Sata Motor Freight Line, Inc.

614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sala Motor Freight Line, Inc and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind Cases 15-CA-3569 15-CA-3569-2, 15-CA-3582 and 15-CA-3582-2 May 21, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On February 10, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions, and a supporting brief, to the Trial Examin- er's Decision General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with these cases to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations 2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond- ent, Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , New Orleans, Louisi- ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall The findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner are based in part upon his credibility determinations to which Respondent excepted After a careful review of the record herein we conclude that the Trial Examiners credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence and accordingly find no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91 NLRB 544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) P Respondent in an exception contends that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced as manifested in his decision This charge of bias and prejudice is not based on any alleged statements of the Trial Examiner which might indicate that he had prejudged this case or upon his conduct or rulings made at the hearing but is directed to his findings and conclusions and the analysis of the facts upon which they are based as set forth in the Trial Examiners Decision Possible errors of this sort which we do not find herein in any event are hardly sufficient to establish bias and prejudice Accordingly we reject this contention Flambeau Plastics Corporation 167 NLRB 735 fn I affd 401 F 2d 128 (C A 7) take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner s Recom- mended Order 3 , Par 2(a) of the Trial Examiners Recommended Order is modified to read as follows (a) Offer to Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled The Remedy The fourteenth indented paragraph of the Appendix is modified to read as follows WE WILL offer Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner With all parties represented, this proceeding was tried before me in New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 30 and October 1, 1969, on an amended complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , herein called the Respondent ' At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly considered Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses who testified on the stand, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I THE RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS Respondent, a Louisiana corporation with its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, is engaged in the transportation of freight by motor carrier, operat-' ing as a link in interstate commerce by performing interlining services with respect to commodities in inter- state commerce During the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent derived revenues in excess of $50,000 from interlining and transporting freight within the State of Louisiana, which freight was transported into said State directly from points located outside that State The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act ' The complaint which issued on August 14 1969 is based upon charges and amended charges which were filed on June II June 13 July 2 and July 9 1969 respectively and which were served on June 12 June 16 July 3 and July 10 1969 respectively 182 NLRB No 97 SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. 615 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted and I find that General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., herein called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that, on various dates between March and July 1969,2 Respondent, through its President Vincent Saia, Secretary-Treasurer Louis Saia, and Ter- minal Manager Louis Fourmaux, engaged in a series of acts which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). The complaint further alleges that Respondent terminated employees Milous Pittman, Charles Fassitt, Harold Jefferson, and James A. Little on April 22, June 5, June 18, and July 8, respectively, because of their activi- ties on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Additionally, the pleadings charge that Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) by severing Fassitt from its employment rolls because he refused to spy on the union activities of its employees and to report the'results of his surveillance in this regard to Respondent. For its part, Respondent generally denies the commission of any labor practices proscribed by the statute. It is undisputed and I find' that, in late February,' the Union commenced an organizational campaign to enlist the collective support of Respondent's employees. Employee Milous Pitman testified without contradiction that, at this time , he and some of his, fellow workers discussed the possibility of obtaining the support of a labor organization to correct certain inequities which they believed existed at Respondent's freight terminals regarding their hours of work. Following this discussion, a consensus was reached by the men that Pittman and employee Ernest Franklin should visit the Union's office to be schooled in the procedural steps for obtaining collective representation. Pittman and Franklin did so, and the union official with whom they met advised them that the Union needed a sufficient number of , signed authorization cards in order to lodge a claim for recognition with Respondent or to file a petition for an election with the Board. The men were provided, with. blank authorization cards. During early March, Pittman enrolled approximately 12 of the employees into the Union's ranks. The Union conducted its first organizational meeting at Rose's Lounge, a local cafe, on about March 15, which was attended by 20 to 24 of Respondent's employ- ees and a union representative, and a second session was held at the union hall during the first part of April. In the meantime, and on March 27, the Union filed a petition with the Regional Office of the Board in ' Unless othrwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1969 New Orleans seeking a representation election among certain employees at Respondent's terminal in that city.' Raymond Marcel had been employed by Respondent for 5 or 6 years. He testified that, on some undisclosed date prior to the inception of the Union's campaign among Respondent's workers, Marcel was incarcerated in a local prison for failure to pay alimony. However, pursuant to an arrangement between the prison authori- ties and Respondent's officials,' Marcel was released into Respondent's custody between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. under a work relief plan which permitted him to satisfy the alimony judgment through gainful employment. Marcel testified that, around March 6 or 7, he was working on a trailer at the terminal when a can of Vienna sausages fell from the vehicle. Compelled by hunger, Marcel opened the container and commenced to eat its contents. Concurrently, he engaged in an argument with his foreman and another employee in consequence of which he was immediately discharged by his superior. Marcel telephoned Terminal Manager Louis Fourmaux to inform the latter of his plight. Four- maux instructed Marcel to return to work that morning and promised to straighten out the matter and provide the employee with a letter to the prison officials excusing his tardiness in returning to jail. At approximately 9 a.m., Marcel appeared at the terminal where he noticed two policemen enter Louis Saia's office. Shortly thereafter, Fourmaux summoned him to the office with the comment, "Come in here, these two gentlemen [policemen] want to talk to you about the Vienna sausage." After Marcel entered, Four- maux stated, "You know you can get some time for this Vienna sausage." When Marcel acknowledged that this possibility existed, Fourmaux cautioned that the prison authorities would "think hard of you" for engag- ing in misconduct and thus jeopardizing the work relief program. Whereupon, Vincent Saia was called to the office and he asked Marcel why the latter had opened the can of sausages. Marcel replied that he was hungry and he volunteered to compensate Respondent for the victuals. One of the police officers then joined the conver- sation and accused Marcel of failing to divulge his knowledge of thievery by Respondent's men. When Marcel protested that he was unaware of any pilfering at the terminal, the policeman stated, "Well, we [are] going to give you a break, a week, we want some action. We want to know who is stealing and who is taking anything." In conformity with this ultimatum, Marcel agreed to report to the ,police and Vincent Saia each morning before his return to prison concerning any act of pilferage which he had observed on his shift. An indicated heretofore, the Union scheduled its first organizational meeting with Respondent's personnel on 3 By a decision dated May 8, the Acting Regional Director for Region 15 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he scheduled an election for July 11. The unit ultimately found appropriate by the Director included all city drivers, helpers, warehousemen, maintenance shop employees, janitors, and over-the-road drivers employed at the Respondent's various terminals The balloting never took place because, of the pendency of the instant unfair labor practice charges 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or about March 15 The following day, according to Marcel's further testimony, he visited Vincent Saia's office to borrow some money During an ensuing discus- sion, Vincent inquired, "Do you know anything about the union7" When Marcel responded in the negative, Vincent rejoined, You should know something that Pittman and Franklin had up on Coin-roughly I don t know the street that come across there " Marcel replied that he "didn't hear anything about the meeting" because he was in jail , to which Vincent stated, "Well, they have meetings at Rose ' s," an apparent reference to Rose's Lounge After Marcel "told him I never been in none in there," Vincent conceded he had been "down there" but had not observed Marcel Because of his incarceration, Marcel did not attend the initial union gathering He was released from confine- ment on March 22, and sometime immediately before or after this date he executed an authorization card Marcel testimonially recalled that, after his release, and on a date which Vincent Saia fixed as March 31 , Respond- ent held a meeting with its employees When the meeting ended, Marcel stood next to Vincent and Louis Saia near a window in the terminal from where the Saias could observe their work complement Turning to Mar- cel, Vincent noted employees Arthur Jackson and A Joseph working on the dock and Vincent exclaimed that he had heard that these men had attended the union meeting on March 15 Expressing chagrin that these individuals would turn their backs on Respondent and enlist the aid of the Union , Vincent then accused employees Milous Pittman and Ernest Franklin of being the "ringleaders " in the union movement Noticing employee James A Little on the dock, Vincent lamented that "he didn't thought Little would do him anything like this " As noted above, the Union had scheduled a second meeting for early April It is Marcel 's testimony that, on the day of the meeting , Vincent Saia approached him and told Marcel that the Union had called a meeting for that date and that "I want you to attend this meeting and let me know who all would be there " Marcel dutifully attended the gathering The next morning, he received a telephone call from Vincent during which the latter instructed Marcel to proceed to a rendezvous point at certain cross -streets in the city The parties met as prearranged and Marcel entered Vincent's auto- mobile where Vincent sought the identity of the employ- ees who had attended the meeting on the preceding evening Marcel recited their names and Vincent pro- ceeded to write them down on a piece of paper During their sojourn , Vincent repeated that he was aware that Pittman and Franklin were the prime movants in the attempt to ensconce the Union in Respondent ' s opera- tions At the conclusion of their conversation , Vincent inquired whether Marcel had signed a union card Marcel replied in the affirmative , and Vincent retorted , "Well, you be one of the first so-and-so that I will fire and I mean it " Marcel related that the reason why he had not been immediately discharged was "because he [Vincent] wanted the rest of the information I could give him " Rounding out Marcel's testimony, he left Respond- ent's employ on June 6 It is his testimony that, between April 1 and June 6, Vincent Saia telephoned him on several occasions to elicit any information which Marcel might possess regarding the progress of the Union's campaign James A Little worked for the Respondent intermit- tently since 1944 He testified that he attended the first meeting held at the union hall, which took place in early April The following morning, Little's truck broke down of the streets of New Orleans While he sat in the cab awaiting the arrival of Respondent's mechanic, Vincent Saia approached the vehicle and inquired whether Little was sleeping on the job Little explained the difficulty and Vincent tested the equipment Apparently satisfied that Little was telling the truth, Vincent changed the subject and inquired, "What about this affiliated meeting you all attending7" When Little expressed ignorance as to the purport of the query, Vincent remarked, "You know what kind I am talking about A union meeting Didn't you attend some meet- ing" Little denied that he had ventured to such a gathering, whereupon Vincent stated, "Well, I under- stood that you went to a meeting " Little pressed Vincent for the name of the informant but Vincent replied, "I won 't even call the man's name " Little again sought the identity of the informant so that Little could put him to his proof under pain of a lawsuit Vincent retorted, "Well, you will have a gang to prove " Vincent then asked Little about the extent of his formal education When Little responded that he had attained the seventh grade, Vincent stated "Do you know you have to have an education to work on a union job9" Little acknowl- edged that the Union advocated such a requirement and, with this, Vincent left the scene Little further testified that, a few days after his discus- sion with Vincent Saia, he was summoned to Louis Saia's office Believing that Louis desired to question him along the same lines as his brother, Little opened the conversation by assuring Louis that Little knew nothing about the union meeting Louis informed Little that the Respondent was operating in the red and that "I couldn't afford a union " Approximately a week later , Little was called to Vincent Saia's office where the former reiterated that he had no knowledge of the Union 's activities or the collective desires of the employ- ees In the course of their conversation, Vincent exclaimed that "he couldn't go union " and warned that "he couldn 't afford it and before he afford it, he closed the gates, get out of the business He didn't need it no way " Little rejoined that "if you close up, I will just have to go on back to the country where I came from " While on the stand, Pittman recited that , shortly after Respondent's receipt of the union petition on March 27 and prior to the union meeting set for early April, Respondent 's officials assembled approximately 30 employees at the terminal With Louis Saia acting as spokesman , and with his brother, President Vincent Saia, standing at his side , Louis displayed the Union's petition to the assemblage and commented that that SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. organization possessed enough signed authorization cards to trigger an election . He stated that he was unable to fathom why the Company had received the petition because he had harbored the impression that all of his employees were satisfied with Respondent's treatment of them and with their working conditions. Louis added that the Respondent was losing money on its operations and he could not afford • a union in his business structure . He then proceeded to interrogate the men regarding the source of their dissatisfaction with employment conditions . At this juncture , Vincent Saia interjected that "they couldn't afford to have a union come there because they had been operating all the while and he was barely getting by with that and before he could have a union , said they'd just have to close the gates down." Arthur Jackson worked for 14 years with Respondent as a truckdriver . He recalled his attendance at a meeting conducted by Respondent which apparently occurred on March 31 , • and which was attended by 25 to 30 of the employees . At the outset, Vincent Saia told the men that Respondent "couldn't afford no union." Louis Saia then took the floor and repeated his brother's statement, adding that the Saias had received a represen- tation petition filed with the Board by the Union and that this happenstance could not have occurred without his employees ' support of the Union by signing authoriza- tion cards . None of the assembled employees responded to Louis' utterances , in consequence of which Louis invited their reaction to the prospects of unionization. This invitation drew a few expressions of allegiance to the Company from the assemblage . Louis thereupon cautioned the men that , in the event the Union pulled a strike at the terminal , Respondent would replace the strikers with new workers . According to Jackson, Louis continued his talk by stating that "we [the Saias] wouldn't be able to operate this company with a union contract . We would have to close the gates." A few days later , Terminal Manager Fourmaux approached Jackson and inquired whether "I attended any meetings or signed any cards or anything." Jackson responded in the negative. Jackson testified that in late April or early May, he engaged in a conversation with Louis Saia and his brother Vincent. During this colloquy, Louis asked Jack- son whether the latter had attended any union meetings and whether he had executed an authorization card. Jackson replied that he had not. Louis remarked that "someone had told him that I was one of the ringleaders of the union ." Jackson denied that he occupied such a role . At this juncture , Louis produced a list which contained the names of all the employees who favored the Union and pointed to Jackson 's name . Although Jackson had indeed attended union gatherings and had signed a card , he disclaimed that he had partook in any such activity. A few days later, Jackson was again summoned to Louis' office . According to Jackson, Louis commented that "They couldn't afford the union, couldn 't operate with a union contract . Said he couldn't even afford to give us not even a one cent raise per hour. Then after he kept questioning me and asked 617 me did I went to the meeting , then I admitted I went. He told me that he was surprised at me doing that. And he said that we had any problems , why didn't we come and consult with him about them ." After Jackson confessed that he had joined the Union, Louis remarked that "when the election comes up all he asks all us to do was vote no and nobody would get fired." Finally, during another discussion with Louis, Louis informed Jackson that "someone tells him [Louis] that Parker , Pittman and Franklin was the leader of the union." Jackson commented that he did not know wheth- er this was so. Charles Harris had toiled as a truckdriver for Respond- ent since 1965. Harris testified that , sometime in March, Vincent Saia told the witness that an employee named Spurlock had come to Vincent with an authorization card and the latter asked Harris whether he possessed one. Harris answered that he did not. Approximately a month later , and immediately after a union meeting, Vincent approached Harris and inquired whether Harris had gone to the meeting . Harris responded in the nega- tive , whereupon Vincent produced a list which contained the names of the union adherents , including Harris', and insisted that Harris must have attended the convoca- tion of union supporters . Vincent then asked Harris how the latter felt about the Union and Harris replied, "I don't think we can afford the union , is what I told him." A few days later , Vincent again called Harris to his office and once more interrogated him concerning his attendance at union meetings and his thoughts about unionization . Finally , on July 5, Louis Saia summoned Harris and, for the first time , queried him about his union activities . Louis placed a blank employment appli- cation before Harris and questioned him concerning his ability to read and write and the amount of his formal education , cautioning that "if the union would come through, say I would be gone bye -bye" because of his educational shortcomings . Harris complained that, since the commencement of the union campaign , "every time I turn around somebody is on my back about this union , telling me about this and that about the union." Louis retorted , "Well, don 't you think you make me mad , makes me angry ? Don't you think the Teamsters down there with you all down there got me all stirred up in this mess now?" With Harris' denial of any knowledge regarding union activities, the conversation ended. Morris Parker worked for the Respondent as a truck- driver for 17 years. He testified that , on March 31 and prior to the company sponsored meeting scheduled for that evening, Vincent Saia called him into an office to inquire whether Parker had heard anything about the Union's organizational efforts. Parker gave a negative reply. Parker attended the company meeting that eve- ning. When it was concluded , Parker proceeded to leave the room . Passing Vincent Saia and Fourmaux, Saia halted Parker and, turning to Fourmaux , Saia told Four- maux to repeat some of Saia's earlier observations to Parker . Whereupon, Fourmaux stated that "Mr. Saia said he know you [Parker] know something about it [the Union]." Parker denied any knowledge of the union 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD movement, at which point Vincent remarked, "You know Parker, I know you You are insulting my intelli- gence because I know you are laughing at me behind my back " Parker replied, "No, boss I am not " Vincent concluded the conversation with the statement that "if I [Parker] went to the meeting out of curiosity, say it would be all right because I knew some fellows had never been to them, and I would be one of them fellows never been to one " Parker once more assured Vincent that he had not attended the union gathering Harold Jefferson had worked for Respondent for about 5 years He testified that, toward the end of March, he became aware that the Union had launched an organi- zational drive at the New Orleans terminal when an employee named Gore invited him to a meeting of that labor organization He accepted this invitation and noted that most of the 15 to 20 individuals in attendance were employees of Respondent About April 1, he was summoned to the office of Vincent Saia Behind closed doors, Vincent inquired if Jefferson "had heard about the union," and Jefferson replied that he knew nothing of the Union's or anizational efforts At this point, Vincent stated that `he didn't want [Jefferson] to feel as though I was coping out, that he knew basically what was going on " Holding a piece of paper in his hand, Vincent remarked that "he had a list of names of all the personnel that went to the meeting " Vincent added that "he couldn't afford a union , that the union had put a lot of people out of business and that he'd rather go out of business than have the union around " When Jefferson disclaimed any knowledge of union activ- ities, Vincent terminated the discussion Jefferson further averred that he spoke with Louis Saia around the end of April regarding the Union On this occasion, Louis invited Jefferson into the former's office and asked what Jefferson knew about the Union Upon receiving a negative response , Louis reiterated his brother's admonition that "he couldn't afford it and he'd rather be out of business, too " Charles Fassitt, an extremely nervous and frightened witness, testified that he first learned of the Union's efforts When he was called into Louis' office in April where his superior inquired whether Fassitt knew any- thing about the election campaign Fassitt replied that he knew nothing about the matter, whereupon Louis asked whether Pittman was in the forefront of the elec- tion drive Fassitt expressed ignorance concerning Pitt- man's Union activities Louis then queried whether Pitt- man made it a practice of driving his truck to his home and, when Fassitt related that Pittman drove home for lunch, Louis stated that he wished he could catch Pittman driving off his designated route so that he could "fire him on the spot " After this conversation, Fassttt departed Louis' office and as he strolled by the office of Vincent Saia, the latter beckoned him to enter Dis- playing a list of names on a sheet of paper , Vincent asked whether the witness knew anything about the union drive Fassitt responded that his only knowledge came from his discussions with fellow employees Fassitt added that he has heard that Marcel had provided Vincent with a list of union adherents Vincent disclaimed that he obtained this intelligence from Marcel, commenting that "he wasn't depending on Marcel because he was going to fire him " A few days later, Fassitt called upon Louis in an attempt to procure a loan According to Fassitt, Louis again questioned him concerning his knowledge of the Union's activities and Fassitt once more professed his ignorance as to the status of the campaign At this juncture, Louis summoned his brother Vincent and the latter posed a similar inquiry to Fassitt After collective consultation, the loan was approved Before the meeting ended, Louis cautioned Fassittt against "taking off because during this union trouble he is going to fire everyone that takes off " Within a few days, Louis recalled Fassitt to his office and repeated his previous inquiry Either during this, or a previous conversation, Louis "told [Fassitt] to go and join the boys and find out what they were doing and let [Louis] know " Subse- quent to this discussion, Fassitt placed another call to Vincent to apprise the latter that Fassitt would be tardy for work that day In the ensuing conversation, Vincent persisted in asking whether Fassitt had learned anything about the Union's endeavors and, when Fassitt replied that he had not, he was instructed to report to Vincent's office upon his return to work Fassitt protested that "I hate to keep coming into your office These people think I am a stool pigeon " Vincent rejoined that he possessed the right to have any of his employees to report to his office Because of his fear that the men might consider him an informer, Fassitt did not appear for work on that date The follow ing day, Fassitt telephoned Louis to complain that Vin- cent had repeatedly summoned him to the latter's office and that the employees might gain the impression that "I am a stool pigeon on him " Louis assured Fassitt that he would speak to Vincent about the matter During the conversation, Louis repeated his query concerning Fassitt's knowledge of union meetings and Fassitt once more expressed his ignorance about the subject Several days later, Fassitt contacted Louis by telephone and stated that he wished to visit the terminal to collect his paycheck Louis advised Fassitt not to come to the terminal and suggested that the two men meet at a local department store When Fassitt arrived, Louis once more inquired whether Fassitt had found out any- thing about the Union's campaign and once more Fassitt answered negatively Louis gave Fassitt his paycheck and the conversation terminated with Fassitt relating that someone had fired shots into his home on the preceding evening Concluding his testimony, Fassitt averred that he had never attended a union meeting and consequently had never supplied the Saias with any information regarding the Union's endeavors I do not credit the testimony of Vincent Saia, Louis Sata, or Louis Fourmaux, insofar as it collides with the sworn utterances of Marcel, Little, Pittman, Jackson, Harris, Parker, Fassitt, or Jefferson, regarding manage- ment's alleged acts of interference, restraint and coer- cion, not only because the corporate triumvirate's demeanor failed to impress me as a portrait of candor, but also because their testimony was too fraught with SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. inconsistencies and implausibilities to warrant credible status. Thus, Vincent Saia recounted on the stand that he first became aware of the Union's attempt to organize his terminal employees in New Orleans, in late March from two sources. On March 26, he received a letter from the Union claiming that it represented a 'majority of his employees and, on the same date, he received a telephone call from Marcel who reported that "the men had been 'unsatisfied and were supposedly attending the meetings." Yet, Vincent then acknowledged that he had obtained this intelligence from Marcel on approxi- mately three occasions several weeks prior to March 26. During his examination, Vincent initially claimed that he was ignorant of the fact that Marcel had been impris- oned by the New Orleans police authorities and worked for the Respondent under a work relief program, although he ultimately conceded that this could have been the case. Vincent recalled that, a few weeks before he received the Union's representation petition on March 27, he learned that Marcel had opened a can of Vienna sausages at the terminal and had eaten some of them. According to Vincent, the remainder of the sausages were placed in a refrigerator and maintained there for an indefinite period of time solely to avoid odorous spoilage. Marcel's activities in this regard prompted Vincent to summon the employee to the President's office where, in the presence of Terminal Manager Four- maux, Vincent interrogated Marcel about the matter. During the ensuing conversation, Vincent claimed that he did not invite the presence of the local constabularly although he confessed that his security agent was in attendance. Vincent testified that, when the discussion began, he asked Marcel "about thefts and whether he was involved in any or knew of any," but denied that he threatened to return Marcel to jail in the event the latter refused to spy on his fellow employees. Howev- er, Vincent did not deny Marcel's testimony that, during the conversation, Fourmaux warned that Marcel could "get some time for this Vienna sausage," and that Marcel would be obligated to report any incidents of thievery each morning to Vincent. While Vincent stated that he had no formal compact with Marcel whereby the former promised to refrain from pressing charges against Marcel because of the sausage incident if he became an informant regarding thefts by his fellow workers, he allowed as how he had an understanding with all his employees that they were to be on the lookout for thievery. Vincent further testified that, at no time since the sausage episode, did he instruct Marcel to attend union meetings or report on the attendance of his coworkers at such gatherings. Instead, he recounted that, on the evening of March 26, he received an unsolicited tele- phone call from Marcel in which the latter reported that the men were dissatisfied with their working condi- tions at the terminal and that they had scheduled a union meeting for that night. According to Vincent, he had learned about 4 to 6 weeks earlier from Marcel that his employees had attended a union gathering 619 prompted by dissatisfaction with their employment, but Vincent "didn't put much stock" in what Marcel related. On this occasion, Marcel inquired whether Vincent har- bored any objection to Marcel's attendance, to which Vincent replied, "That's up to you. It's your prerogative. You can go if you want to. I am not saying you should go or you have to go and I am not saying you are not supposed to go. You might go out of curiosity; you might be interested in the program whatever it is," a remarkable statement, indeed, in light of Vincent's latent antagonism toward the Union as evidenced by his own testimony herein. Vincent then told Marcel that the former had not received any complaints or expressions of dissatisfaction from his men, and he maintained that he did not direct Marcel to go to the union meeting that evening and did not ask him to record the names of the employees who attended. According to Vincent, he received another unsolicited telephone call from Marcel at home later on the night of March 26. Marcel reported that between 14 and 17 of Respondent's employees had attended the union meeting . During their telephone colloquy, Vincent was taken aback when he learned that his employees were dissatisfied with their working conditions, despite the fact that Marcel had informed him on three previous occasions that the men had attended organizational meet- ings in an attempt to improve their lot. Albeit Vincent testimonially insisted that he had assumed a posture of neutrality during the Union's entire campaign, he nevertheless challenged Marcel to verify the accuracy of the latter's information. Marcel thereupon supplied the names of the employees who had attended the conclave, mentioning Little and Pittman, and possibly those of Jefferson and Fassitt. When Marcel remarked that the men were asked to sign union authorization cards at the gathering , Vincent pointedly inquired wheth- er Marcel had executed a pledge card and received a negative reply. Although, in Vincent's words, he did not "put much stock into what Marcel" had to say, he nonetheless expended his time in listening to Marcel's reports because "I appreciate any information concern- ing my employees if there is some dissatisfaction I didn't know anything about," adding that, "If I had an opportunity, I sure would" take action to correct the disharmony. Vincent went on to testify that he received another telephone communication from Marcel at Vincent's home on the morning of March 27 in which the employee requested a meeting with his superior away from the premises of the terminal. Initially, Vincent asserted that Marcel did not explicate his reason for seeking the meeting. When plied about the matter, Vincent finally confessed that "I just figured it was regarding the fact that he had been to the meeting" on the previous evening. Vincent thereupon left his home and drove to a rendez- vous point in New Orleans where Marcel entered Vin- cent's vehicle. It is Vincent's testimony that the conver- sation began with Marcel reiterating that several of Respondent's employees had attended the meeting and expressed their dissatisfaction with employment condi- tions. According to Vincent, he remarked that he had 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not received any complaints from his men and cautioned Marcel "that I didn't want him to be saying these things because a lot of the people that he says were dissatisfied, I dust didn't believe they were dissatisfied " Vincent added that "I said for him to be sure, not to make any false statement because this could cause people trouble if they weren't dissatisfied and he said that they were," although Vincent failed to illuminate this record with any definition of the "trouble" which they might encounter by any such false information Vincent insisted, however, that he did not tell Marcel that the involved employees would be discharged, and he was absolutely sure that he did not admonish Marcel that he would be one of the first to be terminated because he had signed a union card At this point, Marcel began to unfold the names of the employees who had gone to the meeting, citing Little and Pittman and several others Questioned as to whether he demand- ed the names of the leading union adherents, Vincent at first entered an emphatic denial However, upon further interrogation, he made the curious statement that "At that time I don't remember mentioning anything like that " When Marcel revealed the name of an employ- ee who had attended the gathering and whom Vincent "thought was a good man," Vincent probed the accuracy of Marcel's information Following their discussion, Marcel alighted from the automobile and Vincent proceeded to his office It is Vincent's testimony that, shortly after he arrived at the terminal, Marcel telephoned once again According to Vincent, he believed that this call was occasioned by Marcel's obdurate desire to assure Vincent that he had attended the meeting and had observed Respondent's employees gathered there During the conversation, Mar- cel repeated the names of the men whom he had seen at the convocation Despite Vincent's proclaimed neu- trality regarding his employees' desires for collective representation, and his insistence that he "was just getting tired to talking to [Marcel] about the same thing," Vincent nevertheless admittedly copied down on a piece of paper the names of all the .,mployees which Marcel provided When asked whether he solicited any informa- tion from Marcel thereafter, Vincent responded in the negative However, he then brought himself to confess that he conversed with Marcel on several occasions regarding "union affairs" after this final telephone call Vincent further recited that, on March 31, after having received the Union 's petition for an election, Respondent scheduled a meeting of employees and approximately 40 men appeared Present on behalf of the Company were Vincent, his brother Louis, and Fourmaux Vincent testified that Louis informed the personnel that Respond- ent had received the petition from the Board and that "all of the facts we didn't have and as soon as we did get facts as to the problem, that we'd have another meeting and let all the employees know " Vincent evinced a total lack of recall as to whether anything was said at the meeting about employee dissatisfaction, whether the men had signed union cards, whether Respondent could not afford the Union at its terminal, and even whether Vincent addressed the assemblage, although he did not deny that these things might have occurred However, he was positive in his denial that he warned the employees that the terminal would be closed if the Union was successful in its organizational efforts In the course of his examination, Vincent was also probed as to whether he had engaged in any conversation with employee Morris Parker immediately following the company meeting He initially responded that he had not Subsequently, however, he confessed that any dis- cussion he might have had with Parker was "Not of any significance," and finally he again changed tack and claimed that his conversation with this employee concerning union meetings was "Not after the [company] meeting " When queried as to whether he told Parker that the latter was insulting his intelligence by withhold- ing information about Parker's union activities, Vincent replied, "Not at that time " Under counsel's prodding, Vincent related that, on the evening when he received a telephone call from Marcel, which Vincent placed as occurring on March 26, he summoned Parker to his office In company with Fourmaux, Vincent asked Parker "if he knew anything about a meeting or if he knew of any dissatisfaction, was he dissatisfied," and Vincent "may have" interrogated Parker as to whether the latter had signed an authorization card According to Vincent, his purpose in calling Parker into his office was to inquire "if he was dissatisfied, did he have any problems, did he know of a meeting or go to one " Parker replied that he was not experiencing any difficulties and that he did not attend the union meeting Vincent could not remember whether, in this conversation, he stated to Parker that the employee was insulting Vincent's intelligence by his negative response When questioned as to whether he told Parker that the latter was laughing behind his back, Vincent responded, "Not to him," and then could not remember whether he had made this statement to Parker or any other employee Vincent further admitted that, after Marcel provided him with the names of the employees who had attended the union meetings , he spoke to Charles Harris, as well as other employees, and inquired whether they were dissatisfied with working for Respondent, whether they had attended union meetings , and whether they had executed authorization cards, all the while assuring the men that they would not be discharged for these activities Vincent also conceded that he interrogated employees as to whether their fellow workers had been to meetings conducted by the Union and that he had, in this manner , obtained the names of the defectors to the Union's ranks from informants David and Welton Gore Vincent conceded on the stand that he encountered Little at a cross-street in New Orleans where the latter's vehicle had broken down, and inquired whether Little was dissatisfied with working for Respondent Vincent also acknowledged that he told Little that "I'd under- stood that he had been to a meeting with the men and the men were dissatisfied," and that "some of the other employees said he [Little] had attended a SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE , INC. 621 meeting and he was dissatisfied," but Vincent could not recall if he asked whether Little had signed a union card. Finally, Vincent could not recall whether he told Little, during a conversation in his office, that the Respondent would terminate its business operations in the event the Union succeeded in organizing its employ- ees. Finally, Vincent testimonially conceded that, some- time in early April, he interrogated Harold Jefferson to ascertain whether this employee was disgruntled with his conditions of employment and whether he had ever been to a union meeting . While he could not remember whether he told Jefferson that he could not afford a union at the terminal , the company president denied that he informed Jefferson that Respondent would cease operations if the men embraced the Union in the forth- coming election. Louis Saia testified that he conducted a meeting of his employees after Respondent received the Union's representation petition on a date which he fixed as April 7. According to Louis, the meeting was scheduled in order "to find out more or less what was going on after we received the petition and a notice from the NLRB; just more or less to have a meeting with the men to find out what the situation was." However, prior to the meeting , he sought advice of counsel who advised that "we had to be very cautious and told me as long as I had a meeting to go ahead with it. " Louis claimed that he alone spoke to the assem- blage and simply informed the men that Respondent had obtained the Union's petition from the Board and that he would hold other sessions in the future to "give them the truth and the facts." In line with Arthur Jackson's testimony, Louis allowed as how he warned the men that Respondent would replace its drivers in the event they engaged in a union-sponsored work stop- page. Louis further testified that, a few days after he received the election petition, he engaged in individual conversations concerning the Union with employees Arthur Jackson, Andrew Joseph, and Stanley Eskine. In his talk with Jackson, Louis inquired whether Jackson knew if the employees "had any problems that he was aware of." Louis also told Jackson "That his name was, that his name came out that he was at this particular [Union] meeting and if he knew of any problem or if he had a problem." Louis was quick to add that "Any time that I ever spoke to any man, the first thing I told him is, I said, `Before you talk to me, I want this understanding. I don't want to know if you have been to a union meeting, so don't tell me; I don't want to know, and I don't want to know if anyone went." Despite Louis' staunch assertion that he did not "want to know" if his men attended union meetings , he nevertheless openly admitted that, in his conversation with Andrew Joseph, he "asked Joseph if he was dissatisfied and if he knew about the petition and his name was on that list and I asked him if he had attended the meeting." Moreover, he conceded that he summoned employees David and Welton Gore to his office when he learned that their names appeared on the list which Marcel had tendered to Vincent, and "asked them if they had attended the meeting." Initially, Louis proclaimed that the sole purpose for the inquiries he put to his employees was to derive the source of the dissatisfaction and he denied that the advent of the Union in any way prompted his interrogations. When pressed further as to whether the "problem" with his men stemmed from their desire for collective representa- tion, Louis grudgingly acknowledged that "I imagine that would be a problem if they were trying to organize your job." Under questioning as to whether he told Jackson that he had learned from other employees that Jackson was a ringleader in the union movement, Louis at first avoided a direct answer, stating that he asked Jackson if he had attended a union meeting . When Jackson replied in the negative, Louis retorted, "Are you sure, because I have had a lot of people, my brother has got a list of names, and he said you were at this meeting." Louis was then asked whether he had ever interrogated any of his workers to ascertain who were the most active union supporters. Denying that he had done so, Louis claimed that he learned the identity of the activists from Charles Fassitt and Jessie Spurlock who voluntarily imparted this intelligence to him. According to Louis, these individuals informed him that Pittman, Franklin, Banks, Parker, and Harris were "the main men" seeking to install the Union in the terminal. Louis further averred that, shortly after he received the Union's election petition, he summoned Fassitt to his office to discuss the current organizational campaign. Later, on May 12, Louis received a telephone call from this employee. ',The latter reported that he had been drinking over the preceding weekend and that "he was out investigating union activities on a weekend . . . and that he had attended a meeting somewhere by Pittman's place and a couple of our men from [another terminal] had attended this meeting .. . ." Louis testified that he sought the names of these employees from Fassitt, and that Fassitt enumerated the names of Ernest Franklin and Pittman and "a couple other men." Upon obtaining this information, Louis remarked, "Look, did I ask you to go out this weekend and check on union activities?" to which Fassitt replied that Louis had not. However, Louis also admitted that he told Fassitt "it was left up to him, if he wanted to attend a meeting and advise me, he felt that he wanted to do it, I couldn't tell him what to do one way or the other," and that it was "Okay" with Louis. Concluding the conversation, Louis warned that Fassitt would be dis- charged if he did not report for work that day. Fassitt did not appear at the terminal, in consequence of which he was terminated. Louis denied that he told Fassitt during this telephone colloquy that he had warned this individual that he would no longer be permitted to absent himself without an adequate excuse because of the advent of the Union. It is Louis' further testimony that, about 2 weeks later, Fassitt again telephoned him and stated that the former had some "very important information" to dis- close to his former employer. Accordine to Louis, Fassitt 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suggested a meeting near a local department store rather than at the terminal because he was fearful that the employees would "get him," and Louis accepted the invitation due to the fact that "I wanted to find out what he was talking about, what was so important," although curiously Louis did not inquire into the purpose for making this journey before he left When Louis arrived at the appointed spot, Fassitt asked him to visit his home to inspect some damage caused by bullets which had been fired into it by unknown persons After Fassitt informed Louis that he had not reported the incident to the local police, Louis declined the invitation Louis proclaimed that this was the extent of their conver- sation He denied that he questioned Fassitt concerning his attendance at union meetings , whether he had signed an authorization card, and denied that he inquired into the identity of the Union leaders 4 While Louis remem- bered the occasion in April when he and Vincent Saia approved an extension of credit for Fassitt, he disclaimed that the subject of the Union was mentioned during this episode Louis also recalled on the stand that he spoke with Harold Jefferson on one occasion around the middle of April about the Union On this occasion, Jefferson had returned to the terminal after a run and sought a loan from Louis During the visit, Louis "just asked him what he thought about the situation and if he knew of any reason why the men had a problem " According to Louis, he did not inquire into Jefferson's union propensities because , as an over-the-road driver, Jefferson was not included in the unit for which the Union was seeking representational rights However, it is undisputed on this record that Respondent sought the unit inclusion of this job classification in the election request by the Union At the outset of his testimony on the issue, Louis initially proclaimed that he had never discussed the Union with employee James Little However, he then recalled that he did have a conversation regarding the Union with Little when the latter came to Louis and stated that he wished to resign his job because, due to the fact that Louis provided Little with extra income for cutting the grass around Louis' residence, the "men would look upon him [Little] as a pimp," an apparent " On cross examination Louis was questioned regarding the occasion on which he received the information from Fassitt that Pittman had attended a Union meeting Louis replied I don t recall him ever telling me that When pressed on the issue Louis attempted to paint himself as a portrait of innocence of any awareness that the meetings which his employees attended were sponsored or conducted by the Union In light of his testimony that he had received this intelligence from Fassitt on May 12 almost 6 weeks after he had come into possession of the Union s election petition and in view of his testimonial utterances that he told Fassitt did I ask you to go out this weekend and check on union activities ' this portrait is more reminiscent of that of Dorian Gray Moreover during his initial visit to the stand Louis asserted that he had obtained the names of the employees who attended the meeting in the course of a telephone call from Fassitt On cross examination he placed the receipt of this information at the time of his encounter with Fassitt at the local department store Finally he changed stance and reiterated that he learned of the names during the telephone conversa tion reference to the possibility that the employees might view Little as an informer regarding their union activities in light of the preferred treatment he was receiving from Louis Louis further acknowledged that, during this discussion, Little mentioned that the men were dissatisfied with Respondent because it had discontinued the award of an annual bonus When questioned whether this topic of discussion had any relation to the Union's organizational efforts, Louis replied, "I don't think it did, no, sir, because he was telling me about a problem about no bonus, and I told him last year we couldn't give a bonus because we lost money " Finally, Louis denied that he told Little that Respondent could not afford a unionized establishment Louis recalled having received two telephone calls from Marcel on a Saturday sometime in April Marcel stated that he had been attempting to contact Vincent Saia about a "very important" matter and inquired as to Vincent's whereabouts Louis replied that he did not know where his brother was located, at which point Marcel "tried to talk to me, but I wouldn't talk to him " When asked to explain what he meant by this statement, Louis answered that Marcel "started trying what did I know, how were things going with the union " After Marcel hung up, Louis telephoned Vincent and cautioned that "Marcel was trying to call him and be very careful, it looked like he was trying to trap him or something " Louis concluded that it "just didn't make sense for him to be calling like he was " Rounding out Louis' testimony on the issue of interfer- ence , coercion and restraint of his employees in their choice of a bargaining representative, he at first recount- ed that he spoke with Charles Harris regarding the Union but insisted that it was Harris who sought an audience to discuss the subject Louis then recanted and observed that, on the initial occasion of speaking with Harris, he summoned the latter to his office and "asked him how he felt about the situation, if he was happy " Louis also conceded that he called Harris into the office and asked whether Harris knew how to read and write When Harris responded in the affirmative, Louis produced an employment application and directed the employee to fill it out Upon observing Harris' lack of writing ability, Louis remarked, "If you were in the union, I don't know how you found a job When you came here you had to lie You have to read and write " According to Louis, at about this time Harris had signed for some freight with a shipper for an order which lacked approximately $1,000 worth of goods and the Respondent was forced to make good for this loss Despite the fact that Harris had worked for the Respondent for approximately 4 years, Louis acknowledged that this was the first occasion on which he had become aware that Harris was somewhat illiterate Moreover, in spite of this asserted loss, Louis did not hold Harris financially responsible for the shortage and he admitted that he had never tested the ability of any other employee to read and write When queried as to whether he told Harris that he "would be gone" if the Union was successful because he did not have a high school education, Louis recited that he told SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. Harris "to look in the paper and he'd see some of the union carriers that in the paper they state high school education." At the conclusion of the conversa- tion, Louis remarked, "I'd fire you right now, but if I fired you, they would say it was on account of the union, so I am going to keep you." Terminal Manager Fourmaux recalled the company meeting which was held, according to Vincent Saia, on March 31. When questioned whether he overheard any exchange between Vincent and Parker after the meeting ended, or whether Vincent- asked Fourmaux to repeat, the,former's suspicions that Parker "knew something about" the Union, Fourmaux replied that he could not recall. Upon being asked whether he heard Vincent make any comments to Harris on this occasion, Fourmaux responded, "Well, not directly, sir. When the meeting was over, we have the single door there that passes by my desk, and we were standing there. There was conversation going back and forth between men and all, but as to what he [Parker] testified, I honestly cannot recall that." Fourmaux proclaimed that, while he conversed with employee Jackson almost every day, he denied that he ever queried Jackson as to whether he had attended union meetings or had signed an authorization card. However, Marcel's testimony stands uncontroverted that, during the "Vienna sausage" incident in early March, Fourmaux met with two police- men and Vincent Saia and Fourmaux warned Marcel that the latter "can get some time for this Vienna sausage" and that the police authorities would "think hard of you" and revoke his work relief freedom from prison for eating the sausages. Moreover, Marcel's testi- mony that Vincent Saia extracted a pledge from him to report any incidents of pilferage each morning before his return to Jail also is uncontradicted. I credit the testimony of Raymond Marcel, which is uncontradicted, and find that, on about March 16, Vincent Saia interrogated him regarding his knowledge of the Union's organizational activities as well as those of fellow employees Pittman and Franklin. Based upon Marcel's undenied testimony, I also find that, in early April, Vincent questioned Marcel as to whether the latter had executed a union authorization card, and pressed Marcel for the names of the employees who attended a union meeting conducted on the preceding evening. It is also uncontroverted and I find that, between April 1 and June 6, when Marcel left Respondent's employ, Vincent repeatedly queried Marcel concerning the progress of the Union's organizational campaign. I place no credence in Vincent's assertions that Marcel volunteered to spy on union meetings and report the names of the men who attended and the identity of the "ringleaders," without any prior instructions by Vincent to do so. Marcel testified without contradiction that, in the course of the "Vienna sausage," episode and in the presence of Vincent, Terminal Manager Four- maux warned Marcel that the latter could "get some time" for this unauthorized repast and Vincent admitted- ly retained the evidence of Marcel's pilferage for an extended period. In my view, Vincent utilized this inci- dent as a club to force Marcel to do his, Vincent's, 623 bidding. I deem it implausible that Marcel would have voluntarily cast himself in the role of-an informer on Respondent's behalf because I fail to discern on this record anything demonstrable which he could expect to gain by engaging in this espionage. I am fortified in this conclusion by the testimony of Louis Saia that it "just didn't make sense for [Marcel] to be calling like he was" to report on the union proclivities of the employees. In sum, I find that, on the day of the scheduled union gathering in April, Vincent Saia commanded Marcel's attendance there at to spy on the proceedings, to gather information as to the identity of the employees who went to the meeting,- and to pinpoint the most active adherents, and that, when Mar- cel conveyed this intelligence to Vincent, he reduced the information to writing.5 I also find, based upon Marcel's credible testimony, that when Vincent discov- ered that Marcel had joined the Union, Vincent warned that Marcel would "be-one of the 'first so-and-so that I will fire and I mean it." I further find that, after the company-sponsored meeting on March 31, Vincent informed Marcel that the former knew that employees Jackson, Joseph, and Little had attended a previous union meeting and that Pittman and Franklin were the leaders in the union movement. Accordingly, I conclude that, by the foregoing conduct of Vincent Saia, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). I credit the testimony of Harris, Little, Jefferson, Parker, and Fassitt, which was, largely corroborated by Vincent, Saia in pertinent aspects,- and find that, on various dates in March, April, and, July, Vincent interrogated these men as to whether they had gone to meetings of the Union, whether their fellow employees had attended such convocations, and whether these indi- viduals had signed authorization cards on behalf of that labor organization. I also find that, in early April, Vincent informed Little that he had received a report from other employees that Little had attended a union meeting, and that, in the same month, controverted Harris' denial that he had gone to a union gathering by exhibiting a list of the names of, employees who had attended. By this conduct, I conclude that Respond- ent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Pittman, Jefferson, and Little testified that, during the company-sponsored meeting on March 31, as well as in private interviews, Vincent Saia forewarned that Respondent would "just have to close the gates down" S In his brief , Respondent's counsel asserts that Respondent should be held blameless for Vincent's enlistment of Marcel as an espionage agent because the General Counsel's complaint fails to specify his actions in this regard as violative of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act. While it is true that the affirmative pleadings charge Louis , rather than Vincent, with dispatching an employee to union meetings in order to spy upon the concerted activities of his fellow employees, the issue pertaining to Vincent 's participation in this aspect of misconduct was fully litigated at the hearing"and Respondent had ample opportunity to meet it. I therefore find no merit in Respondent's contention that Vincent's aberra- tions should, legally, be disregarded 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if the men selected the Union to represent them at the terminal. Vincent, while failing to recall whether he informed these individuals that Respondent 'could not afford the cost of unionization, denied that he cau- tioned his employees that he would terminate his trucking operations if the Union became their bargaining repre- sentative. In light of Vincent's pronounced antipathy toward the Union's organizational campaign, as evi- denced by his repeated interrogation of his employees regarding their union sympathies and those of their cohorts, and his planting of a spy among the men who attended union meetings , I do not credit Vincent's denial and I find, based upon the credited testimony of Pittman, Jefferson, and Little, that Vincent threatened to shut its operations down if his men embraced the Union's cause. By so doing, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I credit Arthur Jackson's testimony, which is not seriously controverted by Louis Saia, and find that, on several occasions, the latter interrogated him as to whether he had signed a union pledge card, whether he had attended any union meetings , whether he was an active union adherent, and whether Pittman, Parker, and Franklin were leaders of the organizational move- ment at the terminal . I also credit Jackson's testimony and find that Louis announced to Jackson that Respond- ent could not afford a unionized operation and that it would consequently terminate its business if the Union successfully organized the men, and I further find that Louis threatened Jackson that "nobody would get fired" provided that the employees rejected Union representa- tion. Louis admitted and I find that he questioned David and Welton Gore, as well as Andrew Joseph and Stanley Eskine, as to whether they had attended union-sponsored gatherings and concerning their reasons for embracing that labor organization . By this conduct, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I credit Little's testimony and find that Louis similarly interrogated Little as to why he chose to support the Union. I do not credit Louis' denials that he warned Little, Pittman, and Jefferson that Respondent could not afford a union and that Respondent would close its "gates" if it was required to deal with a bargaining agent . Based upon the credited testimony of Jefferson, Harris, and Fassitt, I also find that Louis queried them as to their union sympathies and whether they had attended union meetings. I conclude that, by the forego- ing conduct, Respondent committed additional violations of Section 8(a)(1). Fassitt's testimony stands undenied and I find that Louis questioned this employee as to the identity of fellow employees who had attended a union meeting and that Fassitt mentioned the names of Pittman and Franklin. Fassitt impressed me as an honest witness, and I credit his testimony that Louis told Fassitt, after the former had learned of Pittman's prominence in the Union's drive, that Louis would "fire him [Pittman] on the spot" if he deviated from his prescribed delivery routes. I also credit Fassitt and find that Louis also cautioned that "he is going to fire everyone" who took time off from work "during this union trouble," and that Louis instructed Fassitt to spy on the union activities of his fellow employees. By Louis' conduct, I conclude that Respondent ran afoul of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1). Harris testified that he was summoned to Louis Saia's office in July where he inquired into the extent of Harris' formal education. When Louis learned of the employee's lack of ability in the language arts, Louis warned that "if the union would come through, say I would be gone bye-bye." Louis admitted calling Harris into his office and testing Harris' reading and writing ability for the first time in the course of the latter's 4-year period of employment, allegedly because Louis had uncovered a shortage in a customer order in the amount of $1,000 for which Respondent did not hold Harris financially responsible. Louis acknowledged, in response to a question as to whether he told Harris he would "be gone" if the Union succeeded, that he suggested that Harris read the newspapers which adver- tised that unionized carriers sought drivers with a high school education, a curious confession in light of Louis' assertion that he deemed Harris to be illiterate. In short, I credit Harris' testimony and find that Louis threatened that this employee would lose his employment because of illiteracy if the employees selected the Union. I conclude that Respondent thereby offended the provi- sions of Section 8(a)(1). Finally, I credit Jackson, who impressed me with his testimonial sincerity, and find that Foreman Four- maux interrogated him as to whether he had joined the Union or attended meetings of that organization. In the context of this proceeding, I conclude that Four- maux's questioning was coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1). I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's allegations that Respondent discharged Pittman, Fassitt, Jefferson, and Little, because they joined or supported the,-Union in its campaign to organize Respondent's men, and, in Fassitt's case, the alternative allegation that he lost his job with Respondent because he refused to become an informant for the Company by spying upon the union, activities of his fellow employees. Pittman had been employed by Respondent for approx- imately 51f years until his employment came to an end on April 22. As heretofore chronicled and found, Pittman, together with Ernest Franklin, launched the Union's organizational campaign at Respondent's New Orleans terminal in late February when they visited the Union's office and obtained authorization cards, on which Pittman obtained the signatures of 12 employ- ees. On about March 15, the Union conducted its first meeting at Rose's Lounge, and a second session was held at the union hall in early April. That Respondent's officials quickly learned of Pittman's leadership in the union drive is amply demonstrated not only by the testimony of Marcel, Jackson, and Fassitt, but also by that of Vincent and Louis Saia. Marcel credibly testified and I have found that, on the evening of the company meeting which was held on March 31, Vincent informed Marcel that the former SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. knew that Pittman and Franklin were the union "ringlead- ers," and Vincent repeated his accusation that these men were prominent in union activities when he met with Marcel on the day following the union meeting in April. Moreover, Marcel testified without contra- diction that, the day after the union meeting of March 15, Vincent advised Marcel that the latter "should know something that Pittman and Franklin" did at Rose's Lounge. Jackson credibly testified that Louis Saia remarked that he had learned that Pittman was a "leader of the Union." Moreover, Fassitt credibly related that, in April, Louis questioned him as to whether Pittman was the "head" of the union drive. Vincent Saia admitted that, on the night of March 26, he received a telephone call from Marcel in which the latter reported that Pittman had attended a union meeting that evening. Louis Saia also conceded that he uncovered the identity of "the main men " who supported the Union from conversations with Fassitt and Spurlock who stated that Pittman and Franklin were "behind" the movement. Pittman testified that, at approximately 6:30 a.m. on April 22, he telephoned the dispatcher's office and told his foreman, Hathaway, that he had "a little business" to take care of that morning and that he would report for work between 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Hathaway replied, "Okay, thank you for calling." Pittman appeared for work at 10:20 a.m. and, as he approached the dis- patcher's office, he was met by Terminal Manager Four- maux who inquired, "What happened to you?" Pittman replied that he had telephoned Hathaway earlier that he would be late for work because he had some personal business to attend to that morning and that Hathaway had excused the absence. Whereupon, Fourmaux asked "what business did you have to take care of?" to which Pittman replied, "I had to go down to the school board, take my kid down to the school board and get him registered." Dissatisfied with this answer, Four- maux pressed Pittman for the name of the school and the individuals to whom the latter spoke while at that institution. Pittman protested and pointed out that the Respondent had no policy regarding the provision of reasons for absences on personal business provided the tardy employee notified the company in advance of his intended absence, and Pittman inquired whether the Respondent was instituting a new policy. Fourmaux rejoined, "Yes, we got to know why you are late and got to know what you was doing to cause you to be late." Fourmaux continued to prod Pittman and Pittman reiterated his unwillingness to divulge any infor- mation concerning his personal affairs in the absence of a company rule requiring him to do so. Thereupon, Fourmaux remarked, "you mean to tell me you would rather lose your job than tell me what school and what you have to do?", and Pittman responded "If it comes to that, I guess so." At this juncture, Fourmaux repaired to the office of Louis Saia and when he returned he once more asked Pittman what personal business the latter conducted that morning. Pittman agin refused to reply and Fourmaux announced, "If you' can't tell me what business you had to take care of, that's it." Pittman inquired whether this meant that he had been discharged and Fourmaux answered in the affirmative. According 625 to Pittman, he deceived Fourmaux when he related that he had taken his child to school, explaining that in fact he had slept late because he had worked an exhausting shift the preceding day from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. Pittman further testified that never previously in the course of his extensive employment with Respond- ent had he been required to proffer any reason for an absence on personal business provided he gave prior notice to his foreman. Respondent contends that Pittman was not discharged from its service but had voluntarily quit his employment on April 22. I find this contention too frivolous to warrant serious consideration. Fourmaux testified that he learned from Foreman Hathaway that morning that Pittman had telephoned to notify the company that he would be late for work due to personal business. For some reason not cogently explained on this record, Fourmaux instructed the foreman to contact him when Pittman arrived for duty. According to Fourmaux, he desired to question Pittman, not about the nature. of his personal business, but the reason for failing to provide a'day's advance notice of his absence, despite the fact that there is no evidence, explicit or otherwise, that Respondent maintained such a requirement. Fourmaux claimed that, after Pittman steadfastly declined to explain his absence, Fourmaux told Pittman "you mean to tell me you are going to quit before you tell me where you were?" However, Fourmaux then acknowledged that he informed Pittman " I am not going to put you on the clock," a remarkable statement, indeed, if Pittman had in fact "quit" his job as Respondent would have me believe.`' Moreover, Fourmaux's testimony was hard- ly supported by that of Louis and Vincent Saia. Louis testified that Fourmaux brought him the intelligence on April 22 that Pittman would not reveal the nature of his personal business, at which point Louis comment- ed, "There is nothing personal in regards to telling you what school and who he spoke to. If he can't give you this information, fire him." After being posed the question, "So then Fourmaux went and fired him?" Louis replied, "That's right. "' When called to the stand, Vincent Saia noted that it was Respondent's consistent policy to permit the men to absent themselves for person- al reasons if "proper arrangements in advance" were made, although he failed to explain what he meant by "proper." However, he made it clear that "I don't question their personal business" because "I don't see that we have a right to." Contrary to the Respondent's assertion that Pittman had voluntarily relinquished his employment at the termi- " That Fourmaux's testimony lacks credible value is further exem- plified by the following dialogue between Fourmaux and Respondent's counsel while the former was on the stand' Q (By Mr. Keenan) You fired Pittman, is that correct'i A Yes, sir, that's correct-no, sir, that's incorrect Pittman quit Fassit credibly testified that, on the day of Pittman's discharge, he was called into Louis Saia's office where the latter asked whether he was aware of what had happened to Pittman Fassitt responded in the affirmative, stating that he had learned that "You all fired him because he wouldn't tell you where he went at this morning," to which Louis retorted, "Yes, sir, we fired him " 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nal, I find that this worker was singled out for discharge because he was a known , active union adherent. .Respondent admittedly had no established policy of inquiring into the motives behind an employee ' s absence from , work due to the press of personal business and Pittman testified without contradiction that such a policy had never previously been invoked during the more than 5 years of his employment at the terminal. More- over , although both Fourmaux and Vincent claimed that "proper" advanced notice from its employees was required if they absented themselves , I would note that Respondent 's defense of this issue is bottomed on the premise that Pittman "quit". work rather than because he failed properly to notify Respondent of his absence. Louis' prophecy , uttered to Fassitt some weeks earlier, to the effect that Louis would discharge Pittman "on the spot" if Pittman deviated in any way , came true on April 22 when Respondent had learned of his promi- nence in the Union 's representational campaign . Accord- ingly, I conclude that Respondent discharged Pittman because he was a known , active Union adherent,-and that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Harold Jefferson had toiled for Respondent as an over-the-road driver for' approximately 5 years. He tes- tified , and I have heretofore found, that he first learned of the Union 's campaign from employee Gore and that, in March , he attended a union meeting at Gore's invita- tion . Shortly thereafter , Vincent Saia had a private conversation with Jefferson in which Vincent asked what Jefferson "had heard about the union ." Upon expressing his ignorance concerning the union efforts, Vincent accused the employee of "copping out " or failing to reveal information and Vincent assured Jefferson that .he knew the names of.all the 'employe'es who had gone to the meeting and exhibited a piece of paper . Jefferson also testified that , toward the end of April , Louis Saia summoned him to an office where he inquired into Jefferson 's knowledge of union activities. On June 18 , Jefferson was discharged by Louis Saia. According to Jefferson's narrative of events, he had returned from a trip and, upon arriving at the terminal, Louis summoned him to the office . At the outset of their conversation , Louis asked whether Jefferson knew anything about employees tampering with the governors on their trucks . While Jefferson remained silent, Louis went on to observe that his vehicles were costly and that he had ' discovered that three or -four trucks had been damaged . Jefferson protested this inquisition because "I hadn 't blew up any truck ."'' Louis slammed his hand upon ' his desk and shot ' back that Jefferson "was fired ." According to Jefferson , he had never experi- enced any difficulty with his trucks and had never before been accused of tampering with generators . Jefferson testified that he was concerned over the fact that Louis had not spoken to several other men who were actually the miscreants. Louis Saia testimonially recalled that he engaged in one conversation concerning the Union with Jefferson during which "I just asked him what he thought about the situation and if he knew of any reason why the men had a problem , just general ." Louis related that he did not interrogate Jefferson regarding his own union sympathies or desires because , as an over-the-road driv- er, he was not then included in the unit for which the Union had petitioned for an election , although the record shows that Respondent had urged their inclusion and the Regional Director ultimately included that classi- fication . Louis further recited that , on the date of Jeffer- son's discharge , he "didn't particularly want to speak to Jefferson , but I was walking out of my office into the dispatcher 's office and I saw he had arrived. My intention was to speak to all of our road drivers.. . However , the first and , so far as appears on this record, the only employee called to his office was Jefferson. Louis opened the conversation by stating that "the thing I wanted to do was tell him not to tamper with our governors on our trucks " because the engines on those vehicles were expensive . It is Louis' testimony that Jefferson "flew into a rage " 'when he heard Louis' statement , loudly exclaiming "What the hell do you want to ask me for?" This heated Louis ' blood and, losing his temper , he shouted to Jefferson "to get the hell out of here , that you're fired ." Louis admitted that , although he had been experiencing governor trou- ble, "the truck that we had a' problem with wasn't a truck that he [Jefferson ] had driven. To be sure , an employer may discharge an employee for, any reason unconnected with his engagement in concerted activities protected under the Act, and an employer's ire may lawfully prompt a decision to sever an employment relationship . But I am not convinced that this was the basis for Jefferson 's termination . Louis, as well as his brother , were gravely concerned with the "problems " and "dissatisfaction" of their employ- ees, which they equated with the unionization of the terminal . Vincent conceded that he had vowed to take action to remove the "problems" "If I had an opportuni- ty," and he acknowledged that he "may have" learned from Marcel that Jefferson had gone to a union meeting with Pittman . Indeed , Louis confessed that the advent of the Union drew his anger when he told , Harris "Don't you think the Teamsters down there with you all down there get me all stirred up in this mess now?" Louis knew that Jefferson had attended a union meeting and the former was aware that it was Respondent 's position that over-the-road drivers should be allowed to vote in the forthcoming election. In short , I deem it implausi- ble that Louis would have summarily discharged an employee of 5 years' standing , in a fit of pique, who had never theretofore been remiss in the performance of his duties or in his deportment , and who concededly had not damaged Respondent 's equipment . Rather, I find that Respondent singled Jefferson out for discharge because of his known union propensities and because of its fear that , as a potential voter , he might espouse the Union's cause in the balloting . I accordingly conclude that Jefferson's discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the statute. Respondent ^ had employed Fassitt as a truckdriver intermittently for 20 years , the' latest stint spanning 7 consecutive years. As heretofore found, Fassitt was repeatedly interrogated by Louis and Vincent Saia during SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. the month of April about his knowledge of the Union's organizational activities , and Respondent requested that Fassitt spy upon the concerted activities of his fellow employees. During the first 4 months of 1969 , Fassitt absented himself from work on 23 days." On about April 22, Fassitt entered Louis' office in search of a loan. In an ensuing colloguy , and according to Fassitt 's testimo- ny, Louis warned "me don 't be taking off because during this union trouble he [Louis ] is going to fire everyone that takes off." It was stipulated and I find that Fassitt worked steadily from April 21 through May 9. He testified that, on a Monday which apparently fell on May 12, he telephoned the terminal from his home and reported to Vincent Saia that the former would be late for work . Receiving the call in an outer office , Vincent advised Fassitt to hang up , stating that he would return Fassitt's call on "a private line ." Vincent telephoned Fassitt and inquired whether the latter had "heard anything about the union ." Fassitt answered that he had not, whereupon Vincent instructed Fassitt to come to his office when he appeared for duty that day. Fassitt , who had previously been asked to report to the Saia concerning the union activities of the men, complained, "Listen , Mr. Vincent , I hate to keep coming into your office . These people think I am a stool pigeon. And I hate to keep coming to your office ." After Vincent proclaimed that he had the right to summon any of his employees to his office if he so desired , Fassitt relented and agreed to the invitation . However , Fassitt failed to report for duty that day because he did not wish to be seen in Vincent 's chambers. Fassitt further testified that , on the following day, May 13 , he telephoned Louis Saia to have "his brother quit calling me in his office because these fellows going to think I am a stool pigeon on him ." Louis promised to do so. During the conversation, Louis again queried Fassitt about the Union and Fassitt once more related that he knew nothing about it . Fassitt remained home that day . On May 14, he checked in at the terminal and it is undenied that he reported to a dispatcher named Ferlandy.9 Ferlandy first proceeded to the corpo- rate office and upon his return informed Fassitt that there was no work for him that day. According to Fassitt , he had never previously experienced a situation where Respondent was unable to utilize his services, or where he was instructed to lay out for a few days. The next day , May 15 , Fassitt telephoned Fourmaux to inquire why Ferlandy had sent him home on the preceding day. Fourmaux replied that Ferlandy's action was prompted by the fact that Fassitt did not call in to the terminal on May 13 and 14. Fassitt protested that he had in fact telephoned Vincent and Louis on " The parties stipulated that Fassitt missed work on the following dates January 17 and 31, February 4, 7, 10, 14 , 17, 18, and 19, March 17, 18, 19, and 28, and, April 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 , 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 However , the record establishes that Fassitt was absent for approximately 2 weeks in April and that the absence was excused by Fourmaux upon Fassitt's production of a doctor's certificate I so find B Respondent did not call Ferlandy as a witness 627 those dates , whereupon Fourmaux checked with the front office and then advised Fassitt to "come on in." Instead , Fassitt remained at home because "I just didn't want to go in."'Fassitt also stayed at home on March 16 and , during the afternoon , telephoned Louis to ask whether the former could visit the terminal and obtain his paycheck . Louis told Fassitt to meet him at a local department store rather than at the terminal, and Fassitt agreed to do so. When the parties met, Louis questioned Fassitt about the Union 's progress and Fassitt repeated that he was completely in the dark concerning the Union 's activities . Louis gave Fassitt his paycheck, at which point Fassitt inquired as to when he could return and Louis replied , "Call me up in a couple days, things kind of hot around here ." Fassitt promised that he would . Before the conversation ended , Fassitt remarked that some unidentified individuals had fired bullets into his home on the preceding night and Fassitt invited Louis to view the scene but Louis declined, stating that he believed Fassitt 's report. Fassitt bided his time until May 21 when he again telephoned Louis. In the conversation , Louis asked' if Fassitt had any information about the Union . Fassitt responded negatively . Louis told Fassitt to remain at home for a few more days and to call back . Fassitt waited until June 5. On that date , he placed a call to Louis and protested that , because he had a wife and eight children, "I can 't keep on taking off like this. I got to come to work ." After Louis sought informa- tion about the Union , Louis stated that Fassitt had been discharged. In the course of his testimony , Fassitt averred with contradiction that , during the 5 years preceding .the hearing , he would work hard for a period of a week and rest at home for a few days , and that he made this a consistent practice . He also avowed that he declined to enter Vincent 's office and remained at his home in the middle of May for the dual reasons that he was afraid that the men would believe he was an informant for Respondent and that the shots fired into his home might have come from union adherents. Based upon credited testimony , I have heretofore found that Louis Saia instructed Fassitt to attend union meetings and report back to the Saias on what had transpired, and that Fassitt had undergone repeated inter- rogations by Louis and Vincent about any knowledge which he might possess concerning union activities. I have also found that Fassitt failed to appear at the union gatherings and failed to provide Respondent with any information about the Union. I have further found that Vincent Saia summoned Fassitt to his office on several occasions to inquire into knowledge of the efforts of the Union to organize the terminal . Vincent, in his testimony, denied that he had ever received a telephone call from Fassitt in which the latter complained about being called into Vincent 's office . In view of Vincent's other discredited testimonial utterances , I perceive no persuasive reason for crediting Vincent's averments in this regard . Accordingly, I find that Respondent, 'on and after May 12 , was aware that Fassitt had lost 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all relish in spying on his fellow employees as Louis had commanded. Nor do I credit Louis Saia's testimony that , on April 21 or 22, he was impelled to summon Fassitt and warn him of his continual absences which , according to Louis, numbered 37 during the first 4 months of 1969. By stipulation of the parties , Fassitt had absented himself only 23 times during that period , and the record establish- es that several of these absences were excused because they were occasioned by illness. Although Louis claimed that he had talked to Fassitt about his absences on previous occasions , he admitted that this was the first occasion in 1969 that he brought the absences to Fassitt's attention . Moreover , Louis conceded that , while 12 to 14 other men made it a practice of remaining away from work , Fassitt was the only one whom he warned on this occasion . Louis testified that he was prompted in warning Louis about his derelictions on April 21 or 22 by the fact that "We have customers that are calling us and they don't want to hear our problems," and Louis cautioned that "we got to have our men working . You have been missing , you have been absent almost a month out of three. Now, in the future, if you are sick , that's all right , but if you have been drunk or any other reason , I am going to fire you." As I have hereinbefore credited Fassitt 's testimony that Louis told the former in this conversation "don't be taking off because during this union trouble he is going to fire everyone that takes off," I find no credence in Louis' contrary assertions. In sum , L find that Respondent had attempted to enlist the energies of Fassitt to act as an informer regarding the collective activities of its employees, a role which Fassitt initially agreed to play. I further find that , on May 12 , Fassitt made it abundantly clear to the Saias that he was unwilling to engage in espionage on his fellow employees union inclinations and, on and after that date , gave negative replies to Respondent's repeated inquiries about the Union 's campaign. I find that , when Respondent became convinced that Fassitt would not "play ball" on May 12 , it reached a decision to, and did, sever his employment relationship with Respondent by refusing to provide work for him because he declined to spy on the Union , and not because of his absenteeism . Accordingly , I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.10 There remains for final consideration the matter of James A. Little 's discharge . Little had worked for Respondent "off and on" since 1944 as a truckdriver. As noted and heretofore found , he attended the union meeting held early in April and, the following day, he was questioned by Vincent Saia about his presence at that gathering . I have also found that a few days later , he became Louis Saia's target for a similar inquiry. That Respondent was well aware of Little ' s union taint prior to the termination of his'employment is amply IS Although the complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Fassitt on June 5, the General Counsel concedes in his brief that Fassitt last worked for the company on Friday, May 9, and I so find. demonstrated not only be the credited testimony of Raymond Marcel , but also by the sworn utterances of Vincent himself . Thus, immediately after the compa- ny-sponsored meeting of March 31, and as reported by Marcel , Vincent told Marcel as they looked down upon employees who were working on the dock that Vincent knew that Pittman and Franklin were "ringlead- ers" in the Union ' s organizational drive, and he bemoaned that "he didn 't thought Little would do him anything like this." Moreover , in his testimony , Vincent acknowledged that Marcel "may have " informed him that Little had been to a union conclave . Furthermore, inasmuch as Vincent had been provided with a list of the employees who had gone to the affair , he most certainly knew that Little was one of them. It is uncontroverted and I find that , in 1965 , Little was hospitalized for a hemorrhoid condition and was out of work for a year . During this period , however, he was employed by the Saia brothers cutting grass at their private residences . At the end of the year, one of the Saias asked Little "when I would be able to come back and I told him I didn 't know because to the difficulty in what I have to be picking up on. I said I couldn 't pick up nothing too heavy." Saia promised that he would assign Little to light work when he returned . Upon his retsrn , Respondent placed him in another warehouse where he performed light duties for approximately 2 years. In 1967 or 1968 , Little again became ill and missed work for 2 months . He returned to duty as a truckdriver sometime in 1969. Little testified that , around the middle of April, he stepped on a nail while at work and the object penetrated his foot . Little disregarded the injury for a few days until it began to fester . Finally , Little telephoned the dispatcher , Ferlandy , to apprise him of the accident and to report that the wound had become aggravated and that he planned to stay at home until it healed. The dispatcher requested Little to make two more deliv- eries and , when these were completed , Little received permission to stay at home. Little further testified that he remained home for a few days during which time he did not report to the terminal. Upon his return to work , he found a note on his timecard instructing him to see Fourmaux before entering upon his duties. At the outset of their conversation , Fourmaux inquired whether Little had telephoned the terminal during his absence . When Little replied that he had not , Fourmaux sought the reason for this happenstance . Little remarked that "I spoke to Mr. Ferlandy before I left concerning sticking a nail in my feet and I felt like with my pain that I had sticking a nail in my feet , I figure you all would realize from sticking a nail in my feet I couldn 't get back there in a couple of days and go to work." Fourmaux rejoined that "it is routine you must call in ." Little stated that "I probably was wrong" for neglecting to place the call. At this juncture , Vincent Saia approached and, after discussing the matter, informed Little that he should have communicated with Respondent during the absence and again Little apolo- gized for not having done so.' Vincent and Little there- upon stepped into the former ' s office where Little com- SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. mented that Vincent "seems like he was somewhat angry with me concerning the union , and at the time when - he first got to talking to me I said absolutely I didn 't know anything about it ." Little then told Vincent that the employees suspected him of spying on the union activities and reporting the results to Respondent, at which point Vincent announced that he "couldn't afford [the Union] and before he afford it , he closed the gates , get out of business . He didn't need it no way. " . Little continued to work until May 23 when he once more fell ill . Little testified that , on two occasions between that date and July 9 when he reported back to the terminal , he telephoned Respondent and notified a "Mr. Don" and another unidentified party of his illness. On the latter occasion , the unidentified individual assured Little that his absence was "Okay" and that an appropriate notation would be made on his timecard. During the period from May 23 to July 9, Little super- vised his sons in cutting the grass around the Saias' homes. Little's reason for engaging in this endeavor was premised on his belief that it would be dishonest to return to work and be physically unable fully to produce. On July 8, Little visited his doctor for a checkup and obtained a medical certificate which recited that "Mr. Little has been under my care for a rectal problem. He may return to work , however , hospitalization will be required in the near future ." On July 9, armed with the certificate , he appeared for work and encoun- tered Fourmaux . Little showed the document to his superior who, after perusing it, handed it back to Little with the comment "What , you came back to work?" Little acknowledged that he had , whereupon Fourmaux stated , "Little, do you think I can hold a job open for you for month and a half?" When Little replied that he did not know , Fourmaux retorted , "Well, I can't . I am sorry . I don't have anything for you." Little placed the certificate in his pocket and left the premises . With regard to the availability of jobs at the terminal during the times material herein , Vincent Saia confessed that "We hire full-time people regularly," and added that "We keep an ad pretty regular in the paper . I think one is in there now ." Vincent also expiained that there is a continuous ' need "for people most of the time." Respondent contends that Little "quit the employ of respondent without notice " and was not discharged because of his union activities . I find this defense lacking in merit . Respondent was fully aware that Little was a union supporter by virtue of his attendance at a meeting of that organization , and Respondent not only expressed dismay at this adherence but it also sought to wean him away from union membership by threatening to close the terminal if the Union succeeded in an election among the employees . Little had toiled for Respondent for almost a quarter of a century and, from all indications , was a capable and industrious employee during his tenure at the terminal. On two occasions prior to the advent of the Union and Respond- 629 ent's awareness of Little' s union inclinations, he had absented himself on account of illness and , so far as appears, he was not required to notify Respondent peri- odically of the extent of his absence . Although Respond- ent's witnesses denied that Little communicated with them on two occasions between May 23 and July 9 to report his illness , I do not credit their denials. Little impressed me as an honest witness who consciously strived to speak the truth and I find that he did place these calls to the terminal . I am particularly fortified in this conclusion by the fact that , just a month earlier, he was instructed by Fourmaux and Vincent Saia to telephone Respondent during an absence caused by sick- ness. Moreover , I deem it implausible if not incredible that Respondent would have permitted an old and trusted employee to "quit without notice" his job as a truckdri- ver at a time when Respondent was in dire need for drivers. Viewing the evidence on this issue and the record as a whole , I am persuaded and find that Respondent discharged Little on July 9 because of his attendance at a union meeting . I conclude that , by the foregoing conduct , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occuring in connection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section 1, above , have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist- therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have heretofore found that Respondent discriminato- rily discharged Milous Pittman , Harold Jefferson, and James A. Little because they joined and actively support- ed the Union , and terminated Charles Fassitt because he refused to act as a spy for Respondent on his fellow employees ' union activities . I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent employ- ment and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac- ticed against them , by payment to them of a sum equal to that which they normally, would have earned from the date of their discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings during said period. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board 's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent , which evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general , I deem it necessary to recommend that Respond- ent cease and desist from 'in any other manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions , and upon the entire record in the case, 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. 2. The Union, General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, `a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt, Harold Jefferson , and' James A. Little, thereby discrimi- nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the Union , and, in Fassitt's case, because he refused to engage in illegal surveillance on Respond- ent's behalf , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4.' By interfering' with , restraining ; and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend that Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., New Orleans , Louisiana , its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of the Union , or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or in any other manner discrim- inating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their knowledge of union activities and interrogating them as to whether they had signed union authorization cards and-had attended union meetings'. (c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning the union activities of their-fellow employees and questioning employees as to whether their' fellow employees had executed union authorization cards and had attended meetings of that labor organization. ' (d) Coercively interrogating employees regarding the identity of the leading union advocates. (e) Coercively interrogating employees about their reasons for joining the Union. (f) Threatening employees with discharge for signing union authorization cards. (g) Threatening employees who were not high school graduates that they would be discharged if the Union was successful in its organizational campaign. (h) Threatening employees that it would close its busi- ness operations in the event the Union succeeded in enlisting their collective support. (i) Directing employees to surveille union meetings and to inform Respondent of the names of the employees who had attended those gatherings and the identity of the most active union supporters. (j) Creating the impression of surveillance by telling employees that Respondent had received reports from other employees that the former had attended union meetings , and that it was aware of the men who were in the forefront of the union movement. (k) Informing employees that Respondent was seeking a reason for discharging employees because of their activities on behalf of the Union. (1) Threatening employees that none of them would be discharged provided they rejected collective represen- tation by the Union. (m) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt, Harold Jefferson, and James A. Little immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent employment and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion practiced against them , in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Milous Pittman, Charles Fassitt , Harold Jefferson , and James A. Little, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records , social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC (d) Post at its terminal in New Orleans, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the regional Director for Region 15, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, 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 (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith 12 " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shad be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 11 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 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United states trovernment WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activ- ities on behalf of GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL 270, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND , or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their knowledge of union activities or ask them if they have signed union pledge cards or have gone to union meetings WE WILL NOT ask our men about the union activities of their fellow employees or ask our men if their fellow employees signed union pledge cards or went to meetings held by the Union WE WILL NOT ask our men why they joined the Union 631 WE WILL NOT threaten our men that they will be fired if they sign union pledge cards WE WILL NOT threaten our employees who are not high school graduates with discharge if the union becomes their bargaining agent, WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will close down the terminal if they bring the Union into the terminal WE WILL NOT tell our employees to spy on union meetings and report to us the names of the men who went to the meetings or to tell us the names of the union ringleaders WE WILL NOT make you believe that we are spying on your union activities by telling you that other employees have seen you at union meetings, and that we know the names of the men who are leading the Union 's campaign t WE WILL NOT tell you that we are looking for ways to fire employees for joining or helping the Union WE WILL NOT threaten you that you will not be fired if the Union is defeated WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under the National Labor Relations Act WE WILL offer Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt, Harold Jefferson , and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantial- ly equivalent employment and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them WE WILL notify Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt, Harold Jefferson , and James A Little if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces All our employees are free to become , or refrain from becoming , members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization Dated By SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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 Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361