Ampex Corp.

224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ampex Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 27-CA-2052. April 28, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On January 18, 1967, Trial Examiner Milton Janus issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief to exceptions of Charging Party. 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. 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 the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION MILTON JANUS , Trial Examiner : This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was heard by me at Colorado Springs, Colorado, on October 25 through 28, 1966 , pursuant to due notice. The complaint , which was issued on August 30, 1966, on a charge and an amended charge dated June 13, and August 4, 1966, respectively, alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by various specified acts of interference , restraint, and coercion, and by discharging Sally Paukune because of her membership in, or activities on behalf of, the Charging Party. Respondent's answer denied the alleged unfair labor I Work ends for the day shift at 4 30 p m. and begins for the night shift at 5 p.m practices. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent is a California corporation with its principal office in Redwood City, California. It is engaged in the manufacture of video and audio tape recording equipment. From its plant at Colorado Springs , Colorado, the only establishment involved in this proceeding , Respondent shipped finished products during the past year valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers in States other than Colorado. Respondent admits, and I find , that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues Respondent manufactures video and audio tape recording equipment at its Colorado Springs plant, where all the alleged unfair labor practices occurred. During the period involved, mainly in June 1966, it employed about 600 people at the plant. On Wednesday, June 8, 1966, starting about 4:15 p.m. (timed to reach employees on both the day and evening shifts),' representatives of the Charging Union began handbilling at points adjacent to the Company's parking area. No preliminary organizing activities had come to the Respondent's attention, although apparently some such work had taken place. Thereafter, handbilling at access roads leading to company property was engaged in on June 14, 20, 24, and 30, and on four other dates in succeeding months before the hearing in this case in late October. The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Sally Paukune, its toolcrib attendent, on June 9, because it knew or suspected that she had become involved with the Union, that its supervisor, Jack Hill, interrogated employee June Teeter in a coercive manner on June 10, concerning union activities; that its plant manager, John Beumer, promised employees certain benefits at an employee meeting on June 10; and that Personnel Manager Ernest Knapp kept the handbilling under surveillance on June 14 and 20, or created the impression that he was doing so. Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Its specific defenses to each of the charges will be set out later. At Respondent's invitation, the representatives of the General Counsel, the attorney for the Charging Union, and I, visited the plant during the hearing in order to inspect its physical layout since, for reasons appearing later, it would be helpful to know the location of the toolcrib with respect to other areas of the plant. My familiarity with the plant is therefore based on personal observation, the study of 164 NLRB No. 35 AMPEX CORPORATION 225 certain of Respondent's exhibits, and the descriptions of witnesses. B. The Discharge of Sally Paukune Mrs. Paukune worked for the Respondent from February 1965 to June 9, 1966 . She was first hired as a production worker on an assembly line, but was transferred in November to be the toolcrib attendant on the day shift. She was the only regular attendant, and was expected to be in the toolcrib at all times during her shift, except for lunch or break periods . The crib is centrally located in the production area and faces on a corridor which connects it with the west end of the plant where the offices, cafeteria, and employees ' entrance are located. The crib is about 20 by 20 feet in area, enclosed by heavy wire mesh on three sides and a solid masonry wall on the other. At the front of the crib , facing on the corridor, is a pass-through counter , and a door which was supposed to be kept locked at all times . The other sides are lined with steel shelving, reaching to ceiling height , on which supplies are stored. Anyone passing the crib on his way through the corridor would have to peer over the pass- through counter in order to observe Mrs. Paukune if she were seated at her workspace or using her telephone which was located on a low shelf towards the rear. Since she had to speak to production supervisors about supplies, a telephone was installed in the crib in March 1966 so that she would not have to leave the toolcrib unattended. Sometime around the middle or end of March , the wives of certain supervisors began receiving telephone calls at home while their husbands were at work on the day shift. The caller was a woman who never identified herself. The import of the calls was that the husband had just been observed walking by, and that he was on his way to meet another woman with whom he was philandering . Calls of this nature, or calls which seemed to start out that way but which were frustrated by the wife refusing to give the expected preliminary answers, were made to the wives of Supervisors Hill, Van Dok , and Chantrell, and to Mrs. Nunn , the wife of a nonsupervisory dispatcher. None of the wives testified, and the evidence as to the nature and content of these "poison pen" calls, as they were uniformly referred to at the hearing, came from Hill and Van Dok. Van Dok testified that his wife told him she had received about 10 such calls from March through June 1. Although it is clearly hearsay, I have no reason to doubt his sworn testimony as to what his wife told him about the calls, nor the testimony of Plant Manager Beumer and other company officials that they learned about the calls on or about June 1, and that they took immediate action to attempt to trace the caller. Beumer first learned of the calls when he joined a number of plant officials convening in a conference room near his office to discuss the matter. It was the consensus at this meeting on the basis of what was known about the calls that they were being made from the plant and from a telephone where the caller could observe the movement of people in the corridor between the production area and the cafeteria, while being herself relatively safe from being detected . Because the toolcrib and its telephone most adequately fit these assumptions , suspicion was directed towards Sally Paukune. In order to understand the steps taken to track down the poison pen caller, it is necessary to describe the plant's telephone system. There is a central switchboard in a wholly enclosed area near the office section. It is attended by a regular operator and one or two relief operators. Whoever is at the switchboard also operates the intraplant paging system. Calls from the outside are handled by the operator who will connect the caller with his party by ringing his extension or paging him in the plant. There are about 75 handsets, of which all but 6 restricted telephones may use direct dialing for outside calls without going through the board. Direct dialing is also used for all intraplant calls, whether the telephone is restricted or unrestricted. A caller from one of the six restricted telephones may make an outside call only by dialing the operator and asking for an outside line. However, there is no way for the operator to ascertain visually on the switchboard from which of the restricted telephones a request for an outside line has been made. The only way to do so is to tap in on the extension for the restricted telephone, although even that would merely tell the operator that the telephone was in use, without telling her whether the call being made was intraplant or to the outside. Of course, the operator may recognize the voice of the caller from a restricted telephone when he or she askes for an outside line. Of the six restricted telephones, five were either in partially enclosed foremen's offices or in open production or receiving areas. The sixth was in the toolcrib. There were also four public pay telephones in the plant-two in the cafeteria area, one at the receiving dock, and one in the corridor, almost directly opposite the toolcrib, and next to a drinking fountain. The pay telephones were all in the open. The plant rules as to the use of telephones by production employees had been publicized and were well known. During nonworking times, employees could use the public pay phones. During working periods, they could make outside calls in an emergency, after obtaining a foreman's permission .2 Such calls could be made from a restricted phone, but it was not the operator's responsibility to question someone asking for an outside line whether he had gotten his foreman's permission. All requests for outside lines were routinely served. At the June 1 conference of Beumer and other officials, it was decided to try to monitor requests for outside lines from restricted phones. Billings, the supervisor of the switchboard operators instructed Mrs. Renck, the regular operator, on June 1 to note all requests for outside lines. The next day he told her to note particularly requests by female voices, and the day after that, Friday, June 3, he asked her to check such requests from extension 276, the toolcrib phone. Mrs. Renck testified that on these first days, she recognized Mrs. Paukune's voice asking for outside lines a number of times. She did not try to learn to whom the calls were being made. Beumer then decided that the monitoring system was ineffectual, and he called the local telephone company about the problem. They recommended that a speaker be attached to Extension 276, so that all calls to and from the toolcrib phone would be amplified and could be overheard in the switchboard room. The speaker was installed by a phone company representative on Monday morning, June 6. Billings then instructed Mrs. Renck to call him whenever an outgoing call was made from extension 276, 2 The rule may have been laxly administered in the sense that foremen gave permission for outside calls from a restricted phone without inquiring closely into the supposed emergency , but those employees who testified as to the rule, including Paukune, were quite aware about the need for permission from a foreman, and that an "emergency" might have to be claimed. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and for the first time told her that he was trying to learn if Mrs. Paukune was making the poison pen calls. The operator started to keep a log of outside calls to and from the toolcrib extension. No outgoing calls were made on June 6 after the speaker was installed, one was made on June 7, one on the 8th, and two on the 9th. Mrs. Renck also testified that she recalled three outside calls had been made from extension 276 on June 2, before installation of the speaker. There were thus, during the 6 working days between June 2 and 9, a total of seven outgoing calls made from the toolcrib phone. No poison pen calls were reported during this period, either by previous recipients or by the telephone operators. Despite his instructions to be advised of outgoing calls from extension 276 on and after June 6, Mrs. Renck was unable to reach Billings in time for him to hear anything, except as to the second call on June 9. While that call was in process, Mrs. Renck managed to get him in his office, and he came into the switchboard room, listened for a moment or two, and then left to return to a visitor in his office. A few moments later when he came back to the switchboard, the call had been completed. Since it is primarily on the basis of this call that the General Counsel relies in arguing that Billings learned of Paukune's union activity, I will describe it more fully later on; for the present it is enough to relate what Billings did immediately. On learning that the call had been completed, Billings asked the operator for the log of calls she had been instructed to keep, took the three sheets (Resp. Exh. 6), and went to show them to Beumer. They were not able to understand the operator's rough notes, so Billings brought them back to Mrs. Renck and asked her to make a summary of what the log indicated. Her summary was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 7, and shows, as mentioned above, that seven calls had been made from the toolcrib phone in the past week. Also entered on the summary was a report from a relief operator who recalled recognizing Paukune's voice asking for outside lines on two occasions on May 23, before any monitoring had occurred. Beumer and Billings studied the summary, and Beumer then called to his office, Foremen Coletti and Hill, and the personnel manager, Knapp. After some discussion as to what had been discovered about Paukune's calls, Beumer decided to discharge her immediately, and she was in fact discharged before the end of the day. Beumer testified that he discharged her for two reasons-the one that she was given: serious breach of the plant rule about unauthorized personal use of a company phone, and the second, which she was not told about, his strong but unprovable suspicion that it was she who had been making the poison pen calls. I do not intend to discuss whether Paukune in fact had made the poison pen calls, or whether Beumer's suspicion that she had was reasonable with reference to the situation as it appeared to him. If the discharge was not motivated by Respondent's knowledge or belief that Paukune was in some manner tied up with the Union, or if Respondent was unaware of that connection, then the 8(a)(3) allegation must be dismissed. Whether Beumer or any other supervisory official at the plant knew or suspected that Paukune might be interested in the Union turns on two incidents-Paukune's telephone call on June 9, part of which Billings overheard, and an effort, initiated by Paukune, to obtain a list of the names and addresses of the employees in one of the production departments. 1. The telephone call. One of Sally Paukune's close friends at the plant was Mrs. Jerry Wirtanen. Jerry fainted while at work June 7, and was taken to a hospital where she remained about a week. She called Sally that day at the plant, reaching her on the toolcrib extension, to let her know about her condition. Sally called her the next day from the plant to find out how she was. On Thursday, June 9, Sally called her again from her phone in the crib. The exact time of the call is in dispute, and although it is not material whether the call was made around- 12:30 p.m., as Sally testified, or at 2:50 p.m., as Billings and the telephone operator testified, a de- termination as to the time of the call does bear on the general credibility of the witnesses. Mrs. Paukune testi- fied that she spoke to her friend Jerry about 12:30 from her phone, and that she had not asked her foreman for permission because he was out to lunch then, and he usually raised no objection anyway. She also said she had made another call about 2:30 from the pay phone across the corridor, after receiving her foreman's permission to leave her work station, but this call was not to Jerry. Jerry testified that Sally's call was between 1 and 2 p.m. that Thursday. The log of calls from extension 276 indicates that two outgoing calls were completed that day, one about 12:15, in which two unidentified women conversed in a foreign language, and one about 2:50 p.m., which the operator and Billings testified was Sally's call to Jerry which they overheard in part. The operator recalled that it was made shortly before her afternoon break, because it had been completed while she was still at the board, and that Billings had come to get her in the cafeteria, on her relief period which began at 3 p.m., to ask her to compile the summary from her rough notes which Billings had taken into show Beumer. I credit the recollection of Mrs. Renck and Billings as to the time, as corroborated by the log, and infer therefrom that Paukune was anxious to place the time of the call to Jerry as being during her foreman's lunch period in order to justify her failure to ask his permission. The call itself was not very long. They inquired after each other's health. Jerry told Sally she was worried about getting a substitute for that evening's bowling game, and Sally offered to speak to the vice president of the team whom she had just seen passing by in the corridor. The names of some mutual acquaintances were mentioned. Then, according to Jerry's testimony, Sally mentioned that the plant had been handbilled the day before, and Jerry responded, according to her, that she would like to see what had been passed out. Sally said she did not have it but would try to get a copy for her, and that she would rather not say anything more because someone might be listening. Sally's version of the critical reference to the handbilling the day before is that it was Jerry who first mentioned it in their conversation, and that Jerry then asked her to bring her a card, because she wanted to sign one too. Sally then warned her that the call was going through the office, although she did not then know that her phone was being monitored. If Jerry's version is true, that she asked Sally to bring her a copy of the handbill, there seems little reason to believe that Billings, assuming he even heard that portion of the conversation, or Beumer, would conclude therefrom that Sally was a secret adherent of the Union who should be gotten rid of immediately. The fact that a union has opened an organizing drive is the sort of interesting piece: of information about life at the plant which would normally be related to an absent employee, and it would be an apprehensive employer indeed who would react so AMPEX CORPORATION violently to so innocuous an exchange of small talk. On the other hand, if Jerry had told Sally that she wanted to sign a card too, it would be strong evidence that Sally was already involved in the Union's effort. Sally had signed an authorization card as "early as July 1965, and had signed another on May 24, 1966; and Sally had invited Jerry to attend a union organizing meeting which Jerry had declined. So far as their demeanor in testifying is concerned, there is little to choose between them. Each may have had an interest in shaping her testimony to suit her purpose-Paukune to show that Respondent was aware of her adherence to the Union, and Wirtanen, who was still employed at the plant at the time of the hearing, to show that her interest in the Union was minimal. My assessment of the probabilities of the situation leads me to conclude that Jerry's recollection of the phone conversation is the more accurate, and that she did not ask Sally to bring her a card at the the hospital so that she could sign one too. Jerry knew of Sally's interest in the Union, from her invitation to attend a meeting, yet she had not signed a card when Sally did. It is unlikely that Jerry would have considered it so urgent a matter as to want to sign a card that day while she was ill in the hospital. Further, the casual tone of the rest of the conversation leads me to believe that the Union was not uppermost in the minds of either, and was possibly of less interest to Jerry than was her problem of getting a bowling substitute that evening. It seems highly improbable that Jerry should have decided then and there that she wanted to sign a card for the Union. Of course, none of this has any relevance unless Billings overheard that portion of the conversation, directly or through Mrs. Renck. Billings testified that all he heard was something about some people who were being mentioned, and Mrs. Renck testified that she remembered very little about it, and that she had had to turn the speaker down two or three times while she was attending to other calls coming in on the switchboard. Both of them denied that they heard anything relating to the Union or to its handbilling, and Mrs. Renck denied additionally that she had heard similar talk in any of Paukune's monitored calls. Their testimony that they had heard nothing in the June 9 conversation or at any other time relating to the Union or to its handbilling was straightforward and unequivocal. I have no basis for discrediting them unless I also discredit the testimony of other witnesses for the Respondent as to the other incident through which Respondent had learned or suspected that Paukune was involved with the Union before it discharged her on June 9. f turn then to a description of other events which occurred on June 8, 9, and 10. 2. The last. Out of the blue, Sally Paukune suggested early on June 8 to June Teeter, a friend of hers in the plant, that it would be nice if the mechanical assembly employees had an up-to-date list of their names and addresses which would be useful for thank you notes, get well cards, and the like. Sally obligingly supplied June with a sheet of paper on which June put her name and address, and June then passed it around her department. The list came back to June about an hour later with 35-40 entries. June gave the list to Sally, who had it duplicated somewhere. A stack of the duplicated list was then placed on a desk in the department, available to all. Whether Sally also retained a copy for the Union was not brought out, but after the first appearance of the Union late that afternoon, there arose the suspicion in the minds of some of the employees that there may have been a reason for 227 getting up the list other than what they had been told. The rumor began to spread that those who had signed the list might in some way have committed themselves to the Union. No supervisor asked June Teeter or Sally Paukune anything about the list the next day, June 9. On the 10th, the day after Paukune was discharged, Hill, foreman of mechanical assembly, learned for the first time, according to his testimony, that such a list was in existence. He heard of it from Shuey, one of his subordinate supervisors who, in turn, had heard it from a rank-and-file employee. There is no evidence as to when Shuey first learned about the list, or if he knew that Paukune had suggested it to June Teeter. There is testimony from Respondent's witnesses that it was not discussed at the June 9 meeting of Beumer and other officials when Beumer ordered Paukune's immediate discharge. Thus, the testimony of Respondent's witnesses is that they did not know of any possible link between Paukune and the Union when she was discharged. To discredit Beumer, Billings and Hill on this issue of knowledge could only be justified if there were strong, countervailing inferences to be drawn from the discharge itself. There are suspicious circumstances surrounding the discharge. First, Paukune was never asked to explain why there were so many outside calls from her phone, and her immediate supervisor was never asked if he had given her permission to make them. There was, in other words, no full investigation of the alleged violation of the plant rule against unauthorized use of company phones. Second, Paukune was discharged a day before the end of the pay period, and the normal practice of the plant is to handle all separations on Friday. If I were to assume that Respondent knew of Paukune's connection with the Union, either through her conversation with Wirtanen on June 9, or through her effort to get a list of employee names and addresses, then her summary discharge is explainable in the light of that knowledge. But these conjectures lose much of their apparent force in the face of Respondent's explanation for the discharge. If Respondent's only reason had been Paukune's unauthorized use of the phone, then its failure to investigate her use of the phone would give the discharge a pretextual flavor. It must be remembered, however, that Respondent in effect used the unauthorized calls as a partial coverup for what Beumer justifiably regarded as a much more heinous offense-the poison pen calls. Beumer had no solid proof that Paukune had made those calls, but his suspicion that she had, predated by a week any possible knowledge of her attachment to the Union. Beumer's interest and concern as to the source of the poison pen calls cannot be denied or faulted. He took prompt action to trace the caller, and he regarded Paukune as the most likely culprit days before he could possibly have known of her union connections. Beumer was thus in the position of utilizing one reason for firing Paukune without having to reveal to her his strong suspicion that she was also guilty of a much more serious offense. Beumer's explanation of why he fired Paukune on Thursday afternoon instead of on Friday, when terminations are normally processed, is not implausible. He explained that Fridays are busy days for the personnel department, what with preparing separation papers and conducting termination interviews. Besides, he was fearful of an emotional outburst if Paukune's discharge had been handled routinely the next day. These reasons would ring less true if Beumer knew on June 9 that Paukune had 298-668 0-69-16 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD busied herself the day before in securing a list of employees in a department where she did not work. But if I assume that he did know of it on the 9th, I would also have to assume that he discharged her that day instead of on Friday because,he wanted her out of the way before it could come to his attention publicly, as was bound to happen, that she had been mixed up in securing the list of employees. All in all, it was a strange coincidence that Respondent should have discharged Paukune the day it could have learned about her link with the Union, but strange coincidences, possibilities, and conjectures may not outweigh the lack of evidence that Respondent had any inkling on June 9 that Paukune was an adherent of the Union. In the absence of such proof, I will recommend dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegation of the complaint. C. The 8(a)(1) Allegations 1. Interrogation of June Teeter. The morning after Paukune's discharge, Hill learned about the list and that some of the employees were concerned over having signed it. Hill checked with Beumer who told him to reassure the employees that they had nothing to be concerned about. During the day Hill spoke privately to a number of employees in his department. Two of them, Verla Martinez and Nancy Fraser, testified for the Respondent, corroborating Hill's testimony that he had merely told them that signing the list would have no effect on their jobs, and that in response to their questions about handbills and authorization cards, he had told them that signing a card would "sort of" be a vote for the Union. They testified that he had not asked them if they had signed cards, and that Hill had said nothing about gaining or losing vacation or insurance benefits if the Union was successful. The first employee whom Hill had called in that day for an interview was June Teeter, who had gotten the list started at Paukune's suggestion. Teeter, testifying for the General Counsel, said that Hill told her the list could be dangerous, that in his opinion it had gotten in the hands of the Union and could cause a great deal of trouble. He told her that she should not sign anything again , but as with the other employees, he assured her she had nothing to worry about. At some point in the interview, Hill said, according to Teeter, that he hoped she had not signed an authorization card. He also said that if 51 percent of the employees signed cards, the Union would automatically come in and take over, and that maybe they would lose their insurance and vacation, or part of it. Hill's testimony is that he had not asked Teeter if she had signed a card, that he did not tell her not to sign one, and that he had not told her he hoped she had not or would not sign one. He told her it was up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not to sign a card. He recalled that Teeter had asked him if she would lose her insurance benefits if the Union came in, and that he had told her that she would not, as far as he knew, and that the Company's plant at Redwood City was unionized and had basically the same insurance privileges as their plant. He could not recall her asking him about vacation benefits. I have no doubt that in their conversation Hill expressed to Teeter his belief that the list had been turned over to the Union, and was, from his point of view, dangerous. Whether he also told her not to sign anything again is more doubtful, but in any event , it seems to me that it would have reference to documents whose purpose might be unclear. He denied saying to Teeter that she should not sign an authorization card, or that he hoped she had not signed a card. But even if he said that he hoped she had not signed a card (as Teeter testified), the remark bears no coercive implication. I have considered_in this connection Teeter's testimony that Hill had said that the employees might lose insurance or vacation benefits if the Union came in. Teeter was very uncertain with respect to many aspects of her testimony, and I had the impression that her nervousness both at the interview and in her testimony had impaired her recollection. I credit Hill where his testimony varies from Teeter's, and find that what he said did not constitute unlawful interrogation, or other interference, restraint, or coercion with Teeter's Section 7 rights.3 2. The employee meeting of June 10. The evidence bearing on the allegation of the complaint that Plant Manager Beumer promised employees new and improved benefits to discourage their union activities is as follows. On Friday, June 10, 2 days after the Union's first handbilling at the plant, Beumer called and presided at a meeting of all the employees. Beumer testified that employee meetings were generally held monthly on a date selected by him, where matters of employee interest were discussed. Beumer decided to hold the June meeting on the 10th because he usually tried to hold it during the first half of the month, and this date was convenient with respect to his personal schedule, since he had been at the company headquarters in Redwood City sometime the week before and he was due to go to Chicago the following weekend. At the meeting he distributed employee awards, discussed production goals, mentioned a previously announced employee dinner in honor of the forthcoming visit of the company president , and explained a proposed longterm disability insurance program (the LTD program) and a management training program. As to the handbilling, Beumer said he told the employees that the Union had a right to distribute literature, that the plant provided equal or better benefits than were paid in the area for comparable work, that it was up to the employees to determine the facts, and he would keep them informed. There is no evidence that Beumer's testimony is other than an accurate presentation of what he had said. Because the General Counsel's brief emphasizes that the announcement of the LTD program was timed to counter the Union's organizational drive, it is necessary to discuss the genesis of the program and its timing. If it was, as the General Counsel contends, prematurely announced, then the inference could be drawn that it was intended to show the employees that their employer was no less solicitous for their welfare than the Union, and that representation was unnecessary. Beumer testified that he first became interested in an LTD program when he learned the previous summer that another employer in Colorado Springs, using the same type of labor, had instituted that type of plan. Such a program for his plant would need approval of company headquarters and Beumer proposed to the vice president for labor relations that it be looked into. In November 1965, Redwood City advised Beumer that it was asking insurance companies to come up with proposals for an LTD program either for one or for several of its divisions. In April 1966, Redwood City advised Beumer and officials at its other plants throughout the country that it had 3 The complaint does not allege that Hill's interrogation of Teeter also constituted a threat of loss of benefits. AMPEX CORPORATION analyzed the proposals submitted by the insurance carriers and had selected one of them as the most satisfactory. The divisions were told that the carrier's requirement for the program was that at least 75 percent of the employees in no fewer than three divisions be enrolled. The level of benefits and premiums was stated, and a deadline of May 16 was set for each division to report back on whether it would be interested. At least three divisions responded affirmatively, and on June 1, Redwood City told them to go ahead with polling their employees to ascertain whether the necessary 75 percent would enroll. In this letter of June 1 from Redwood City, the divisions were told to begin their campaign for enrollment of employees "sometime around June 15" and to bring it to a close no later than July 31. The letter also informed them that about June 15 they would be supplied with IBM signup cards on which the employees could authorize their formal enrollment in the program. It was at the employee meeting of June 10 that Beumer informed his employees about the proposed LTD program, what the levels of premiums and benefits were, and advised them that it would be put into effect only if the required percentage at three divisions voted for it. He asked for a show of hands, and the employees' response indicated that more than 75 percent were interested in enrolling. Beumer then called corporate headquarters at Redwood City to report that his division would participate. I am not persuaded that the evidence related above establishes that Beumer was prompted to make his announcement on June 10 in order to inhibit the Union's organizational efforts. The Union's campaign to secure authorization cards had surfaced just 2 days before, and was still continuing 4 months later, when this hearing was held. As of the latter date, no demand for recognition had been made or petition for an election filed. Beumer had a fairly limited period in which his employees could decide to enroll, and if he had polled them a week or two later in June, or sometime in July, he would still have faced the same dilemma of whether to announce the proposed benefit during the Union's campaign or to forego it entirely for his division, and this perhaps make it impossible for other divisions also to obtain the program. The announcement on June 10 was not premature simply because the IBM cards had not yet arrived, as the General Counsel contends, since they would not have been needed at all if the employee poll showed that a 75-percent enrollment could not be attained. I am satisfied that Beumer announced the plan on June 10 rather than on some later day in June or July because he wanted to get it underway for reasons unrelated to the union campaign. It had progressed so far by June 8, and it involved so many other divisions of the Company, that I can draw no inference that its announcement on June 10 to the employees at Colorado Springs was intended as a response to the Union' s organizational efforts.' The General Counsel also suggests, rather glancingly, that Beumer conferred or promised two other employee benefits at the June 10 meeting. The first relates to an open house and buffet dinner to honor the company president who was coming to visit the Colorado Springs ' True Temper Corporation, 127 NLRB 839,842-844, and TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc., 152 NLRB 1495, fn 1. Cf Northwest Engineering Company, 148 NLRB 1136, 1137-39, and Exchange Parts Company, 131 NLRB 806, affil 375 U.S 405, where the announcements of new benefits were made shortly before a scheduled election . I am not suggesting that an announcement of benefits may not also violate Section 8(axl) if made during an 229 plant on June 20. Beumer's announcement was no more than a reminder of what the employees had already been told before June 8 about the impending visit, and as a matter of fact employees had already been asked to indicate in writing whether they and their spouses would attend. The second item was the formal announcement of a training program to fit production employees for better positions as the plant expanded. The program had in fact been instituted on an experimental basis before the announcement . Employees selected for training received instructions a few hours per week on plant operations. It was not a supervisory training program, but one designed to create a pool of employees with a potential for more responsibility. I am satisfied that neither of these announcements as to proposed "benefits" was prompted by the incipient union campaign or was undertaken in order to impinge on the employees' freedom of choice, nor are they reasonably calculated to have that effect. I shall recommend dismissal of the allegation of the complaint relating to the promise of benefits. 3. Surveillance. The complaint alleged that Personnel Manager Knapp kept the Union's handbilling under surveillance on June 14 and 20, 2 of the 5 days in June on which handbilling took place. There are three points at the access roads around the plant at which the parking lots are normally entered. Two are on the west side of the plant, and each is about 120 yards from the steps at the west , or main , entrance to the plant. The third driveway into the parking area is on the plant's south side, about 175 yards from the south, or employee, entrance. A person standing on the lawn at the southwestern corner of the plant would have an unobstructed view of all three parking area entrances. Handbilling took place at the three points where access roads lead into the parking area. It occurred between 4:15 and 5 p.m., but was concentrated mainly in the 20 minutes or so when the day-shift employees left the parking area shortly after 4:30, and the night-shift employees began entering, shortly before 5 p.m. Evidence as to the distribution of union literature on the two pertinent dates, June 14 and 20, and Knapp's activities then, was given by Guy Perry, an International representative of the Charging Union, who was in charge of the campaign, his brother Boyd Perry, who assisted in the distribution, and Ernest Knapp. Ruth Blackmon, a plant employee, testified as to her observation of Knapp on a date she could not fix definitely, but which could only have been June 14, as determined from her attendance record.5 Boyd Perry testified that he participated in the handbilling twice, and from his brother's testimony it appears that these two occasions were June 14 and 20. Boyd said that the first time a man whom he did not know, but who was later identified to him as Knapp, came out of the plant building and walked toward the northwest entrance to the parking area, that his brother who was with him at the southwest entrance went over to meet Knapp and handed him a copy of the handbill. According to Boyd, organizational campaign See Betts Baking Company, 155 NLRB 1313 I only hold, in the circumstances of this case, that the timing was neither delayed nor advanced in order to affect the Union's campaign She was absent on June 8, and was on vacation or leave of absence from June 17 through July 1. 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the individual then walked back toward the building and stood on the lawn near the west entrance to the plant for about 20 to 25 minutes, observing the distribution and the entrance and exit of employees' cars. The second time, he said, Knapp came out of the building shortly after their arrival at 4:15 p.m., stood on the lawn 5 or 10 minutes, and then went over to the steps of the plant 's main entrance where he waited until the shift change was over. Guy Perry's testimony agrees substantially with his brother's as to where Knapp stood and for how long. Their testimony definitely places Knapp on these two dates as being either on the lawn or on the steps at the main or west entrance during the 20 minutes or so between 4:30 and 5.p.m. when the bulk of the employees were either exiting or entering the parking lots. Ruth Blackmon, however, who was also called by the General Counsel, placed Knapp as standing with Beumer inside the building at the employee or south entrance to the plant about 4:40 p.m. on June 14 when she entered the building on her way to work. From this point it would have been about 175 yards to where handbilling was taking place at the south entrance to the parking area. Blackmon , who had to pass Knapp as she came in by the south entrance to the plant, and who knew him well , is much more creditable in her identification of Knapp than are the Perrys who had not known him before, and who were 100 yards or more distant from the points at which they say he was standing. Furthermore, Knapp's testimony as to his activities between 4:15 and 5 p.m. on June 14 and 20 is persuasive and reasonably in accord with the probabilities of the situation. Knapp said that he learned about the handbilling shortly after 4:15 when the union representatives appeared, and that on both dates he went outside the building to get copies of what was being distributed, and got them from Guy Perry. He then returned to the building before 4:30 and did not again go outside. On June 14, he said , he showed the literature to Beumer and then went to prepare an answer to it which he posted on the three bulletin boards before 5 p.m. This is consistent with Blackmon's testimony that Knapp was inside the plant about 4:40. On June 20 , Knapp testified , after returning to the building with the union leaflet , he resumed the work he had been doing in preparation for the open house and buffet dinner in honor of the company president, which was scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Blackmon's corroboration of Knapp's testimony that he was inside the plant after 4:30 on June 14, and the difficulties faced by the Perrys in making certain who was observing the handbilling from the lawn or from the west entrance, coupled with my favorable impression of Knapp's demeanor in testifying , lead me to credit his denial that he stood outside the plant between 4:30 and 5 p.m. on either June 14 or 20 observing the distribution of literature. In the absence of other evidence as to the identity of the person who may have been watching from either of these points, I must conclude that the General Counsel has failed to establish that any supervisor or agent of the Respondent was engaged in surveillance. I shall therefore recommend not only dismissal of that allegation, but of the entire complaint , since none of the other alleged violations have been established by a preponderance of the proof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ampex Corporation is engaged in commerce and in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.