Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.

CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 871 Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M & E Land Company, Inc.;, Pine Drive-In Theatres, Inc.; and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc. and Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO Cedar Hill Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M & E Land Company, Inc.; Pine Drive-In Theatres, Inc.; and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc. and Local 511, International Alliance of 'Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 12-CA-3663 and 12-RC-2546 December 13, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On September 11, 1967, Trial Examiner Arthur Christopher, Jr., issued his Decision in the above- entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found merit in the Union's objections to the election and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a limited exception. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional 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 Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the modifications noted herein. 1. In addition to the jurisdictional facts found by the Trial Examiner, the record discloses that 5 per- cent of the gross proceeds of Respondent's busi- ness, or in excess of $25,000 per year, is paid to Fran Mack, Inc., a North Carolina corporation located in Charlotte, North Carolina, for various services rendered. Like the Trial Examiner, we conclude that Respondent is and has been, at all material times, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. Respondent urges that the employees relied on certain promises made by Union Representative Tidwell when they signed authorization cards for the Union. Although some of the employees testified that they relied on statements made by Tid- well to the effect that they would receive Interna- tional cards and extra work, that the union initiation fee would be waived, and that a reasonable mourn- ing period would be observed before the Union would contact the Employer, the Trial Examiner credited Tidwell's version of these alleged state- ments. According to Tidwell, no promises were made with regard to obtaining International cards, and while the other subjects may have been discussed, the discussion occurred at the meeting at Tidwell's home on August 1, 1966. Since all the employees with the exception of David Earl Hill had signed authorization cards prior to this meeting, and since a clear preponderance of all the evidence does not convince us that the Trial Examiner's credibility resolution is incorrect, we sustain the Trial Examiner's finding that there was no fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion involved in the signing of the authorization cards. 3. At one point in his Decision, the Trial Ex- aminer inadvertently referred to the authorization cards as "seeking a Board election." We note, how- ever, that the cards and application for membership were, on their face, solely authorizations for collec- tive-bargaining purposes. Respondent offered no evidence to show they were in any way represented to be cards seeking a Board election. We find they were effective for the purposes of establishing the Union's majority. 4. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent's unfair labor practices fostered and inspired the preparation and signing of the em- ployees' letter requesting withdrawal from the Union. In view of this finding, and in keeping with established Board precedent,' we conclude that the withdrawals are without effect,2 and that the Union continued to have a majority on August 15, 1966, the date of its formal demand for recognition. Thus, for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, we ' Werstein's Uniform Shirt Company, 157 NLRB 856; Sullivan Sur- plus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132. ' Respondent urges that the interrogation of Jones came subsequent to his signing the letter of withdrawal. Although there is some confusion as to the sequence of events , in view of the pervasive coercive conduct of the Respondent and the small size of the unit, the signing of the letter of withdrawal must be persumed to be the result of Respondent's unlawful conduct. Werstein's Uniform Shirt Company, supra. In any event, Jones' revocation is not material since the validity of his authorization card is not necessary for a majority 168 NLRB No. 116 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union.3 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 as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc.; Fenton Theatres, Inc.; M & E Land Company, Inc.; Pine Drive-In Theatres, Inc.; and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac- tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete the word "unilateral" in paragraph 1(a) with regard to the reference to the raises. 2. Delete paragraph 1(b) and substitute the fol- lowing: "(b) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by threatening such employees with discharge or other economic reprisals or by threatening the closing of its theatres." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for cer- tification of representative filed in Case 12-RC-2546 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and that all prior proceedings held thereunder be, and they hereby are, vacated. 3 Even if we were to give technical effect to the withdrawals, it is clear that the Union represented a majority prior to Respondent's unfair labor practices. In these circumstances , in order not to permit Respondent to benefit from its unlawful conduct, and because a fair election has been rendered impossible, we would deem a bargaining order under Sec. 8(a)(1) appropriate. Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624, enfd. 376 F.2d 770 (C.A.D.C.), Bannon Mills, Inc., 146 NLRB 611; D H. Holmes Company Ltd v. N.L.R.B., 179 F.2d 876 (C.A. 5). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER, JR., Trial Examiner: Upon the basis of a charge filed on October 5, 1966 , by Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to either as the Petitioner, the Charging Party, or the Union, the com- plaint in Case 12-CA-3663 was issued on November 10, 1966. By supplemental decision and order issued on the same date, the Regional Director for Region 12 con- solidated a hearing on objections to the election filed by the Union in Case 12-RC-2546, with the hearing on the aforesaid complaint. The complaint alleges that Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc., et al., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or the Employer, violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. In its answer, Respondent denies that it committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to due notice, the hearing was held in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1966. At the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent-Employer were represented by counsel; an appearance was also entered on behalf of the Union. Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent-Employer within the time designated therefor. Upon the entire record,' my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent- Employer, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER Respondent, Cedar Hills Theatres, Inc., Fenton Theatres, Inc., M & E Land Company, Inc., Pine Drive- In Theatres, Inc., and Free-Lance Film Company, Inc., are, and have been at all times material herein, corpora- tions engaged in the operation of motion picture theatres in the Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida, area. In this respect, the Respondent maintains a common, centralized office located at Charlotte, North Carolina, where H. B. Meiselman, the president of each of the individual firms, maintains his office, together with an office maintained in one of the Jacksonville, Florida, theatres for its Metro- politan Jacksonville operations. The stock of all five corporations is held either by H. B. Meiselman, Michael H. Meiselman, his son, who serves as vice president in each corporate enterprise, a second son, named E. S. Meiselman, the late Mrs. H. B. Meisel- man, who died a few months prior to the hearing,2 and a man named Jaffee, who was married to the deceased daughter of H. B. Meiselman. At all times material herein, the theatres and related firms have been operated as a single, integrated enterprise with common manage- ment, common ownership, common offices, and central- ized administrative control, and with H. B. Meiselman and his two sons establishing the labor relations and other policies of each corporate enterprise. During the 12-month period ending July 1966, the com- bined gross volume of business of the aforementioned theatres in Jacksonville was in excess of $500,000, and during the same period, these theatres paid in excess of $225,000 for film rentals to Jacksonville, Florida, branch offices of firms maintaining their principal offices outside the State of Florida. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the aforemen- tioned corporate enterprises constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. I further find that the Respondent-Employer is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will On February 28, 1967, counsel for the General Counsel and on March 1, 1967, counsel for Respondent, respectively, filed motions to correct the transcript of record in certain respects, and, on March 9, 1967, counsel for Respondent filed an amendment to its motion to correct the aforesaid transcript of record. On March 1, 1967, and March 9, 1967, counsel for Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel , respective- ly, filed oppositions, in certain respects, to the other party's motion to cor- rect the transcript. Having duly considered the matter, the motions are hereby granted only insofar as the corrections appear on Appendix A [omitted from publication], and in all other respects are denied 3 The record does not reveal whether Mrs . Meiselman's interest has been disposed of by probate court, or otherwise. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 873 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.3 H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent-Employer admits, and I find, that Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em- ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Local 511, the Union, or the Petitioner, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act through its alleged unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union. In this connection the General Counsel asserts that when the Union filed its petition on July 29, 1966, and subsequently made its demand for recognition on Au- gust 15, 1966, the Respondent engaged in alleged illegal conduct during the period between those dates. The General Counsel argues that through such "unlawful and widespread conduct in interrogating, threatening and coercing its employees" and granting wage increases, upon learning that a petition had been filed, Respondent's activities allegedly had the casual relationship that resulted in a subsequent letter of revocation of union authorizations and designations submitted by the em- ployees in the unit found to be appropriate by the Acting Regional Director. The General Counsel also urges that the issue of inappropriateness of unit raised by the Respondent is lacking in merit, asserting that the alleged revocations of designations on the part of the employees were coerced revocations inspired by the Respondent's unlawful acts, and reflects that the Respondent's refusal to bargain is predicated upon bad faith. The General Counsel further alleges that the Respond- ent engaged in substantial violations of Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with the employees in their organizational activities. The Respondent asserts that no violation of the Act oc- curred on its part, urging that the withdrawal of authoriza- tions and applications for membership on the part of the employees who had signed union cards occurred because the employees were disappointed because of promises the Union had made to them, and could or did not keep as set forth in detail below. B. The Organizational Campaign Willis Leroy Hill, who had been employed by the Respondent for approximately 4 years, credibly testified that his first contact with the Union occurred during the summer of 1966, when he visited Douglas D. Tidwell, local representative of the Union, to ascertain the facts about joining the Union. Prior to his talk with Tidwell, Willis Leroy Hill had spoken to Winfrey Turner, also an employee of the Respondent, who told Hill that Tidwell would like to see him about the matter. Tidwell, the business representative of Local 511, stated that the first contact he had had with employees of the Respondent occurred during a conversation between him and an employee named Kenneth Reeves, in the early summer of 1966, when Reeves told Tidwell that most of the Respondent's employees were dissatisfied with their jobs. Following that conversation they discussed the matter again on a later date and Reeves still had the same point of view, implying, according to Tid- well, that he would like some assistance. Tidwell stated that he would be happy to assist him. He also told Reeves to find out how the other projectionists felt about the matter and ascertain whether Tidwell could likewise help them. Arrangements were made for subsequent meetings with projectionist employees of the Respondent named Louis Tiliakos, Turner, Reeves, and a friend of Tiliakos named McCall, at the latter's home. At that time, accord- ing to Tidwell, cards were signed by those employees who were present. Tidwell testified that in addition to signing cards seeking a Board election, a number of em- ployees likewise signed applications for membership in the Union. He held the aforesaid cards until they were turned over to the office of the General Counsel. Accord- ing to Tidwell, at the meeting held at McCall's home, em- ployees Turner and Reeves signed cards and also signed applications for membership that same day which was July 2, 1966. Tidwell stated that he had received an appli- cation from Turner as well as two cards. On the, same date, employee-projectionist Joe Grubbs signed an authorization card while in the projection booth at the Blanding Drive-In Theatre, where he was employed by the Respondent. Later Kenneth Reeves told Tidwell that he would like for Tidwell to accompany him and Turner to see Willis Leroy Hill, and they in turn went to Hill's house where Reeves stated' that he would talk to Hill.4 Tidwell ex- plained to both employees that if they were really dissatisfied with their wages, hours, and other working conditions and desired the Union to represent them, that they should join the Union. He also credibly testified that they were not required to be members of the Union to hold or acquire jobs, that they could sign if they desired, which they in fact did, Hill being the first to sign and Turner thereafter. Tidwell testified that he explained to them that one of the documents was an application for membership which had to be endorsed by three members, and that Tidwell was scheduled to go to the International convention of the Union and he would take the applica- tions with him at which time he would seek the advice and counsel of the International officers and, upon his return, file with the National Labor Relations Board the authorization cards in support of a petition seeking a representation election. In this connection, the em- ployees appeared to be worried about their jobs, accord- 3 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88; and Combined Century Theatres, Inc., 120 NLRB 1379. At the representation case hearing the Employer contested the jurisdic- tion of the Board. However, it did not file a request for review of the Deci- sion and Direction of Election of the Acting Regional Director, in which she asserted jurisdiction. Apart from the foregoing, however, as the trans- cript of the record in the representation proceeding was introduced in the instant record as an exhibit by the General Counsel, at the instance of the Respondent-Employer herein, my findings hereinabove relating to ju- risdiction are based upon the entire record in this proceeding , including the representation case transcript. 4 At that time Reeves had no knowledge that Hill had already signed a union authorization card 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to Tidwell, so he gave them a pledge that he would keep the whole affair secret. Upon his return from the International convention, Tidwell credibly testified that he went to the Board's Subregional Office, presented the cards, and obtained a petition seeking an election. After filing the petition with the Board on July 29, 1966, he drove to a service station operated by McCall where he saw Louis Tiliakos, and in- formed him that he had filed a petition supported by the cards. At that time he was informed of the passing of Mrs. H. B. Meiselman, the late wife of the president of the Respondent. Tidwell stated that Kenneth Reeves was not present at the service station. The record reveals that seven employees in the unit, which at that time constituted approximately seven pro- jectionists, signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them and to "negotiate, bargain collectively, and discuss grievances with my employer as my sole and exclusive bargaining agent and I do hereby confirm same in all respects." In addition to the seven who signed union authorization cards and turned the same over to Business Agent Tidwell, applications for membership,5 which were witnessed by Tidwell along with other employees in the unit on various dates as indicated hereinafter, were made by all the employees including David Earl Hill, who, at that time had not signed an authorization card. The first, an application for membership, was signed by Louis M. Tiliakos on June 22, 1966, and Kenneth C. Reeves signed both an application for membership and an authorization card on July 2, 1966, along with Winfrey L. Turner, who signed a card on that date. The record also shows that Joe E. Grubbs likewise signed both an appli- cation for membership and a union authorization card on July 2, 1966. Winfrey L. Turner signed an application for membership in the Union on July 7, 1966, after having signed an initial union authorization card on July 2, 1966, and a second card on July 7, 1966. Willis Leroy Hill signed both an application for membership and a union authorization card on July 7, 1966. Gilbert J. Pomar signed a union authorization card on July 8, 1966. David Earl Hill, the brother of Willis Leroy Hill, signed an appli- cation for membership on August 1, 1966. All the union authorization cards and applications for membership con- tain the same language. In this connection, the Respond- ent does not raise any serious objection as to the authen- ticity of the authorization cards or the applications for membership. But as indicated hereinabove and set forth in detail below, its principal defense is that, because of various reasons of employee dissatisfaction, the Union lost whatever majority it might have had prior to its de- mand for recognition. C. Events Occurring After the Filing of the Representation Petition 1. The testimony of (Douglas D. Tidwell The representation petition, seeking an election in a unit composed of all the Respondent's motion picture 5 The application for membership form stated that it was an application of Local Union No. 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em- ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. It further stated that the individual applicant was making applica- tion for membership in that local and "I have authorized, designated and chosen said labor organization to negotiate, bargain collectively, present and discuss grievances with my employer... and I do hereby confirm the projectionists in its Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area theatres, was filed with the Board by Tidwell on July 29, 1966. On August 15, 1966, Tidwell wrote H. B. Meiselman at the Respondent's local office, stating that he had received signed requests from the projectionists employed in his Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area theatres, requesting recognition on their behalf, with respect to bargaining collectively, and presenting and discussing grievances in their behalf with the Respond- ent. He also stated that the signed requests had been duly filed with the Board and asked for the fixing of a definite date within the following 10 days for the purpose of contractual negotiations as to wages, hours, and other working conditions. In the meantime, by letter post- marked August 12, 1966, and addressed to Business Agent Tidwell and signed by Willis Leroy Hill, Winfrey L. Turner, Ronald L. Jones, David E. Hill, and Joe E. Grubbs, the aforementioned individuals stated as follows: We have found out that we do not have to be a member of the Union to keep our jobs and we have changed our minds. So please send us our cards back right away. We do not wont [sic] the union to represent us. On August 15, 1966, the same date Tidwell had made his formal demand for recognition of the Respondent, Tidwell addressed a letter to W. L. Turner at his Jackson- ville address, which read as follows: In reply to you [sic] letter received August 13, 1966, I am sure that you are and have been fully aware that under Florida law a person does not have to belong to a labor union to acquire or hold a job. This is evident as you have been working in Florida for over three years without having to be a member of any labor union. The authorization cards which you and the other pro- jectionists working for Meiselman Theatres volun- tarily signed designating the I.A.T.S.E. & M.P.M.O. of U.S. and C. as bargaining agent have been duly filed with the National Labor Relations Board. This was done for your protection. Further action in this respect will be governed by the law, rules, and procedures of the National Labor Relations Board and no doubt each of the signers will be contacted by the National Labor Relations Board. The letter was signed by Douglas D. Tidwell as business agent of Local 511 of the Union. On August 25, 1966, the Respondent, through its attor- ney, declined to recognize the Union, relying principally upon the aforementioned letter of withdrawal. With respect to the several meetings that Tidwell held with the employees of the Respondent, discussion occurred con- cerning the fact that H. B. Meiselman's wife was very ill and "probably would not last." According to a number of employees who testified, Tidwell agreed that he would wait until a substantial period of mourning had passed. In this connection, Mrs. Meiselman died sometime during the latter part of July, and Tidwell processed the cards in same in all respects." It further stated that if elected to membership, the individual applicant would abide by the constitution, bylaws, etc., of Local No. 511 and that he affirmed that certain matters, including information concerning the individual applicant and his employment, to be true. Each application for membership was witnessed by Tidwell, as aforementioned, along with other employees within the unit. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 875 support of his petition seeking a representation election as indicated hereinabove about August 3, 1966. Several of the employees were dissatisfied about the fil- ing of the petition on this date because they believed that a sufficient period of mourning had not elapsed. One wit- ness, Willis Leroy Hill, testified contrary to Tidwell's testimony set forth hereinabove that Tidwell said that he was going to the ". . . National Convention and we are going to get you boys the National card. I am not going to get you the Local card - I'm going to get you the National card." In this respect, several witnesses, including Ken- neth Reeves, desired to obtain International cards so that they could obtain employment in other cities throughout the nation. Where Tidwell's version of his statements concerning the obtaining of the cards and other matters that were discussed at the union meetings conflicts with that of the witnesses who testified to the contrary, as did Willis Leroy Hills I credit Tidwell's version where such conflicts occur as he impressed me as being a more trust- worthy witness. 2. The testimony of Willis Leroy Hill Willis Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman came to see him at his home the morning after the union meet- ing at which most of the employees had signed union authorization cards. He further testified that Meiselman had never visited his home before. On the occasion of his visit Meiselman asked Leroy Hill why he wanted to join the Union. He corrected a prior statement that he had made indicating that the projectionists wanted to join the Union by stating that it was to be understood that he said the employees "were" interested in joining the Union, emphasizing that he had changed his mind about the Union after he had left the meeting at Tidwell's house. In this connection Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman had asked him if all of the projectionists were interested in joining the Union and he told Meiselman that they were. Thereupon Meiselman asked Hill what was wrong, stating "you want to join the Union," or something to that effect. On the occasion of that visit Meiselman was ac- companied by his son Mike Meiselman and by a man named Mussleh, one of the local theatre managers. Ac- cording to Hill he told H. B. Meiselman about some of the complaints of the projectionists. He told Meiselman that Tiliakos had complained about his long working hours, and Winfrey Turner had certain hardships. According to Hill, Tidwell had promised Turner he could get him a job during the daylight hours working downtown. Insofar as Kenneth Reeves was concerned, the latter wanted an in- ternational card. He could not state anything concerning the complaints of Ronnie Jones or Joe Grubbs. Willis Leroy Hill testified that H. B. Meiselman later stated that he could not negotiate with these people because of previous problems he had with them in other cities, referring to Local 511, the Charging Party herein. Meiselman added that he would visit the other employees and do all he could to adjust the matters so that "every- one will be happy." Hill thereupon told Meiselman that the projectionists had talked about having a separate local because there was some problem about the International union accepting the employees . Thereafter, Meiselman stated that that would be a different matter. According to Hill, no discussion of a raise occurred at that time but Meiselman had promised Hill a raise the last time he was in Jacksonville, which was about 6 months before the conversation Hill described hereinabove . Hill stated that Meiselman gave him the raise the following week. He added that Meiselman told him that it was Hill's right to join the Union or do anything he wanted to do, that he would have a job with Meiselman as long as he wanted a job. With respect to the letter of withdrawal signed by Willis Leroy Hill, together with several other employees, Hill testified as to the first sentence contained therein that they had learned that they did not have to be a member of the Union to keep their jobs, but that no representative of the Union ever told them that they had to be a member to keep their jobs and that no one had ever threatened him concerning his job. Leroy Hill further testified that he was "shocked" when Meiselman came to Jacksonville a,few days later. According to Hill, it was evident that the Union had put "pressure" on Meiselman immediately and that was one of the matters that the witness wanted to avoid as he desired that a "period of mourning" should elapse before any demands or claims of representation were made upon the Meiselmans. He also stated that he had signed the letter of withdrawal because he wanted his authorization card back , stating that he had not paid any initiation fee nor had he signed any pledge to the Union , nor had the Union accepted him as a member.7 He stated that Winfrey Turner had called him the night after the meeting and that some time later Turner stated that he likewise had changed his mind. According to Hill, they discussed all the items that he had mentioned before concerning the Union and they generally agreed about the reasons for not wanting the Union. He added that he had not received his card back and would like his card returned as well as his application for membership in the Union. On cross-examination, Willis Leroy Hill testified that no attempt had been made to organize a separate local for the employees of the Respondent. He further testified that he would join another local but not a separate local of the Union involved in this proceeding , and it must be represented by the International union. He added he was not referring to a "company union." Willis Leroy Hill, testifying for the Respondent, in ap- parent contradiction of his prior testimony, stated that he had talked to Tiliakos about the organization of a separate local but this conversation occurred 2 or 3 weeks after the election at the Respondent 's theatres. According to Willis Leroy Hill, Manager Mussleh, while using the telephone at the theatre where the witness was employed, discovered that someone was listening in on his conversation and thereafter told Hill that all the telephones were going to be taken out of the projection booths. Later Hill discussed the matter with H. B. Meiselman and stated to Meiselman that it would be very 6 Willis Leroy Hill testified that he had signed a union authorization card and also at one of the union meetings that he attended , his brother, David Hill, and employee Turner were present. He testified his brother, David Hill, signed a union authorization card at that particular union meeting. He later changed his testimony, stating that he saw his brother sign an application for membership and observed it being witnessed, but he did not see him sign a union card. 7 As shown hereinabove, Hill's testimony in this repect is incorrect as he had signed an application for membership in which he had pledged to join the Union. He further testified that he had told Meiselman around August 3 or 4, 1966, that both he and his brother David Hill had changed their minds about the Union. 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD difficult at the drive-in theatres in emergencies to be without a telephone during the late hours after the con- cession stand, which had a telephone , had closed. Hill corroborated prior testimony that Kenneth Reeves han- dled the Company's truck very poorly. As Hill did not im- press me as being a reliable witness , I have credited his testimony only where it has been substantially cor- roborated. 3. The testimony of David Earl Hill David Earl Hill testified that he signed a union authorization card on August 2, 1966, at the meeting held at Tidwell's home and that both he and his brother un- derstood that they would receive their International cards that night; his brother told him that they would receive such cards. After the meeting ended, he and his brother discussed the question of the Union and according to him he thought most of the operators , or projectionists, were "a little disillusioned" because they expected to get their International cards that night and there was some doubt as to whether Local 511 of the Union would "vote" the Respondent's operators into that local. According to David Hill, he had no recollection of any conversation concerning the negotiation of a contract at that meeting." According to David Hill, after the meeting, he told his brother that he did not think it was fair for him to join the Union as he had just started to work for the Respondent the day before and that he intended to give the question of joining the Union more consideration . He stated that at that time he believed he decided to forget the Union and added, " I know I had." He later stated that he told the other operators that he was not interested in the Union. However, apart from the letter which apparently was circulated by Winfrey Turner, David Hill did not in- dicate to the Union that he wanted to withdraw his appli- cation for membership . He never received his card back as a result of that request and he did not make any sub- sequent request. In connection with his alleged misunderstandings of the Union's promises or the intention of the Union, David Hill further testified that his brother, Willis Leroy Hill, had told him that the initiation fee of $300 would be waived for new members and that at the latter meeting In- ternational Representative Sullivan of the Union said that such could not be done. At that same meeting the discus- sion occurred concerning not contacting the Meiselmans about the matter of union representation until after a reasonable period of mourning for the late Mrs. H. B. Meiselman had passed. He testified, substantially sup- porting his brother's version, with respect to the wording of the Turner letter that no union representative ever told him he would have to be a member of the Union in order to keep his job. He also stated that he remembered no discussion specifically relating to negotiations. He also testified that he had no conversations or discussions con- cerning the Union with either of the Meiselmans prior to August 2, stating that he had been hired by Meiselman about 10 days prior to August 1, and went on the Respond- ent's payroll on August 1, 1966 . He corroborated the testimony of his brother that H. B. Meiselman visited his brother's home on or about August 3, 1966, but he did not hear their conversation concerning the Union. At that 8 As stated hereinabove, I credit the testimony of Tidwell where it con- flicts with that of David E. Hill and his brother with respect to the accura- time he did not tell Meiselman that he was interested in the organization of a separate local of the Union and he did not know what his brother said concerning the matter as he did not overhear the conversations. However, David Hill testified that his feelings and those of his brother were the same insofar as the local was concerned. In this connection, David Hill 's later testimony was in direct contradiction. On recross-examination, he stated that at the meeting between his brother and H. B. Meisel- man, his brother talked about the Union and that he talked about it with Meiselman when the witness brought the matter up himself. On further redirect examination, David Hill stated that he did not talk to Meiselman about the Union on August 3. Because of the foregoing obvious inconsistencies in the testimony of David Hill, I do not credit his testimony where it conflicts with that of Union Business Agent Tidwell or that of other employees whose testimony is discussed hereinafter. 4. Testimony of Winfrey L. Turner Winfrey L. Turner testified, corroborating Tidwell's testimony to some extent, stating that he contacted Tid- well at the instance of Louis Tiliakos, who had called him. At that time he told Tidwell that he was not interested in the Union. However, he admitted that at the meeting at McCall's house, in the presence of Tiliakos and Tidwell, he signed a union card in the early summer of 1966. He stated that Tidwell told him he could not do very much for him individually, but Tidwell could obtain some extra work for Turner, which sounded "pretty good to me." He also stated that Tidwell.said he was taking the cards to the International convention and he would return with Inter- national cards for the employees of the Respondent in- terested in joining the Union. Turner also stated that Tid- well indicated that he could get the $300 initiation fee waived and that the members could probably pay "a cou- ple of dollars a time." He further testified that at McCall's house all the projectionist-operators were present and signed cards, so he determined that he would not be in- jured if he likewise signed, but that he was neither for nor against the Union at that time. He indicated that he sub- sequently signed a second card at Willis Leroy Hill's home. He did not tell Hill at that time that he had already signed a card. Turner admitted that Tidwell stated that he wanted all the employees to join at one time and that he would bargain in their behalf and as indicated before, he offered Turner extra work and would get him an Interna- tional card and promised to waive the $300. Turner stated that he did not actually care whether he was represented by Local 511 or not. Upon Tidwell's return from the International conven- tion, Turner received a notice along with the other em- ployees to attend a meeting at Tidwell's home. The only operator who did not attend was Grubbs. At that time all had signed cards, except David Hill, who signed that same night and also signed an application for membership in the Union. He corroborated prior testimony that the employees did not want anything done until a period of mourning for Mrs. Meiselman had passed , but learned later that a petition had already been filed and Meiselman had been notified by letter of the signing of the cards. cy of the discussion that occurred at the several meetings called by Tid- well at the instance of the Respondent's employees. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 877 Winfrey L. Turner further testified that the next time he had a conversation concerning the Union was when H. B. Meiselman came to the theatre where he worked the night of August 3. Meiselman told him that he had received a letter advising him that his employees had made applications for union membership . Meiselman also told Turner that he had seen Hill, presumably referring to Willis Leroy Hill. Thereafter, Meiselman asked Turner why they had joined the Union. Turner told Meiselman that most of the employees had signed up and "the rest just followed." He also told Meiselman that the Union stated that it could help the projectionists, adding that most of the "indoor houses" had been signed up and the remainder followed. According to Turner, Meiselman did not remain very long and also mentioned there might be an election and that the employees could vote any way they wanted to and that regardless of how they voted they would still have jobs, but that no one had to join the Union to keep his job. He also stated that he wished the men had come and talked to him first as he probably could have helped them as much as the Union and added that they could have organized a union of their own. In other words, according to Turner, Meiselman said that he could do as much for them as the Union could. Although no discussion relating to pay raises occurred at that time, Turner testified that he received a $10 raise reflected as a travel allowance about a week later. Prior to that time he had discussed the matter of a raise with Meiselman about 2 or 3 months earlier. Turner stated that he had prepared the letter of withdrawal but he had not shown it to either of the Meiselmans before he passed it around to the men for their signature. However, he indicated that the letter was prepared sometime after August 8, 1966. After signing it, he made copies because he thought that each operator might want a copy. He also furnished Meiselman a copy about August 10 or 11, 1966. As did the prior witnesses, Turner testified that no one "came out and told me we had to be a member of the Union to keep our jobs." He explained the latter testimony by stating that he un- derstood that if most of the employees voted "pro-union" there would be a union contract which would be negotiated by Tidwell. On cross-examination, Turner reiterated his prior testimony that he had heard that if a majority voted for the Union, all would have to belong to the Union, but could not recall who had made such a statement. The "biggest" reason prompting Turner's signing the union card was Tidwell's statement to him that he could obtain Turner extra work if he desired it. He further testified that Grubbs told him that he had signed a union authorization card because he had been told that he would have to obtain a card in order to work if all the em- ployees voted "union." According to Turner, at the meeting at Tidwell's house on August 1, no discussion occurred about the obtaining of International union cards. Nothing was mentioned by International Representative Sullivan about the matter at that time. At the meeting on July 7, at "Leroy's" house, Tidwell told the employees he would take the cards with him to the International convention and return with Inter- national cards for the employees. At the August 1 meet- ing, Tidwell did not have the cards, nor did he hear any- one mention the cards, nor did he ask about them. Turner testified that before he wrote the letter of withdrawal he had learned that several theatres had closed and that Business Agent Tidwell would have a dif- ficult time finding him a job as he had had difficulty find- ing jobs for the union members. According to Turner, the $300 initiation fee was discussed at the meeting on Au- gust 2. Tidwell, at that time, stated that they probably could waive the $300 fee, but International Representa- tive Sullivan disagreed with Tidwell. According to Turner, he began to change his mind about the Union some time before Tidwell's return from the convention. At the time he signed his card, he asked Tidwell if he could obtain its return if he changed his. mind, and Tidwell told him that he could, providing he requested the card's return and Tidwell would return the card to him. Present at that meeting, in addition to Turner were Jack McCall, Louis Tiliakos, Kenneth Reeves, and Tidwell. The witness stated he believed all present heard the statement made by Tidwell. Turner further testified that he decided against the Union because, first, Tidwell could not obtain him the extra work, second, Tidwell had indicated that he would not be able to waive the $300 initiation fee, and, third, be was afraid that he might be transferred out of the projec- tion booth and "union men" might be brought in. Turner also testified that after he obtained the raise Meiselman told him that he would be "more responsible" for the cleanup and that he was giving him the extra money so that the janitor would report to him. On redirect examination, Turner had considerable dif- ficulty recalling the exact day when he was told about the raise in pay. He then stated that it might have been the same day he had discussed the Union. He was uncertain whether he discussed the extra work or the responsibili- ties concerning the janitorial staff at the same time that he talked about the raise. According to Turner, Grubbs told him that he did not care about the Union and they had "twisted his arm" and made him join, but did not indicate who had done so. He further added that one of the reasons he had signed the union authorization card was because of his desire to ob- tain an International card but in Tidwell's home there was no discussion of it because he would have remembered it if there had been such discussion. He stated that the matter of the $300 initiation fee was first raised at Mc- Call's home on July 2, and it was not until the August meeting at Tidwell's home that any doubt arose as to whether the $300 initiation fee could be waived. Turner added that he was employed by H. B. Meisel- man at the time that Meiselman had prior "difficulty" with the Charging Party herein, i.e., Local 511. He stated that he brought up this old incident in connection with his distrust of the Union and he felt that perhaps the Union had a "grudge against them," apparently referring to the Meiselmans. He admitted, however, that he did not think about the matter of their having a "grudge" at the time he signed the first card on July 2, nor the time he signed the second card on July 7, and that he did not commence to 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD think about it before Meiselman spoke to him concerning a separate local.9 On recross-examination, Winfrey Turner testified that in his conversation with Business Agent Tidwell, before the latter left for the International convention, he asked him about union work as he did not know about such work because he had not been a union man and he wanted to ascertain whether having a union card would interfere with his day work. Tidwell, according to Turner, replied that the only thing he was interested in was the "booth" (the projection booth), not the men. Turner stated at that point he began to think about whether Tidwell was more interested in the booth than the employees. According to Turner, the reason Tidwell wrote the letter to Meiselman was because he did not return with the International cards and that the $300 could not be waived, and there was some discussion that some of the members of Local 511 would not want the Respondent's employees to be admitted as members and they would have to vote on it. Turner stated that if there were any disagreement and the local union members did not want the Respondent's em- ployees, the latter should form another local, and he did not want to go along with the original idea of joining Local 511. In connection with the foregoing testimony, Turner also stated that he did not think the other local theatre closings had anything to do with the sending of the letter by Tidwell. He again reiterated that it was his opinion that some of the local men might need work as badly as other operators and he was afraid that some might take the jobs of the Respondent's employees. Winfrey L. Turner, when called as a witness by the Respondent, testified that he told Michael Meiselman that Kenneth Reeves was not taking proper care of the truck, pointing out that Reeves principally used the truck most of the time. Turner testified that Michael Meiselman, when he came into Turner's projection booth one night and handed him a ballot with voting instructions, 4 days be- fore the election, stated, "You know how I feel, it is a free country and you can vote anyway you please," according to Turner, that was all that Mike Meiselman said about the election to him. Turner further testified that he heard that management was going to remove the telephones from the booth some- time in July or it might have been in August, but his best recollection was July. He testified that he had a conversation with H. B. Meiselman around August 3, and the latter ended his conversation by saying, "There may be an election and of course you know you can vote anyway you wish and you know you still got a job as long as you want anyway you vote." Turner stated that H. B. Meiselman did not say at that time that he would not "deal with the Union." Turner testified as a witness for the Respondent, that he first learned about the International union cards at the meeting at McCall's house, stating that Business Agent Tidwell said he would take the applications to the International convention, present them, and return with International cards for the employees but did not mention anything about an election. Turner did not recall any reference to bargaining or any statement about the cards being used to obtain bargaining rights. When viewed in the light of Tid- well's and Tiliakos', credited testimony, I find that Turner's testimony concerning the obtaining of Interna- tional cards not worthy of belief. 5. The testimony of Louis M. Tiliakos Louis Tiliakos testified that after a talk with his friend, McCall, he decided to do something about the matter of the Union and he talked to Tidwell, but did not sign a card at their first meeting. Tiliakos corroborated prior testimony discussed hereinabove that his application for union membership was dated June 22, 1966, and he signed his union authorization card the same day. Thereafter, he discussed working problems with Tidwell. The only meeting he attended thereafter was his visit to Tidwell's home during the latter part of the summer. At that time Union International Representative Sullivan was present, in addition to Tidwell, a man named Pomar, and all Respondent's employees, except Grubbs, were there. The matter of the Union's seeking bargaining rights was discussed" and they also talked about the mourning period occasioned by the death of H. B. Meiselman's wife, corroborating other witnesses, and it was suggested that it an appropriate period should elaspe before the Union was discussed with Meiselman. Tidwell thereupon stated that he would ascertain when the mourning period would end. He further testified that Meiselman came to see him while he was on the job and that visit occurred after the meeting at Tidwell's house, and prior to the election. Meiselman told him that he had received a letter advising him that the Union was seeking bargaining rights. Meisel- man also asked Tiliakos whether he was happy with his job. Meiselman told Tiliakos that he had trouble with the Union in prior years and that he would not have a unionized theatre in Jacksonville. He further stated that he would close every theatre there rather than have them unionized and repeated his statement several times. He also told Tiliakos that in the event of his death, he would see to it (presumably by testamentary provisions in his will) that his sons likewise would not have a union theatre in Jacksonville. I t Meiselman denied making such threats, which I do not credit. In the same conversation with Meiselman, Tiliakos testified that Meiselman stated that Willis Leroy Hill had 9 Turner's difficulty in identifying the exact time that he thought about withdrawing from the Union is shown by the following testimony: Q. Isn't it a fact that you started thinking about that as soon as Mr. Meiselman suggested to you a separate local union. A. No, I have thought about it well I'll tell you what I thought about it. I'd like to explain to you if you want to know. Q. I want an answer to my question first. It's very simple yes or no. A. I cannot answer it yes or no. It would involve other things. It just wouldn't be right to answer it yes or no because you got to find out what I am thinking. Q. Did it come on August 3.? A. No. 10 It should be noted that certain testimony of Tiliakos, particularly that relating to the matter of the discussion at the Tidwell meeting concerning bargaining rights for the Union, contradicts the testimony of Turner in this regard and corroborates the testimony of Union Business Agent Tidwell. 11 Tiliakos testified that the Union "difficulties" that Meiselman had experienced in prior years, occurred when he was employed by Meisel- man. At that time there was no working agreement with the Union at the Town and Country Theatre and Meiselman "threw them out" and hired Jack McCall as the projectionist at that theatre. When the latter could not take care of his regular business, apparently referring to his service sta- tion, Tiliakos took over the job. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 879 told him he thought that Tiliakos would be satisfied with his job if his hours were different. Tiliakos told Meisel- man that the question of hours was part of the matter and salary was likewise a part of the problem. He stated that he had discussed salary with Meiselman several months before and Meiselman told him that he would see what he could do at the end of the summer. Upon Tiliakos' men- tioning the salary raise on this occasion, Tiliakos testified that Meiselman said he was surprised that Tiliakos had not received an increase in pay, and that Meiselman would see to it that it would be retroactive and would be paid as part of "traveling expenses." Tiliakos credibly testified that he did obtain an increase of $10 subsequent to that and it appeared on the next pay period. Meiselman further told Tiliakos that he would give him the $300 required for the initiation fee to join the Union and that if he-were not satisfied he could always come back to Meiselman and he would have a job, but Meisel- man did not mention anything about Tiliakos leaving his employment. The witness was uncertain as to which con- versation this matter was mentioned, as he had two con- versations with Meiselman, the second occurring the day after the first. At one point Meiselman stated that he wanted Tiliakos to go into the office on Saturday and at that time Tiliakos had finished his work and told Meisel- man that he would resign, but he did not in fact resign. On the same Saturday, Theatre Manager C. H. Deaver asked Tiliakos for the key to the projection booth. Tiliakos further testified that he always had kept a key to the pro- jection booth, as did the janitor, and he turned his key over to the janitor as he was not scheduled to work the next day. The foregoing incident occurred on the Satur- day following the two conversations between Tiliakos and H. B. Meiselman. As stated below, Deaver testified that it occurred on a different day. I credit Tiliakos' ver- sion. Tiliakos testified that he reported for work on Sunday, although he assumed that it was his day off, and had no knowledge whether another projectionist would be there. Upon his arrival he was told that Kenneth Reeves would be there but learned that Grubbs had been assigned as the projectionist at the theatre instead. Both Meiselmans were present, together with a man named Tipton. Tiliakos stated that H. B. Meiselman appeared to be very excited, threw up his hands, and said that he knew that Louie (Tiliakos) would not let them down. Tiliakos reported for work the next day, Monday, at which time he was given a duplicate key which he was permitted to keep. Tiliakos also credibly testified that Winfrey L. Turner had shown him the letter of withdrawal and Tiliakos told Turner that he had never heard of such a letter whereu- pon Turner replied that he had received "a little assistance" in drafting the letter. Later Tiliakos had a conversation with Willis Leroy Hill, who stated that the projectionists could organize another union and it would save them initiation fees and union dues; Hill also mentioned that all the operators had obtained raises. Tiliakos testified that, within his knowledge, each operator had received a $10 raise. Hill told him that the operators would then obtain comparable wages and the same working conditions as the members of the established local in Jacksonville. Tiliakos stated that no union representative ever told him that he would have to be a member of the Union in order to retain his job. Concerning the question of wages, Tiliakos stated that part of his dissatisfaction was attributable to wages as he received only one raise during a period of 3 years. H. B. Meiselman told him that he would see about another raise for him. Tiliakos stated that he compared notes with the other theatre operators with respect to their salaries and working conditions, and ascertained that there had been no discussion of salaries because each projectionist thought that he was the highest paid man working for the Respondent. He further stated that he told H. B. Meisel- man that he had tried to obtain a better job and asked him if he would consider increasing his salary and if he received no pay increase he would have to make different- arrangements. Shortly thereafter, he obtained the in- crease in salary. Tiliakos testified that Michael Meiselman had shown him a sample Board ballot and told him how to mark it - either "yes" or "no," and also stated if he wanted to vote against the Union to vote "no." He instructed him not to sign the ballot because that would void it. Mike Meisel- man further stated that it was a "free country" and he could vote any way he desired, and there would be no hard feelings about it, adding that the Meiselmans had trouble with the Union in the past, and the Union did not keep its word. He specifically stated that a man of Greek ancestry had said that the Union put him in a Negro theatre in Jacksonville, and that the Local Union had animosity towards people of the Jewish faith, Greek na- tionality, and Negroes. Tiliakos, who apparently is of Greek ancestry, told Mike Meiselman that the foregoing was no concern of his as he merely wanted better working conditions. Thereafter, the two shook hands, and Mike Meiselman told him, "You are entitled to vote either way you want to," whereupon Tiliakos replied, "Well I hope so." Tiliakos testified that the employees, while at Tidwell's home, discussed the question of waiting until a sufficient mourning period had passed before Meiselman was con- tacted. He stated he did not know the Union had already filed a petition seeking an election with the Board and he only learned about a petition being filed when Meiselman came to see him. In this respect, Tiliakos' testimony con- tradicts that of Winfrey L. Turner. He also added that he did not recall any discussion at Tidwell's house concern- ing the organization of a new local. He stated there was discussion about the obtaining of International cards, but nothing was said about possible difficulty of the em- ployees obtaining admission into Local 511. However, there was talk about the $300 initiation fee. His un- derstanding of the discussion was that the employees would be able to pay the initiation fee on an installment basis. He further stated that he did not ask Meiselman to loan him $300 but Meiselman volunteered to give him $300 to join the Union after he had mentioned to Meisel- man that the initiation fee was $300. Tiliakos stated that he told his fellow employees that it would be better for all if they "stuck together," i.e., if the majority voted for the Union it would be better for all the employees to vote for the Union. As Louis Tiliakos impressed me as being a very frank and straightforward witness and did not appear to be eva- sive in any manner with respect to his answers to questions on both direct and cross-examination, I credit his testimony wherever it conflicts with that, of Turner and the Meiselmans discussed hereinafter. 6. The testimony of Joe E. Grubbs Joe E. Grubbs testified that he was employed by the Respondent during the summer of 1966 and his first con- 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tact with the Union occurred when Kenneth Reeves delivered him some film and he discussed the Union with Reeves. Thereafter, Grubbs went to Business Agent Tid- well's place of business and talked to him. He signed both a union authorization card as well as an application for membership on July 2, 1966. He corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses discussed hereinabove, with respect to Tidwell taking the cards to the Interna- tional convention in order to learn whether the employees involved could obtain International cards. Tidwell also stated that the authorization cards would be filed with the Board. Tidwell assured Grubbs and the other employees that the Board would protect their jobs in the event that they lost them and he would see that the Union took care of Respondent's employees by giving them part-time work until they could be assigned full-time jobs as mem- bers of the Union. Grubbs added that he also discussed working hours with Tidwell. While on the job, Grubbs testified that Michael Meisel- man visited his booth and instructed him to go downstairs to see H. B. Meiselman. One of the Meiselmans said to Grubbs that he "guessed he knew" why the Meiselmans were there and Grubbs replied that he "supposed" that he did. They told him about the Union and stated that H. B. Meiselman recently had lost his wife and daughter and they did not know why the Union picked that particular time to make demands upon the Respondent. One of the Meiselmans asked Grubbs why he had joined the Union. He told them that he joined because he was worried about his job, stating that he was "scared" to sign and "scared" not to sign. One of the Meiselmans also asked Grubbs why the Union was trying to help the employees. Thereafter, they remarked that the Union was doing those things because they wanted a better place for union members to work and that the Union would probably take them out to some smaller theatres. H. B. Meiselman further stated that he would like to treat the operators well and could not understand why the operators had turned against him, and that before he would see a union come in, he would close all his theatres. Thereafter, the Meiselmans asked Grubbs if he would take over the job of Kenneth Reeves. According to Grubbs, the Meisel- mans wanted him to take over Reeves' job as a relief operator in order that Reeves would no longer be in con- tact with the other operators and that he would receive a $10 increase in salary for the relief job. Grubbs had not asked about a raise before that time, nor had he been promised one. Grubbs received the raise later. They asked Grubbs if he intended to "go along" with the Union or with H. B. Meiselman. He told them that he would go along with H. B. Meisehnan. Thereafter, the Meiselmans asked Grubbs who had contacted him, and he told them Kenneth Reeves had done so. Thereupon, Michael Meiselman remarked "that's what I thought." On that occasion the Meiselmans also mentioned that other theatres would be opened soon and there would be many opportunities for advancement and, in effect, they would fill such positions from Respondent's employees. H. B. Meiselman stated that if Grubbs thought he could do better with the Union, he should try the union theatres; if he did not like them he could return to the Meiselmans. Grubbs replied that he was satisfied with the job he had. Grubbs' first conversation with H. B. Meisel- man occurred on August 3, 1966, or a day or two later. Both Meiselmans denied making any threats to Grubbs or offering him future opportunities for promotion. I credit Grubbs' testimony where it conflicts with theirs. Grubbs testified that Winfrey L. Turner came to him and showed him the letter of withdrawal of designations, stating that he thought that the letter was a good idea and that Meiselman thought it was a good idea also, ap- parently referring to H. B. Meiselman. Grubbs noted that everyone had signed the document except Kenneth Reeves and Louis Tiliakos. Grubbs signed the letter at that time. Thereafter, one of the Meiselmans asked Grubbs if the other operators had tried to talk to him about the Union. He mentioned that Turner had made a short statement and Hill, likewise, had made a short statement and then Meiselman said, "Good. Let me know if you hear anything else." One of the Meiselmans further mentioned that Kenneth Reeves and Louis Tiliakos still had not signed the letter of withdrawal and that the letter had been mailed. The witness was not certain which Meisel- man made the statement. The conversation in question took place approximately a week after he signed the letter. Grubbs further testified that on the dates material herein, telephones were installed in the projection booths of all the theatres with the exception of the Town and Country Theatre. The latter theatre formerly had a telephone in the manager's office and a telephone plug in the projection booth. The telephones were removed from the Royal Palm and the Cedar Hills, and tape was used to plug up the telephone jack in the booth in the Town and Country Theatre. The projectionist assigned to the Town and Country Theatre at that time was Kenneth Reeves. The man who worked in the Cedar Hills Theatre was Louis Tiliakos. The employee assigned to the Royal Palm Theatre was Ronnie Jones. Grubbs testified he did not know who removed the telephone but that the manager of the Royal Palm Theatre told him that he was instructed to remove the telephone there. All three of the aforemen- tioned theatres are indoor theatres. As did several of the other witnesses, he testified that no union representative ever told him that he would have to be a member of the Union to keep his job, and that he never discussed the Union with Winfrey L. Turner. On cross-examination, Grubbs testified that Michael Meiselman told him at the time he posted the notice of election that the witness was entitled to vote either way he desired and that he would not hold it against him re- gardless of how he voted. Grubbs admitted that sometime in August he had discussed the problem of obtaining operators with Muss- Ieh, an official of the Respondent, who stated that the Respondent had experienced difficulty in obtaining operators because of the Union. At that time Grubbs told Mussleh he could obtain some ex-Navy operators for them. 1 2 Although Grubbs' testimony reveals several minor in- consistencies concerning H. B. Meiselman's knowledge of the "Turner" letter of withdrawal, his initial testimony stating that Turner implied that Meiselman knew about the letter and his latter testimony stating that Meiselman had actual knowledge of the letter, I do not view the dis- crepancy to be of such magnitude to discredit Grubbs' testimony. 12 At the tune of the hearing, Grubbs was no longer working for the was employed by another theatre on a job obtained for him by Business Respondent, having been discharged on October 13, 1966. Thereafter, he Agent Tidwell. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 881 7. The testimony of Ronald Lee Jones Ronald Lee (Ronnie) Jones testified that he was em- ployed at the Royal Palm Theatre sometime in July 1966, when he was contacted by Kenneth Reeves, who asked him if he wanted to join the Union. Thereupon, Jones replied that he would like to talk to Union Business Agent Tidwell. Jones later saw Tidwell while in the company of Reeves. At that time he signed a union authorization card, as well as an application for membership in the Union. Jones stated that he had "a little help" in execut- ing the card. As he could not read very well, Tidwell read its contents to him, and he understood the words that Tid- well read. Jones personally placed the date on the card and signed it. Thereafter, he attended a union meeting at Tidwell's house where all operators employed by the Respondent were present, except Grubbs. At that time, as testified to by other witnesses, David Hill likewise signed a union card. According to Jones, at that meeting Turner inquired whether there would be any "bumping." Tidwell stated that there would not be. Some operators also asked whether Meiselman would receive a letter concerning the Union, stating that they did not want to "disturb him" during his period of mourning. Jones could not recall all of the discussion that occurred at Tidwell's home, but he remembered the conversation about obtaining union cards, Turner's statement that he wanted extra work, and Business Agent Tidwell's comment that he could get Turner all the extra work he needed. He had no recollec- tion of any talk about the organization of a separate local. According to Jones, some time later his theatre ex- perienced difficulty with the air-conditioning unit and the Meiselmans came to ascertain the repair work needed. Michael Meiselman remarked to Jones that he had heard Jones was quitting the Respondent. Jones asked where did he obtain such information. Michael Meiselman responded, "I heard you were joining the Union. You know we don't have any union projectionists in Jackson- ville booths." Jones replied that he had such knowledge. Michael Meiselman later explained the alleged prior dif- ficulty Respondent had with the Union discussed hereinabove, and added that they "threw" the Union out. H. B. Meiselman, at the same time, remarked, "I heard that you joined the Union. You're new in the Company and you probably got on the wrong track and that you got mixed up and wouldn't know what you were doing, and [was] mislead. [sic] ... If you want to join the Union we'll give you the $300 and you go ahead and join it but you wouldn't be in this booth no more." Jones stated that he replied if things improved he would not join the Union. He said he needed more money and had asked for a raise. Michael Meiselman at that time said that he would talk to him about it later, but, according to Jones, he apparently forgot the matter, as nothing further was said concerning the raise for about several months. At that time Michael Meiselman told Jones that he should not speak to Ken- neth Reeves anymore, stating that they had assigned him to the Town and Country Theatre in order to keep him out of circulation. Thereupon, Michael Meiselman asked Jones how he had gotten in contact with the Union and Jones said that Reeves had mentioned it and he had gone to see Business Agent Tidwell. On the same occasion, H. B. Meiselman stated that he would not have the Union in his Jacksonville booths as well as at the Royal Palm Theatre13 as long as he lived and he did not think his sons would have it after he passed away. Ronnie Jones further testified that the Meiselmans stated that they would see that matters were improved, and that they had not been paying much attention to their business enterprise because of the illness of Mrs. H. B. Meiselman. According to Jones, he had not seen H. B. Meiselman for several years before the conversation described hereinabove, which occurred about 3 weeks after the meeting at Tidwell's home. Jones testified that Turner brought him the letter of withdrawal of designations which he signed. At that time Turner explained to him that "bumping" occurred in the Union; i.e., a person with higher union seniority could bump one with less seniority and obtain the job of the latter during job cutbacks. He added that the Respond- ent's operators would not get good jobs and would ob- tain jobs paying only $65 per week.14 Turner stated that they would also be assigned to Negro theatres . Because of Jones' inability to read very well, Turner read the letter to him, and Jones signed the letter. Jones corroborated the testimony of other employees discussed hereinabove that he had never been told he would be required to be a member of the Union in order to keep his job. Kenneth Reeves was present at the time Turner brought the withdrawal letter to Jones. He signed the withdrawal letter after his conversation with H. B. Meiselman. Jones testified that he had very frequent contact with Kenneth Reeves as well as Louis Tiliakos during the union organizational campaign . Most of the time it con- sisted of physical contact during meetings on the street, but also called each man once or twice a week on the telephone. Ronald Jones testified after his recollection was refreshed on redirect examination by reading his affidavit submitted to a Board agent that H. B. Meiselman made the statement concerning the $300 initiation fee. This conversation occurred following the discussion relating to the air-conditioning problem at the theatre where he was assigned. Ronald Jones, after having his recollection further refreshed, further testified that when Michael Meiselman brought the notices of election for posting, he raised the question of Jones' remaining in the projection booth. He stated that he was afraid to mention this fact before and not until the date of the hearing did it occur to him that Michael Meiselman wanted him to do him a favor.15 Although Ronald Jones had considerable difficulty, as shown above , in his recollection of some past events, I nevertheless have credited his testimony in those in- stances in which it has been substantially corroborated by 1$ The Royal Palm is located within the Jacksonville metropolitan area at one of the Jacksonville beaches. 14 Jones had been receiving about $80 per week , but his pay was reduced about $20 in September, which he attributed to fewer working hours because students had returned to school . At the end of 1966 he was paid about $60, whereas at the end of the preceding year (1965) he was paid about $55. 15 Jones testified: Q. Wasn't the favor that he asked of you to accompany him down to the notary public and have you notarize a statement you had given him about Louie threatening you? A. That was - well it was - yes it was after the - He asked me to do him a favor. Q. That was right after that wasn't [it]? A. Right. 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the testimony of other credible witnesses, and where it conflicts with the testimony of the Meiselmans. 8. The testimony of Kenneth C. Reeves Reeves, who works at the Town and Country Theatre, credibly testified he first contacted the Union during the summer of 1966, when he and Tiliakos met Tidwell. Other employees of the Respondent were present and posed questions, which, according to Reeves, "scared most of us." Reeves could not fix the exact time of this meeting. Reeves, corroborating prior testimony, said that the next meeting with the Union was about July 2, when the employees met at McCall's house. In addition to Busi- ness Agent Tidwell, Tiliakos, Turner, Reeves, and a friend of Tiliakos, named David Gordon, were present. At that time Kenneth Reeves signed a union authoriza- tion card as well as an application for membership in the Union. Douglas D. Tidwell corroborated the testimony of Reeves that his first contact with Respondent's em- ployees concerning the Union was with Reeves early in the summer of 1966, when Reeves told Tidwell that most of Respondent's employees were dissatisified with their working conditions. After making application to join the Union, Reeves testified that he talked to Ronald Jones and Turner about the matter but did not recall talking to Willis Leroy Hill. Reeves attended the union meeting at Tidwell's re- sidence, and corroborated prior testimony that the em- ployees discussed the Union and some of their problems while there. Tidwell stated that he had filed a petition seeking Board certification and as soon as that matter was concluded the employees would obtain bargaining rights, and he would bargain with Meiselman. He stated that the union applications would be filed and accepted. It was at that point that the question concerning the late Mrs. H. B. Meiselman was raised. Thereupon, Tidwell stated that he would not approach Meiselman until after a reasonable period of mourning had passed, but he nevertheless would file the petition seeking certification. Reeves further testified that the following Monday after the Tidwell meeting, Meiselman came to the projec- tion booth where he was employed and brought up the question of the Union, stating that he understood that Reeves wanted to be "union." He also said he wanted to ascertain Reeves' feelings about the Union, but Reeves did not have to give his answer at that time but could talk to him later. According to Reeves, this was all that trans- pired during his conversation with Meiselman. No other person was present. On the same day Reeves was as- signed to the Town and Country Theatre. Reeves had a further conversation with H. B. Meisel- man concerning the Union about a week or two later when he went to one of the theatres to see him. At that time Meiselman stated that he thought unions were good but he was not going to have one in Jacksonville. He stated further that he might consider the question of the Union after certain union officials "changed power." He did not tell Reeves what he had against those officials. However, he did say that if the Union were voted in he 'S It should be noted that the statement made by Meiselman concerning the closing of three of the theatres did not directly apply to Reeves as Meiselman indicated that he planned to close the outdoor theatres and Reeves was employed in an indoor theatre. In this connection , Reeves would close all the theatres with the exception of two; the Cedar Hills and the Town and Country.'s Meiselman further told Reeves that if he wanted to become a member of the Union he would lend him $300 and give him a 6- month leave of absence from his job and he could "try" the Union but not at his theatres. At the end of the 6- month period he could return to the Respondent. Reeves further testified that he told Meiselman that he would pay the money back to him. During the same conversation Meiselman told Reeves that he did not believe that he would earn more money, but he might work a few less hours. Reeves could not state who brought up the union question but he might have brought it up himself. Kenneth Reeves further testified that about a week after his talk with H. B. Meiselman, Michael Meiselman came to see him and stated that he thought the Union was using Reeves as a tool and was "making a fool out of him." He also accused Reeves of not informing the Respondent that he had been "messing about with the Union." Reeves admitted that he had been involved in prior union activity around the first of the year when the employees first started talking about a union. In this con- nection, although Reeves was asked to sign the letter of withdrawal prepared by Turner, he refused to do so. He asked Turner who had conceived the idea of the letter of withdrawal but Turner did not answer him. Reeves, as did the other witnesses, stated no union representative nor any employee told him he was required to be a member of the Union in order to keep his job, nor did he tell any em- ployee that such a requirement existed, including Grubbs. With respect to the telephone located in the projection booth at the Town and Country Theatre, it had been in- stalled about a year at the initial direction of a man named Irwin, apparently a member of management. He told the employees they could use it, if they needed it. After Reeves' transfer to the Town and Country, the telephone was removed about 2 or 3 weeks later. Management ex- plained that it was removed because it was an "illegal phone"; i.e., a private instrument, not owned by the Bell Telephone Company. Reeves stated that each time he talked to Meiselman he mentioned his personal feeling about the Union. Meisel- man told him that he thought he was honest and admired his convictions, and also said that if he wanted to vote for the Union, he would have a job with the Respondent as long as he desired, regardless of how he voted. In this respect, Reeves' testimony seems to be somewhat in con- flict with his prior testimony. Reeves further stated that he asked for a raise before he received the last raise mentioned hereinafter. At that time he talked to a member of management named Mussleh, who told him that he would see what he could do about it. That conversation occurred about 8 or 9 months prior to the hearing. He said since that time he had asked for another raise but he could not recall how long after his earlier request was made, he made his more recent one. In this respect, Reeves' testimony likewise seems to be somewhat in contradiction to his earlier testimony. He further stated that in his conversation with Meisel- man, he told the latter that he wanted to obtain an Inter- national card in order to obtain work in the larger cities. seems to have contradicted his prior testimony when he answered that it probably was not a direct threat to him, as he did not feel that his job was insecure. Nevertheless, as shown below, he did later ask about the securi- ty of his job with the Respondent. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. Reeves was uncertain as to how the conversation con- cerning the $300 initiation fee with Meiselman arose, when he was asked whether it arose in connection with his desire to obtain a International union card and work in other cities. Reeves admitted that Respondent sent him a letter dated November 15, 1965, referring to complaints re- lated to the necessity for the installation of a second motor in Respondent's truck used by Reeves. He also ad- mitted that after the original motor installation and after receipt of the letter another motor was installed. Follow- ing the November 15 letter and after that occurrence, he was relieved from his job. He admitted that he had received his last raise about a week after his conversation with Meiselman in which Reeves stated that he was in favor of the Union. He further testified in connection with the foregoing that between the time he talked to H. B. Meiselman and the last time he had a conversation with Michael Meiselman in the projection booth about a week later, he told one of the two Meiselmans that he "was going to stay with the Company," and his remark occurred before he was given a raise."' He corroborated the testimony of prior witnesses that when Michael Meiselman brought the notice of election, he instructed him how to vote and that he could vote either way he desired and there would not be any hard feelings re- gardless of how he voted. He testified that he voted as he pleased. Reeves stated that Gooch, apparently a part of management, told him that he was to report 30 minutes before projection time and he should not arrive early at the theatre and talk with the other operators or the jani- tors. Upon being asked why, Gooch replied "because Mike [Meiselman] wants it that way." 9. The testimony of Gilbert Pomar Gilbert Pomar was employed at the Five Points Theatre, a theatre apparently not a part of Respondent's chain, and was a member of Local 511, the Chalrging Party and Petitioner in this proceeding. He testified that he knew Turner and talked with him prior to the election, at the time he and a man named Starling went to see him at the drive-in theatre where he was employed to ascer- tain how he felt about the Union. Turner told Pomar that he thought he "would stay with H. B. Meiselman" and that he would obtain a $10 raise and added that Meisel- man had said that he would take care of him. Turner said that he was making more money on his job than the union members were making on theirs. Pomar told Turner that if he worked as many hours on another job he probably would make more money than he was making at the Respondent's theatre. Turner replied that he liked his work. Pomar's recollection was that the conversation with Turner occurred about a week before the election. D. Subsequent Events On September 12, 1966, the Regional Director for Re- gion 12 directed an election in the aforementioned unit of "Reeves subsequently received a raise of $10 a week, which he had not specifically sought, nor had been promised, prior thereto. According to Reeves, no reason was given for the raise that he received , months after the other employees got theirs 18 The tally of ballots served upon the parties upon conclusion of the election revealed that there were approximately seven eligible voters (one 883 projectionists, or motion picture machine operators, em- ployed in the Respondent's Metropolitan Jacksonville area theatres, which was held on -September 27, 1966. The Union was the only labor organization that appeared on the ballot. The Union lost the election by a tie vote of three for, and three against, the Petitioner,"' and, as more fully set forth in section IV below, on October 4, 1966, filed timely objections to the election. E. The Testimony of Respondent's Officials 1. The testimony of Leland M. Branch Leland M. Branch, the manager of the Royal Palm Theatre, testified that Ronald Jones worked under him. Branch stated that the telephone in his office at the Royal Palm contained a telephone jack, located in the projection booth. On several occasions, Branch's telephone had been removed from his office to the projection booth. Ac- cording to Branch, no telephone had ever been installed in that booth since he had been the theatre manager, although the telephone jack was still in the projection booth. Branch stated that about August 15, the air-condition- ing unit gave trouble, relief operator Grubbs traced the trouble and discovered that it was in the projection booth and that the relief operator on duty apparently had pulled the wrong switch. According to Branch, the Meiselmans visited the theatre to examine the air-conditioning unit about August 17. On their way out they greeted the operator but did not remain longer than a minute or two, and Branch was standing within 6 or 8 feet of them. On that occasion, they asked Jones if the air-conditioning was functioning properly. Jones laughed, stating that it was, and told them what the trouble was. According to Branch, that was the only visit the Meiselmans made to that theatre together, within his recollection. Ronald Jones repeatedly told Branch that he was going to ask for a raise, and if he did not obtain it, he would leave the Company. He made such a statement frequently during the last few weeks preceding the election, accord- ing to Branch. According to Branch, Ronald Jones' salary was from $67.50 to $80 a week and that he made $80 a week when he worked 7 days a week. He did not know the frequency Jones worked the full, 7-day week. I do not credit Branch's testimony where it conflicts with the prior credited testimony of Jones. 2. The testimony of C. H. Deaver C. H. Deaver, the manager of the Town and Country Theatre, who, since October 13, 1966, has managed the latter theatre and, prior to that, managed the Cedar Hills Theatre, testified that Tiliakos was the projectionist at Cedar Hills while Deaver was there. Deaver stated he asked Tiliakos to let him have his key as Deaver had for- gotten his own. Tiliakos told Deaver that he did not have a key. Thereafter, Deaver obtained keys and had them duplicated and gave one to Michael Meiselman, who of the eligible voters failed to vote in the election because, according to this voter, he overslept and arrived at the polling place after the polls had closed) There were no void ballots and, as shown above , three ballots were cast for the Petitioner and three against the Petitioner, with a total of six valid votes counted. There were no challenged ballots 336-845 0 - 70 - 57 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD needed one in order to check on relief operator Joe Grubbs. According to Deaver, during the summer, several com- plaints were lodged against Louis Tiliakos for not paying attention to his work. The principal complaints concerned the opening night of a leading picture entitled "The Blue Max." Michael Meiselman was very concerned about Tiliakos' failure to effect necessary film "changeovers," because of the leading character of the film. Michael Meiselman took no action at that time in the matter because of the serious illness of his mother and thereafter left town and remained in North Carolina until the death of his mother, returning the first week in August. Deaver, making further reference to personal calls made to Tiliakos over the telephone, stated that on occa- sions Deaver answered the telephone, and transferred the calls (mostly from women) to Tiliakos. (In this connec- tion, counsel for Respondent argues that that was the reason why the telephone was removed from the booth because Tiliakos was missing some of the "changeovers" of film because he was spending excessive time on the telephone.) At that time there was one telephone located in the Cedar Hills Theatre box office, one in the manager's office, and one in the projection booth. Deaver also testified that Meiselman instructed him, during the month of August, to remove the telephone from the booth. It was removed immediately thereafter and he in- structed each of the cashiers that if he received incoming telephone calls he should politely inform the caller that the caller could not be connected with Tiliakos but he would receive a message for Tiliakos. He informed Tiliakos the next day of this fact. On cross-examination, Deaver testified that while he was assigned to the Cedar Hills Theatre, Tiliakos was the regular projectionist and the relief projectionists were first Kenneth Reeves and later Joe Grubbs. 3. The testimony of Michael H. Meiselman Michael H. Meiselman testified that he left Jackson- ville during the period from January 1966 until his mother died on July 24, 1966, visiting Jacksonville only for very brief periods until approximately August 3. He corroborated prior testimony that the Respondent had experienced a great deal of difficulty with the opera- tion of a truck which at that time was driven by Kenneth Reeves, who, according to Meiselman, used it about 90 percent of the time. He also testified that the Respondent had experienced difficulty keeping operators at the Royal Palm Theatre, stating that when "good men" were assigned there, they "turned bad." All those employees, according to Meisel- man, were in close contact with Kenneth Reeves. During the spring of the year, Michael Meiselman stated that he visited the Royal Palm Theatre, at which time Reeves asked him how the construction was proceeding at the new University Drive-In Theatre, then being built for the Respondent. Michael Meiselman told Reeves that it was going along fine but their costs were running higher, whereupon Reeves, according to Meisel- man, asked Meiselman if he knew the reason for that. Meiselman replied that he did not. Reeves responded that is "because you're Jewish" and the construction compa- nies were going to charge you "5 percent extra." I `discern nothing in Reeves' reply to reflect an anti-Jewish feeling against the Meiselmans and thereby invalidate his testimony, where detrimental to Respondent's case. Michael Meiselman corroborated the testimony of Theatre Manager C. H. Deaver with respect to the show- ing of "The Blue Max," stating that he attended the movie twice, and on both occasions Tiliakos, the opera- tor, missed the changeovers. Michael Meiselman corroborated prior testimony that he, his father, and Theatre Manager Mussleh visited the two Hills, Leroy and David, at the former's home. Thereafter, they drove to the Cedar Hills Theatre where his father went upstairs to the projection booth, and Michael remained downstairs with Mussleh. When he returned to the downstairs area, according to Michael Meiselman, his father gave the appearance of being very happy. His father immediately asked him whether he knew that Louis Tiliakos had not received the raise that had been authorized for him. According to Michael, his father appeared happy because Tiliakos said that he was not interested in joining the Union. Thereafter, after dinner, the two drove to the Midway Drive-In Theatre where his father talked to Winfrey Turner while Michael talked to Mussleh. He did not overhear the conversation between his father and Turner. Later, his father told him that Turner had stated that he had already changed his mind and was not interested in the Union. They later visited Joe Grubbs, a relatively new relief operator, and after Michael Meiselman introduced his father, H. B. Meiselman, Grubbs told the latter "I know what you want to know about." Continuing, Grubbs stated that he wanted the Meiselmans to know that he was, not in- terested in any union, that he thought first about his fami- ly. Michael Meiselman testified that he was curious about the meaning of Grubbs' comment. Grubbs later added, "They came to me and they said that I was the last person that they had contacted about the Union; that they all had signed; that if I didn't sign, I wouldn't have a job." At that point Michael told him that he could work for Respond- ent as long as he desired. H. B. Meiselman merely listened to the conversation. Grubbs told Michael Meisel- man that he waited a period of 24 hours before signing his card because he was "scared to sign as well as scared not to sign." Michael Meiselman further testified that he asked Joe Grubbs to visit the Cedar Hills Theatre on Saturday for the purpose of familiarizing himself with the machines; i.e., timing machines. Joe Grubbs stated that he would rather not go to the theatre on Saturday because "I have a very bad temper and I' m going - that Louie [Tiliakos] will say something to me and I'll get in a fight with him." Whereupon, Michael stated that he would demonstrate the operation of the machines to Grubbs on Sunday, and that was the reason he needed the key to the projection booth, which was delivered to the Town and Country Theatre box office on Saturday. He stated that he knew his father accompanied him to the Town and Country Theatre on Sunday where his father spoke to Kenneth Reeves but he did not overhear the conversation. Michael Meiselman denied telling Joe Grubbs that the Union would transfer operators employed by the Meisel- mans to Negro theatres so that the Union could have their own men assigned into the Meiselman theatre booths. He added that his father did not speak to Joe Grubbs at all concerning the Union. Michael Meiselman further testified that he told Joe Grubbs when he took on the job as the relief operator, that he would be compensated for the extra time and would be paid $10 extra. When Kenneth Reeves was transferred to the Town and Country Theatre, he was also given a raise of $10. Reeves worked 6 days a week CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. 885 before he took the Town and Country job. The new relief operator was required to work 6 days a week at the new University Drive-In Theatre, which had been recently opened. Michael Meiselman denied telling Joe Grubbs, when he talked to him about the job as relief operator, that he should not talk to the other operators, nor did he ask him who had contacted him about the Union, nor did he tell him that Respondent was going to build more theatres, and more promotions would be available. Michael Meiselman denied that his father made any such similar statements. On the Sunday in question, Michael Meisel- man and his father visited the Cedar Hills Theatre and when his father saw Louis Tiliakos present there, said, "I thought he would be there" or something to that effect. Michael Meiselman testified he saw his father and Ken- neth Reeves talking at the University Drive-In Theatre on Friday, August 12, but did not overhear the conversa- tion. On the same day, Michael Meiselman testified he saw Winfrey Turner at the University Drive-In Theatre. His father later told him that Turner had given him a letter to put in the file; i.e., the letter of withdrawal signed by cer- tain employees of the Respondent. Michael Meiselman corroborated prior testimony that when he visited the Royal Palm Theatre to check the functioning of the air-conditioning unit, he stopped to talk to the projectionist and the projection booth was 4 feet from the theatre manager's office. Both doors were left open and the office manager stood at one door while Meiselman stood at the projection door. At that time he asked Ronald Jones how the air-conditioning was func- tioning and Jones stated that it was fine, but Grubbs had turned the main switch off. Michael Meiselman told Jones that the Respondent had received a letter from the Na- tional Labor Relations Board and according to Michael, Jones replied, "Yeah, well, they came down and they said just sign this and everything will be all right." According to the witness, he did not talk any further with Jones because of his alleged mental deficiency. Michael Meiselman testified he talked to Theatre Manager Deaver in late August 1966, and told him that he would appreciate Deaver's calling the telephone com- pany and having it remove the telephone at the Cedar Hills Theatre. He took this action because he wanted to prevent Louis Tiliakos from using the telephone as it resulted in his neglecting his work. According to Michael Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves called him about the end of August stating he wanted to talk to Michael. Reeves told him "Mike,, I have been thinking awful serious and I have decided that I'm not going in the Union." Meiselman replied, "That's fine Kenneth, whatever you do is all right with me." Reeves wanted Meiselman to come and talk to him immediately and as soon as Michael Meiselman had an opportunity, he did so. He saw Reeves at the booth at which time he stated that he had changed his mind after having had', a talk with H. B. Meiselman for 3 hours at the University' Drive-In, and a later discussion with his wife who caused him to change his mind about the Union. Michael Meiselman stated he had a conversation with Joe Grubbs in September. Grubbs said Michael was a "fool" for keeping Kenneth Reeves, because Kenneth disliked him, he was antagonistic to him because of economic and religious reasons. 19 Continuing his testimony, Michael Meiselman testified that upon his receipt of the notices of election about 5 days before the election, he distributed them to the individual operators and told each man, "This is a notice of an election to be held for the Union or against the Union," stating the date and time, and advised them that if they were in favor of the Union, to vote "yes," and if they did not favor the Union, to vote "no," but not to sign the ballot as such conduct would render it void. Thereafter, he said, "What- ever way you vote its your own free choice, its a free country. You know how I feel about the Union but what- ever way you vote nothing will be held against you and its your own free decision." About a day after the election, according to Michael Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves called him and wanted to see him, later inquiring whether Reeves was doing his job. Michael Meiselman testified that he was surprised at Reeves' inquiry, and asked him how long had he been working for the Respondent, and later questioned him, "Have I ever said anything to lead you to imply that you were not welcome here?" Reeves replied, "No sir." Whereupon, Michael Meiselman told Reeves that he could remain with Respondent as long as he desired.20 In this connection, Michael Meiselman testified that Kenneth Reeves told him he wanted a union card because he wanted to leave Jacksonville and if he had such a card he could work anywhere. With respect to the election, Michael Meiselman stated he went to the theatre at the beach where he saw Ronald Jones who sought to borrow $50 from Michael for a downpayment on a beach apartment. Michael Meiselman later discussed the matter with his attorney who told him that it was all right to lend Jones $50, but to make certain that he did not say or imply that Jones had to vote for, or against, the Union. He thereafter loaned Jones the money and told him, "Ronny, I'd appreciate it if an election comes up again that you would consider voting no." About 15 minutes later, Michael Meiselman asked Jones if he would notarize a statement he had signed the day be- fore, relating to an alleged threat by Louis Tiliakos against Jones because Jones did not vote for the Union. Michael Meiselman stated that he taped up the telephone jack at the Town and Country Theatre for several reasons; first, because he believed someone was eavesdropping on conversations he had on the other telephone in the office; second, because he was worried about exposed wires and wanted them covered. On cross-examination, Michael Meiselman testified that the Cedar Hills Theatre had Italian-made projectors and the projectionists were required to be very attentive to them because of the mechanism involved. Meiselman testified that an operator could not miss a changeover because of something that the operator was properly per- forming within the scope of his duty, if he were paying at- tention. According to Michael Meiselman, Kenneth Reeves worked only 5 days a week, although he was obligated to the Respondent to work 6 days, but was never available on the sixth day. Michael Meiselman testified that he never had any con- versation with Winfrey Turner concerning any letter be- fore his father gave him the letter. He was present at the "This evidence was admitted solely as to the issue concerning the 20 It should be noted that Reeves obviously was prompted by fear of credibility of statements made by Grubbs and not for proving the truthful- reprisal concerning his job, to make such an inquiry of Michael Meisel- ness of such statements. man 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time his father had a conversation with Turner on August 3, but he was not within hearing distance of the two, and that his father later told him about the conversation and about the letter that Turner had given him. I do not credit the testimony of Michael Meiselman where it is in con- flict with that of Kenneth Reeves, Louis Tiliakos, and other witnesses who testified for the Union. 4. The testimony of H. B. Meiselman H. B. Meiselman, the president of the individual cor- porations involved herein, testified that he saw Winfrey Turner on August 3. The latter told Meiselman that he was going to withdraw from the Union but did not men- tion the letter to him. According to Meiselman, August 3 was the first time he had actual knowledge of any union activities. He stated that shortly after his arrival in Jacksonville, he went to see Turner, who was not at the place where he anticipated finding him. Thereafter, he went to the Fox Drive-In Theatre to see Willis Leroy Hill, who likewise was not at work. Later he went to Hill's home and talked with him there while his brother, David, was at the house. Willis Leroy Hill introduced Meiselman to his brother, who was a relatively new employee and thereafter talked to Meiselman, while only those two men were present. Meiselman told Hill that he had received a letter from the Board. Willis Leroy Hill replied that he knew that Meisel- man would receive such a letter, but did not know that it had been sent to him at that time. Meiselman stated that he asked Willis Leroy Hill if he were unhappy about his working conditions and Hill replied "no." He also asked Hill if he had signed a union card and Hill replied that he had. Meiselman thereafter asked Willis Leroy Hill why he signed if he were not unhappy and Hill told him that all the indoor theatre employees had "signed up" and he likewise signed. Hill stated that when he signed the union card and turned it over to Tidwell, he signed it with the reservation that in the event he was unhappy with the Union, i.e., Local 511, he would be able to obtain the return of his card. He told Meiselman that both he and his brother had changed their minds and were attempting to obtain the return of their union authorization cards. Meiselman told Hill that he would prefer that Hill not be a member of Local 511 and that the local had "pulled an illegal strike" on Meiselman without giving, him any notice. Meiselman testified that he told Hill that he had union theatres operating in other cities and he had gotten along very happily with the unions in those cities. H. B. Meiselman testified he also told Willis Leroy Hill that even if he signed the union card, that he and his brother could work for the Meiselmans as long as they wished, and if they wanted to be members of the Union, they were welcome to do so. Willis Leroy Hill told Meiselman, according to his testimony, that there had been some questions about whether they would be ad- mitted to membership in Local 511 or whether they might form a new local. Meiselman told them if they formed a new local he would be very glad to "give my theatres to that local." Thereafter, Meiselman stated that he visited Louis Tiliakos and told Tiliakos about the letter from the Board, and asked him whether he was unhappy with his job. Tiliakos stated that he had been looking for a better job for 2 years and could not find one. He also reminded Meiselman that he had promised him a raise about 3 or 4 months earlier. Meiselman testified that he was as- tonished at Tiliakos' last remark because he had in- structed his bookkeeper to give Tiliakos a raise. Meisel- man apologized for the failure of his bookkeeper to do so, and told Tiliakos that he would give him the raise retroac- tively to the time that it was promised. Tiliakos replied that he did not have to make it retroactive, whereupon H. B. Meiselman told Louis Tiliakos that he would obtain a $10 raise on his next paycheck. H. B. Meiselman further testified that he asked Tiliakos that inasmuch as he was not unhappy on his job "why did you start this union business?" Meiselman ex- plained that he did not actually know that Tiliakos had started the union organizational drive but he had just received a letter from the Board and he knew that people had to ask for union representation in order for the Board to act. (Emphasis supplied.) Tiliakos told H. B. Meisel- man that he wanted to obtain a union card and, for some reason, some Meiselman employees had the impression that if they had union cards they could obtain jobs in any localities. H. B. Meiselman thereupon asked Tiliakos whether, in view of his giving Tiliakos a $10 raise, he still was "unhappy" with his employment. Tiliakos replied "no" and stated, "I'm staying with you." Tiliakos added that he would need $300 to join the Union. Meiselman told Tiliakos that he would be glad to lend the money to him and Tiliakos could pay Meiselman back in any manner he desired. There was no mention of Tiliakos' resignation or his being asked to resign, according to H. B. Meiselman. H. B. Meiselman denied making any statement to any employee that he had fixed it so (apparently referring to his will) that his sons would never have a union theatre in the Jacksonville area. Meiselman added that Tiliakos had been employed by the Meiselman Enterprises for 5-1/2 years and that the raise that he received had nothing to do with a travel al- lowance. He stated that when each firm gave a travel al- lowance, it usually was reflected on a separate check. He denied telling Tiliakos that the $10 raise was for the pur- pose of a travel allowance. H. B. Meiselman stated his son Michael might have told him that he wanted to hire Grubbs as a relief operator in order to pick up the films. When the appointment between Michael and Grubbs was made on a Sunday, Tiliakos came into the theatre and Meiselman said, "Oh, I knew he'd show up." He explained that he knew Louis Tiliakos was in a bind and did not know who the relief operator would be, and Tiliakos was not going to let any time pass without checking to see what was going on. In other words, according to H. B. Meiselman, Tiliakos de- cided he wanted to know whether the Respondent had brought in a new man or if it had just changed jobs. Later that same evening, H. B. Meiselman visited Turner and told Turner about his receipt of the letter from the Board. Turner told Meiselman not to worry about the matter as he had changed his mind and added that he wanted to write a letter to obtain the return of his union card. H. B. Meiselman stated that he did not know how to write the letter, nor to whom the letter should be ad- dressed, and told Turner not to worry about the Union as he was assured of holding a job. H. B. Meiselman corroborated the testimony of Michael Meiselman as to the conversation between Grubbs and Michael. He recalled hearing the statement about Grubbs being "scared to sign or not sign for the Union." H. B. Meiselman denied telling his employees that they CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. were building a new theatre and there would be opportu- nities for promotions. He also denied that he told Turner, before Turner brought him the withdrawal letter that he thought the letter was a good idea, stating that when Turner brought him the letter he told Turner he had no knowledge whether it would be effective or not. H. B. Meiselman testified that he saw Kenneth Reeves a,n August 5, and likewise told him about Respondent's receipt of a letter from the Board. Reeves said that he was going "union," whereupon Meiselman replied that he respected Reeves' convictions. He also said that Reeves mentioned something about a $300 fee and Meiselman told him that if he needed $300 Meiselman would be glad to lend it to him, and he could pay him back whenever he could. Reeves also mentioned to Meiselman something about an International union card as he wanted the card in order to join the Union, and had been promised such a card because it would enable him to move into a larger theatre. Meiselman testified that Reeves said "and if I carry an International card I can work any place." Ac- cording to Meiselman, that was all that was involved in the first conversation he had with Reeves about the Union. He stated that his offer was not conditioned upon Reeves' leaving his employment if he obtained an Inter- national card. Meiselman said he did not want to pay Reeves off. If he had any desire to get rid of him he would merely give him 2 weeks' pay and he did not have to lend him any money. The second conversation with Reeves was held at the University Drive-In Theatre where the two talked not 3 hours concerning the Union as testified by Reeves but only about 5 or 10 minutes. Meiselman stated that he gave Reeves a raise when he was assigned to the Town and Country Theatre. At that time he worked a 6-day job, instead of the previous 5-day workweek. Kenneth Reeves actually had a 6-day-per-week job prior to the University Drive-In but he never could be found on the sixth day ac- cording to the Meiselmans. He stated that Turner obtained a raise of $10 because he took on extra, added responsibility of making certain that the janitors cleaned up the theatre. Leroy Hill was given a $10 raise because H. B. Meisel- man wanted to hold him responsible for the field and the speakers, stating that he took that authority away from Mussleh. Thereafter, Mussleh left his employment because he did not want to lose that responsibility. H. B. Meiselman stated that he hired David Hill on the recommendation of his brother, Willis Leroy Hill, on July 15 or 16, and later gave him a $10 raise. Grubbs obtained a $10 raise because he was required to relieve on a 6-day basis instead of the customary 5 that Kenneth Reeves worked when he served as a relief operator. H. B. Meisel- man stated that Turner obtained a $10 increase in "travel allowance" to buy gas. After a few weeks, Turner said he could not make it with $10 and Meiselman gave him $4 more. Altogether he obtained a $4 increase in travel al- lowance and a $10 increase in salary because he hnd to look after the janitor. In summary , H. B. Meiselman said he gave these raises as part of a general wage increase at the time because he had neglected his employees for quite some time since January 7, and he wanted to equalize salaries. H. B. Meiselman overheard the conversation between his son and Ronald Jones, who told Michael Meiselman that "they came up here and they asked me to sign a card." 887 On cross-examination, H. B. Meiselman stated the first time he learned about the Turner letter of withdrawal, was after he finished speaking to Turner on the night mentioned hereinabove. Turner said that he was going to write a letter to obtain the return of his card. On redirect examination, Meiselman stated he believed that Turner had said something about writing a letter and getting his card back. In this connection Winfrey L. Turner, when he testified on redirect examination, stated he did not say when he showed the letter to the projectionists, that the "old man" had seen it, and thought it was a good idea, or that he had any assistance in preparing the letter. As in- dicated heretofore, I do not credit Turner's version of this incident. Nor do I find H. B. Meiselman's version to be truthful. Moreover, I do not credit H. B. Meiselman's testimony where it is in conflict with that of Tiliakos, Reeves, and Grubbs. F. The Respondent's Defenses The Respondent defends its refusal to bargain prin- cipally on the ground that while H. B. Meiselman and his son, Michael Meiselman, were out of the Jacksonville area for a long period of time, their business was neglected due to the illness of their wife and mother, respectively. During that period, and principally during the months of June, July, and'August, the Union allegedly persuaded all seven operators employed in the Re- spondent's Jacksonville area theatres to sign written authorizations for the Union to represent them and ob- tained such authorizations by promising to obtain Local and/or International union cards for them and promising to waive a $300 initiation fee as to three of the employees. Respondent further alleges that the Union promised not to contact the Meiselmans concerning the question of representation until after a reasonable period of mourning had elapsed, and in addition, promised one employee, desirous of obtaining such work, extra work. The Respondent further asserts that three of its em- ployees became very disillusioned at a union meeting on August 1, when they did not obtain the International cards allegedly promised to them and when they learned, for the first time, that they would have to pay an initiation fee of $300 and they probably would not be able to obtain membership in the Local Union and, according to Respondent's brief, "When they learned, in short, that there wasn't anything the Union could do for them except take their dues and initiation fees and make a lot of promises they couldn't keep." In this connection, the Respondent argues that the authorization card of Ken- neth Reeves should not be counted because he joined only for the purpose of obtaining an International card and likewise the authorization cards of the two Hill brothers, and that of Winfrey Turner, likewise should not be counted. By the elimination of the aforementioned cards, the Respondent argues that the Union obtained only three valid cards out of the seven employees who signed authorization cards, and as the card signed by Ronald Jones was not identified, the Union actually could count only two cards in support of its demand for recogni- tion. It urges, in this connection, that the employees' failure to obtain the allegedly promised International union cards, in and of itself, is sufficient to destroy the validity of authorization cards obtained from employees who expected to receive such International cards. The Respondent further urges that the aforementioned three employees who allegedly changed their minds im- mediately after the August 1 union meeting, along with 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD two other employees, Grubbs and Jones, signed and cir- culated a letter asking for the return of their cards. It also urges that one of the other two employees who signed, Grubbs, allegedly was threatened and coerced, and upon immediately being reassured as to his job thereafter, signed the letter of withdrawal. The Respondent thus contends that out of the seven alleged valid cards sub- mitted in support of the Union's demand for recognition, a majority of the aforesaid cards were freely and validly withdrawn by the employees before the demand for recognition. With respect to the Respondent's defense concerning the allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and the ob- jections to the election, discussed hereinafter, Respond- ent; asserts that this proceeding actually portrays an old man who, after spending 7 months watching his wife slowly pass away and being helpless to prevent it, upon his arrival in town, where the theatres concerned were located, 7 days later "to pick up the pieces of the busi- ness" where he left off 7 months earlier, discovered the union petition seeking an election. Respondent further as- serts that while his attention was diverted by his wife's ill- ness "his old arch enemy [the Union]" was making de- mands upon him in the same manner that they had done 6 years earlier when he lost his daughter and "sneaked in behind his back" and took advantage of his absence to or- ganize his employees and "stir them up against him." In this connection, the Respondent defends that H. B. Meiselman, the "old man" -referred to hereinabove, thereupon set out to talk to his employees in order to ascertain what had happened, asked them what was wrong, and urges that Meiselman, because he was very upset and distraught, probably implied "too far" and said some things to his employees under the "distress of the moment" that he should not have said. It argues that despite the action of the principal management official in this regard, he and his son nevertheless reassured the em- ployees they could join the Union or not if they desired, and they would always have a job notwithstanding. In the course of H. B. Meiselman's interviews with his employees, he found that many of their "dissatisfactions" were justifiable, including a situation wherein a raise that Meiselman had instructed should be given to Tiliakos had not been given that employee. Additional reasons urged and supported by the testimony of both Meiselmans were that the father and son management team had neglected their business for such a long period because of the illness of Mrs. Meiselman, they made a general review of all wages and problems in the area, giving everyone the raises that were long overdue and made other normal business adjustments, such as changing responsibility from maintenance in the drive-ins, changing relief opera- tors to obtain an employee who would take better care of the company truck and not irritate the other operators by annoying them, tinkering with their equipment, and not conversing with them while they were at work in the theatres. In this connection, according to the Respond- ent's defense, they removed the telephone out of one booth where the operator had been missing changeovers and had made other errors because of frequent telephone calls he received from his girl friends. They taped up the telephone jack in the booth of another theatre, which was used as a local headquarters office, "since they strongly suspect [ed], and not without some justification, that the Union [was] using that jack to spy on company business matters."21 In the justification of its refusal to bargain, Respondent urges that, upon receipt of a copy of the letter of withdrawal from the Union signed by the five aforemen- tioned employees requesting the return of their union authorization cards, they relied on the letter in their reply to the Union's demand for recognition, and stated that they did not believe the Union represented a majority. 'They added therein if the Union could show that it did, in fact, represent a majority, the Respondent would bargain with it. As no offer of proof resulted from their request, they decided to await the outcome of the election, which, as indicated hereinabove, the Union lost by a tie vote. Respondent continued its argument in defense of its al- leged refusal to bargain, stating that, 4 days prior to the election, Michael Meiselman took the notice of election to each operator in order to make certain that each em- ployee knew that he could vote as he pleased without any fear of reprisal whatsoever, and to make certain that the Respondent did not have to undergo a rerun election. Mike Meiselman testified that, after telling each operator he was free to vote as he pleased, he concluded by stating there would not be any hard feelings or reprisals no matter how he voted. The Respondent incorporated by reference in its brief to the Trial Examiner a copy of its brief to the Regional Director for Region 12 and renewed its contention that the unit found appropriate by the Acting Regional Director was inapproprite for the purposes of collective bargaining. G. Analysis and Conclusions as to Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman, by his questioning of Willis Leroy Hill at the latter's home on or about August 3, 1966, as to why he wanted to join the Union and whether all the Respond- ent's projectionists likewise were interested in joining the Union; his similar questioning of Winfrey L. Turner, on or about the same date, as to why he had joined the Union; his questioning of Grubbs as to whether he in- tended to "go along" with the Union or with H. B. Meiselman; his further questioning of Grubbs as to whether other projectionists had contacted him concern- ing the Union; his and Michael Meiselman asking Grubbs, on or about the same date, why he had joined the Union and why the Union was trying to help the em- ployees; and Michael Meiselman asking Ronald Jones how he had gotten in contact with the Union, constituted unlawful interrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's state- ment to Louis Tiliakos that he would close each of his Jacksonville theatres before he would see them unionized and that, in the event of his death, he would see to it that his sons likewise would not have any union in Respond- ent's Jacksonville theatres; his statement to Grubbs that the Union was involved in organizing Respondent's em- 21 The foregoing is based upon the testimony of H. B. Meiselman, which is credited only to the extent that it is not in conflict with that of Tiliakos, Grubbs, and Jones CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. ployees because they wanted a better place for its mem- bers to work and probably would assign the Respondent's employees to smaller theatres; his similar statement to Grubbs that before he would see a union "come in" he would close all his theatres in the Jacksonville area; his statement to Ronald Jones that he would not have the Union in his Jacksonville projection booths as long as he lived and he did not think his sons would do so likewise after he passed away; and his further statement to Ken- neth Reeves that if the Union won the election, he would close all the theatres in the Jacksonville area, except two, constituted coercive threats and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find and conclude that the statements of H. B. Meiselman to all of his employees interviewed on or about August 3, that he would give them raises or "travel allowances," following immediately upon his initial knowledge of the Union's organizational campaign, con- stituted unilateral grants of wage increases and other benefits and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's telling Grubbs, on or about the same date, that other theatres would be opened soon, and there would be many opportunities for advancement for the projectionists, amounted to promises of benefits to Respondent's employees and likewise constituted interference and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I likewise find and conclude that H. B. Meiselman's statement to Winfrey L. Turner on or about August 3, 1966, that he wished his employees had come to him and talked to him first as he could have helped them as much as the Union could help them and that they could have or- ganized a union of their own, and H. B. Meiselman's in- forming Joe Grubbs that the Respondent wanted him to take over the job of Kenneth Reeves in order to remove Reeves from contact with the other employees, it being well known to Meiselman that Kenneth Reeves was ac- tive in the Union's organizational efforts likewise con- stituted unlawful interference and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.22 H. Analysis and Conclusions as to Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(5) Respondent urges as its affirmative defense that on Au- gust 15, 1966, when the Union made its demand for recognition, the Respondent entertained a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority of its projec- tionists. Respondent contends that the letter of withdrawal, signed by five of its seven projectionists, stated they did not want the Union to represent them prior to the date the demand for recognition was made. Accordingly, it argues that its refusal was not grounded on any bad faith, but was motivated by a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. In my opinion the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union was not motivated by any good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. Indeed, H. B. Meiselman, Respondent's president, by his own admission in his 22 Although various other conduct on the part of the Respondent was alleged in the complaint to violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Trial Ex- aminer has made no findings nor conclusions as to such other conduct, as it would be cumulative. 23 See N L.R.B v Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 382 U S 830 , and Colson Corp. v. N.L.R B., 347 F 2d 128 889 testimony concerning his conversation with Willis Leroy Hill on August 3, 1966, stated to Hill that he would prefer that Hill not become a member of Local 511 because the Union "had pulled an illegal strike" on him, without any notice. Likewise, in reply to Hill's comment concerning the questions whether the projectionists would be admitted to membership in Local 511, or they might organize a new local, Meiselman stated that if a new local were formed, he would be very glad to give his theatres to that new labor organization. Meiselman's strong animus against bargaining with Local 511 was likewise brought out in the credited testimony of Louis Tiliakos. Respondent's lack of good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status is further reflected by Respond- ent's numerous threats, promises of benefit, and coer- cive interrogation of employees, all for the purpose of un- dermining the Union's majority. I am persuaded that Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on Au- gust 25, 1966, stated in its letter on that date to Business Agent Douglas D. Tidwell was not the result of any good- faith doubt but was a device to gain time to destroy the Union's majority, which I find existed on and since Au- gust 1, 1966, on which date six of the seven employees within the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate had signed authenticated authorization cards for representa- tion by the Union.23 The seventh employee, David Earl Hill, who later signed a card, signed an application for membership in the Union on August 1, 1966.24 There was no fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion in- volved in the signing of the union cards which com- menced early in July 1966 and ended on or about August 1, 1966. In support of its position, the Respondent urges there was a sufficient number of employees who signed the Au- gust 12, 1966, withdrawal letter, to invalidate the Union's majority status. In this connection, I find and conclude that the Meiselmans, through their aforementioned con- duct hereinabove found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1), fostered and inspired the preparation and signing of the letter of withdrawal. Respondent also argues that several of its employees signed cards for various reasons, other than authorizing the Union to represent them. It points to the desires of several employees to obtain international union cards, and several to obtain extra work. Apart form the fact that the credible evidence herein demonstrates that if any em- ployees had such afterthoughts, they signed cards that clearly designated the Union as their bargaining agent and were free of any ambiguities. There was no fraud, deceit, nor any misrepresentation with respect to the signing of any of the cards. The afterthoughts and subjective think- ing, or ex post facto sentiments of the employees, reflected in their attempted withdrawal from the Union, cannot negate the effect of their designation of the Union as their bargaining agent, nor excuse the Respondent's refusal to fulfill its statutory obligation. The foregoing conclusions are clearly emphasized by evidence that the Respondent's two highest ranking officials by their An- (C.A. 8). See also Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 153 NLRB 273; and American Cable Systems, Inc., 161 NLRB 332. 24 The six employees aforementioned who signed the cards were Ken- neth C. Reeves, Ronald E Jones, Joe E. Grubbs, Louis M. Tiliakos, Winfrey L Turner, and Willis Leroy Hill. As noted hereinabove, David Earl Hill, according to the testimony of credited witnesses, likewise signed a union authorization card for representation a few days later. 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gust 3, 1966, individual visits to the various projectionists and by their threats and promises of benefits to em- ployees, including the unilateral grant of wage increases and travel allowances, gave the impetus to any change of union sentiment that might have later occurred among its employees. 25 I therefore find and conclude that on and since August 1, 1966, the Union represented the majority of the Respondent's projectionists or operators, in the unit found to be appropriate below.26 The appropriate unit consists of all motion picture pro- jectionists, including relief projectionists, employed at Employer's theatres located in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area, including Atlantic Beach, Florida, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Southside Theatres, Inc., 109 NLRB 259, 261. Cf. Balaban & Katz (Princess Theatre), 87 NLRB 1071. Although Respondent in its brief to the Trial Examiner again raised the question of the appropriateness of the unit described above, this contention is wholly lacking in merit. Respondent failed to file with the Board a request for review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision finding the above-described unit to be appropriate and, under well-established precedent, the unit issue is not relitigable. See, in this connection, Ross Porta-Plant, Inc., 166 NLRB 494 at 495. See also N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 379 F.2d 172 (C.A. 6), enfg. 154 NLRB 819. Accordingly, Respondent cannot validly challenge the unit finding of the Acting Regional Director in this proceeding, and her finding is resjudicate. The fact that the Union proceeded to an election after the letter of withdrawal and later filed a refusal-to-bargain charge does not constitute a valid defense for the Respondent. See International Union of Electrical Workers [S.N.C. Manufacturing Company, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 352 F.2d 361 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 382 U.S. 902, and cases cited therein. In view of the extensive conduct on the part of Re- spondent with respect to violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I am persuaded that the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was not the result of a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority but was calculated solely for the purpose of destroying that majority. Accordingly, I find that the Union has demonstrated its majority status and that Respondent on and since August 27, 1966, by refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.27 IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION On October 4, 1966, the Petitioner filed with the Re- gional Director for Region 12, objections to the election, which read as follows: (1) Employer threatened to close its theatres if the em- ployees voted for a union. (2) Employer granted wage increase to entice the em- ployees to vote against the Union and also offered other benefits for the same purpose. (3) Employer threatened to discharge those employees who were supporters of the Union and did also request union supporters to resign their employment. 25 See Santangelo & Co., 154 NLRB 1649. 26 Joy Silk Mills, Inc v. N L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. de- med 341 U.S. 914; and Bernel Foam Products Co., Inc, 146 NLRB 1277 By order, dated November 10, 1966, the Regional Director consolidated a hearing on the aforesaid objec- tions with the hearing on the instant complaint issued in Case 12-CA-3663. The objections case related to the election conducted in Case 12-RC-2546, which, as stated heretofore, the Union lost by vote of 3 to 3 out of 7 eligible voters, was heard by me on the aforementioned dates, together with the unfair labor practice allegations discussed hereinabove. Because of the evidence detailed hereinabove in sub- sections B, C, D, and E, and the conclusions set forth hereinabove in subsection F, I find merit in all the afore- mentioned objections, with the exception noted below. As stated above, the Respondent through its officials and other agents, commencing from the time the petition was filed on July 29, 1966, and continuing through Au- gust 5, 1966, the date of the demand for recognition and until September 27, 1966, the date the election was held, engaged in extensive, coercive conduct, including threatening its employees that its Jacksonville area theatres would be closed if they were unionized as a result of the employees' vote in the then-pending election. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in my conclusions in subsection F, hereinabove, I find merit in Objection No. 1 and recommend that it be sustained. I likewise find that during the period commencing ap- proximately August 1 and continuing until September 26, 1966, the Respondent through its unilateral grant of wage increases, and in three instances travel allowances,28 to employees Joe Grubbs, Willis Leroy Hill, Louis Tiliakos, Winfrey L. Turner, Kenneth Reeves, and David Hill en- gaged in interference sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the election. I therefore find merit in Objection No. 2. I likewise find no merit in Respondent's defense that the wage increases were granted as part of its overall plan to equalize the wages of all its employees. The Respondent had no fixed pattern with respect to the granting of wage increases, and its appears clear to me that they were granted for the purpose of offering induce- ments to the employees not to vote for the Union. Ac- cordingly, I recommend that Objection No. 2 be sustained. I also find that the Employer, through its threats of discharge to several employees because of their support of the Union detailed hereinabove, likewise interfered with the election. I therefore sustain the first portion of Objection No. 3, but find that the evidence adduced at the hearing was insufficient to support the second portion of Objection No. 3, which alleged that the Employer requested union supporters to resign their employment. Based upon the findings above that Objection Nos. 1, 2, and the first part of Objection No. 3 are meritorious and should be sustained, I shall recommend that the elec- tion held on September 27, 1966, in the unit of motion picture projectionists be set aside, as no current question concerning representation exists with respect to these employees. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- 27 See Country Lane Food Store, 142 NLRB 683; and Werstein's Uniform Shirt Company, 157 NLRB 856 28 Joe Grubbs, Winfrey Turner, and Willis Leroy Hill. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC. tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. VI. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, it will be further recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In order to make effective for the employees of the Respondent the guarantee of rights contained in Section 7 of the Act, it will also be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from, in any manner, in- fringing upon the rights guaranteed in that section. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu- sions, and the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By' interrogating empl_ oyees as to why they wanted to join the Union, whether all the projectionists were likewise interested in the Union, and why the Union was trying to help the employees; interrogating another em- ployee as to whether other projectionists had contacted him concerning the Union; and interrogating another em- ployee as to how he had gotten in contact with the Union; by threatening employees that Respondent would close its Jacksonville theatres before it would see them unionized; threatening an employee that the Union was organizing Respondent's employees because the Union desired a better place for its own members to work and probably would remove Respondent's employees to smaller theatres; and threatening another employee that Respondent had heard that he was quitting his employ- ment, explaining to that employee that Respondent had heard that the employee concerned was joining the Union; promising benefits to employees, and the uni- lateral granting of wage increases and/or "travel al- lowances"; and promising employees prospective oppor- tunities for advancement through the opening of other theatres by the Respondent within the near future; by various other conduct, including a statement to one em- ployee by Respondent's president that he wished the em- ployees had come and talked to him first as he could have helped them as much as the Union and that they could have organized a union of their own; and by reassigning an employee well known as a strong union adherent to another position in order to remove him from contact with the other employees in the unit in order to defeat the Union's organizational efforts, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. By refusing to bargain collectively with Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States z' 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 Exammer" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States 891 and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit set forth herein, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by en- gaging in unlawful interrogation of its employees concern- ing their membership or activities in support of the Union or any other labor organization; by offering its employees unilateral raises or "travel allowances"; by other unlaw- ful acts, including the suggestion to employees that Respondent could help them as much as the Union could and that the employees could have organized a union of their own; and by reassigning an employee, an active union adherent, to another position in order to remove him from contact with the other employees within the ap- propriate unit for the purpose of defeating the Union's or- ganizing efforts. (b) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in the Union, or any other labor organization, by threatening such employees with discharge or other economic reprisal, by threatening the closing of its theatres, or in any other manner by discriminating against its employees with respect to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative, in the appropriate unit set forth herein. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining agent of the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an agreement is reached, embody same in a signed contract. The appropriate unit is: All motion picture projectionists, including relief pro- jectionists, employed at Employer's theatres located in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area, including Atlantic Beach, Florida, but excluding all other em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its various places of business in Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida, area including Atlan- tic Beach, Florida, and at its Jacksonville, Florida, local office, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."29 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- 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." 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL gional Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it 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. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.30 With respect to the objections to the election filed by the Union in Case 12-RC-2546, which were con- solidated for hearing with the complaint in the instant proceeding, Objection Nos. 1, 2, and the first part of 3 are hereby sustained as no question concerning representa- tion exists, and the second part of Objection No. 3 is hereby overruled. so 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 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under the law to be represented by Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em- ployees concerning their joining the Union or with respect to other concerted activities on their part. WE WILL NOT grant increases or travel allowances or promise other benefits to our employees for the LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purpose of interfering with their rights to join unions of their own choosing. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other economic reprisals for the purpose of interfering with their rights to join unions of their own choosing. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining agent for our employees in the appropriate unit. The appropriate unit is: All motion picture projectionists, including re- lief projectionists, employed at Employer's theatres located in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area, including Atlantic Beach, Florida, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to join or assist Local 511, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, or any other union, or to refrain from any and all such activity. CEDAR HILLS THEATRES, INC., FENTON THEATRES, INC., M & E LAND COM- PANY, INC., PINE DRIVE-IN THEATRES, INC., AND FREE- LANCE FILM COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 228-7711.