Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc.

TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 8--CA-4291, 8-CA-4423, and 8-RC-6480 June 28,1967 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On April 28, 1967, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peter- son issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended dismissal as to them. The Trial Examiner further found that certain conduct engaged in by Respondent constituted grounds for setting aside the election conducted in'Case 8-RC-6480 on Oc- tober 14, 1966. Thereafter the Respondent-Em- ployer filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. i ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it al- leges violations of the Act not found herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on October 14, 1966, among the employees in the 166 NLRB No. 37 71 designated unit at Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election 2 omitted from publication. ] ' The Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility determinations , to which the Respondent has excepted. After a careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all rele- vant evidence. Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing those findings. Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). 8 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 8 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 ex- tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex- cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require- ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob- jections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IVAR H . PETERSON, Trial Examiner : Upon charges filed on July 11, 1966 , amended on August 15, by Inter- national Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 19 against Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by terminating and refusing to reinstate an employee, Patricia Blue. Thereafter, pursuant to a representation petition filed by the Union on September 20, 1966 (Case 8-RC-6480), and a stipulation for certification upon con- sent election executed by the Union and the Respondent and approved by the Regional Director, an election was conducted among the Respondent's production and main- tenance employees on October 14, resulting in a vote of 64 to 41 against the Union . Timely objections were filed by the Union, and an additional charge on November 23 (Case 8-CA-4423), alleging violation of Section 8(a)(1) by substantially the same conduct as formed the basis of its objections to the election. In his report on objections issued on December 1 the Regional Director stated that, since the evidence offered in support of the objections was substantially identical to that offered in support of the allegations in Case 8-CA-4423, and raised substan- tial credibility issues, a consolidated hearing would be held on the objections and on the complaint to issue in Case 8-CA-4423. The complaint in the latter case issued on December 5, and on the same date the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the three cases for the purposes of hearing. The Respondent filed timely an- swers to each of the complaints, denying that it had en- gaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held by me on Janu- ary 18 and 19, 1967, at Van Wert, Ohio, in which all parties participated. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union filed briefs, which have been fully considered. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the entire record in the consolidated proceeding, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at its Van Wert, Ohio, plant in the manufacture and sale of corn trols for the aircraft, automotive, and boating industries. It annually sells and ships manufactured products valued in excess of $$50,000 from its Van Wert plant to points outside the State of Ohio. The Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discharge of Patricia Blue Mrs. Blue began work for the Respondent on May 9,1 the same date as eight other employees. She and the other eight employees who started work that day were told that their employment was temporary and was expected to last about 3 weeks. At her initial employment interview Mrs. Blue was told that if at the end of the 3 weeks the temporary employees were laid off they would be eligible for future recall in the event additional jobs opened up because they would be experienced. Shortly before the end of the 3-week period Mrs. Blue and other employees on the third shift were told by General Foreman Richard Hughes, so Mrs. Blue testified, that the third shift would continue and no one would be laid off.2 About a week later Blue's immediate foreman, Blane Sturgill, indicated to her that the third shift might be discontinued but that the qualified tempora- ry employees would continue to be employed and asked her as to her shift preference in that event. Blue told him she would prefer the second shift and Sturgill said that she would "get to stay because I have got your name on the top of the list." The third shift was not discontinued and was operating at the time of the hearing; however, Mrs. Blue was terminated on June 18, as will sub- sequently appear. The Union began its organizational efforts about May 10, when Arthur Fagan, an International representative, contacted employee Frances Turnwald and gave her a supply of union authorization cards to distribute among the employees. Fagan held a meeting on May 26 with six or eight employees, all of whom signed cards and received additional cards to use in signing up other em- ployees. Between May 26 and June 18 some 25 or 30 signed authorization cards had been returned to the ' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1966. 2 Hughes testified he told the group that "if the employees themselves would ever become permanent there is a possibility that the third shift may stay on " It is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. 3 Blue and Thatcher had been employed on the same day, May 9, as had the other temporary employees, and their clock numbers were, respectively, 6097 and 6098 The Respondent's published policy provided Union. Mrs. Blue signed a card and in addition obtained signed cards from six other employees. About June 11 she distributed two other cards that were not returned to her. Early during the week ending Saturday, June 18, the sixth week of employment of the temporary employees, Hachy Horasan, the Respondent's manufacturing manager, determined (so he testified) that production requirements necessitated terminating three of the tempo- rary employees. He asked General Foreman Hughes "whether he had anyone that he wanted to terminate," and Hughes mentioned J. Gutierrez and C. Stevens as two that he considered should be released. They were ter- minated at the end of the third shift on June 16. Horasan told Hughes that he would select the third person to be terminated, and testified that one reason he decided to "handle it myself" was to create "as little disturbance in the plant and be as fair as possible to all concerned." Horasan further testified that since the selection of the third person to be laid off would be from the temporary employees on the third shift and because the Respondent "had already anticipated discharging" Sturgill, the foreman on the third shift, he did not seek advice from Sturgill. Inasmuch as Horasan had no personal knowledge of the relative abilities of the temporary em- ployees, he consulted the production efficiency sheets of the two junior temporary employees, Blue and M. Thatcher, for the preceding 2 or 3 weeks.3 Horasan testified that he looked at the production records "rather superficially" and concluded therefrom that Blue "was somewhat less efficient" than Thatcher. He acknowl- edged that, upon the basis of computations made during the prehearing investigation, the difference between Blue's production efficiency and Thatcher's was "slight," that the recorded daily efficiencies of the temporary em- ployees varied widely from standard, and that during this period the Respondent was experiencing difficulties with machine breakdowns. General Foreman Hughes, testified that, after being in- formed by Horasan that Blue was to be terminated, he left a note to that effect on June 17 for the third shift foreman, Sturgill. According to Hughes, the note stated in sub- stance that Blue was to be released on account of her inef- ficiency and because she was not suited for the Respond- ent's type of operation. Hughes further testified that after Mrs. Blue had been released he received a telephone call from her in which she asked why she had been ter- minated and that he told her it was for efficiency reasons and that he felt she was not suited for the work. To her inquiry whether she would be rehired, Hughes testified that he replied that that was up to the personnel depart- ment. The following week Hughes made out a termina- tion report for Mrs. Blue, giving as the reason for her discharge: "Because of not meeting standards. Plus was not improving." He also checked the box on the form stating that he "would not accept this employee for work in my department under any conditions," and explained this by adding that if she could not meet standards in 6 weeks of employment she would not be able to meet stan- dards if "given another chance." that, in the case of employees hired the same day the employee with the lower clock number "will be recognized as having longer length of service than employees having higher clock numbers " In the case of temporary layoff, employees "with the least amount of service shall be the first laid off." Horasan testified that it was pursuant to this policy that he consulted only the production efficiency records of Blue and Thatcher TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS Mrs. Blue testified that about 1 :30 a.m. on June 18 Foreman Sturgill told her she was to be laid off that night; when she asked him why, he replied , "Because you are temporary help." She answered that she did not think that was a good reason , and Sturgill then showed her the note Hughes had left. Her recollection of the content of the note was that it directed Sturgill to lay her off "as of tonight" and to give as the reason "temporary help." She testified that she told Sturgill that she thought she would call Hughes in the morning after completion of the shift to "talk to him and find out what the reason was that I was laid off." To this, Sturgill answered, "Maybe you better not call, because that is going to add more kindling to the fire and he probably won't give you a reason." She did call Hughes, on Saturday morning after completing the shift, and testified that she asked him if she was "laid off or fired," and that he replied she was laid off and that he had no reason to fire her. When she said the other tem- porary girls were still working, Hughes answered that within a week the third shift would be discontinued and all the girls on that shift would be laid off. To her inquiry whether she would be called back Hughes answered that he could not promise that she would, as that was up to Horasan and William Myers of the personnel department. Sturgill, who was also terminated by the Respondent on June 18, testified as a witness for the General Counsel regarding the discharge of Mrs. Blue and her ability as a worker. About 3 or 4 weeks before her termination, by his account, he and Raymond Sonya,4 the second-shift foreman, were in conversation on a Saturday morning with Hughes near the latter 's office. Sonya stated, ac- cording to Sturgill, that he had been told by one of the girls under his supervision that Mrs. Blue "was talking about a union"; Hughes remarked, by Sturgill's account, "that is another one we are going to have to get rid of." Three or four days later, while Sturgill was in Hughes' of- fice, Hughes said, "We are going to have to get rid of Pat Blue, she has been talking about a union," and added that he did not care what kind of reason was given but to find a reason. Sturgill said that it would be difficult to find a reason as Blue was one of the best workers under his su- pervision. When Sturgill found Hughes' note on the night of June 17 directing him to terminate Blue, he telephoned Hughes to discuss the matter . His testimony on direct ex- amination as to the content of the note and his conversa- tion with Hughes was as follows: Q. As well as you can recall what did the note say? A. As much as I can remember of the note it said get rid of Pat Blue and use the reason that she is on tem- porary help, that is as much as I can remember. Q. Do you have this note? A. No, I don't I threw it away. Q. All right, you say you then called Mr. Hughes? A. Yes. Q. Would you describe for us the conversation between yourself and Mr. Hughes on the telephone? 73 A. I called Hughes and asked him about the note and he said yes to get rid of her about five minutes before quitting time. I told him that she was one of the best workers and he said she has been talking more about the union and that was it. On cross-examination Sturgill testified as follows in this regard: Q. All right now.... when were you given instruc- tions to terminate her? A. On the night of June 17, when I went to use Hughes' office to get information for the work. Q. You didn't expect to see him but to see if he left anything for you? A. To see if he left anything for me. Q. And you found a note, is that right? A. I found a note. Q. The note said what? A. To get rid of Pat Blue and use the reason that she is only temporary help. * * * * Q. (By Mr. Lees) Was it the impression that you got from the note left by Hughes that you were supposed to get rid of her permanently? A. Over the phone that was explained to me, I didn't get much out of the note. Q. You called Hughes up and what did he say to you then? A. He said we would have to get rid of her [as] she was talking too much about the union. Q. You didn't gather from that she was supposed to get her job back did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. You are saying that you went to her then and said that she was laid off? A. Yes. Q. What did she say to you and what did you say to her? A. She wanted to know what the reason was. I just told her that she was laid off, that that 's the way that Dick [Hughes] wanted it. 4 The General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript to show Sonya's name as above, rather than "Sonia," is granted. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Did you understand that when she walked away from you that she thought that she was going to get her job back? * * A. When i said she was laid off she might have had that impression. Q. She might have got the impression from the word you used? A. Yeah, layoff, she might have thought she would be called back. According to Sturgill, about 3 or 4 weeks before Blue's termination he was asked by Hughes to rate the em- ployees on the third shift as to their attitude toward their work and their adaptability. It is his testimony that he rated Mrs. Blue as the best on the basis of these criteria and that he submitted the rating results to Hughes in writing.5 He did not, however, consult production records in making his evaluation, as these were available in the office. As set forth above, Sturgill also told Hughes, in the second conversation in which Hughes said they would have to get rid of Mrs. Blue because she was "talk- ing about a union," that it would be difficult to find a reason as she was one of the best workers under his su- pervision; he repeated that evaluation in talking with Hughes the night of June 17, after receiving Hughes' note to terminate Mrs. Blue but before doing so. Hughes testified that he did not remember having a meeting with Sonya and Sturgill on a Saturday morning, as testified by Sturgill, in which Sonya identified Mrs. Blue as being engaged in union activity and Hughes com- mented that she would have to be terminated.6 Hughes was not questioned specifically about the conversation that Sturgill testified that he and Hughes had 3 or 4 days later, in which Hughes allegedly said Mrs. Blue was "talking about a union" and that a reason would have to be found to get rid of her. Nor was he questioned about the telephone call Sturgill testified that he made to Hughes the night of June 17, after receiving Hughes' note to lay off Mrs. Blue, in which Hughes, according to Stur- gill, again said she was to be terminated because she had been "talking more about the union." Hughes did testify that, at the time of the alleged conversation in which Sonya identified Mrs. Blue as talking about a union, he was unaware of any union activity on her part; he an- swered negatively when asked whether "at the meeting or at any other time" he made "the comment that Sturgill said that you made to Sturgill and Sonya." As of Wednesday, June 22, the week following Mrs. Blue's termination, the remaining five temporary em- ployees were given permanent status. During the balance of June following Mrs. Blue's discharge, the Respondent hired 11 new employees and terminated 2 employees, for a net increase of 9, and in the next 3 months hired a total of 67 new employees for a net increase of 22 in its work force.7 Mrs. Blue was not offered reemployment. Both Mrs. Blue and Sturgill impressed me as straightforward, sincere witnesses. I preceived nothing in their demeanor while testifying to suggest that their ac- counts were fabricated or colored by bias. On the other hand, General Foreman Hughes appeared to me to be less than candid. Although he characterized the preelec- tion campaign as being "very bitter" and attended by an unnecessary gathering of employees, he initially testified that he first learned of the Union's efforts to organize when the conference to arrange the consent election was held, which would be sometime after the petition was' filed on September 20, but then stated he became aware of such activity earlier. Although he testified he was not aware of Mrs. Blue's union activity 3 or 4 weeks before her termination, and denied commenting thereon at the meeting with Sturgill and Sonya "or at any other time," he was not asked directly about the June 17 telephone conversation with Sturgill in which he again said (accord- ing to Sturgill) that Mrs. Blue would have to be released because she had been "talking more about the union." The testimony of Hughes regarding the content of the note he left for Sturgill and the conversation he had with Mrs. Blue after her discharge, seems implausible. If, as he testified, the note stated Blue was to be released because of low production and unsuited to the Respondent's operations, the message would certainly have been clear that she was being terminated and not laid off and thus made unnecessary (or at least superfluous) Blue's later inquiry, after seeing the note and completing the shift, about her status and the possibility of future employment. I doubt that Mrs. Blue, a mature woman, would ask Hughes about the possibility of future employment after reading the note directing her termination in the terms testified to by Hughes and after being told the same thing in the telephone conversation. Nor do I believe that Stur- gill would have called Hughes on the night of June 17 if the note was as unambiguous as Hughes would have it. I am persuaded that Blue and Sturgill were more reliable witnesses than Hughes, and accordingly I credit their testimony where it is in conflict with that of Hughes. Thus I find, consistent with Sturgill's testimony, that Hughes learned of Blue's union activity from Foreman Sonya 3 or 4 weeks before her termination and on that oc- casion, as well as a few days later, remarked to Sturgill that she would have to be terminated. I further find that the note left by Hughes for Sturgill said Mrs. Blue was to be laid off or let go because she was temporary help and that when Sturgill called Hughes Friday evening, June 17, to ask Hughes about the note, Hughes made clear that Blue was to be terminated, despite Sturgill's state- ment that she was one of the best workers, because she had been "talking more about the union." When Blue was informed by Sturgill that she was laid off because she was temporary help, she remarked that she did not think that was a good reason; thereupon Sturgill showed her Hughes' note. She then said that she thought she would call Hughes in the morning after finishing the shift and ask him why she was laid off; Sturgill's cryptic reply was that perhaps she should not call Hughes as that would 5 Hughes admitted that he had requested Sturgill to make such an Month New hires Terminations Net Increase evaluation, but could not recall receiving a written report or being told by Sturgill that any particular individual was the best of the group. July 14 11 3 B Although a witness for the Respondent, Foreman Sonya was not August 16 11 5 questioned about this incident. September 37 23 14 7 A stipulation of the parties regarding new hires and terminations Total 67 45 22 reveals the following for the months ofJuly, August, and September: TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS "add more kindling to the fire and he probably won't give you a reason."8 I credit Blue's testimony that Hughes told her, when she did talk to him Saturday morning, that she was laid off and not fired as he had no reason to discharge her, that the third shift would be discontinued in a week and the remaining temporary employees laid off, and that he could not promise she would be recalled as that was up to Horasan and Myers of the personnel de- partment. As is apparent from the testimony of Horasan and Hughes, the Respondent would have it that the selection of the third person to be terminated was undertaken by Horasan after Hughes had determined that the first two to be released were Gutierrez and Stevens on the basis of their poor performance; that in superficially comparing the production records of the two junior temporary em- ployees, Blue and Thatcher, Horasan concluded that the senior of the two, Blue, was "somewhat less efficient" and that she therefore should be the one to be released; and that when this decision was communicated to Hughes, the latter effectuated it. There are several aspects of Horasan's testimony which persuade me, wholly apart from the appraisal I have previously made of Hughes' account of his part in the termination of Mrs. Blue, that her union activity was a factor motivating Horasan in selecting her for termination. On direct ex- amination, he testified that he undertook to select the third person from among the temporary employees on the third shift for two reasons: (1) because of the anticipated discharge of the foreman on that shift (Sturgill) he did not wish to seek his advice, and (2) "so that there would be as little disturbance in the plant and be as fair as possible to all concerned." However, on cross-examination Horasan stated that he did not leave the selection to Hughes because "Mr. Hughes is a young man, he doesn't have quite the experience that I have and we are trying to work the plant as harmonious as possible. We knew that there was an attempt by Mine Workers to organize our plant, we did not want any unfair labor practices, and we also wanted to make the girls as happy as possible." When asked on direct examination whether his decision to terminate Mrs. Blue was "based on union activity," Horasan answered, rather obliquely it seemed to me, "At that time I was not aware that the UAW-CIO was active in our plant." 'During subsequent examination he stated that the organizing efforts of the Mine Workers occurred in late March or early April, but had apparently ceased by June 3, when he made a speech to the employees. In the speech he referred to the Union, mentioned some difficul- ty incident to a strike of the UAW at another plant of the Company, and emphasized to the employees "that stay- ing nonunion would be to their best interest." Horasan's explanation of why he reviewed only the production effi- ciency records of Blue and Thatcher and did not apply the company policy of laying off the person with the lowest seniority, which would have been Thatcher, is less than convincing. When asked why he "didn't lay off the lowest person in seniority and be done with it," he answered, "I thought it was good practice, I am supposed to in- vestigate." However, when asked why he did not review the records of all the temporary employees, he answered, "Because probably I would have been in more trouble."9 8 1 infer that by this statement Sturgill had reference to what Hughes had told him in their earlier telephone conversation- that the real reason was that Blue was continuing to talk about the Union. 9 The production efficiency records show that one of the temporary em- 75 I The conclusion I come to is that Mrs. Blue's activity in behalf of the Union was a substantial contributing factor in the Respondent's decision to terminate her. As found above, about a month before her discharge General Foreman Hughes was informed of her activity and at that time stated she would have to be released. He repeated this a few days later, emphasizing that he did not care what kind of reason was given but that one had to be found. Although there is no direct evidence that Hughes communicated his knowledge of Blue's interest in the Union to Horasan, I infer from Hughes' statements to Sturgill concerning Blue and Horasan's declared purpose to keep the plant nonunion made in his speech to em- ployees 2 weeks before Blue was terminated and of which Hughes was aware, that Horasan knew Blue was a union adherent before he decided to terminate her. Horasan, I am convinced, concluded after reviewing the production efficiency records of Blue and Thatcher, the two most ju- nior employees, that the slightly better efficiency rating of Thatcher furnished a convenient pretext for departing from the established policy of laying off the most junior employee (Thatcher) and eliminating Mrs. Blue, a known supporter of the Union. According, I find that the Respondent terminated Patricia Blue's employment on June 18 because of her activity in behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The complaint alleges that during the period preceding the election on October 14 the Respondent, by several of the supervisory employees, unlawfully interfered with its employees' self-organizational rights by interrogation, threats, and promise of benefit. Additionally, the com- plaint alleges that General Foreman Hughes engaged in surveillance of a union meeting on October 6 and later, on October 11, gave the impression that employees' ac- tivities were being watched, and that on October 12 the Respondent in a letter to employees threatened them with loss of employment if the Union were successful in its or- ganizing efforts. 1. The evidence Rolland Blanke, an employee of the Respondent until the middle of November, related that before the election he and fellow employees in his department had discus- sions concerning the Union, in which Foreman Webster Benner participated. In one such discussion, a few days before the election, Benner asked Blanke what he thought the Union would do for him; Blanke replied that he would get job security and proper seniority. According to Blanke, Benner stated that without the Union the Com- pany would be more lenient, that after the Union came in production standards would be raised, and that the Com- pany was "working on a profit sharing plan" and there would be a raise by the first of the year. Benner also referred to his own experiences with the Union at another plant, explaining that employees there "had lost a lot of work" as a result of attempting to organize. Foreman Benner admitted that he asked Blanke what he thought about the Union and told him that with a union plant rules ployees who was made permanent, B. Miller, had a rating of 37 percent, compared to Blue 's 44 percent and Thatcher's 61 percent. However, ac- cording to Horasan the conversion of Miller to permanent status was made without reviewing her relative efficiency. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be more strictly enforced, basing his comments on his prior experience. He denied saying anything about an increase in wages or a profit-sharing plan. Benner testified he could not remember saying that employees would lose their employment if the Union were success- ful. Employee Ethel Shinabery, who worked under Foreman Benner at the time of the election, testified that shortly before the election Benner came to her work place and "asked me what I thought about the union." When she replied she was in favor of it, he asked her why and made some comment, which she could not recall, "why he didn't think it should be in." Benner acknowledged that he had talked to Shinabery about the Union, but not "any more than I had the other employees"; he testified he did not ask if she was for the Union because "she was well known as a union person." He spoke to her in the same vein as to the others, relating his own experiences with the Union. I credit the testimony of Blanke and Shinabery con- cerning the statements made to them by Foreman Benner. The latter admitted telling Blanke that plant rules would be more strictly enforced if the Union came in; although he denied holding out any promise of a raise or a profit-sharing plan, I conclude he did allude to these possible benefits in the context of telling Blanke and the latter's fellow employees why it would be to their ad- vantage to reject the Union. It seems unlikely to me that the young, unsophisticated Blanke would, without any basis, attribute such statements to Benner. Robert Macklin, a setup man and operator in the con- duit department, testified that about a week before the election his foreman, Richard Boroff, said he (Boroff) was attempting to obtain a 25-cent-an-hour raise for em- ployees in that department. Macklin could not remember whether in this conversation there was any discussion about the Union. Boroff admitted that he talked to Macklin regarding an increase in pay about October 1, but stated it was in connection with filling an up-coming vacancy as group leader on the third shift. Shortly after the election the vacancy occurred and Macklin was as- signed to it on a tryout basis but later returned to his former job. Boroff testified that Macklin, and others in the same classification, received a 25-cent increase in January 1967; he denied that any reference was made to the Union in the October 1 conversation with Macklin. The complaint alleges that Foreman Sonya about Oc- tober 13, while distributing company literature to em- ployees, offered a sum of money for each union represen- tative they ran over with their automobiles; and that about October 26 he threatened to discharge an em- ployee because of her support of the Union. As to the first incident, Bobbie Daniels, who had quit his employ- ment in November, testified that he saw Sonya passing out literature to several employees shortly before the election and overheard Sonya "tell the girls that the union representative was passing out propaganda out in front of the factory and there was a hundred dollar bill for every- one that they run over on the way home." Sonya admitted that while distributing literature to employees under his supervision he stated there was "a hundred dollar bonus to anyone that ran over a union official in the road," but 10 In the latter part of September Daniels had been transferred from the job of clerk in production control at $2.50 per hour to the job of setup man in the production area at $2 per hour. He testified that while in production testified that he said this "jokingly" and that "the people I said it to laughed." Daniels further testified that about the same day as the foregoing episode he heard Foreman Sonya tell Leon Brown, Sonya's group leader, that some faulty parts had been passed by Frances Turnwald, an inspector and ac- tive in the Union, and that this presented an opportunity to discharge Turnwald. Sonya testified that he had talked to Brown about Turnwald and had registered complaints with her superior about her work. However, he denied saying to anyone that this furnished an excuse to get rid of her. About 3 days before the election Horasan, the Re- spondent's manufacturing manager, met Mrs. Turnwald as she was making her inspection rounds in the factory. It is Mrs. Turnwald's testimony that Horasan said he un- derstood she was in favor of the Union (a fact which was then well known); when she replied that she was, he asked her reasons for supporting the Union and she an- swered that she thought the employees would gain more job security and possibly better wages. Horasan said that she was known as a union supporter when she had been given and passed the test for the job of inspector about the middle of September, and stated that she "wouldn't have necessarily had to be accepted" for that position. He also asked whether she was not concerned that there might be a strike if the Union came in, to which she an- swered no, as a strike would have to be voted upon by the employees. Horasan then gave an example, from his own experience as he testified, of a plant where there was no dispute being picketed by reason of a strike at another plant, thus causing the employees in the nonstruck plant to lose work. Horasan testified that the "general lines of conversation" were as Turnwald had related them. It is undisputed that during the evening of October 6 General Foreman Hughes was in the parking area of a service station across the street from the YWCA, where a union meeting was being held, for at least a substantial part of the 2- or 2-1/2-hour period that the meeting was in progress. How he came to be there and his purpose in being in the vicinity of the meeting are in dispute, the General Counsel contending that he was there to engage in surveillance while the Respondent asserts he was there for innocent purposes. Former employee Daniels testified that on October 5 Hughes called him into the office and stated that "he had to know how I stood as far as the union was concerned," adding that he (Hughes) had heard from Foreman Sonya that Daniels "was talking union" and that anyone that voted for the Union had taken a personal dislike to him- self (Hughes). Hughes also stated, according to Daniels, that there would be a general increase in wages in Janua- ry. In answer to Hughes' inquiry about his attitude toward the Union, Daniels testified "I told him that he knew how I stood as far as the union was concerned."10 Hughes then asked Daniels, so the latter testified, when the next union meeting was to be held, and Daniels replied the following night at 7:30 at the YWCA; Hughes said "that he would be outside with his pad and pencil." The night of the meeting, Daniels saw Hughes as Daniels was going to the meeting, parked in the parking lot of the service station across from the YWCA. During the control he had been "on the fence for awhile" regarding the Union, and that he answered Hughes' inquiry as he did in order to allow Hughes to put his own interpretation on Damels' answer. TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 77 course of the meeting , once from the steps of the YWCA and again from the window of the meeting room , Daniels observed Hughes still in the same position. After the meeting ended, and Daniels was leaving, Hughes was still in the parking lot. According to Hughes , he called Daniels into the office on October 5 to talk about Daniels' work performance, and told Daniels he was taking too much time in setting up machines and in talking to the operators. Hughes was not questioned about whether he asked Daniels where he stood with respect to the Union. He denied being advised by Daniels of the union meeting, testifying that before having Daniels come to the office he was aware from talk in the plant that there was to be a union meeting the night of October 6, although he did not know the time or place. Hughes denied that he told Daniels that he would be present in the vicinity of the meeting with a pad and pen- cil. Hughes testified that on the night of October 6, "roughly at 7:00 or 7:15," he took his car to be serviced at the gasoline station , parked his car facing the YWCA, talked to the operator of the station, and went home. He returned to the station "between 8:00 and 8:30," paid his bill, and then sat in his car, which was still parked facing the YWCA, chatting with a friend until he left at 9:15 or 9:30. Asked whether he saw any employees going to the meeting that night, Hughes answered, "I did not recog- nize any Teleflex people that whole evening." Daniels further testified that 3 or 4 days before the election Hughes asked him if there had been "anything new" and Daniels told him there was to be another union meeting, but that Hughes said he was not interested and knew "that everybody was going to be there." Questioned about this, Hughes testified that he recalled Daniels "coming to me and saying there would be another union meeting. I said I was not interested but I don't ever remember telling him that I knew already who would at- tend." Hughes added that Daniels "would come to me quite frequently, let's not say quite frequently, but once in a while" during this period to relate some information about the Union and its activities. Under date of October 12, 2 days before the election, the Respondent mailed a letter to its employees, to which was attached a 5-page memorandum consisting of 10 questions and answers prepared by Respondent's coun- sel. The letter, signed by Personnel Director Frank Woodrow, stated: Several questions have been raised here i and to Teleflex's position in the current union activity. Many of these questions are legal in nature , and I did not feel qualified to give clean cut, complete answers and have, therefore, asked our counsel to help us on this important matter. The contents of the attached memorandum prepared by our lawyers are of vital interest to you . I urge that you read it and consider it carefully. I believe this material will clarify most of the questions raised. Feel free to talk about it and if you have any further questions , I will get the answer. The memorandum began as follows: 1. QUESTION : What is the position of our Company regarding the Union's attempt to organize us? ANSWER: Your Company is opposed to the Union's organizing efforts for a number of reasons which should be of vital interest to all parties concerned. During the days which still remain before the elec- tion we shall endeavor to furnish you with our reasons for believing that a union could do more harm than good,- could seriously damage the Com- pany's business and destroy your job security. You are entitled to have all of the facts in order to weight them carefully before making your final decision on this important issue, a decision which can seriously affect the future welfare of you and your loved ones as well as this plant. 2. QUESTION: How can we all be damaged by per- mitting this union to capture you? ANSWER : First of all, the union could do great damage to our business by causing us to lose customers. Some of them have told us that the cur- rent favorable levels of their orders from us result from the fact that this plant is nonunion and it is part of their policies to refrain from overly large commit- ments to plants with unions . Or, they might disrupt our service to our customers because of strife, sud- den conflicts , and by forcing you out on long and bitter strikers. If you lose business , you lose your job security -and no union can do anything to prevent the necessity for terminating the jobs of employees at this plant under such circumstances . We are op- posed to anything which might destroy your job security or damage the business of this plant. To the next question, whether employees can "control whether or not our work is disrupted by long and bitter strikes," the answer was that despite claims "during or- ganizing campaigns" that strikes must be approved by the majority, "the way it actually works out is often quite dif- ferent." To the question whether employees "can auto- matically gain many concessions " from the employer by being represented by a union , and whether a union can "force the company to yield to its demands," the answer was: ANSWER: These questions raise some further questions which every employee should ask himself before getting involved with a union : WHAT CAN A UNION GIVE ME IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL THAT IT WILL COST ME IN MONEY, LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, STRIFE, STRIKES, BITTERNESS AND REGRETS? IS IT LIKELY THAT I HAVE A GREAT DEAL MORE TO LOSE THAN I COULD POSSIBLY GAIN FROM GETTING IN- VOLVED WITH THIS UNION? The truth of the matter is that the union cannot give you anything which you want or need because a union has nothing to give. The union does not pro- vide jobs, salaries , security or other employment benefits to its members. But the union can take away from you an awful lot, -in dues , fines, special assessments or contribu- tions which you will be pressured to make. The union impairs your right to deal with your company, and to make progress based on your individual worth... . Not only is the union helpless to give you anything itself, but it cannot force this Company or anyone 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD else to give you anything. Your company has tried to demonstrate its sincere interest in your welfare.... You can count on your company doing these things voluntarily without your having to surrender your money, rights or individuality to any outside union. Under the law, the union cannot force your company to make any concessions which we feel are unwise, impracticable or undesirable. Your company will voluntarily make the same concessions without a union as it would make with a union. Your company does not expect to be forced by threats, strikes and other forms of coercion to make any concessions to the union which it would not have made just as readi- ly without a union. That is why we feel that the union can neither give you anything nor cause you to get anything which you could not get just as readily and at much cheaper cost without a union. This leaves us with one principal thing that the union has to offer, which none of us want, - and that is long and bitter strikes .... Other answers pointed out that economic strikers can be replaced, that under Ohio law, strikers do not receive unemployment compensation, and that being represented by a union would not abrogate the Company's right to discharge for improper work or violation of rules, or "to lay off any employees whom it feels are no longer needed" in the event business falls off. The final question and answer were: QUESTION: Some of us might want to change our position and vote against the union, but we wonder whether the company will later retaliate against us? ANSWER: No. You should feel perfectly free to change your minds, - and you may be fully assured that the company has no intention of taking any reprisals against you for such union activity. 2. Conclusions I am persuaded that the Respondent, during the preelection period, did engage in conduct that interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of their Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Foreman Benner, I find, a few days be- fore the election questioned employee Blanke as to what Blanke expected to gain through the Union, and stated that without the Union the Respondent would be more lenient but that with the Union, work rules would be more strictly enforced and production standards would be raised. While Benner based these statements, in part, upon what he described as his experience elsewhere, the testimony convinces me that he clearly implied that reprisals would be visited upon the employees if the Union were successful. I further find that his reference to a profit-sharing plan and a wage increase around the first of the year constituted an implied promise of benefit con- tingent upon the plant remaining unorganized. I credit Turnwald's testimony and find that about 3 days before the election Horasan, the Respondent's manufacturing manager, questioned Turnwald, who was known to him as a union leader, as to her reasons for supporting the 11 Haynes Stell#e Company Division of Union Carbide Corporation, 136 NLRB 95, enforcement denied sub nom. Union Carbide Corp. V. Union and in the course of such interrogation pointedly remarked that she need not have been accepted for the job of inspector at the time she qualified for it in Sep- tember. By thus implying that job advancement might be jeopardized by union activity, Horasan's questioning of Turnwald, I find, had a tendency to restrain and coerce Turnwald in the exercise of her right to support and assist the Union. Daniels impressed me as a more credible wit- ness than Hughes and I accept the testimony of Daniels that on October 5 Hughes asked him how he stood with respect to the Union, said that the general wage increase would be forthcoming in January, and questioned him as to when the next union meeting would be held. Such questioning was plainly coercive and, in the context, Hughes' statement about a wage increase was a veiled promise of benefit. I conclude and find that by Benner's interrogation of Blanke, his threat of reprisal against em- ployees generally if they organized, and his implied promise of a profit-sharing plan and a wage increase if the Union were rejected; by Horasan's questioning of Turn- wald and implying that her job advancement might be jeopardized by her union activity; and by Hughes' questioning of Daniels regarding his attitude toward the Union and when the next union meeting was to be held, and impliedly promising a general wage increase, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Based upon the credited testimony of Daniels and the admissions of Hughes, I find that Hughes engaged in sur- veillance of the union meeting on October 6, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although I find that on a later occasion, about October 11, Daniels told Hughes of another meeting, I do not con- strue Hughes' response-that he was not interested and knew "that everybody was going to be there"- as indicat- ing he had advance knowledge of who would attend, thus creating the impression of having engaged in further sur- veillance. As I view it, his comment meant no more than that he assumed all union supporters would be at the meeting. Accordingly, this "impression of surveillance" allegation will be dismissed. Finally, I conclude that the Respondent's letter of Oc- tober 12 threatened the loss of employment if the Union won the election, and was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent stated that the advent of the Union "could seriously damage the Company's business and destroy your job security." This possibility was not represented as likely to occur only as a con- sequence of disruptions caused by "long and bitter strikes" in which the Union might engage, but as the direct result of selecting the Union. In short, the Re- spondent represented that orders and business would be lost if the plant became unionized because an unidentified number of customers "have told us that the current favorable levels of their orders from us result from the fact that this plant is nonunion and it is part of their poli- cies to refrain from overly large commitments to plants with unions." Thus the mere selection of the Union would result in loss of customers or less favorable levels of orders, with consequent damage to the Respondent's business and loss of jobs for employees. I find that the thrust and purpose of the Respondent's letter was to im- plant in the employees the fear that loss of jobs would in- evitably follow a union victory, and was therefore viola- tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1 N L.R.B., 310 F.2d 844 (C.A. 6), see also R D. Cole Manufacturing Company, 133 NLRB 1455. TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS I find the evidence to be too insubstantial to support a finding of Section 8(a)(1) violation with respect to Benner's conversation with Shinabery; Boroffs state- ment to Macklin concerning a 25-cent-per-hour raise, as to which I credit Boroff's explanation that it concerned a possible transfer of Macklin to a better job to fill a future vacancy and was not linked to any discussion about the Union; Foreman Sonya's crude attempt at humor in stat- ing that there was a $100 bonus to anyone that ran over a union official in the road; and the alleged comment by Sonya to Brown, overheard by Daniels, that faulty in- spection by Turnwald offered an opportunity to discharge her. Likewise not established is the allegation that Per- sonnel Director Woodrow, in a speech to employees on October 6, threatened loss of employment if the Union succeeded in organizing the employees, since the only evidence regarding this is an outline for the speech prepared by Woodrow which contains nothing coercive.12 Accordingly these allegations are dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent found to constitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un- fair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative ac- tion in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that the Respondent discriminatori- ly discharged Patricia Blue on June 18, 1966, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered from the date of the discriminatory discharge to the date the Respondent offers her reinstatement. The backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Re- spondent are of a character striking at the root of em- ployee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. VI. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS 79 The objections to the election encompass all of the con- duct of the Respondent found in section III, B, above, to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. To that extent, therefore, I find the objections to have merit and I shall accordingly recommend that the election held on October 14, 1966, be set aside and that the Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these proceedings, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Patricia Blue on June 18, 1966. 4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their union sym- pathies and attitudes, by threatening loss of employment and other job reprisals if the Union were selected as bar- gaining representative, by promising a profit-sharing plan and wage increases if the Union were rejected, and by en- gaging in surveillance of a meeting of the Union. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. In other respects alleged in the complaint in Case 8-CA-4423,, the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis- criminatorily discharging any of its employees or other- wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies and attitudes, threatening loss of employment or other job reprisals if they select the Union as bargaining representative, promising a profit-sharing plan and wage increases if they reject the Union, engaging in surveillance of union meetings or union activities of employees, or in any other manner interfering with, 12 At the conclusion of the Ganeral Counsel's case I granted Respond- ent's motion to dismiss an allegation that Horasan's speech of June 3 contained a similar threat, as no such evidence had been adduced. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of APPENDIX their right to self-organization, to form labor organizes tions, to join or assist the above-mentioned Union or any NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em ployment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Patricia Blue immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. (b) Notify the said Patricia Blue if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and pertinent to compute the amount of backpay due. (d) Post at its place of business in Van Wert, Ohio, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted illy mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held October 14, 1966, in Case 8-RC-6480, be set aside, and that a new election be held at such time as the Regional Director deems appropriate. 11 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 14 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 Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith." 0 0 0 1 2 Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer 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 em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activi- ties on behalf of International Union, United Au- tomobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees , or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to our employees ' hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union sympathies and at- titudes, threaten loss of employment or other job reprisals if they select the Union as bargaining representative , promise a profit-sharing plan or wage increases if they reject the Union , or engage in sur- veillance of union meetings or union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations, to join or assist the above-mentioned Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Patricia Blue immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniori- ty or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) NOTE: We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Telephone 621-4465.