to your job and the security of the plant "; and used the phrases , "as long as the doors of this plant stay open" and "if you continue to work here," followed by a provocative warning: "You had better wake up before it is too late." If this was not enough to induce withdrawals of union support , Whigham read a speech on June 24 which included the paragraph: I know that some of you have signed union cards . An awful lot of you keep going around and saying to me and to the other supervisors that you haven't heard anything about the union and you don't know anything about it. We are not questioning you about your union activity and there is no sense in you kidding yourselves because you are not kidding us. I must say that some of you have come to me or to some of the other supervisors and told us very honestly that you signed a union card and that you wished you had waited until you heard both sides of the story . I appreciate that kind of honesty and it is only by dealing with each other truthfully that we are going to come to the right kind of understanding. (Emphasis supplied.) Following the discharges of the union leaders , the prior interrogations , as well as the repeated threats, the employees responded-indubitably from fear-despite the assertion : "We are not questioning you." Thus, on July 9 , Whigham read in another speech: I want to tell you first again, how much I appreciate the many expressions of loyalty which you have shown for your company and I want to compliment you on standing up to join the fight against this serious union threat. . As you all can see, the overwhelming majority have voluntarily-on their own free will-pledged their vote against this union . .. . Keep talking against this union, keep working on those few who have not seen the light, and all of us will come out all right together.. . . In Whigham's final written speech, on election-eve , July 13, he stated that "prac- tically all of you have come to us of your own free will and pledged your vote against this union." It was in this context that he made the threat, or implied threat (as quoted more fully before): ... When we see the kind of loyalty you are showing us, we want to assure you in return that we are going to continue to operate this plant... . I find that the flat-statement-and-listen technique, accompanied by threats, was even more coercive than the earlier individual interrogations. Whigham and Boren apparently had these so-called "free will" repudiations in mind when they testified that they did not question employees after receiving the legal advice. Undoubtedly, these managers did sit and listen when the bulk of the employees "voluntarily " came in and disclaimed any interest in the Union. 3 I do not , however, doubt former employee Ethridge's testimony that Whigham was present when Ethridge was interrogated by Plant Superintendent Boren in Whigham's office about a week before the discharges . ( Boren admitted interrogating Ethridge before April 16 ) CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 761 This is not to say, however, that Whigham and Boren declined to interrogate a select few of their trusted employees (such as Walker and Johnson) after April 19. Whigham, in effect, admitted the continued interrogation of another employee, Dunson. And Walker (who had promised to "cooperate") credibly testified about the extent to which the Company continued to talk to him about the Union. Thus he testified that following the April 16 conference, he was called into Whigham's office on more occasions, that he discussed the Union with Whigham "two or three times a week," with Boren present with them in the office "lots of times." Walker further testified that in addition to talking about who were union members, they would discuss in these conferences how "to keep the union out." In the circumstances of this case, I find that the continued interrogations by Whigham and Boren, and the interrogation of other employees (using the coercive inducements in the June 1 and 24 speeches to cause the employees to come in and have "the right kind of understanding"), tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In making this finding insofar as it applies to Boren, I limit it to his continued interrogation of employee Walker during the month of June (the only time alleged in the amended complaint). 3. Postelection conduct Gussie Mae Grigsby, one of the employees whom Stacey reported to President Whigham was talking to a union organizer at lunch before the election, missed work 1 day during the week after the election. When she reported to work the fol- lowing day, she found that her timecard had been pulled. According to her testi- mony, she asked Plant Superintendent Boren where her card was, and he told her that he had it, and that she had to talk to President Whigham before she could get it back. She testified that she then left, and returned on Saturday afternoon for her check. Boren asked her why she had not come back and she said she thought he would call her when they needed her. Boren told her they had no place for her, and said that he told Whigham, "he didn't need no one that was for the union." She got her check and went home. Later that day she telephoned Boren and asked if he had fired her, and "he told me he didn't have no room for me right then and Mr. Whigham didn't want any union workers in the plant." Boren admitted that he had pulled her card after she missed work 1 day, but claimed that he told her when she came in the next day that she had already been replaced. According to his testimony, she asked if she was fired, and he said, "No, I did not fire you, you quit. You did not show up for work and you did not call in." (No allegation was made in the complaint that she had been discriminatorily discharged.) Boren testified that the word union was not mentioned during the course of that conversation nor in any subsequent conversation with her. In resolving the conflict in testimony, I have taken into account not only Grigs- by's and Boren's demeanor on the stand, but also other testimony by Grigsby. She testified that about 2 weeks before the election, Boren called her in Whigham's office and wanted to know if she had a union card; told her that if she had one, she could turn it in; told her that the rest of the employees had turned theirs in to him, and that Whigham was mighty mad about the Union. I do not believe that Boren so interrogated employees at that time, disregarding the legal advice to the contrary. Grigsby also admitted, on cross-examination, that she had told the Board investigator that on the day before the election, Whigham had said he was going to "fire all of the union workers." I do not believe he said that. Considering all the circumstances, I do not credit Grigsby's testimony that Boren mentioned the Union in connection with her termination. Concerning postelection conduct, the counsel for the General Counsel asserts an error on my part in striking the testimony (pages 139-149) wherein employee Walker testified that on the day after the election, President Whigham and Plant Superintendent Boren attended a meeting with several employees, that one of whom (Ula Hubbard) suggested that she print 9 by 12 shirt cardboard signs with the words "Union Members Not Wanted" in red ink; that Boren later told employee Walker that the signs could not be used until 5 Government working days after the election (evidently referring to Section 102 69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations concerning the time allowed for filing of objections to an election); that the signs were printed (by Hubbard and Stacey), using company property, and put in storage until after the 5 days elapsed; that on the following morning, with the approval of Boren, Walker wore one of the signs, stood in the doorway, and barred the entrance of Leola Stone (an employee observer for the Union at the 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election), answering her question, "What's this mean?" by saying, "Well, can't you read?"-whereupon Stone left to call the union organizer and did not return; and that Walker reported to Boren what had happened. Commenting on the Company's motion to strike the testimony because it was not alleged in the complaint, the counsel for the General Counsel asserted that Stone was thereafter admitted to the psychiatric ward of a local hospital and had not been released (apparently in explanation for not alleging a Section 8(a)(3) violation). Upon being thereafter urged by the Union to amend the complaint at the hearing to allege a specific vio- lation, the counsel for the General Counsel declined to do so, explaining that he had previously planned to do so, but had not because he "assumed that this short notice might postpone the hearing." Following my ruling that the Company was entitled to know that with which it was being charged, and that such evidence of post- election conduct should not be introduced "through the back door" under the theory of company animus, the matter was not further litigated. Under these cir- cumstances, I adhere to my ruling, granting the Company's motion to strike. III. OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION On July 20, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election alleging, inter alia, that the Company intimidated, coerced, and threatened its employees during the preelection campaign. The petition for an election had been filed on April 21. Only conduct from that date until the election will be considered. A. The $12 deductions On one payday during this critical period, the Company deducted $12 from the paycheck of each of the employees and attached an explanation which read: Sample of some union costs you could have to pay: Monthly dues, $4.00; fine, $5.00; assessment, $2.00; contribution, $1.00; totalling $12.00. The employees' wages ranged from $14 or $15 a week for the flat work employees, to 55 cents an hour for 5-year employees Farrow and Gordon, to a top of about $40 a week for two drycleaning pressers. When Plant Superintendent Boren passed out the paychecks, the employees started "hollering": "We are not in a union." In Boren's words, "They were mad at me," saying "we couldn't take anything out of their checks." He did not answer, but stood there, silent. As previously arranged, however, President Whigham called the employees to the back where he was waiting at the door, and refunded $12 to each employee. One of the illustrated posters or leaflets distributed in the preelection campaign iead in part: "UNION PROMISES-Won't Fill Your Grocery Basket BUT- Union Strikes, Pocket Lines, Dues, Fees, -Assessments will sure keep it EMPTY." [Emphasis supplied.] In its brief, the Company contended: The company made its point that unions cost money in dues, assessments, etc. This, it was free to do. That it did so dramatically, by pretending to with- hold a portion of the pay from employees' checks, does not affect this right. If the respondent had a right to make its point, it had a right to do so effectively. I do not agree. The Company not only deducted practically the whole paycheck from the lowest paid employees (leaving only $2 or $3 of their weekly wages of $14 or $15), but it did so without any authorization from the individual employ- ees. This was not only a graphic demonstration of the assertion that union costs "will" keep the employees' grocery baskets empty, but it was a coercive manifesta- tion of how the employees' earnings could be appropriated without authorization in the event of unionization. Such coercion could not reasonably be offset by union denials. B. Hanging of dummy Also during the preelection campaign, the Company permitted Jeanette Johnson and another seamstress to make, on company time and with company property, a dummy which was hanged by its neck on a rope in the plant for a week or two before the election. The dummy bore the sign, "This Is Mr. Union Man," and had a chocolate brown colored (or red) face. CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. 763 The employees in the plant were primarily Negroes. Some of them could hardly read and write, and some had difficulty in signing their names. The Company admitted in its brief that the hanging in effigy was done without its objection, but contended that there was no impropriety. Because of the number of other grounds for setting aside the election, I do not find it necessary to decide whether, as contended by the Union, this "hung-lynched dummy" is a separate basis for setting aside the election. Neither do I find it necessary to rule upon the alleged intimidating effect of the tea and cake parties given at the plant by Johnson and Stacey in Whigham's "honor," or of the antiunion ribbons worn by employees before the election. C. Other preelection conduct Having found that the Company engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) by repeating the threat to close down or sell out (in the "Dead Plant" leaflet and in the July 13 speech to the employees), by giving the "prizes" in connection with the "Vote No" bingo game on election eve, and by the continued, coercive interrogation of employees during the critical period, it follows, as the Board has consistently held, that such conduct a fortiori interfered with the exercise of a free and untram- meled choice in the election. In addition, I find that the Company's faked prepara- tions during the election campaign to rent or sell the plant and the machinery, engaged in to emphasize the Company's repeated threats to close down or sell out in the event of unionization, constituted similar interference. I therefore find merit in the Union's election objections, and I shall recommend that the representation election held herein be set aside. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Before receiving legal advice, the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Lois Farrow and Ethel Gordon, and Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to close down or sell out if the Union won an election, and by coercively interrogating employees, but not by promising to comply with the Wage- Hour law when amended. 2. The Company thereafter violated Section 8(a)(1) during the preelection cam- paign by making continued threats to close down or sell out, by coercively interro- gating employees, and by giving prizes on election eve to influence employees to vote against the Union. 3. The Company did not inform a terminated employee after the election that the Company did not want any union supporters in the plant. 4. By the above-found 8 (a)(1) and (3) violations, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By the unfair labor practices committed between April 21, when the repre- sentation petition was filed , and the election on July 14, and by the pretended union deductions from the paychecks and the faked maneuvers to rent or sell , the Com- pany interfered with and unlawfully affected the results of the election. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has committed certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and to take certain affirmative action designed to dissipate its effect . The Company having illegally discharged Lois Farrow and Ethel Gordon, it must be ordered to reinstate them to their former or equivalent positions . The Company must also be ordered to make these employees whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered in consequence of the illegal discrimination against them in their employment. Back- pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and the assessment of interest shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be antici- pated. I shall therefore recommend that the Company be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions , and on the entire record , I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act issuance of the following: 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Respondent, Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners Inc. and Gulf Linen Service Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to close down or sell out if its employees vote for union representation. (b) Threatening to find excuses for terminating union supporters. (c) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their own or other employ- ees' membership in or activities on behalf of a union. (d) Soliciting or encouraging employees to campaign against union representation. (e) Giving prizes or other inducements to influence employees to vote against a union. (f) Discouraging membership in Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers' International Union, Local 218, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Lois Farrow and Ethel Gordon full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole, in the manner set forth in "The Rem- edy" section of the Trial Examiner's Decision. (b) 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 records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Pensacola, Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of such notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respond- ent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election which was conducted on July 14, 1965, be set aside and that a new election be directed at an appropriate time by the Regional Director for Region 15. * Iri the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforce(] 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" , 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 the 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 threaten to close down or sell out if our employees vote for a union. WE WILL NOT threaten to find excuses to get rid of union supporters. THE SINGER COMPANY 765 WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees about their union activities. WE WILL NOT ask any employee to campaign against a union. WE WILL NOT make any gifts to employees to influence them to vote against a union. WE WILL NOT interfere in any way with our employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of our employees to make a free choice in any election ordered by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL offer to Lois Farrow and Ethel Gordon immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from joining or supporting Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers' International Union, Local 218, or any other union, by firing any of our employees. CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS INC. AND GULF LINEN SERVICE 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 provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 527-6391. Climate Control Division , The Singer Company (formerly Remington Division, The Singer Company ) and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 3-CA- 2485, 2611, 2741, and 3-RC-3590. August 26,1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On March 29, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Deci- sion 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 therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that certain objections to the election filed in Case 3-RC-3590 warranted setting aside the election of May 12, 1965. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Coun- sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. 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 proceeding 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 160 NLRB No. 69.