Automotive Controls Corp.

450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Automotive Controls Corp. and Local No. 128, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Cases 17-CA-2884 and 17-RC-4967 June 16,1967 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On November 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. He further found merit in certain of the objections by the Union to the election conducted on March 25, 1966, and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, theAct, 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: We are of the opinion, in agreement with the General Counsel, that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated if the notice which Respondent is required to sign and post, and which informs the employees of their rights, how those rights were violated, and by what process they have been upheld, is expressed in simple and readily understandable language, as set forth in the attached Appendix A.2 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 hereby orders that the Respondent, Automotive Controls Corp., Independence, Kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted herein on March 25, 1966, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election-' omitted from publication.] ' One of the violations of Section 8(a)(1) found by the Trial Examiner was that Respondent created an impression of surveillance by requesting an employee to raise a question at a specified forthcoming union meeting Critical to this finding, in our view, is a subsidiary finding that the specified meeting had not been announced As the record does not adequately support this subsidiary finding we do not adopt the Trial Examiner' s 8(a)(1) finding as to that incident In view of the presence of other 8(a)(1) findings, which warrant the remedial order issued herein, Member Jenkins finds it unnecessary to pass upon the question of whether President Mancheski's speech violated Section 8(a)(1) 2 Bil yea Motor Corp , 161 NLRB 982 ' An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 17 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236 APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice. WE WILL NOT question you about your union activities or your attitudes toward the Union. WE WILL NOT make threats, including threats to close the plant, in the event that the Union is successful in organizing our employees or wins any election held for the purpose of determining the bargaining representative of our employees. WE WILL NOT indicate in any way to you that we are keeping ourselves informed concerning your union activities. WE WILL NOT discourage union activity or membership in Local No. 128 , International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating against you if you choose to engage in union activity or join Local No. 128, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT discriminate against you for engaging in union activity. Since the Board 165 NLRB No. 43 AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS found that we did so when we fired Nedra Rose, WE WILL offer to Nedra Rose full reinstatement to her old job, and WE WILL pay her for any loss that she suffered because we fired her. Since the Board also found that we did so when we failed to give Raymond Ross a wage increase, we will raise his pay and make him whole for any loss that he suffered. WE WILL respect the rights of our employees to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of employment through said Union, or any representative of their own choosing, and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights. You and all our employees are free to become members, or refrain from becoming members, of any labor organization. AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS CORP. (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. No other material relative to this matter should be posted during this period. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone FR4-7000. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed March 28, 1966, by Local No. 128, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on June 10, 1966, against Automotive Controls Corp., Respondent herein, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, the Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to an order dated June 15, 1966, issued by the said Regional Director on behalf of the Board, the proceeding referred to above was consolidated with Case 17-RC-4967 wherein a representation petition in behalf of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees was filed by the Union on January 20, 1966, and an election held on March 25, 1966; said consolidation being for the purpose of holding a hearing and taking evidence pursuant to a Board order dated June 8, 1966, in connection with 451 objections filed by the Union to alleged conduct affecting the results of the foresaid election. Pursuant to notice, a hearing of the consolidated cases was held before me at Independence, Kansas. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the following- FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent , a Connecticut corporation , maintains a plant at Independence , Kansas, where it is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of automotive voltage regulators . The Respondent annually receives supplies and materials of a value in excess of $50 ,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Kansas, and annually sells and delivers products of a value in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Kansas. It is admitted , and I find, that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted, and 1 find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues Sometime before January 20, 1966, the Union began an organizing campaign among the Respondent's production and maintenance employees. On January 20 it simultaneously filed with the Board a petition for representation election and made a written demand for recognition and bargaining upon the Respondent. The Respondent refused the demand and, as set forth heretofore, an election was eventually conducted by the Board in which the Union was defeated. Thereafter, on March 28, 1966, the Union filed with the Board objections to alleged conduct affecting the results of the election and at the same time filed the charges which give rise to this proceeding. During the period from the beginning of its organizational drive up to the election both the Union and the Respondent waged vigorous and a;;gressive campaigns marked by claims and counterclaims made in various written communications to the Respondent's employees and by speeches made by the Respondent's officials Also there appeared from time to time antiunion advertisements in the local newspaper which, the Union claims, were sponsored by the Respondent together with business and professional people of the to.m. The alleged conduct of the Respondent's officials and supervisory personnel during this campaign period constitutes, in the main, the basis for the charges and the objections filed. More specifically, the complaint herein alleges, in substance, that the Respondent, through its officers and/or supervisors, unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union activities, created the impression 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of surveillance of employees' union activities, threatened reprisals and removal of the plant in the event of union success, made promises of benefit to induce employees to reject the Union, and distributed "Vote No" signs to the employees.' The complaint further alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged employee Nedra Rose because of her union activity and refused to grant a wage increase to employee Raymond Ross for like reason.2 The Respondent's answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied each and every allegation concerning the alleged violative conduct of the Respondent. Thus, broadly, the issues framed by the pleadings are: 1 Did the Respondent interfere with, coerce, or threaten its employees in the manner set forth above in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Did the Respondent discriminatorily discharge employee Nedra Rose because of her union activities and because she testified at a representation hearing on behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act. 3. Did the Respondent refuse to grant a wage increase to employee Raymond Ross because it believed he had engaged in union activity and was an active union organizer. 4. With the regard to the objections to conduct affecting the elections filed by the Union did the foregoing conduct, if found, constitute conduct which interferes with the exercise of free choice by the employees participating in the election so as to warrant setting aside the election. B. Interference, Coercion, and Restraint 1. The incidents Heretofore, I have alluded to the vigorous manner in which the Union and the Respondent pressed their respective campaigns. Much of the written material circulated by each was purely factual, but an equal quantity was accusatory and, at times, vituperative. Each party accused the other of a lack of candidness and, indeed, of outright misrepresentation. To say that feelings ran high would be an understatement. Thus, in this atmosphere, marked by the hurling of verbal brickbats, the employees of the Respondent were made aware of the Respondent's and the Union's strong antipathy for each other. And it was in this atmosphere, permeated by mutual antagonism, that the events, below described, occurred. On January 18, 1966, 2 days before the filing of the Union's petition for certification, the Respondent's production superintendent, Wesley Lorenz, engaged employee Jessie M. Castorena in a conversation at her work station. Lorenz told Castorena that he was aware that Castorena had been going to the union meetings , that he At the outset of the hearing, the General Counsel, on motion granted, amended the complaint to allege additional , similar violative conduct The allegation regarding Ross was made by way of amendment to the complaint made at the hearing From the credited testimony of Castorena Although Lorenz denied that he told Castorena that he knew she was attending union meetings or that the Respondent would move its plant if the Union were to be successful in organizing the Respondent's employees, his testimony in the main did not differ materially from Castorena's From my observation of each of these witnesses knew the Union was trying to get into the plant, and that he wanted to tell Castorena the Company's side of the picture. Lorenz then proceeded to tell Castorena that the Union was making many promises they could not keep and that the Respondent could not afford to raise wages or, at present, better the working conditions the employees already had. He pointed out that the Respondent had erected a new air-conditioned building. Lorenz then told Castorena that whichever way she decided, when it came time to vote to think the matter over carefully because the vote was like an investment in the employees' future and he did not want them to be sorry over something they did. He further stated that if the Union were successful and it was impossible for the Company to make a profit, the Respondent would move if it found it could not pay the higher wages which would ensue. Lorenz also told Castorena that there were no other plants belonging to the Echlin Group (Echlin Corporation is the parent corporation of the Respondent which is wholly owned by Echlin) that were unionized at that time. Lorenz assured Castorena that there was work at that time and many orders to be filled; that there was no immediate plans for a layoff.-' It should be noted in connection with the foregoing incident that Lorenz admitted in testifying that he was instructed by higher company officials to speak to individual employees about the Union. He estimated that he spoke to 16 or 18 employees during the earlier part of the campaign. He also admitted that he told the employees " .. anything that might happen to make this company less profitable might affect the future of the Company." In the latter part of February, probably some time around the 24th of the month, David Bredbury, toolroom foreman, was going over the periodic review sheet of Raymond Ross, an employee engaged as a tool-and-die maker. (This periodic review was one which Respondent gave each employee every 6 months of his employment.) The interview took place at Bredbury's desk. Bredbury handed Ross the review slip and said that he could not give Ross a raise because Ross was receiving the top wage in the shop but that Bredbury was trying to have all the wages in the shop raised. Bredbury then said that, off the record, he heard that Ross was a union organizer being paid by the Union. He explained to Ross that he, Bredbury, did not think the charges were true.4 On February 25, 1966, Frederick Mancheski, the Respondent's president, made a speech to a group of the employees of the Respondent's plant. Sometime either before or after that address he walked about the factory and engaged employee Melvin Karstetter in conversation. During that conversation Mancheski asked Karstetter, in substance, how the latter felt about the Union or what he thought about the Union. Karstetter answered that he had worked under union representation most of his life, that he liked representation and listed the benefits which I find and conclude that Castorena's version of the conversation was the more accurate a From the credited testimony of Ross Although Bredbury denied that during the interview he said anything to Ross about someone charging Ross with being a union organizer , Bredbury's version of the interview did not differ essentially from the Ross version I credit Ross not only because of his demeanor on the stand but also because, at a later date , Bredbury told Ross that he could not have a raise because management thought Ross was a union organizer Bredbury did not deny Ross' testimony regarding this later incident AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 453 Karstetter thought he had derived from union representation. The conversation lasted about 5 minutes.' On March 3, 1966, employee Mary Eardley complained to Production Supervisor Abert Sack about the fact that she had not received an assignment which would have given her a wage increase. During that conversation, Sack asked Eardley how the latter felt about the Union. Eardley answered that she thought everybody in the plant was aware of how she felt about the Union. Sack then asked Eardley what she thought the Union could do for her and she told him that she did not see how the Union could hurt the employees because they were working for minimum wages and working conditions and benefits of employment with the Respondent left a lot to be desired. Sack thanked Eardley for her frankness and told her that " given time, she would see a lot of changes." He then told her to think the matter over and really look at both sides before she voted. In this conversation, also, Eardley asked Sack if she had not gotten the assignment that she desired because of her absenteeism or her union activity. Sack answered that it might have been for her absenteeism but certainly not for union activity.'' On March 23, the day before the representation election, employee Suzie Hugo was engaged in conversation with Art Tull, the supervisor of the subassembly department, and Norman Chambers, the quality control supervisor. Either Tull or Chambers (Hugo could not determine which) asked what Hugo thought the Union could do for her. Then, in the same conversation one of them asked Hugo to ask several questions at the union meeting to be held that night regarding what would happen if the Respondent and the Union began negotiating and the Company denied all of the Union's requests. Hugo did not voluntarily tell them that there was going to be a meeting that night. Again, the following day, before the election, Hugo had a further conversation with Tull and Chambers. One of them again asked Hugo what the Union could do for her. Tull said that he had known Hugo "for several hundred years" and he thought that she had more sense than to support the Union. Chambers remarked that he always thought that Hugo was a pretty sensible girl. Then Chambers told Hugo that he had been asked to estimate how the quality control inspectors felt earlier during the campaign; that he had made an unofficial list of them and Hugo was up at the top of the list that would vote "No." Chambers added that there were three or four employees he was not sure about, but he did not state any names nor did he have the list with him.7 On March 24, the same day that Mancheski gave several speeches to various groups of employees, Tull circulated among the employees of the plant and distributed "Vote No" signs. Some of the employees took them and some did not. One employee, Eva Tincknell, asked Tull for one but was told that they were all asked for. Tull explained that a few days before the balloting was to be held, the management of the plant was approached by several of the employees in the plant asking if they might be supplied with "Vote No" signs and, as a result, management had some printed up and made them available to the employees. The distribution was made pursuant to the instructions of Green, Respondent' s manager of operations. Green instructed the supervisors to simply make the signs available to employees but at the same time cautioned the supervisors that they were simply to spread the word to the group leaders that these signs were available and that was all. They were to make no active distribution of them but to simply have them in a place where they could be picked up if an employee desired to do so. Specifically, the supervisors were instructed not to take active part in distribution of the signs. However, the employees who testified at the hearing uniformally stated that Tull actually participated in distributing the signs around the plant, asking employees if they wanted them. On this same day, Tull was seen in the presence of employee Jim Horner at a time when Horner was carrying a large cardboard sign which stated "Save Independence, Vote No Union." The circulating of this sign was being carried out during the working hours. Horner solicited employees to endorse it by signing their names thereon. Later in that day employee Eardley saw Horner and Tull in the hall. Horner grabbed the sign and placed it behind him saying "Boy, we don't want her on the sign, she is definitely for the Union." Tull said nothing. On the following day, the morning of the election, the sign was posted in the plant. On it were the names of employees who supposedly had signed. Tincknell read her name on the sign and crossed it out. Tincknell had not signed it. About this time Tull noticed her doing this. Tincknell explained to Tull that some "smart aleck" had put her name on it and she did not want it there. Tull told her that he thought there was work to be done. Tull explained his part in the proceedings as noted above. He stated he merely made the signs available to the employees. He admitted that he did go from one operator to the next and asked if he or she would like one. He testified that he asked each employee if she would like to have one of the signs to put on the bumper of her car and if she said "No" he went on to the next employee. He did not make any note or notation if the employees did not accept the signs when offered. With regard to Horner' s sign , Tull testified that he not only refused to sign it but that he did not follow Horner around when Horner was carrying it to the various employees. As a matter of fact, Tull called Horner aside and told him this had to be done on his own time and not on company time. On March 24, Al Sack, production supervisor, inquired of employee Helen Reynolds what the latter thought of this ' From the credited testimony of Karstetter Respondent contends that Karsteiier's answer to the General Counsel's questions was that lie did nut remember just exactly what Mancheski's first words were However, Karstetter testified to the substance of Mancheski 's speech rather than relating or seeking to relate Mancheski's exact words I conclude that this was entirely consistent with Karstetter 's otherwise forthright testimony and general demeanor Under these circumstances, I do not credit Mancheski's general denial that lie asked any employee how the employee felt about the Union " From credited portions of the testimony of Sack and Eardley. In his testimony Sack did not specifically deny Eardley's testimony to the effect that he asked her how she felt about the Union or that lie promised changes Sack denied that he told Eardley anything except that he would check on the reasons that she did not receive the transfer of assignment which Eardley had requested I do not credit Sack's denial r The foregoing is from the credited testimony of Suzie Hugo. Chambers and Tull admitted to the conversations but denied that they had asked Hugo about the meeting However, Chambers did admit, in substance , that lie had kept a list such as Hugo mentioned 299-352 0-70-30 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "union mess" and at the same time Sack told her that he realized that there were problems in the plant and that he felt that these problems could be ironed out. Another incident occurred on March 24 involving employee Melvin Karstetter and Toolroom Foreman Dave Bredbury. As hereinafter more fully set forth, Mancheski gave a speech to several groups of employees on that day. Bredbury, as Karstetter's foreman, came over to Karstetter's machine, turned off the machine, and told Karstetter that he was to attend a speech to be delivered by Mancheski. Karstetter refused to go, stating in substance that he would not go to listen to the "damned speech." Karstetter further told Bredbury that his word was final that he would not go to listen to the speech and that they could do what they wanted to him, fire him or lay him off, but he was not going to listen to Mancheski. Bredbury answered that it was just as well that Karstetter go home and Karstetter asked "does this mean you are firing me right now?" Bredbury answered "No, one day suspension. Karstetter went home but about an hour after he arrived there Thornton, the Respondent's plant manager, called Karstetter at his home and asked Karstetter to return to work. Karstetter refused saying that he would be at work the following morning. The next day Karstetter went to work and found that his timecard had written thereon "full days work." There were initials beside this notation but he could not tell who had initialed it. When Thornton called Karstetter on the telephone on the afternoon of the 24th, Thornton stated that he thought that Bredbury had been a little bit severe and he was changing the suspension to a reprimand for insubordination Karstetter received his pay for that day even though he did not work." On March 25, employee Sharon Bryant was engaged in a conversation with employee Charlie Farris. Farris was wearing a sign which said "Vote No Union" and Bryant was wearing a prounion sticker. The discussion concerned the Union and attendance at union meetings . About that time, Quality Control Supervisor Norman Chambers walked up and said to Farris, in substance, that Farris should not let Bryant change his mind. Farris answered to the effect that Bryant was not changing his mind but he was trying to change Bryant's mind so that the employees could keep their jobs. Chambers answered "Well, she better. "" In addition to the foregoing incidents, as noted above, officials of the Respondent, from time to time during the preelection campaign, addressed groups of the employees for the purpose of expressing and explaining the Respondent's position in opposing the Union. To set forth these speeches at length and all of the accompanying antiunion literature distributed by the Respondent would unduly lengthen this Decision. However, certain aspects and highlights of various efforts are reviewed for the purpose of explaining and understanding possible inuendo and inference in the talks given to the employees by President Fredrick Mancheski on March 23 and 24. Thus, only 2 days before, Mr. Echlin, one of the founders and a chief figure of the Echlin Manufacturing " From the uneontroverted , credited testimony of Karstetter " From the credited testimony of Sharon Bryant Chambers stated in his testimony that he could not recall any such conversation But I have heretofore not credited Chambers' denials of other incidents and I was impressed with the manner in which Bryant testified I find that she was the more reliable of the two individuals Co., of which the Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary, addressed groups of employees.10 In his speech, Echlin emphasized that the money to begin the plant and operate it did not come from Independence, but from outside sources; namely banks and stockholders. He stressed that there had been only one profitable month out of the entire time the Company had been in Independence. He also stated that the employees could not be loyal to the Union and to the Company at the same time. Echlin said that the Union could cause strikes and that this had happened at another one of the Echlin Manufacturing Co., plants. He emphasized that the Company and not the Union created the jobs that the employees enjoyed. And he stated in conjunction therewith that the more money that the Respondent had to pay for salaries was in direct conflict with the employees job security. At the end of one of these speech sessions, Echlin was asked by employee Mary Eardley whether the plant would be moved if the Union were to be successful in its campaign. Echlin answered "Not as long as it continues to operate on a profit margin."1t On March 23, 2 days after Echlin's speech and the day on which Mancheski started to make his talks to the employees. The Respondent circulated a letter to the employees along the identical lines employed by Echlin in his talks. Three paragraphs from that letter are quoted as follows: Many very important issues have been raised during this campaign. Such questions as: Who should be allowed to vote, should that be a secret ballot election, the threatening of at least one of our employees, who has been telling the truth and who hasn't and many others. However, we believe the most important issue is this: Can this plant at this time in its life, afford the added costs and turmoil the Union can cause and still continue to survive? We have been open and honest in telling you about the present financial position of Automotive Controls. We have always been optimistic that we could turn this operation around and make a reasonable profit. Profits, we all realize, will insure that this plant will stay in business and Independence. Higher base rates of pay at this time, however, are in direct conflict with your job security. If you had lost a total of over $500,000 in starting an operation which still wasn't making a profit, what would you do if your costs suddenly went higher, and as a result the losses became higher too? Wouldn't you somewhere along the line say it wasn't worth all the trouble and decide that you would be ahead by having no operation at all? Also please recognize this fact. When you cast your ballot on Friday, you are not voting for or against organized labor, you are voting on whether or not a Union would work to Your advantage or disadvantage at this time, in this town, in this plant. If you vote against the Operating Engineers, they won't die out of existence-but if you vote against the This speech is not alleged as a violation The foregoing regarding Echlin's address to the employees is summarized from the testimony of Tmcknell and Eardley, whose testimony in this respect was uneuntroverted in any manner by the Respondent Accordingly, t accept it AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS company, you may see ACC profit picture go from bad to worse . We can't survive with continued losses increased by wage demands that we can not afford to meet at this time. With this letter and Echlin's speech of only 2 days before as background, Mancheski gave his talks to the employees. Mancheski gave his speech to four separate groups of employees on March 23 and 24 after writing the same completely and practicing the delivery thereof before others in the Respondent's managerial hierarchy. Although several employees testified that Mancheski did not deliver his talk from the written matter he carried and Mancheski admitted that he did not deliver the talk word for word, I find, nevertheless, that as he delivered it, his speech was substantially as written and without material variation as to content or import."' Cogent portions of this speech, the full text of which is attached to this Decision as Appendix B, follow. Mancheski told the employees assembled that the Respondent was a young business which was like a baby to which any sickness could be fatal. A union would cause so many problems that this infant business could be hurt. A union must cause conflict to justify its existence. The Respondent has lost money in all but 1 month of its existence. If the Union caused problems and strikes which, in turn, could cause present and prospective customers to buy their voltage regulators elsewhere, it was certain that the business would not be profitable. Then Mancheski went on to tell the employees the numerous ways in which, he claimed, the Union had been dishonest with the employees in its campaign. He stated that the Union lied when it said that Federal law prohibits collection of fines by unions; when it said that assessments could be levied only by members' votes and yet, at the same time, the Union's constitution said otherwise. The Union lied when it said that the Respondent may hide profits when in truth Respondent had lost one-half million dollars in the operation of the plant. Additionally, Mancheski stated that the Union had lied in still another instance when it told the employees that the Respondent could not lay people off if the Union were voted in. Mancheski said "We can and will, if necessary, union or no union." Mancheski further stated that the Union lied when its representative said that Automotive Controls could not move if there were a union in the plant. He stated "We can move any plant at any time it proves to be an undesirable plant location, whether there is a union present or not." He added that these were the reasons why the employees should vote against the Union because of the Union's lies to the employees, and that the Union used "Hitler-Goeble" tactics of telling lies often enough so that people will begin to believe them. He emphasized that the Union's primary weapon was to create unrest and mistrust. Then he stated: ... a vote for a union is a vote that you want to work in a plant where you don't know from one day to the next what kind of artificial trouble the union officials will generate to prove to you how well they are looking after your interests. If you want to work in a plant where you can be continuously upset, can make no 12 Although both Eardley and Tincknell took notes at the separate sessions which they attended, I conclude that much of this brief note taking constituted impressions rather than exact 455 plans because you don't know if you will lose a month or two's income because some power happy union official wants to throw his weight around, a plant in which it is possible that physical violence and coercion could take place on the part of the union members, where they could call a strike, a plant where you are constantly upset, if this is what you want, then you should vote for a union. Mancheski continued to the effect that the employees and the Respondent working together without a union could overcome the remaining problems which were largely the result of the plant having grown too fast. He remarked that the Respondent wanted to do anything it could to help the employees but needed their wholehearted cooperation without the help of the Union. But Respondent first of all had to make a profit. Then he asked the employees to help them achieve the goals that he set forth because this was in their best personal interest and asked them to take the first step in that direction by voting "No Union." 2. Concluding findings regarding interference , coercion, and restraint Upon the facts as set forth above, I conclude and find as follows: a. By telling employee Jessie Castorena on January 18, 1966, that he was aware that Castorena had been attending union meetings, Plant Superintendent Wesley Lorenz created the impression of surveillance of Castorena's union activity and the union activities of other employees. By this statement Lorenz also was obliquely interrogating Castorena regarding her union activities. Additionally, in the same conversation, when Lorenz stated that he did not want the employees to be sorry for something they did and at the same time told Castorena that if the Union came in and asked for wages higher than the Respondent could afford the plant would be moved, Lorenz impliedly threatened reprisals. All of this foregoing conduct of Lorenz constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. b. When on or about February 24, Tool and Die Department Foreman David Bredbury told employee Raymond Ross, during the discussion of Ross' periodic review, that Bredbury had heard that Ross was a union organizer, Bredbury unlawfully created the impression of surveillance and also indirectly interrogated Ross regarding the latter's union activity. All of this was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. c. When, on February 25, Respondent's President Mancheski asked employee Melvin Karstetter how the latter felt about the Union, Mancheski unlawfully interrogated Karstetter in violation of Section 8(a)(1). d. When, on March 3, Production Supervisor Al Sack asked employee Mary Eardley how the latter felt about the Union, Sack unlawfully interrogated Eardley in violation of Section 8(a)(1). However, I find too ambiguous to have constituted a threat of reprisal or a promise of benefit Sack's statement to Eardley that "given time she would see a lot of changes." e. On March 24, Subassembly Supervisor Art Tull and Control Supervisor Norman Chambers, in a conversation reproduction of the contents of the speech as delivered Accordingly. I credit Mancheski's testimony to the effect that lie '"c the speech substantially as it was written 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with employee Suzie Hugo, told Hugo to ask a question regarding the results of an impasse in negotiation at the union meeting to be held that night. They thereby created the impression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) since the meeting had not been announced. On the same day, and on the following day, Tull and Chambers asked Hugo what the latter thought the Union could do for her. This constituted unlawful interrogation. Also, when Chambers told Hugo he kept a list of those employees whom he felt would vote "no" or "yes" in the election, he, in effect, threatened Hugo and also created the impression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1). f. When, on March 24, Supervisor Tull distributed the "Vote No" signs, he violated Section 8(a)(1) in that employees were thereby impliedly threatened that if they did not accept the signs they would possibly be visited with reprisals. It also constituted a form of interrogation, the purpose of which was to discover the employees' prounion or antiunion sympathies. However, regarding Tull's presence when employee Jim Horner passed through the plant with the "Vote No" sign, I find plausible and accept Tull's explanation that he did so to stop Horner and order the latter to desist. g. When, on March 24, Supervisor Sack asked employee Reynolds what the latter thought of the "union mess," Sack unlawfully interrogated Reynolds in violation of Section 8(a)(1). h. I do not find violative the incident involving Foreman David Bredbury and employee Melvin Karstetter on March 24 which resulted in Karstetter being sent home. I find that Karstetter was not sent home for refusing to attend Mancheski's speech, but rather for the insubordinate manner in which the refusal was offered. In coming to this conclusion I do not find it necessary to decide whether Karstetter was obliged to attend the speech which was made on company time. 13 i. I find that Supervisor Chambers' statement on March 25 to the effect that employee Sharon Brant had better change her mind (regarding her union sympathies) to be a threat of reprisal, and therefore violative. I come now to the preelection talk given to the several groups of employees on March 23 and 24 by President Mancheski. A reading of that talk, which is heretofore paraphrased and quoted in part, leads me to conclude that, standing alone, the talk would constitute very strong but, nevertheless, protected employer propaganda within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act. However, the distinction between that which is a protected and permissible antiunion utterance and that which constitutes coercion proscribed by the Act does not always present a glowingly bright line. And when this line becomes very thin, as it does here, the subject matter in question cannot be considered in a vacuum but must be studied in the context of surrounding events. Thus, I note Echlin's speech given 2 days before the Mancheski talks in which Echlin noted that the money to establish the plant came from sources outside Independence, that employees could not be loyal to the Company and the Union at the same time, that additional moneys which the Respondent might be forced to pay for wages would result in direct conflict with the employees' job security. Then, in answer to employee Eardley's I Nor do I find any violative conduct in the incident occurring on March 24 involving Supervisor Sack and employees Bryant and Baker, the facts of which I have not heretofore set forth. I find question whether the plant would be moved if the Union came in, Echlin stated, "Not as long as it continues to operate on a profit-margin." [Emphasis supplied.] I also consider the Respondent's letter to its employees of March 24 which contained, among other things, the question, "Can this plant at this time in its life afford the added cost and turmoil the Union can cause and still survive?" This letter also emphasizes that only profits would insure the plants staying in business and that higher rates of pay were in direct conflict with job security. This, then, was the background context in which Mancheski's speech was delivered. In his talks, Mancheski stated that unions always cause trouble because they must do so to justify their existence, and that a plant in its infancy could, like a baby, be stricken with a fatal illness. Mancheski went on to say that profits were made only in a single month of the plant's existence and that if strikes occurred the plant could lose customers. At the end of the speech Mancheski, in answer to an employee's question, stated that other communities contacted Respondent regularly asking the Respondent to locate its plant in those communities and pay $1.25 an hour. Considering all of the foregoing, I adopt the contention of the General Counsel that the Respondent's entire antiunion campaign, especially Echlin's speech and the Respondent's letter to the employees on March 24, was sufficient to thrust Mancheski's speech over the narrow line from protected free speech into the area of proscribed conduct. As noted by the General Counsel, Mancheski's speech became a syllogistic threat that the plant would close if the Union came in. This is so because the main force of Mancheski's speech, in the background in which it was delivered, was that a plant that loses money must move, unionization will cause the plant to lose money, and, therefore, if the plant is unionized it will move. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Mancheski's talks constitute, at the least, a not very heavily veiled threat that the Respondent would move its plant if the Union were to be successful in its campaign. Such a threat clearly interferes with employees' Section 7 rights and, therefore, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Discrimination 1. The failure to raise Ross' wages I have heretofore described the incident involving employee Ross and Supervisor Bredbury. As heretofore found, during discussion of Ross' periodic review by Bredbury on or about February 24, 1966, Bredbury mentioned to Ross that he had heard that Ross was a union organizer being paid by the Union. Ross denied this categorically to Bredbury and stated that he had attended only two union meetings and that he had never been contacted personally by the union representative and that he had never contacted any one on behalf of the Union. During this interview, Bredbury handed Ross a periodic review slip which read in part: This is a six month review due 2-24-66, one and one- half years completed, satisfactory performance this incident it, be no more than an instruction by Sack to the employees to attend a speech on company time AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 457 during the last six months. Some difficulty in controlling conversation around the factory. During this review, Bredbury informed Ross that Bredbury did not make an effort to get Ross a raise during that particular review period because Ross was already receiving the highest wage paid by the Respondent. Bredbury added however that he was attempting to have the entire departmental pay scale raised. When Ross saw the remark concerning the alleged difficulty in controlling conversation around the factory, Ross discussed this with Bredbury who informed Ross that several supervisors had also complained about Ross talking too much. Ross thereupon explained to Bredbury that a great proportion of Ross' work consisted of work out on the production line in adjusting and fitting machines and that most of the talking that he had done with other employees was with regard to this work. Ross testified that he had never received any reprimands for talking prior to this period of February 24, 1966, and that in fact none of his work habits or his manner of going about his job had changed since the last periodic review of August 24, 1965, which commented that Ross was a versatile cooperative diemaker who was willing to learn different methods and in which Bredbury recommended that Ross' pay scale be increased. On June 2, about 3 weeks before the hearing herein, Bredbury and Ross had a further conversation following Bredbury's announcement to the men in the shop that the top scale in the shop had been raised to $3.17 an hour from the $2.90 an hour which Ross had been receiving as the top tool-and-die maker in the department. Upon Ross' request, Bredbury told Ross that he would see what he could do about getting Ross a raise in wage rate. In Ross' presence, Bredbury called the main office in Branford, Connecticut, with regard to obtaining for Ross a wage increase. Ross could not hear the conversation because of the noise in the shop. A day or two later Ross asked Bredbury whether the latter had had any success and Bredbury answered Ross to the effect that he could not get him any more money because he was talking too much in the plant. Then, later, Bredbury told Ross that he could not get any more money for Ross because word had gotten to Respondent's higher officials that Ross was a union organizer and being paid by the Union. Bredbury further told Ross, that as a matter of fact, Bredbury was told to give Ross three white slips and discharge him. According to Ross, white slips were warning notices that an employee was not performing properly. Thereafter all employees in the tool and die department received raises but Ross did not. Bredbury did not give Ross any white slips and at the time of the hearing Ross was still in the Respondent's employ." Even assuming that one of the reasons that Ross did not receive a raise in wage rates was because Ross had been talking too much in the plant, certainly, from Bredbury's own declarations, one of the reasons why Ross did not receive a wage-rate raise was that higher company officials believed that Ross was a union organizer and was being paid by the Union. Under these circumstances, and in the light of the Respondent's expressed opposition to the unionization of its employees, I conclude and find that Ross was refused a wage raise because of the Respondent's belief that Ross was a union organizer and active in the Union 's behalf during the Union's campaign to organize the Respondent 's employees . Accordingly, the failure to give Ross a raise was, at least in part, discriminatorily motivated . Such conduct , on the part of the Respondent , is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I so find. 2. The discharge of Nedra Rose Nedra Rose was employed by the Respondent on December 7, 1965. During her entire employment with the Respondent she worked in the subassembly department which fabricates the parts that are assembled in the final assembly department to make the voltage regulators which are the chief products of the Respondent. Rose was supervised during her entire employment by Foreman Art Tull and Group Leader Kenneth Whitson. Also, during this time, until the date of the representation hearing on February 8, 1966, at which Rose testified, she worked on a number of different machines in the subassembly department. Some of these jobs were on "standard" and some were not. A job which is on "standard" is one for which there is incentive pay after reaching 100-percent production which is the minimum production expected from employees on that machine. Noteworthy in Rose's work experience is the fact that she was changed from machine to machine and, according to Rose, was able to do her work on all of these various machines some of which she worked on for only a few hours at a time. Rose was interested in the Union from the inception of its campaign at the Respondent's plant. Thus, from the initial date of the Union's organizational efforts she attended all but one of the union meetings. Rose also carried union authorization cards with her and although she did not actively solicit, she gave cards to individuals who asked for them. On February 8, the date of the representation hearing, Rose was told to proceed to the lunchroom by her foreman, Art Tull. When Rose arrived at the lunchroom there were several other employees already there. They were told that the Union had sent for them and wanted them at the hearing but that they would have to furnish their own transportation. When they left, Supervisor Wesley Lorenz told them that it would not be necessary for them to clock out. At the representation hearing Rose was called upon to testify with regard to the supervisory status of certain of the individuals who worked in the plant for the purpose of determining their eligibility to vote in the forthcoming election. The day after she testified, Rose was working at her work station when Foreman Art Tull approached her and asked why she had put down on her timecard that she had been to the hearing. Tull then brought the timecard to Rose and told her that she would have to erase it. When Rose refused to erase the remarks, Tull erased them in front of her and clocked her out for the day before. He refused to give her credit for the time that she was at the hearing. Tull told Rose that she had not helped the Company and that he did not feel that the Company should pay her. " From credited testimony of Raymond Ross Although Bredbury denied the earlier incident on February 24, to which Ross testified and in which Bredbury told Ross that he had heard that Ross was a union organizer and being paid by the Union, Bredbury , in testifying, did not deny any of the other matters which Ross related and, accordingly , I credit Ross' uncontroverted testimony. 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Some time before the representation hearing, Rose had a conversation with Thornton , the plant manager. She asked him where he received his answer to the question on the bulletin board regarding whether employees could be discharged for talking about the Union on company time. She informed Thornton that the question had been her question which she asked at a union meeting. Mrs. Rose made it very clear that she was in favor of the Union and told Thornton "I thought the Union could help the Company and the employees." Also, at the hearing Rose had a conversation with manager of operations , Green, concerning working conditions in the plant. On the day after Rose testified at the hearing, in addition to the incident regarding her timecard set forth above, she was busy operating a screwdriver machine to which she was assigned . The operation of this machine involves two steps . The first step, known as crimping, is performed before the screw, for which the screwdriver is basically used, is inserted. If there is no one extra to help, the individual running the screwdriver has to crimp her own parts . Rose had done this for a while on the day in question and had been crimping a box of parts when Betty Wade, another employee, who operated the staking machine located next to the screwdriver , came over to run the screwdriver while Rose finished the crimping. However, the counting device on the screwdriver was not working properly and was not giving an accurate count of parts. Since this machine was on standard , Rose wanted to get an accurate count of her parts for payroll purposes. She therefore took a box of parts to Kenneth Whitson, her group leader, and asked the latter to weigh her parts for the count . When Rose asked Whitson to weigh the parts he immediately left and went directly to Foreman Tull's desk. Before that Rose explained to Whitson that Wade was running this screwdriver and that Rose needed the parts weighed because the counter was not operating. According to Rose, Whitson had given his permission numerous times for Betty Wade to move back and forth between the two machines because there was not someone continuously working on the screwdriver . After Whitson went to Tull's desk, Tull returned with Whitson and told Wade and Rose that there were to be no more unauthorized job changes , Tull explained that Whitson had told him that Rose and Wade had been making unauthorized job changes . Rose did not understand this because with Whitson's permission she had had Wade run the screwdriver while Rose crimped many times before. Rose denied emphatically that she changed her job at all. Wade supported Rose in this position . They both contended that they were doing the jobs they had always been assigned to. As a matter of fact , Rose denied emphatically that she ever worked on the staking machine nor did she know how to perform that operation. After Tull told Rose not to make any unauthorized job changes, he asked her to proceed to the lunchroom where Tull reviewed Rose's percentage records. He did not have her percentage figured for the last 2 weeks, however. When Tull told Rose that she was doing too much talking she denied this. Tull also informed Rose that she was running below 100 percent , that she was being paid for 100 percent, and that the Respondent expected 100 -percent production from her. Rose then asked Tull for her percentage that she had reached for the 2 weeks prior to the interview to show Tull that in that period her production percentage had been much improved. She explained this by reason of the fact that prior to that she had injured her finger which considerably slowed down the work of operating any machine to which she was assigned. Tull then figured out Rose's percentage for the last 2 weeks prior to the time he spoke to her and the percentages came to about 101 or 102 percent. Rose testified without contradiction that at one time Tull told her that she was doing about average of what was expected of a new employee . This was after he had figured her percentage out for the last 2 weeks. Then, Tull told Rose that she was spending too much time away from her work station . Rose answered that the only time she left her station was to go to the restroom and she offered to clock in and out when she used the restroom . Tull answered that Rose was talking in the aisles. In addition to her union activity heretofore set forth, Rose asked questions at several of the speeches given by the Respondent 's officials . For instance , on February 17, 1966, Respondent's manager of operations , Robert M. Green, gave a speech after which there was a question and answer period . Rose asked questions about union fines and assessments . Rose also asked how many plants the Company owned and whether it had recently purchased a wire plant . Rose testified that she did not ask the most questions at that meeting. As noted above, on February 26, President Mancheski gave a speech at the end of which Rose asked a number of questions , among them whether the Respondent would move the plant if the Union were voted in. After Rose had asked a number of questions, Mancheski told her to let someone else ask questions . When no one else did, and Rose raised her hand again , Mancheski turned backed to her and in a laughing manner said "Well we are back to you again." While Rose asked more questions than anyone else did at the Mancheski speech, it was further brought out that both Tincknell and Eardley asked questions. Neither of these employees was discharged. On March 3, at approximately 3 p.m., Rose approached Foreman Tull and informed him that one of the employees was leaving and that this employee's job would be open on the following Monday. Rose asked if she could be put on that job and left on it for 2 or 3 weeks so that she could be given a chance to show what she could do at a job from which she was not being moved constantly. This way, explained Rose, she could make her incentive pay where as she could not make "standard" on half of the jobs to which she was assigned because she was never permitted to be on one job long enough to get used to the machine and to develop proficiency of operation. Tull answered that the job for which Rose had put in a request had not been spoken for and that Rose could have a try at it. Rose then returned to her work and worked until about 5 minutes before quitting time when Tull approached her and asked that she proceed with him to the lunchroom. In the lunchroom Tull handed Rose her termination papers and discharged her. When Rose asked for an explanation Tull told her that she went from the screw machine to the staking machine without permission . Rose again denied to Tull that she had ever run the staking machine at any time. When Rose finished explaining this Tull said that it did not matter, and pointed out to Rose that on the termination sheet it was noted that Rose spent too much time away from her work station , that Rose talked too much , and that her work was inadequate . Actually, the remarks on the personnel transaction which Rose was given as a discharge sheet stated as follows: Released probationary employee. Below average employee in performance , efficiency, and versatility. AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 459 No potential to improve evidenced after personal talk with employee. Spends excessive time away from her work station Made unauthorize job change with another employee. Verbal warnings of above rule infractions produced no improvement. Still away from work station excessively. In connection with the foregoing quotation, Tull admitted on cross-examination that Rose did, in fact, have potential that would equal that of any other employee. Tull further admitted that neither Betty Wade nor Mary Hymer, the two other employees discharged at or about the same time as Rose, had the potential possessed by Mrs. Rose. With regard to the job change, Betty Wade testified that neither she nor Rose made any unauthorized job change and that at the time Whitson complained to Tull of the alleged job change, Wade was merely performing the screwdriver operation while Rose was doing the crimping. This was in accordance with instructions given her previously by Whitson. Robert M. Green, operations manager of the Respondent, testified that a probationary employee is, in essence, on trial to prove that he or she will become a satisfactory employee for the Company to retain as a permanent employee. This trial period lasts for the first 3 months of employment. These employees do not enjoy any fringe benefits and they have no rights as far as layoff or seniority or other normal employee rights with regard to retention of position are concerned. The probationary period is used for the purpose of deciding whether an employee possesses the capability, the attitudes, the skills, and application to the job to warrant retaining such probationary employee as a permanent employee. Therefore, probationary employees are closely watched to judge whether they are satisfactory performers to be retained as permanent employees. During the time that an employee is on probation he may, for any number of reasons, simply be released. This release is different from discharging a permanent employee Nedra Rose never became a permanent employee because she was released from her probationary employment prior to the expiration of the 3-month probationary period Green further testified that Rose was released only after Green had reviewed the reasons for her termination with Rose's foreman, Art Tull. First they reviewed Tull's records of Rose's production efficiency. Then they discussed Tull's impression of Rose's application to her work and whether Tull felt that Rose was really applying herself or whether she was spending all of her work time or much of her work time away from her work station. Green further testified that he attended the representation hearings and knew that Rose testified but he also knew other employees who were excused to testify for the Union on that day. Nevertheless none of the other employees was terminated or discharged. Green in testifying also discussed Tull's written efficiency records concerning all employees for each day worked. Pertaining to Rose, this written efficiency showed a pattern of generally low efficiencies meaning that Rose produced generally below standard or below 100 percent. After examining these records and after discussing the matter with Tull, as well as Rose's unauthorized job change which Tull informed him about, Green supported Tull's recommendation that Rose be released. Green pointed out that two other hourly probationary employees were released from the subassembly department in which Rose worked about the same time that Rose was discharged. These individuals were Betty Wade and Mary Hymer. In their cases, as in Rose's case, Tull's recommendation for discharge was discussed and approved by Green. Green admitted that during his conversation with Tull prior to Rose's discharge they discussed the fact that Rose had injured her finger on a machine and that her efficiency therefore might have been affected by such injury. However, this was discounted as a reason for her low efficiency. Tull's testimony in the main supported the testimony of Green. Tull further testified there are a number of criteria that he uses in evaluating employees. Among them are efficiency, general attitude , work habits, general health, and appearance. He also testified how efficiency is measured in supporting the testimony of Green. Efficiencies are measured daily and Tull keeps a daily record of the employees' efficiency in the subassembly department. Although such record is not required of a supervisor, Tull keeps one so that he will have an instant record and an instant reference regarding each employee. He uses these records for permanent employees as well as temporary employees. He also takes into consideration that in moving from job to job an employee may not work up to the level of his ability at any particular job because of the changes. However, by averaging out the efficiency ratings he is given a very good idea of how each employee is progressing. With regard to Nedra Rose, with the exception of about a week and a half, her efficiency was below 100 percent in average and, furthermore, instead of a general increase as weeks progressed, Rose's efficiency decreased and her average declined. This, according to Tull, was the reason he spoke to Nedra Rose about her efficiency on the day after she testified at the representation hearing, which was the same day that Rose allegedly made the unauthorized job change. Tull admitted that he did not see the unauthorized job change made but accepted Whitson's report thereof. When Tull spoke to Rose about her records in the lunchroom he pointed out to her, beside her efficiency ratings, the fact that she was away from her machine too much and that she was talking too much in the plant. In fact, two other employees had complained to Tull that Rose was talking too much to them while they were working. He informed Rose that if she would spend more time at her work station and concentrate more on the work that she was doing and desist from some of the talking she could bring her efficiency up 100 percent. Nevertheless, despite this talk with Rose, her conversations with other employees and her absences from her work station increased rather than decreased during the period after he spoke to Rose. As a matter of fact, Rose's absences from her work station became so noticeable that after the complaints of other employees, Tull kept notes on how many times Rose had been away from her work station. Tull further stated the reason he talked to Rose on the day he did talk to her was because of Whitson's report to him of the unauthorized job change. By that time he thought it was necessary to discuss with Rose her work attitude, her work habits, and her efficiency in order to get her to do more efficient work. Tull realized that Rose's probationary period would end on March 7, 1966. He, therefore, observed Rose more closely than he ever had before. During this last period of time Rose was continually away from her work station. The result of the records kept on this absence from work - station showed that Rose was away from her work station far to frequently. Thus, over a period of 3 days while he 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was observing Rose there were 15 times, aside from her regular breaks and her lunch period, that Rose was away from her work station . These days were February 28 and March 1 and 2. The reason Tull recorded the number of times Rose was absent from her work station during these last 3 days before she was terminated was because Tull wanted to verify what he already arrived at in his mind; namely that Rose was not paying sufficient attention to her work. However, he did not want to release her until he was certain of her attitude. Also, with regard to the job change, Tull stated there was an absolute standing rule on job changes which is that no employee shall move without authorization from a group leader or a foreman. This, according to Whitson's report to Tull, was violated by Rose. With regard to the final date of discharge, Tull admitted that just before Rose was released, Rose asked Tull about a job that was coming up on a machine in the subassembly department. Tull told her that at this particular point of time no one had asked for that job but when it came time to fill the vacancy he probably would give her a tryout at it. However, in thinking it over he did not feel that she was the type of person they wanted to make a permanent employee because of her low efficiency and work habits. When Tull released Rose -on March 3 he explained to her why she was being released. He handed her a copy of the termination sheet and gave Rose the same reasons orally. With regard to the number of moves made by each employee from machine to machine, Tull testified that Rose was not moved more than anyone else in the department. This Tull demonstrated by identifying an exhibit, which in the last column on the page, showed the average number of jobs per day worked on by each of the probationary employees in the department during the period that Rose was employed. This record, if accepted, shows that Rose's rate of moving was just about the same as most of the other probationary employees. These figures were compiled from Tull's record book and show that the average figure of jobs worked on per day in the department by probationary employees was 1 40, whereas Nedra Rose's average was 1.34. Thus, if accepted, this report will show that Rose actually fell slightly below the average of the rest of the employees as to the number of jobs she was transferred to each day. It should be noted that also introduced by Respondent was Tull's compilation of Rose's efficiency ratings which did not reach or exceed standard except on a very few days. In fact, on most of the days that she worked, Rose's efficiency standard was well below the 100-percent mark. There were, however, 11 times from December 7 to and including March 2 that Rose's efficiency was up to standard or above standard. For the balance of the time her efficiency record percentage was below standard. However on cross-examination Tull admitted that there were permanent employees whose efficiency ratings were less than 100 percent . Tull sought to explain this by stating that these conditions existed because of certain failures on the part of the Company to reset the standards , inasmuch as they were not correctly set to begin with. Whitson testified that he had the opportunity to observe Rose's work performance , inasmuch as he worked in the same department and was Rose's group leader, and that from his observation Rose spent a great deal of time talking and that she was away from her work station several times during the day. He also indicated that from his observation she was away from her work station more than other employees in the department. As a matter of fact, Whitson remembered one day in particular when Tull was away, and he noticed that about 12:10 p.m. Rose left her work station and did not return until 12:35 p.m. In addition to all of the foregoing, the record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that any member of management or supervision ever mentioned anything to Rose concerning her union activities. Nor is there any evidence in the record to indicate that she ever accused anyone in the Company of discharging her because of her union sympathies or activities. On the contrary, Rose admitted on cross-examination that when she was released she told Tull that she was going to fight the discharge because if she did not it would prevent her from drawing unemployment compensation for 5 weeks and that she would go to any lengths to keep from being disqualified. Counsel for the General Counsel maintains that the reasons given by the Respondent for Rose's release are mere pretext and that Rose was discharged because of her union activity. The Respondent contends that Rose was discharged solely for the reasons advanced in her discharge notice which, in sum, were that Rose's performance during her probationary period did not meet the desired standards for making her a permanent employee. In seeking to establish that Rose did not meet the necessary standards, the Respondent maintains, on the basis of the testimony of Green, Tull, and Whitson, that Rose was a temporary employee who, under the Respondent's method of operation, may be merely released as contrasted with discharge of a regular employee. Yet, analysis of the testimony leads to the conclusion that the only real difference between a probationary employee and a permanent employee is that the latter receives fringe benefits, for example, seniority rights. Also, on cross-examination , Tull admitted that some permanent employees who are retained maintain efficiency averages of less than 100 percent. In contrast, Rose was allegedly released for failing to maintain such average. The explanation given by Tull for the reason that the permanent employees were not discharged was that the standards were not evaluated properly in the case of the permanent employees. Tull gave no specific example nor was any specific example proffered by any Respondent witness. Accordingly, I can only conclude that by its own testimony Respondent expects more efficiency from the probationary employees who are relatively inexperienced at their jobs than from permanent employees who are experienced. I cannot accept this. Respondent further maintains that Rose's efficiency was consistently low as were her general performance and her versatility. Yet, Tull, on cross-examination, admitted that Rose had potential equal to that of any other employee. What, then, caused Rose's low efficiency? Certainly, changes from job to job, sometimes several times a day, could decrease the efficiency of an experienced hand, no less a new employee's learning the work . But, in connection with its contention that Rose was changed no more than other employees, Respondent introduced, as noted , figures showing the average number of jobs performed by Rose and other probationary employees working during approximately the same period. If accepted at face value these figures would establish that Rose was changed no more than any other employees. Yet, these statistics become somewhat suspect in view of the fact that Betty Wade testified, and I credit her testimony, that Wade spent most of her time on one machine. AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 461 Moreover, Tull admitted on cross-examination that Mary Hymer, another probationary employee who was discharged, spent a substantial amount of time working at a single operation. Additionally, Respondent did not offer any efficiency ratings for the other employees whose names appeared on the exhibit which demonstrated the average jobs per day. Therefore I find the exhibit inclusive as to the point for which it was introduced. As noted above, the Respondent also introduced into evidence an exhibit which purported to show the percentage of efficiency for Rose from December 7 through March 2. This exhibit shows that for the most part Rose's efficiency was less than 100 percent with the exception of several days. However, even taken at face value and disregarding counsel for the General Counsel's argument that the figures contained on this exhibit are erroneous, the exhibit does not in any manner show comparisons between Rose's efficiency percentages and those of other employees similarly situated. Nor is there any testimony showing such comparison. Therefore, standing alone, the figures have no meaning since there is no measure of comparison to show that Rose was less efficient than any other employee with her experience and with the number of job changes Rose encountered. I find, therefore, that Respondent's exhibits as to Rose are inconclusive at best. There remains the testimony, chiefly of Tull, that Rose was not only inefficient, but talked to other employees excessively on worktime and was too frequently absent from her work station. Whitson's testimony supports that of Tull. Rose, on the other hand, categorically denied this and in her testimony stated that she was absent from her work station no more than any other employee. Nor did she talk any more than other employees. This, then, resolves into an issue of credibility. In disposing of the same, I note that Rose was not reprimanded or even reminded of her alleged deficiencies in comportment until the day immediately following Rose's testifying at the representation hearing. Moreover, Tull admitted that the two employees who complained about Rose's talking, neither of whom were called to testify, complained of Rose's talking about the Union. I conclude, from the foregoing, that there is some truth in both Rose's testimony and the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses. I find that Rose's denials were exaggerated and that in her enthusiasm for the union cause she did, indeed, interfere to some extent with her work and the work of others. However, this was not made an issue until Rose made her union views known and until she testified at the representation hearing. This testifying, together with the Respondent's admitted knowledge of Rose's union activities with regard to the questions she asked after the speeches given by the Respondent's various officials, and her conversations with Green and Thornton, became the turning point at which the Respondent for the first time decided to call these matters to Rose's attention and thereby gave them significance. I also find an absence in the record of any showing that any of the Respondent's supervisors kept records of the times that any employees, other than Rose, were away from their respective work stations. Of course, I do not ignore the testimony of Tull that he kept these records only because he wanted to substantiate what he already knew in his own mind; namely, that Rose was not giving sufficient attention to her work. However, in view of all the testimony and of all the facts surrounding Rose's discharge, I do not find this explanation to be very convincing. Respondent further contends that another reason to discharge Rose was because of the unauthorized job change. Whether this job change actually occurred and was a violation of the Respondent's shop work rules does not seem to me to be particularly significant. If, indeed, Tull received word from Whitson that Rose had changed jobs with Wade and this was a violation of an enforced work rule, then even if Rose did not actually change jobs with Wade, Tull's action in making this cause for discharging Rose could not be questioned. However, I note that Betty Wade was also discharged at about the same time as Rose. She was also a probationary employee. However, I also note that the reason for her discharge, or at least one of the reasons for her discharge , was not the alleged unlawful job change. Accordingly, I hold and find that the alleged job-change reason for Rose's discharge is, like so many of the other matters heretofore discussed, without any great significance. The Respondent contends that as others who testified at the representation hearing are still employed , Rose's discharge could not have been discriminatorily motivated. I, nevertheless, conclude that this is not persuasive in view of all the other facts of the case. Rose was sufficiently well known to the Respondent by reason of her conversation with Green and Thornton, by reason of her questions at the Green and Mancheski speeches, and by reason of her testifying on behalf of the Union at the representation hearing to have been considered by the management of the Respondent as a union leader . It is not necessary in order to find a discriminatorily motivated discharge that the dischargee be the most important union leader or, indeed, the only union leader. The fact that others were not discharged who also were union leaders is also not compelling in the light of the refusal by the Respondent to raise the wage rate of employee Ross whom the Respondent accused of being a union leader. Thus, there is established, aside from any evidence directly connected with Rose, that the Respondent did, indeed , resent union adherence , union leadership, and union organizing activities on behalf of its employees. These factors, when considered further in the light of the Respondent's commission of other unfair labor practices as heretofore set forth, lead to the conclusion that Rose was, indeed , discharged for her union activities. Demonstrations by an employer of antiunionism are highly significant factors for evaluation in determining motive for a discharge.'' Accordingly, while good cause may have existed as a basis for a discharge in Rose's case, I am, nevertheless, convinced and I find that had Rose not been active on behalf of the Union, and had her prounion adherence and sympathies not come to the attention of Respondent's officials, Rose would not have been discharged. Having so found I further find that because the campaign against Rose stemmed from the date that she testified on behalf of the Union at the representation hearing, that her discharge was also motivated by resentment for her testifying at such hearing. Accordingly, I find and conclude that by discharging Rose discriminatorily because of her union activity and because she testified for the Union at the representation 1-1 N L R.B v Dan River Mills, Inc , 274 F 2d 381 ,385 (C A 5) 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act. IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION As noted above, on March 28, 1966, the Union filed objections to the election in Case 17-RC-4967 These objections were very broadly stated with little specificity and are as follows: (1) promises of benefits and benefits to destroy the Union's majority; (2) threatening individual employees with reprisals if they voted for the Union; and (3) third party intervention by sponsoring and/or publishing newspaper advertisements, editorials, and threats from business and professional individuals of the community. As to Objection 1, I find nothing in the record to support the allegation that the Respondent made promises of benefit of gave benefits to destroy the Union's majority. I have hereto rejected under the section entitled "Interference, Coercion, and Restraint" all allegations to that effect. With regard to Objection 2, I have heretofore found that the Respondent had threatened individual employees with reprisals if they voted for the Union and it is unnecessary for me to here discuss them again because the Board has held on a number of occasions that similar unfair labor practices which are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, are a fortiori conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election. tt' Accordingly, upon these findings alone 1 would recommend that the election be set aside. With regard to Objection 3, as stated heretofore, there is little specificity in the objection as to just what newspaper article or articles or advertisements or publications of any kind are claimed to have been objectionable. Nor did the Charging Union, which filed the objections, point this out at the hearing. Neither did it file a brief. Under the circumstances I can but guess what portions of certain newspaper publications the Union contends are subject to objection. Since this is so, I have carefully inspected all of the exhibits containing either newspaper editorials or newspaper advertisements and find one advertisement included in the Independent Kansas Reporter, of Thursday, March 24, 1966, the day of the election, to have contained wording which could possibly be construed as coercive. This advertisement which covers a full page in the aforesaid newspaper begins with an address "To Our Friends and Neighbors who work for industries in Independence." It then goes on for three paragraphs to state, in substance, that the community is very fortunate to have several new plants located there and that with the wages earned by these people who work for these new industries they have been able to buy cars, furniture, and homes. The second paragraph states, in substance, that Independence has been successful in getting industry to locate there because of favorable labor rates plus the fine people who are willing to work in these plants. Then, it says, the community offers nothing that these companies cannot get in other parts of the country much closer to their source of raw materials and much closer to their "' Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417, 1419, Industrial Steel Products Company, Inc , 143 NLRB 336, 347 " Claussen Baking Company, 134 NLRB 111, P D Lwaltney, Jr, and Company, Inc , 74 NLRB 371 markets. The third paragraph talks in terms of the labor organizers wanting to choke off the very thing that Independence has to offer industry by threatening demands that will increase operating expenses of these companies beyond all proportion to profits This paragraph ends with the message that the unions are not interested in the Company or the employees but only in themselves. Following this paragraph is a star printed in the middle of the column under which the following wording appears: Believe us when we tell you that any company in Independence can leave here tomorrow. There is no compelling reason, legal or otherwise, that says anyone of them must remain if it is not making progress In view of the fact that the paragraph before the one above quoted states that organizers threatened to choke off the only thing they had to offer industry by threatening demands that would increase operating expenses of these companies beyond all proportion to profits, I find that the quoted paragraph contains an indirect and veiled threat that if the Union comes in the companies involved would move or would probably move from Independence. The advertisement listed signatories whose names are quite meaningless to the reader without explanation. It can only be assumed that these are townspeople of some standing. But before this list there appears the following "lets not go back to the times we all experienced after we lost Fran and Rilco. Lets keep industry as a vital part of the future, not as a memory of the past." I believe and I find that the entire advertisement is, as stated above, a threat that if the Union comes in the industries would move from Independence. There is no evidence that the Respondent was in anyway connected with this advertisement other than the mere happenstance that its plant is located in the city in which the advertisement appears. However, the Board has held in election cases such as this, where objections have been filed, that all factors which would make an impartial election impossible must be considered regardless of their source." Accordingly, and without further discussion as to the other items which were introduced into evidence by the objecting Union," I find and conclude that the foregoing newspaper article was of sufficient impact upon the employees to constitute such a threat to them that they were prevented from exercising their free and untrammeled choice in the election which was held on the same day that the article appeared. This is especially true because the city of Independence is an exceedingly small community. Accordingly, I shall recommend, that in view of all of the foregoing, the election be set aside and a new election be held at a proper time. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practice in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend "' I make no rulings regarding the marked ballot, reward, newspaper violence article, or check-deduction incidents inasmuch as these were not specifically alleged in the filed objection AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 463 to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY Having found, as set forth above, that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. One of the more basic rights conferred upon employees by Section 7 of the Act is the right to freely, and without coercion or restraint from their employer, express their choice in a Board-conducted election designed to determine the wishes of the employees with respect to a collective-bargaining representative. Since it has been found that Respondent interfered with this right, an order commensurate with the violations found and designed to assure Respondent's employees the opportunity to fully and expressly exercise the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act is appropriate. However, the General Counsel in his request for relief and annexed to his brief has requested certain remedies which are applicable to matters which were not alleged in the complaint or in the objections to the election herein. He thus refers to the Respondent's alleged defacing of election notices and locking them in glass- covered bulletin boards, the Respondent's posting of objectional photographs, articles, and letters on its bulletin board, none of which were alleged in the complaint or set forth in the objections to the election. Accordingly, I shall issue an order commensurate only with the findings hereinabove found. It having been found that the Respondent by threats, interrogation, and creation of the impression of surveillance, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom. It having been found that the Respondent has discriminatorily discharged employee Nedra Rose and discriminatorily refused to raise the wages of employee Raymond Ross, I shall recommend the Respondent offer Rose immediate and full reinstatement to her formerly or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights or privileges. I further recommend that the Respondent restore to Ross the wage rate to which he would have been entitled had not the Respondent discriminated against him. In addition, I recommend that the Respondent make both Ross and Rose whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned from the date of discharge, in the case of Rose, and the refusal to raise wages in the case of Ross, to the date of the beginning of the payment of the proper wage rate to Ross, less net earnings during the said period. Backpay shall be computed with interest on a quarterly basis in a manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices herein found, including discrimination "which goes to the very heart of the Act,"'" there exists the danger of commission by the Respondent of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondent be directed to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act."' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Automotive Controls Corp., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees with regard to their union activities and sympathies, by creating the impression of surveillance of the employees' union activities, and by threatening employees that the Respondent would close its plant if the Union were to be successful in its campaign to organize the Respondent's employees, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminatorily discharging employee Nedra Rose and discriminatorily refusing to raise the wage rate of employee Raymond Ross the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By discharging employee Rose because Rose testified at a representation hearing involving the Respondent's employees, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that Automotive Control Corp., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities and their attitude toward the Union, creating the impression of surveillance of union activity, threatening employees with reprisals including threats to close the plant if the Union were selected by the employees to become their bargaining representative. (b) Telling employees that the Respondent is aware of the identity of union adherents and is maintaining a list of such names. (c) Discouraging membership in Local No. 128, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging any employee for engaging in protected union or concerted activity, by discriminating against employees by refusing to raise their wage rates for engaging in protected union or concerted activities, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to form, join, assist , or be represented by Local No. 128, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose of " N L.R B v Entwistle Mfg Co 120 F 2d 532,536 (C A 4) =11 NJ. R B. v Express Publishing Company, 312 U S 426,433 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Nedra Rose immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. (b) Raise the wage rate of employee Raymond Ross to that which he would have received had he not been discriminated against. (c) Make Nedra Rose and Raymond Ross whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records and reports, and all other reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under this Order. (e) Post at its plant in Independence, Kansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."21 [Board's Appendix A substituted for Trial Examiner's.] Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of March 24, 1966, be set aside. 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 21 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX B TALK GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES OF AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS CORP ., INDEPENDENCE, KANSAS by Frederick J. Mancheski , President March 23-24. 1966 On Friday afternoon you will be making a very important decision concerning your future and the future of this plant. For your sake, I urge you to vote "no" to having a union in this plant. Why do we urge you to vote "no"? Because, first of all, this plant is in its infancy. We are trying to build a business here that is providing you with a job at pay rates that are comparable to those in this area. As a young business, we are like a baby and any sickness could easily be fatal. We think that a union at this time could cause us so many more problems that they can hurt this business. We feel this because we know that a union, by its nature, has to create conflict between the Company and its employees just as they are doing in this attempt to unionize this plant-so that the union can justify its existence and collection of dues. Since we began in the voltage regulator business here in Independence, we have lost over a half a million dollars. We made a small profit in October 1965 but since then we have lost money. As I explained to you a few weeks ago, we have confidence that with your complete help we can lick the problems that are causing these losses. But if we have to be constantly paying mote attention to a union who is trying to create problems where there are none or having a strike called which could cause some of our present and prospective customers to buy their regulators from our competitors, you can be sure that we will not become profitable. With your help and without a union, we feel strongly we can turn this plant around to a profitable condition this year. We know, and I hope we have been able to convince you of our sincerity, that when we have a profitable plant we fairly share with you in the benefits of a prosperous plant. We need your help to first of all prevent a union from creating more problems and possibly causing us to lose customers; secondly, to reduce our scrap and rejects on parts, sub assemblies and finished voltage regulators; third, to reduce the lost operator time that we are experiencing; fourth, to reduce waste time and materials in any form; fifth, to keep the union out so that we can concentrate on solving the problems. We urge that you vote "no" for many reasons. The second important reason is that the union has lied to you. They say that federal law prohibits collections of fines by unions. Yet, their constitution-which we obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor-states in Article 23, Payment of Fines, sub division 7, section f. "All fines legally levied or imposed shall be charged by the financial secretary against the member from whom due and must be paid by the member involved to the financial secretary within 30 days." The union said on March 2 that federal law prohibits collection of fines. How come their constitution says they can and will collect fines. They further state in their constitution, "Members six months in arrears shall be expelled from membership." Does this union keep a constitution that is in direct violation of federal law? Why not ask the organizers to explain this one? If any of you care to see the constitution, we have a copy available right here for you to look at and verify this. Now, who is lying? Here are some digests of decisions of the National Labor Relations Board with case citations and dates which clearly show that the union has deliberately told you an untruth. In this case, U.A.W. and the Wisconsin Motor Corp. were involved. The N.L.R.B. upheld a union's right to fine a member $100 for exceeding production ceilings established by the union for piece work. In the next case between the Steelworkers Union-Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Company, the N.L.R.B. held that a union was justified in suspending an employee from union membership because the employees had filed a petition seeking an election to decertify (vote out) the AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS 465 union. The union had originally suspended the employee from membership for 5 years in a plant where employees had to be members of the union to keep their job. Also the union had fined the employee $500 plus the cost of the union's hearing. The local union finally dropped the fine when the international union dictated such action to them upon appeal by the individual fined but the suspension was enforced ! In effect, the individual was denied his right to work by the union in a plant where he had no apparent quarrel with the company. The N.L.R.B. said the action of the union was legal ! We urge you to vote "no" for another reason because again the union has lied to you. They say only you can vote an assessment. Yet, their constitution says in Article 11 under Other Fees, Taxes and Assessments, Section 7-"Subject to applicable law other fees, taxes, assessments and other charges for obtaining income for the International Union for any purpose may be increased, decreased, changed or added from time to time by the General Convention or the General Executive Board. Again, we quote from the union handout of March 2. "Only you by secret majority vote can cause an assessment." Have these union people been telling you the truth? We urge you to vote "no" because the union has lied to you in another case. They say that we are making high profits in this plant. The facts are that to date we have lost over a half a million dollars. We did make a small profit in October. The union has lied to you in another case. They say that we cannot lay people off if you vote in a union. We can and will, if necessary, union or no union. They say that Automotive Controls cannot move if you have a union . We can move any time it proves to be an undesirable plant location, whether there is a union present or not. All these specific illustrations of where the union has lied to you should help to convince you that they are not to be trusted with your welfare, with your job and with your future. Automotive Controls, on the other hand, has everything to lose if we lied to you. We made an investment of over $2,000,000 in this plant, in its products and in training you. We are trying to build something for our future prosperity, as well as yours. By contrast, the union on the other hand has invested the time of a few men for a few months. Their whole campaign has cost them very little but they stand to rake in about $20,000 a year, every year, from your pay unless they raise your dues and get even more. It's this combination of union lies, money grabbing, misuse of union funds, abuse of union members and the mental and physical anguish that power made union leaders inflict on their members individually or en masse as they do by calling senseless strikes, it is this combination of union tactics that's caused the unions to decline in their growth rate, to cause thinking people such as you to reject unions by a margin of 3 to 1 throughout our country. That, coupled with 40 years of experience in treating people right, has caused the employees of this company not to be members of a union by a margin of 9 to 1. If we aren't telling you the truth, we know that you would vote for a union at the next opportunity and, frankly, I wouldn't blame you for doing so if we lied to you. However, the union works on the old Hitler. Goebbels tactics of telling you lies often enough and soon people begin to believe it. If they tell you that you should be unhappy often enough, you will soon believe you have justification for being so. The union's primary weapons are to create unrest and mistrust. If you vote in a union, you can expect more of this. A vote for a union is a vote that you want to work in a plant where you don't know from one day to the next what kind of artificial trouble the union officials will generate to prove to you how well they are looking after your interests. If you want to work in a plant where you can be continuously upset, can make no plans because you don't know if you will lose a month or two's income because some power happy union official wants to throw his weight around, a plant where it is possible that physical violence and coercion could take place on the part of the union members, where they could call a strike, a plant where you are constantly upset, if this is what you want, then you should vote for a union. Frankly, we have more faith in your good judgment than to expect that that is the kind of working environment you want. That faith is what led us to decide to build the plant here. If you have people calling on you in the next couple of days saying they are fellow employees and want to convince you that they and everybody else is for a union , I hope you will remember that the union organizers are not above lying to you. We have reason to believe they are running scared. Working together and without a union , we can lick the remaining problems which are largely the result of having grown too fast in this plant, of having to train too many people at one time, having to develop new products, new processes, new methods, new equipment, tools and dies-all at the same time. With your help we can make this the best place to work in this area, much as we have done at our other plants. We have already provided you with a place to work that you can be proud of. We have provided working conditions that are equal to or better than any in the area. We have provided you with a job that didn't exist prior to the opening of this plant. We provided you with a good job security by getting more customers to buy the products that you make. We have provided you with an opportunity to earn more money, based largely on your skills and desire to do so. We want to do more and we will, given the time and your wholehearted cooperation and without the so- called "help" of the union but we cannot at this time. What would you do if you had a plant that was losing money? We want to make this plant a place that is profitable and where we can all share in the benefits of a profitable plant by means of improved base rate wages and fringe benefits. But, first of all, we need to be able to make a profit. We want to make this plant a place where your individual needs are carefully considered rather than a place where a rigid contract must be applied uniformly without regard for personal considerations. We ask that you help us to achieve these goals because they are in your best personal interests. I ask you to take the first step by voting "no union." Before you vote I also urge you to take a good look at the people in this plant who are trying hardest to persuade you to vote for a union and try to figure out what these agitators' motives are for wanting a union . Also, take a good hard look at the union 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organizers who have come into this area. What kind of people are they? What are their morals? Do they lie? What is their reputation? Do you want these people to be your personal representative? It isn't unusual for a union to plant some agitators from outside the community in a plant that they are trying to organize or to promise a sizable part of your dues to some existing employee if they are successful in getting you to vote in a union. Take a good look at the hard core union agitators in this plant and ask yourself what are they trying to get? Take a good look at them. Generally, don't you find that they are the extremists in the organization? Aren't they likely to be either loud, noisy. perpetually unhappy people who are unhappy with almost everybody and everything? Aren't they likely to be highly critical, even of their closest friends? Aren't they the kind of people who are rarely satisfied, either at work or at home, and even when they are out trying to have a good time? Aren't they generally officious, trying to get their own way and looking down on everyone else when they can't? Aren't they generally ruthless in their efforts to get their way, by name calling. trying to freeze you out of conversation with others, parties and other kinds of affairs? Aren't they likely to be bitter in their attitude and talk, biting in their comments? In short. aren't they chronically and virtually perpetually unhappy with themselves and everyone and everything else? Unfortunately, these same hard core agitators are usually the ones who wind up representing you if you vote in a union. They see an opportunity to make themselves more important in their eyes. to obtain super seniority over you regardless of the date they were hired. These same power happy malcontents may ask you to give them moral support during negotiations, tf you vote in a union, by having a strike vote agreed on so that they can better negotiate. Once you do that. the decision of whether you go out on strike is up to them because you have already given your approval. Take a look at the strike history of the operating engineers on this chart. Or, you may find that these same agitators due to their attitude of being highly critical and unhappy even under the best conditions may decide to call a wildcat strike or a walkout whether you like it or not. Many good employees under this situation will go along, just because they don't want to make any more trouble for themselves The turmoil and conflict that these union organizers and agitators have created in the past couple of months is only a sample of what you can be subjected to if you vote a union into this plant. The strained relations it has caused in this plant , even between friends, can get even worse with a union Remember the union and its agitators thrive on conflict. We don't think this is the way you want this plant. We urge you to vote "no union." Ask yourself if you want the union agitators representing you and to have power over you-power over how much you can earn on incentive-power to fine you if you are not in their favor-power to make your presence in this plant miserable if you don't keep their friendships-power to force you to strike since they are the only legal representatives the company can deal with if you vote in a union-power to bypass you if you are out of favor with them-power to withhold any help you may want unless you agree with them-power to create a good deal of mental and physical anguish if you don't follow the union line. There really isn't any need to subject yourself to the use of such power. 75% of the U.S. working force have decided they don't want this kind of power used on them and consequently they don't belong to a union. 90% of our employees know that they don't need a union nor do they want one because we are fair with them We know how to work together. We ask you to help us in order to help yourself. Please vote "no union" by marking the "no" box on the ballot.